Glorious wrote:maxxcool wrote:(1) Given my long history with AMD cpus in my lab, 'Seeing' with 80$+ coolers is indicative of the characteristics of a particular process and the ability to 'give up heat' .. and the past ratings were quite optimistic at best under sustained 100% load for weeks on end for my work.
The ratings are for wattage, not temperature: TDP specifies the maximal amount of power the chip will consume, not the temperature it is while doing it. The manufacturers do not "optimistically" rate the temperature these things will run at, no, they specify an operating temperature range the device must stay within in order to properly function. As it is range, it has a lower and higher bound, so if your ambient is Antarctica or Death Valley you're probably violating it either way before you even switch the power on.
Thus whatever it is you are saying is, at best, not even wrong.maxxcool wrote:(2) Not yet, that is why I said we have to 'wait and see'
If you were saying anything intelligible at all, you just said in 1) that the TDP is "optimistic". So that's contradictory.
And, if we ignore that, so what? They *might* eventually just make it up? Well, dude, they *might* sell me a two-decade old Cyrix chip in that Zen box, they *might* sell me cow chips (kinda like what you're trying to sell me on now!), etc...maxxcool wrote:(3) And we will have to wait and see..
I don't have to "wait and see" in order to understand that you are completely talking out of your posterior, and neither does anyone else. You're just running your mouth and spewing nonsense.DPete27 wrote:Let's not forget that historically AMD has had a tendency to underestimate their TDP. Whereas Intel's TDP numbers typically track fairly close to power draw, it's difficult to explain why (for example) the FX8370 draws 61W more than the i7-6700K despite a TDP difference of 34W. I have a hard time believing that the AM3+ platform power usage is responsible for ALL of that additional 27W power draw.
Not really difficult at all, actually: different chipsets (990FX is like 20W TDP, Z170 is 6w), different boards (most power is consumed by the VRM setup, so even minor differences in component choice there can add up, and that additional space between feeding 91w and 125w adds up, especially since it's always an efficency curve) plus speedy DDR3 at 1.5v versus normal-speed DDR4 at 1.2v (that can potentially be 5-10 watts at load, just right there). The differences add up.
AMD's TDP definition isn't exactly the same as Intel's. Yes, it's looser. But it's not THAT loose, and it really can't be: OEMs with real engineers who design stock systems rely on the same number to come up with adequate but cost-conscious cooling systems. The margins are razor thin, particularly on what are effectively "budgetish" parts, so they'd be screaming bloody murder if AMD was reliably under-estimating by a 25%.
And, on the other side, why would AMD publish those jokes at 220w a couple of years ago if the numbers were so flexible? Why not 200? or 175?