Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Baseline Profile Yields Odd Power/Performance On Linux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • baka0815
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post

    It already shows "joules per run" as a footnote on the graphs.
    I didn't know/see that. Thanks you very much!

    Leave a comment:


  • gssdu
    replied
    Hi Michael, one question on your graphs, the ones that are CPU x Monitor, where x is various things. What is the x axis? I'm assuming time, what are the units?

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by baka0815 View Post
    Michael I have a feature request for the test suite.

    Would it be possible, to not only print the min, max and avg power consumption, but also the total power drawn during a test? As in some of those tests one of the configurations was that much better, that it needed only about half of the time. So even if the avg power consumption would be equal the total power drawn would be only about half as much.
    It already shows "joules per run" as a footnote on the graphs.

    Leave a comment:


  • baka0815
    replied
    Michael I have a feature request for the test suite.

    Would it be possible, to not only print the min, max and avg power consumption, but also the total power drawn during a test? As in some of those tests one of the configurations was that much better, that it needed only about half of the time. So even if the avg power consumption would be equal the total power drawn would be only about half as much.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paradigm Shifter
    replied
    So, after years of telling motherboard manufacturers to set PL1=PL2, suddenly Intel change their minds because it's killing chips... but make it worse? Huh.

    I guess the next thing will be that K chips have no warranty at all (which would be illegal almost everywhere) because they can be overclocked - which per Intel's statement on Anandtech would qualify as "out of specification".

    Leave a comment:


  • Drep
    replied
    Originally posted by qarium View Post

    i have to agree that these boards could have more usb-c ports. but can you tell me how do you fit 3 m2 slots on such a smal form factor ? then you would need to put the m2 slots on the backside of the mainboard.
    Yes, I have 2 M2 slots on the back of the motherboard. I use asrock Z790 PG-ITX/TB4. It also has 4 video outputs that I use, but I can settle with external oculink GPU if I have 2 usb-c and 3 M2 (one of which will be converted to oculink). I was hoping that asrock deskmini X600 will have enough ports, but it still has less ports than almost 4 year old H470.

    Leave a comment:


  • blackshard
    replied
    Originally posted by Anux View Post
    Why are you surprised by that, everyone criticizes Intel since ages for their unnecessary socket changes. Typically Intel supports 2 CPU gens per socket and the second generation is usually just a 100 - 300 MHz bump with the same dies, so nothing worth upgrading to.
    You're right, but rumors said the socket would be kept for still some time and I decided to give it a chance, even because AM5 platform is still pricey. My original intent was to go to AM5 + APU and LGA1700 was out of question since Intel 13th and 14th gen is crap for the price, but then found a worth 12600K that fits my usual heavy compilation tasks and decided to go for it...

    Leave a comment:


  • qarium
    replied
    Originally posted by Drep View Post
    I've come to expect 2 usb-c/tb4 with DP alt-mode, I found only asus X670E-I which has extremely bad compatibility with air coolers. 3 M2 would also be nice.
    i have to agree that these boards could have more usb-c ports. but can you tell me how do you fit 3 m2 slots on such a smal form factor ? then you would need to put the m2 slots on the backside of the mainboard.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anux
    replied
    Originally posted by blackshard View Post
    The good thing to do is stay away from Intel shit for a while... not like me, that recently purchased a i5-12600k and immediately regretted the purchase because Intel declared that socket 1700 is dead already There is no limit to the dirtiness Intel can immerse into
    Why are you surprised by that, everyone criticizes Intel since ages for their unnecessary socket changes. Typically Intel supports 2 CPU gens per socket and the second generation is usually just a 100 - 300 MHz bump with the same dies, so nothing worth upgrading to.

    Leave a comment:


  • mlau
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Intel has a lot of say in which parameters they can tune and which they can't.
    .
    I'm not excusing them, they either gave board makers the new values or silently agreed with their shenanigans because Intel also wants their cores to benchmark well, esp with the ryzens wiping the floor with them...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X