It as to have some switch to disable these power hungry mods and they should be off by default.. Is someone have good enough cooling ok, but this is killing whole low power cpu and easy to cool concept..

It would be pretty funny to buy a low power 35W CPU on purpose, only to find out it regularly boosts up to well over 100W on the default settings. I'd understand 60W. Any more should require altering a setting in the bios.

Interesting fact, these are 35W ratings. And I have been stating for a while now that TDP means jack these days the manufacturers do with ti as they please. The procs have a PL1 state of 35W and wait for it .... a 115W PL2 state.

playing devils advocate: Intel's TDP has always been defined from the manufacturer's viewpoint( ie TDP is the maximum power that one should be designing the system for), instead from end user or wattmeter's point of view. Intel's TDP has always meant cooling strength required. It never meant power consumption. And certainly not short term power consumption. Intel's PL2 is simply utilizing the fact that 35W cooler can safely dissipate 115 Watts of heat for Tau amount of seconds.

yeeeeman:

Yes, fully agree with you @Noisiv So many naysayers. Intel is trying to squeeze as much performance as they can within the confinements that they have (old process). I don't understand what is wrong with having a short burst of extra performance if the cooler and the physics behind it supports it. If you have a super tiny case with very hot temperatures, obviously the CPU won't be able to do it, so it'll stay at lower wattages. The fact that Intel went to 300W in the top K parts, yeah, that is a bit too much, but again, you can disable that via BIOS switch and stay under the designated TDP, if that is really what you want. But do understand that working with an older process that needs to be pushed so high (over 5Ghz) means you will have big power numbers. AMD simply enjoys the benefits of using a better process, that isn't even their design or work. TSMC is the one to congratulate.

Intel needs to be pushed over 5ghz because the IPC wouldn't keep up with AMD if frequencies would be the same. 7nm or 14nm the IPC depends on the cpu design and that is AMD work.

asturur:

Intel needs to be pushed over 5ghz because the IPC wouldn't keep up with AMD if frequencies would be the same. 7nm or 14nm the IPC depends on the cpu design and that is AMD work.

You expressed that poorly. Intel needs higher clocks because their old core design lacks IPC. You can't enhance IPC by raising the clocks because IPC is instructions per cycle. You can raise the total performance by upping the clocks, which Intel is doing remarkably well. Unfortunately that also leads to less efficiency. No matter what yeeeeman says, if a CPU is marketed as low power, which 35W nicely is, talking about desktops, it's quite ridiculous if it actually uses three times that much under pressure, using the default settings. Like I said, if you could simply enable that using a bios switch (or some Intel software switch) it would sound perfectly okay for me.

Noisiv:

Intel's TDP has always been defined from the manufacturer's viewpoint( ie TDP is the maximum power that one should be designing the system for), instead from end user or wattmeter's point of view. Intel's TDP has always meant cooling strength required. It never meant power consumption. And certainly not short term power consumption.

That isn't relevant these days. CPUs thermal throttle, and as @Fox2232 pointed out, if you care that much about lowering the TDP, you can manually undervolt and underclock. The only good reason to offer slower (and therefore lower wattage) desktop parts is for lower-binned chips that can't reliably maintain the peak clock speeds, and even then, they ought to be sold for less money since they're lower quality. But really, those chips ought to just be binned for laptops. Speaking of laptops, there are plenty of laptops sold these days with something like an i7 or an i9 and they aren't able to push those CPUs to their max speed, either because the cooling or the power delivery (or both) aren't sufficient. In some cases, there are laptops that can operate the CPU at its full wattage, but it actually drains the battery while plugged in. So when you consider this, it doesn't really make sense why they would sell a slower desktop CPU for such a price. EDIT: Intel bases their TDP on base clocks. They might as well just have the base clocks of their T models and have boost clocks as high as their K models. That way, everyone wins: OEMs can ship a PC with underwhelming cooling so they can use cheap PSUs, without risking false advertising of performance. Gamers get as much performance as they want so long as they're capable of maintaining boost clocks. Intel wins because they can sell everything for the same price regardless of how it's used.

That 11900T baseclock downclock to 1500MHz is brutal. A Ryzen 5800U at 1900MHz baseclock and 15W TDP will run circles around this, and it would not have this crazy almost 4 times higher peak boost TDP as the 11900T has.

I wonder how the 11700T does in gaming. Can't even find 10700T gaming benchmark comparisons. Guess no one buys these.

Wake me when CPU actual respect there TDP

TheDeeGee:

I wonder how the 11700T does in gaming. Can't even find 10700T gaming benchmark comparisons. Guess no one buys these.

People still buying overpriced ryzen cpus no matter what intel does. 3600 outsells the 11400f despite being slower.

or just set windows power plan to "power saving" and you will see it downclocking to around 1ghz with vcore under 1v, it will still reach max clocks when stressed, albeit with a slight delay, it increases my UPS runtime estimate substantially from what I've seen alas, marketing team has to justify its salary I guess

schmidtbag:

That isn't relevant these days. CPUs thermal throttle, and as @Fox2232 pointed out, if you care that much about lowering the TDP, you can manually undervolt and underclock. The only good reason to offer slower (and therefore lower wattage) desktop parts is for lower-binned chips that can't reliably maintain the peak clock speeds, and even then, they ought to be sold for less money since they're lower quality. But really, those chips ought to just be binned for laptops.

I am simply reminding everyone of intels historical TDP definition. If you think that's irrelevant - fine. But you're coming awfully close to going full Fox on me and arguing with the mailman 🙂 50% of all arguments in the history of the world has been due to disagreement of what's relevant and what's not. personal biases and idola specus. As far as we know T models are not inferior compared to normal models. They are simply validated for low power while normal models are validated for higher frequency, and both are similarly priced.

schmidtbag:

Speaking of laptops, there are plenty of laptops sold these days with something like an i7 or an i9 and they aren't able to push those CPUs to their max speed, either because the cooling or the power delivery (or both) aren't sufficient. In some cases, there are laptops that can operate the CPU at its full wattage, but it actually drains the battery while plugged in. So when you consider this, it doesn't really make sense why they would sell a slower desktop CPU for such a price. EDIT: Intel bases their TDP on base clocks. They might as well just have the base clocks of their T models and have boost clocks as high as their K models. That way, everyone wins: OEMs can ship a PC with underwhelming cooling so they can use cheap PSUs, without risking false advertising of performance. Gamers get as much performance as they want so long as they're capable of maintaining boost clocks. Intel wins because they can sell everything for the same price regardless of how it's used.

I fail to see how this would lead to more winning overall. Motherboard manufacturers have full control of PL1,PL2 and Tau, as well as the ability to expose them to end user. Yes - intel's TDP is complicated, but the uneducated buyer will lose no matter what, and power users should certainly not complain. More wining can come only from better technology not from redefining TDP.

Fox2232:

We can still power limit AMD's chips as we please. CPU then follows settings as closely as physically possible. (It will not lower clock below lowest possible, and it will not decrease voltage below lowest possible. For example: 2700X has lowest clock 600MHz and Voltage 0.8V when using power limits to govern CPU.) Side note, while Ryzen Master did not allow 2700X power limit under 70W, BIOS enables users to set even 15W. (I did not try lower power limit than 15W as in that experiment series I was loading all cores with CB-R15. And 2700X 8C/16T under full load and 0.8V had 600MHz on all cores while eating actual 16.5W. Idling at 12W, which left very small space for actual single boosting. So experiment was over at that point for 2700X.)

I run a 3950x at 0.95v with underclock. Running below the 88w draw of the 3950x's eco-mode. Even with that being a generation old and heavily underclocked, I'm willing to bet it would run circles around these 115w intel chips in anything multicore.

Noisiv:

I am simply reminding everyone of intels historical TDP definition. If you think that's irrelevant - fine. But you're coming awfully close to going full Fox on me and arguing with the mailman 🙂 50% of all arguments in the history of the world has been due to disagreement of what's relevant and what's not. personal biases and idola specus.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I'm not saying YOU are wrong, I'm saying what Intel is doing isn't helping anyone, including themselves. These T models accomplish nothing, when Intel could just lower the base clock of their other models and not clutter their product lineup. For OEM PCs, if the only thing they care about is how to achieve a certain level of performance then all they have to do is change the heatsink and power supply. OEMs are already doing this in laptops. For everyone else, their CPUs will likely never operate at base clocks so the number is meaningless to them anyway. So, Intel might as well just lower the base clock of the non-T model and ditch the T model. Let OEMs determine how much performance should be squeezed.

As far as we know T models are not inferior compared to normal models. They are simply validated for low power while normal models are validated for higher frequency, and both are similarly priced.

Assuming that is true*, that makes this product even more confusing, because they're basically crippling an otherwise perfectly good chip. * Going all the way back the original Celeron, Intel would release lower-clocked parts as a way to make use of chips that were fully functional but maybe not good enough to operate at max speed. Both Intel and AMD release products based on binning. Although it is absolutely possible these T models are just as good as a K model, they're most likely lower-quality bins.

I fail to see how this would lead to more winning overall. Motherboard manufacturers have full control of PL1,PL2 and Tau, as well as the ability to expose them to end user.

I don't see how the PLs affect this. It's as simple as just having 1 CPU and have its performance be determined by the cooling and power delivery, like you'll find in laptops.

More wining can come only from better technology not from redefining TDP.

I disagree. Obviously, better technology is always a win, but Intel's TDP specs have been very misleading for years and has grown to the point of being meaningless (hence me saying it's irrelevant). Today, it basically just guarantees a certain frequency if you can meet the requirements.

Fox2232:

Fact check 1: intel's TDP is not "maximum power" one should be designing their system for.

https://abload.de/img/sscrwn23222j2b.png https://abload.de/img/uhttps3a2f2ftse1.mm.blyko8.jpg

Fox2232:

And that's false. Same way as statement in sentences before it. Only last sentence is truthful and that has no effect on validity of that particular statement.

It's INTEL'S DEFINITION OF TDP. It can hardly be considered "false". Now, write this down in your little logic book: A definition is false only in two senses: either the definition is applied to the wrong thing or the definition states an impossible combination of concepts, such as immortal animal, for no animal can be immortal. [...] And thus, it is evident that a definition can not be false except in so far as it implicates a false affirmation. -- Thomas Aquinas if you figure your way out of that, give intel a call with any of remaining grievances. Stop bothering the mailman. 🙄

Fox2232:

1st sentence in your (intel's) image is false. TDP of 35/65W on intel's platform is not "power consumption under maximum theoretical load", unless intel's definition of "theoretical load" rather perverse.

chief...stop bothering the mailman; give Intel a call. You have your own idea of what you think Intel means by "power consumption". And you're assuming that it's identical with Intel's. Therein lies your trouble

Fox2232:

There is only physical definition. And use of "Intel means" does not apply. When you write clearly defined term like "red" while you "mean" "orange", you clearly wrote about color, not fruit. Intel wrote technical definition on product which is result of high tech know how. It is not marketing BS meant for dummies. This is part of technical specification. And as such Creative bending of terms should not be here. So, Mr. Not-Mailman, but Mr. Intel's Spokesperson. Your claim is differentiating what "I think" and "intel means" assumes that you know both. Otherwise you would not be able to distinct them. So: "What Intel means by 'Power Consumption'? " If you can't answer that, then you are not capable to make statement you are made above. And if you are capable to answer, then you have no reason to play "give intel a call" card. And lastly, if you are not intel's Spokesperson, how can you know that intel does not mean it exactly same way I read it? Because as long as you are not intel's employee, your view can be as wrong as my can be. As you have same level of access as I do.

I keep linking documents, screenshots and definitions straight from the horses mouth. And you keep saying FALSE. Oh well.,.. Even if you were right that "intel's definition of TDP does not apply to their CPUs." (you're not, because power consumption does not mean PEAK power consumption) , the definition itself would still not be false. Thank god you finally figured that out: CPUs might not conform, but the definition itself would still be perfectly valid. Hallelujah.

chief... no more hand holding. cbb. Sometimes it's fine to be anal. But then you need to be flawless and SPOT ON. Not all over the place and full of holes (including logical errors omg)

LOL [spoiler] https://abload.de/img/lol235bjcx.png [/spoiler]