GPUs & CPUs & Enthusiast hardware: Questions, Discussion and fanboy slap-fights - Nvidia & AMD & Intel - Separe but Equal. Intel rides in the back of the bus.

Susanna said:
11th gen was barely even outperforming 10th gen, at significantly higher wattages.
Even this site, infamous for Intel bias, can barely make the 11700K outperform the 10700K.
Click to expand...

Those two CPUs have the same base TDP, although the 11th Gen can run up to 250W, while the 10th is limited to 230W. However, with 11th gen, they took advantage of yields to make a bigger core. That's where the IPC differences come from. Still just a "throwing shit at the wall" chip that's best forgotten.


The first NUC I ordered had an i9-11900 in it, and it overheated and died immediately. Take that for what you will. Also, I'd never run Userbenchmark before, but here's an example of the difference cooling makes:

1713962386445.png

The NUC does not have a lot of space to blow air around, and on top of that, the GPU is right next to the CPU and not making things any cooler. But I'm not complaining, I knew what I was buying. None of the games I play are CPU-limited.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: N Space and WelperHelper99
The Ugly One said:
Those two CPUs have the same base TDP, although the 11th Gen can run up to 250W, while the 10th is limited to 230W. However, with 11th gen, they took advantage of yields to make a bigger core. That's where the IPC differences come from. Still just a "throwing shit at the wall" chip that's best forgotten.
Click to expand...
Oh, you’re probably right. I recall a lot of whining about how 11th gen would boost for much longer than 10th, thus staying at high wattage for longer and using significantly more power over time, but I must have been mistaken because I can’t find that information now.
The Ugly One said:
The NUC does not have a lot of space to blow air around, and on top of that, the GPU is right next to the CPU and not making things any cooler. But I'm not complaining, I knew what I was buying. None of the games I play are CPU-limited.
Click to expand...
I would have assumed NUCs would run in something like AMD’s eco mode, where the most aggressive boosting is disabled and the CPU is limited to a 60 or 115W power envelope. For my 7950X, the 115W limit is barely noticeable, and while the 60W one definitely is restrictive, the computer remains perfectly usable even with an outrageously undersized cooler. As in I’ve run it on a Noctua L9a just fine, which is a tiny thing, designed for SFF and appliance use, it’s no taller than the rear IO plate of the motherboard itself. 16 cores sitting at 80 degrees during full load, with what is basically a slightly beefy laptop cooler.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: WelperHelper99
Susanna said:
Oh, you’re probably right. I recall a lot of whining about how 11th gen would boost for much longer than 10th, thus staying at high wattage for longer and using significantly more power over time, but I must have been mistaken because I can’t find that information now.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, it can maintain boost clocks for longer because it manages heat more efficiently by downclocking in increments. That this was spun as a bad thing is why I avoid the gamer press. Ice Lake cores are better than Skylake cores in every single way. The bad thing about Rocket Lake was the process node.

1713967220767.png


Susanna said:
I would have assumed NUCs would run in something like AMD’s eco mode, where the most aggressive boosting is disabled and the CPU is limited to a 60 or 115W power envelope.
Click to expand...

It's a non-k i7 or i9 desktop CPU with an app to configure power & fan management. You can actually change the base & max TDP without getting into the BIOS, like I could set it to 30W/180W if I wanted to, instead of the default 65W/220W. While it has no issue sustaining 65W under load, a max TDP of 240W is not something you can maintain for long if your goal is to minimize space rather than maximize cooling. I also crammed the largest, hottest GPU I could fit into the case, which can't possibly be helping, since the GPU contacts the inlet duct. Something slimmer and cooler wouldn't have hurt.

EDIT: I turned the fans up and got a slightly better score

1713969543915.png
 
  • Informative
Reactions: WelperHelper99
The Ugly One said:
It was not quite as fast as a same-gen Ryzen despite sucking down twice as much energy. Not a good processor for its time, ran quite hot.
Click to expand...

Susanna said:
11th gen was barely even outperforming 10th gen, at significantly higher wattages.
Even this site, infamous for Intel bias, can barely make the 11700K outperform the 10700K.
Click to expand...

The Ugly One said:
Those two CPUs have the same base TDP, although the 11th Gen can run up to 250W, while the 10th is limited to 230W. However, with 11th gen, they took advantage of yields to make a bigger core. That's where the IPC differences come from. Still just a "throwing shit at the wall" chip that's best forgotten.
Click to expand...
Ah. I just wondered because one of those is in my laptop. Pretty fascinating really. Thought about making a little server rig with one of those old chips, but now probably not.
 
WelperHelper99 said:
Ah. I just wondered because one of those is in my laptop. Pretty fascinating really. Thought about making a little server rig with one of those old chips, but now probably not.
Click to expand...
It’s more of an “avoid if you can” than a “never do”. Since you already have the hardware, putting it to use makes good sense. It’ll draw more power than a Ryzen or a 12th gen chip, but power is cheap compared to a new laptop.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Ugly One
WelperHelper99 said:
Ah. I just wondered because one of those is in my laptop. Pretty fascinating really. Thought about making a little server rig with one of those old chips, but now probably not.
Click to expand...
The mobile versions of the 11th gen chips weren't as obscenely power hungry as the desktop chips, though Ryzen was still the better option at the time.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: geckogoy
WelperHelper99 said:
Ah. I just wondered because one of those is in my laptop. Pretty fascinating really. Thought about making a little server rig with one of those old chips, but now probably not.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not that the CPU doesn't work, it's that relative to its list price, it wasn't a good buy at the time. But now that they're only in the secondary market, it depends on what price you get. Right now, though, looks like 5000 series Ryzens are still a better value.

There are a lot of businesses who still won't touch AMD due to bad experiences 10 years ago. There's a lesson to learn there about brand reputation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indomitable snowman
Susanna said:
It’s more of an “avoid if you can” than a “never do”. Since you already have the hardware, putting it to use makes good sense. It’ll draw more power than a Ryzen or a 12th gen chip, but power is cheap compared to a new laptop.
Click to expand...
I'd probably go with AMD tbh, I just found it interesting is all since it seems to be mostly forgotten.
Post Reply said:
The mobile versions of the 11th gen chips weren't as obscenely power hungry as the desktop chips, though Ryzen was still the better option at the time.
Click to expand...
I've found power wise the 11th gen i5 in my laptop is alright power wise,so you aren't wrong. Gets hot though.
The Ugly One said:
Well, it's not that the CPU doesn't work, it's that relative to its list price, it wasn't a good buy at the time. But now that they're only in the secondary market, it depends on what price you get. Right now, though, looks like 5000 series Ryzens are still a better value.

There are a lot of businesses who still won't touch AMD due to bad experiences 10 years ago. There's a lesson to learn there about brand reputation.
Click to expand...
I agree totally the 5000 series is a better price. Still is honestly. I can get a 12 core 5900x compared to a 11900 with 8 cores of roughly the same price. Sad AMD is still in the rough because of Bulldozer, but people don't forget easily.
 
The Ugly One said:
There are a lot of businesses who still won't touch AMD due to bad experiences 10 years ago. There's a lesson to learn there about brand reputation.
Click to expand...
Not just businesses, people too. Ryzen 5000 was nothing short of incredible compared to the 11th gen Core, but out of all my friends, only one was actually willing to buy AMD, because "Intel is cooler and faster, AMD is just for budget builds" was still their mantra. Even today when they ask me to recommend a laptop or something, the reply isn't "Cool thanks, I'll get that then", it's "But that's an Apple, I need a Windows" followed by "But that's AMD, I want Intel". Granted Intel aren't as far behind when it comes to laptops, their memory controllers are superior which closes the gap there, but still.
My advice as a tech nerd is valuable until I point out that Intel aren't king any more, then I'm just dismissed as team red fangirl (well, I am, but that's a different red team). Even though the Ryzen 3600 was the first AMD product I ever bought (I did steal an FX computer from an ex once, the thing was awful and I'm sure he was just glad for an excuse to switch to Intel), you can't recommend AMD without normies assuming you're being an idiot.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Just Some Other Guy, Brain Problems and WelperHelper99
WelperHelper99 said:
Sad AMD is still in the rough because of Bulldozer, but people don't forget easily.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just Bulldozer. AMD's foundry was never as good as Intel's, leading to all kinds of quality problems, and there would be compatibility issues once in a while. The fact that they dumped GF and are now on TSMC doesn't register. "We bought Opteron servers and they blew up, never buying AMD again," and that's the end of the story.

More recently, when Intel disabled AVX2 on AMD CPUs in MKL, many people assumed the problem was AMD. One colleague of mine was telling our customers, "Don't buy EPYC, because AVX2 is broken on those CPUs." Of course, then AMD's in-house alternative to MKL, libFlame, was a piece of shit, which certainly didn't help them any.

Susanna said:
Granted Intel aren't as far behind when it comes to laptops, their memory controllers are superior which closes the gap there, but still.
Click to expand...

Their power management is better, too, but arguing about which x86 laptop has the best battery management when Apple exists is like arguing about which pile of rotting garbage tastes the best.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Susanna and WelperHelper99
I just want to point out - we use 'air cooler' to describe a shockingly diverse range of cooling technologies. I'd argue that a tower cooler with heat pipes has more in common with an AIO than it does with most stock coolers.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Brain Problems
Post Reply said:
The mobile versions of the 11th gen chips weren't as obscenely power hungry as the desktop chips, though Ryzen was still the better option at the time.
Click to expand...
They weren't even on the same process node, since the mobile Tiger Lake chips were on 10nm while Rocket Lake still stuck around on 14nm. Plus the mobile chips had the saving grace of Xe being a large leap forward for Intel iGPUs (which they would naturally stagnate on once more until Meteor Lake).
 
Waifu Denier said:
They weren't even on the same process node, since the mobile Tiger Lake chips were on 10nm while Rocket Lake still stuck around on 14nm. Plus the mobile chips had the saving grace of Xe being a large leap forward for Intel iGPUs (which they would naturally stagnate on once more until Meteor Lake).
Click to expand...

You often see a new process node debut on mobile first, since the chips are smaller and clocked lower, thus not as sensitive to yield. Intel might be skipping 4 entirely for Arrow Lake desktop, but since Meteor Lake desktop got cancelled, we'll see.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: N Space, The Mass Shooter Ron Soye, WelperHelper99 and 2 others
Plus laptops and mobiles are usually a larger market than more traditional desktops.

Makes more sense if you have yield issues to build smaller chips for a larger market, and when the yield issues get resolved, build the bigger, badder chips.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Anti Alien Alarm
LegoTugboat said:
Plus laptops and mobiles are usually a larger market than more traditional desktops.

Makes more sense if you have yield issues to build smaller chips for a larger market, and when the yield issues get resolved, build the bigger, badder chips.
Click to expand...

Every new process node has yield issues, because it takes time to find out where every speck of dust and unwanted vibration comes from in the new factory. The whole time a node is up, engineers are iterating on tracking down each and every source of impurity, causing yields to go up continuously throughout the life of the node. This is why you can't move a production facility, you essentially set yourself back to zero. So if you were to take TSMC's 7nm stuff and move it here, it would take 7 years of iteration to get yields back to where they are now.
 
Yeah, we're talking about really, really small scale stuff.

I think I mentioned it a fair few pages ago, but for context for how small a nanometre is - a human hair is 50,000 to 100,000 nanometres wide, and 25,400,000 nanometres make up an inch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back