Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Core i5 13600K + Core i9 13900K "Raptor Lake" Linux Preview

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by atomsymbol
    In your recent posts, you are assuming that the delta of cpu-power-usage is a linear function of [the time saved by going to a higher frequency], but this isn't true. It is a non-linear function.
    dude it does not matter at all if this is an linear function or a non linear function.

    also i did not say that this is a linear function.

    fact is:
    A cpu who has worst TDP numbers like 295-335watt in benchmarks like the intel 12900K/13900K can outside of benchmarks save power for normal people. and the reason for this is the race to idle effect. normal people do not run benchmarks all the time they use tasks they use for what they do in their everyday life and in this power profile cycle it is a fact that idle power consumtion is more important than the max TDP... also if a task is done faster the system runs longer in idle mode.

    people claim intel can not do a improvement on their cpus with their inferior 10nm node but thats wrong
    intel could develop a 1000watt TDP CPU make it 10ghz and promote "run to idle" real life power profile results instead of stupid TDP vs Benchmark numbers...



    Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by atomsymbol
      You cannot be serious.
      I didn't write that "you said it" - I wrote that you assumed it (i.e: it was implied by the content of your posts).
      Do the math and you will see.
      Idle power (CPU usage = 0%) is a non-zero value. For example: 20 Watts for a desktop CPU; plus the power lost on the PSU (Power Supply Unit efficiency) when supplying those 20 Watts to the CPU.
      Such high-wattage x86-compatible & ARM-compatible CPUs are actually in the production pipeline right now, and they aren't AMD/ARM/Intel CPUs: Tachyum Prodigy T16128-AIX, 5nm, 5.7 GHz, TDP 950 Watt. Read https://www.tachyum.com/resources/wh...ural-overview/
      Note: The penalty of running x86 or ARM code on a Prodigy CPU is approximately 30-40% because it runs via QEMU. But, 5.7Ghz * 0.65 = 3.7GHz and this is a server/rack CPU (it isn't a desktop CPU; Prodigy aims to compete with EPYC and Xeon CPUs).
      well your post is from a logical point of view a contradiction to itself.

      the first half of your post you have the standpoint of max out the TDP and then target for run-to-idle is not an option.

      and the second part of your post you have the point of hey surprise surprise the Tachyum Prodigy T16128-AIX, 5nm, 5.7 GHz, TDP 950 Watt does exactly this.

      and this cpu does even both use a highend manufacturing node 5nm and also max out the TDP and use run-to-idle.

      can you explain to me why intel should not develop a 1000watt TDP Desktop CPU ? and then also target run-to-idle ?
      Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by atomsymbol
        The value of f(x)=x*x that runs for 0.9 seconds will very quickly exceed the value of f(x)=x that runs for 1.0 seconds.
        to be honest i lag the education to say anything about this. but thank you for the link i will try to educate myself.

        isn't it illogical that in your presented theorie run-to-idle does not work but cpus like "Tachyum Prodigy T16128-AIX, 5nm, 5.7 GHz, TDP 950 Watt​" for sure do in fact do run-for-idle...???....???

        maybe it is about first class choices and second class choices

        maybe the first class choice is to use a better manufacturing node ... thats not an option for intel because of this they use the second best option and target run-to-idle...

        who knows... this cpu:
        "Tachyum Prodigy T16128-AIX, 5nm, 5.7 GHz, TDP 950 Watt​"​ looks like does both use better node 5nm and use the run-to-idle effect with their 950watt TDP...
        Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by atomsymbol
          The correct forms are "a contradiction in itself" or "to be in contradiction with itself".
          thank you for your grammar teaching i try to memorize it.

          Originally posted by atomsymbol
          The budget of a company (100+ employees) using a rack of CPUs is much larger than the budget of a household.
          A household can today run a CPU at 1000 Watts for approximately 0.1 seconds per 1 minute. Running it for longer than 0.1 seconds per 1 minute would require a cooling solution that costs more than 500€ and the cooler requires extra 2 vents to be installed through the wall of the house. In other words, although it is possible to design a 1000 Watt desktop CPU it would be very hard to sell such a CPU on the desktop market.
          Server rooms usually have a much more advanced cooling than a house or office.
          If you have ever heard the noise (decibels) produced by a fan in a server rack then you should know that the loudness of such a cooler is totally unacceptable for home or office use. Just because a server room looks "so cool" on photos doesn't mean that people would be willing to live their lives there.
          i have a TR4 socket threadripper system with 240watt TDP and i have a very cheap 120+120mm water cooling system what can easily handle 300watt.

          in my point of view for ~1000 watts you only need a 120*360mm water cooling system.

          and such a 120*360mm water cooler system
          and this starts at 72€ not like the 500€ you claim... but the cheapest one they say is for 350W but with faster fans it is more for sure
          https://geizhals.de/?cat=coolwsets&x...)%7E4009_360mm

          there is a 400 watt version at 77€
          https://geizhals.de/xilence-liqurize...3.html?hloc=de

          you can use these 140*420mm versions to make sure it can handle the 1000watt..
          https://geizhals.de/?cat=coolwsets&x...)%7E4009_420mm
          they start at 96€ and this means your 500€ claim for the cooler is in my point of view wrong... it is more like 100€...

          if these 120*360mm water cooling blocks can handle 400watt i am sure the 140*420mm can handle this hypothetical 1000watt cpu.

          also in the run-to-idle logik the cpu does not run at 1000watt all the time.

          "the cooler requires extra 2 vents to be installed through the wall of the house."

          at summer time for sure but at Winter time it just heats the house.
          but on the other side people run 1000watt stuff all the time in the summer to heat their food or waching machine and so one and so one.

          "If you have ever heard the noise"

          this 96€ 140*420 cooler has this specs: 3x 140mm, 0-2000rpm, 34.3dB(A), 156.91m³/​h, 2.53mmH₂O

          maybe this 34.3dB(A) can only handle 500watt so you maybe need a little faster fans and the noise goes up.

          but again inside of the run-to-idle logic this is not the problem because the cpu never runs at max tdp for long.


          Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by atomsymbol
            From where exactly did you get the information that "Tachyum Prodigy in fact do run-for-idle"? It isn't true.
            https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/race-to-sleep

            you can read ithere... nearly all systems use run-to-idle...

            it would be very strange if Tachyum Prodigy would not use this.
            Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

            Comment


            • #36
              Problem is not the fact CPU is capable of drawing 300+ watts. Problem is insane default power limits. That's all there is there. Defaults should be ~100, ~150W tops, which is well established range for mainstream desktop in the last couple of decades. People expect this. They do not expect a fucking HEDT in the terms of power usage and MB cost for the mainstream desktop, which is the result of this "max out to the moon from the factory to get better reviews" policy Intel and AMD applied in the last launch.

              Nowadays almost all of the launch day reviews are irrelevant. You have to wait for someone to verify power scaling and performance level in sane power range and only then you can form an opinion about the product. For example, I own 3700X, it draws <90W on the max load and it is still the most efficient (stock settings) 8 core to the date. So if i wanted to do an upgrade, I would have to research which of the new Intel/AMD CPUs offer the best performance in similar ~100W ballpark and only then make some decision. It's more work for the consumer, more confusion.
              Last edited by drakonas777; 22 October 2022, 04:21 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by atomsymbol

                You are concentrating your attention to a single number (=10nm) too much. The primary cause of high all-cores-utilized power consumption isn't the 10nm manufacturing process.
                I'm concentrating on progress. Or rather, lack thereof from Intel. Techprocess is the cornerstone around which the performance of the chip is built and on which it is based, period. That said, there isn't much that can be added further to the discussion if you disagree with that axiomatic notion, so I rest my case. Oh, and AMD FX-9590​ was a complete furnace of Auschwitz proportions.
                Last edited by Sin2x; 22 October 2022, 07:07 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by atomsymbol
                  You cannot multiply 120x120_300W three times to get 120x360_900W, because the contact area with the CPU stays the same and the flow of liquid (liters per second, the diameter of the rubber tubes) stays the same.
                  yes maybe. but as you can see the manufacturers of these 120*360 claims it cools 400 watt...

                  and there are 140*420mm coolers as well who easily can cool 500watt at low dB noise means with faster fans it can easily cool 600 or more watt.
                  Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Sin2x View Post
                    I'm concentrating on progress. Or rather, lack thereof from Intel. Techprocess is the cornerstone around which the performance of the chip is built and on which it is based, period. That said, there isn't much that can be added further to the discussion if you disagree with that axiomatic notion, so I rest my case. Oh, and AMD FX-9590​ was a complete furnace of Auschwitz proportions.
                    you lag the unterstanding that manufacturing node is not the only way to improve the cpu...

                    you can develop new and more advance architecture on the same node...

                    you can play "race to idle" games (not that it solve any real problem)

                    as atomsymbol said about the 117C... with that you can build cooling solution who turns water into steam ... in the past such cooling solutions where in fact impossible because you need more than 100C for it.

                    in my point of view this is progress

                    also remember about the ASICs part of apple M1/M2 intel could do the same and just spend more tranistors to put more ASICs into their cpus...

                    for many many tasks on the apple m1/M2 the applications do no longer use the general purpose cores anaymore instead they use the ASICs part. and by this save a lot of power.
                    Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Michael,

                      Interestingly enough, Alder Lake had the exact same problems with this motherboard ( ASUS ROG STRIX Z690-E GAMING WIFI) you are facing with Raptor Lake. I goggled your symptoms and the motherboard name, and I found a lot of issues with this board not recognizing the XMP memory profiles (especially DDR5) for the initial bios upon Alder Lake release . Some people found work around for their specific memory, others had to wait for a updated bios. Quite a bit of frustration in some of the postings. Deja Vue.

                      I am sure it will all work out in time.

                      I am surprised Intel did not send a reference Z790 board with the the Raptor Lake chips. I would have thought this would be standard operating procedure.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X