Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: core_i9.png (571KB, 1900x972px) Image search:
[Google]
571KB, 1900x972px
The new i9 series are just overclocked i7s with huge power consumption and heating issues.
How the fuck could Intel think this was a good idea?
>"I didn’t believe it at first, but the Core i9-7900X is using more than 70 watts additional power than the Core i7-6950X!"
>"But woe, if you have all the cores really work out properly! With Prime95 and Luxrender on all cores for the Core i9-7900X, we have determined absolute peak values for the power consumption. The Core i9-7900X achieves remarkable 48% more performance in the render score (Luxrender, console), but also takes up 58% more of the electrical power! This is almost the famous blue breaking bar."
>The system ran stable with 1.4 Vcore in 10 runs and the CPU took an average of 261 watts. Single peaks, however, were load-dependent at up to 293 watts, which is very close to the limit. A test carried out at 4.8 GHz with 20 instances of a shading-all-year calculation for a complex photovoltaic roof system including a yield calculation allowed the power consumption to rise to 335 watts. When starting Prime95 without AVX limitation then switched off the mainboard. The last, still logged value was 364 watts."
>"The real reason is Intel's incomprehensible fun brake in the form of unsuitable (but probably much cheaper) heat transfer paste instead of a sensible solder."
>"Up to 65 ° C Tcore with a heat spreader temperature of approx. 24 ° C results in a delta of more than 40 ° C. We reached this value with a power loss of just under 230 watts. As soon as you move above the 300-watt limit, which can be reached even with simple rendering programs from 4.6 or 4.7 GHz and the necessary voltages (depending on the chip quality), the chiller is hardly anything. At the maximum values of 300 watts reached by us the CPU is already permanently thermal limit of 100 ° C, shortly thereafter comes to the consequential shutdown."
Overclocked CPU couldn’t even be cooled with a $1000 compressor cooling solution.
>>
>>61004867
Time to reintroduce the BTX form factor?
>>
>>61004867
>How the fuck could Intel think this was a good idea?
Because it was really their only option. Their arch is milked to death. They can't lower prices that much. 10nm on desktop is nowhere in sight. Only thing they could do was crank up the clocks and TDP.
>>
File: 1498050005508.webm (301KB, 852x480px) Image search:
[Google]
301KB, 852x480px
>>
>>61004867
>>61006138
>>61007258
>>61007282
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-ryzen-threadripper-specs
>Benchmark scores for AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper 1950X reportedly appeared on Primatelabs’ database yesterday before being abruptly taken down. The 16-core variant managed a 4,167 single-core score and a 24,539 multi-core score, but it’s not certain whether these scores are based on a performance benchmark or just a run to see if everything’s stable. It also doesn’t mention whether SMT was turned on.
>Provided the screenshot of the database listing is indeed real, and the database was genuinely listing a Threadripper, we’ll be looking at a 3.39GHz clock speed for the chip - whether that’s a base or boost clock isn’t made clear. It also shows the 1950X as having 32MB of L3 cache and 8MB of L2 cache.
>>
>>61007292
That was a week ago or so, and was pretty much proven fake out of the gate. A single 1800X can get higher Geekbench scores than that.
>>
File: the chernobyl of CPUs.png (214KB, 681x429px) Image search:
[Google]
214KB, 681x429px
>>61004867
>>
>>61004867
For fuck's sake I hope intel will finally start to realize how fucking jewish they are and try to improve
>non-soldered IHS on a fucking i7/i9
kys intel.
>>
>>61011101
>realize
but they know exactly what they're doing, they just didn't count on AMD destroying their little monopoly on server market
>>
Uh, overclocked what?
So Intel overclocked their quad core i7's into deca core? Duh fuk?
Actually the only reason these chips are hot is the die is only 300mm^2
>>
>>61011249
>what is broadwell-e
>what is the 6950X, 6800k, 6850k, 6900k
>>
>>61011206
>but they know exactly what they're doing
That's even worse. I'm going to support AMD until Intel gets their shit together. I've had enough with their bullshit.
>>
>>61011296
did you really think they were/are cutting down the pci lanes amount on "low" end server and HEDT and putting jizz instead of solder because of tech limitations?
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3