• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Intel actually more efficient for gaming?

CPU: i9-10900K, 4.5GHz core clock, 1.08V core voltage
RAM: 4266MT/s (C16-17-17-37-2T)
Yea, thats how all users run their 10900K, sure
I am all for undervolting, but this is stretching it.

Meanwhile 5900X is stuck with all-core [email protected]. FPS gained from faster memory, but lost the boost.
Should've just switched to Eco mode and be done.
 
I thought the main argument for Intel at the moment was overclocking it to 5GHz+ and squeezing out those extra 5fps at 1080p? The only way to test is to test as they are intended to be used, set up with real world setting/resolution.

Also isn't heat output a measure of efficiency? If they consume power but don't waste as much as heat then surely they are more efficient?
 
Also isn't heat output a measure of efficiency? If they consume power but don't waste as much as heat then surely they are more efficient?
Yes, in this experiment they found a mode where Intel is more efficient. In games.
And this is the opposite of how Intel is selling their CPUs (overclocked to max and with maxed power limits).
 
They don't say why they think a fixed clock speed of 4.5GHz is the most efficient for both Intel and AMD. From my own experiments, you get a bigger reduction in power consumption on Ryzen 5000 by using Curve Optimizer than by normal undervolting.

...Also isn't heat output a measure of efficiency? If they consume power but don't waste as much as heat then surely they are more efficient?
The amount of power consumed by a CPU that isn't converted into heat inside the CPU is vanishingly small. For all practical purposes, power = heat.
 
Where's the paragraph on how these contrived results relate to normal use.

Doesn't appear to be one for some reason but they're happy to make a conclusion with no mention of disclaiming it as an unusual scenario.
 
I think they locked it to 4.5GHz is because both AMD zen3 and Intel chips can do 4.5GHz all core OC easily.

clearly that’s not how the zen3 chip and intel chip works at stock. Intel chip there is an argument that people buying it will go balls to the wall and do 5GHz+ all core OC.

where for zen3 people will likely be running PBO and PBO2 which is more efficient than all core OC. For those who do 4.5GHz all core With under volt then fair enough.

for comparison my 3900x is on 1.25V 4.4GHz max with CCX oc with c states on so it is quite efficient. And it operates within the TDP.
 
I don't know why some people have such a hard time understanding very simple things. This is a test about efficiency while gaming, not let's max out the OC and see what happens. RTFA

Since AMD has the advantage of a better process node on its side, there is sometimes the thought that Intel CPUs might consume an excessive amount of energy and get hot. Among other things, this is reinforced by the fact that Intel has pushed the clock limits further and further and also raised the TDP. The current mainstream top model, the i9-10900K, boosts up to 5.3GHz with TVB and is allowed to consume 250 watts within the PL2 (maximum allowed power consumption), although this is short-term at 56 seconds (Tau) and depends on other factors like cooling or the specific implementation of the motherboard manufacturer.

How efficient are the current top models from AMD and Intel in reality? We looked into this question and restricted ourselves to gaming workloads. The results were quite surprising and are far beyond the expectations we had at the beginning of this article.

A note on text comprehension in advance. It is important that the reader not only studies the graphs, but also reads the accompanying text. This is always important, of course, but this time we explicitly point it out because the texts in this article are essential in order to be able to interpret the data correctly.
 
That's your answer?

The accompanying text tells us they're using a 10 core cpu against a 12 core cpu in a gaming efficiency test and you post it with the question...

Intel actually more efficient for gaming?
Cos that test doesn't say it.

It says an undervolted and frequency locked to 4.5GHz 10900k is more efficient than the same conditions on a 5900X in a gaming scenario.

Guess we're yet to see if Intel is actually more efficient than AMD for gaming.
 
That mode is a disadvantage for AMD. Quite impressed it is doing so well.
How you undervolt Zen3 is with curve optimizer+ lower PPT limit. It allows to keep full boost for gaming loads.
And then we are comparing 4.5GHz Intel vs 4.8GHz+ AMD (at same power load). Would be a massacre.
 
The dormant CCD inside some 5600x and 5800x sometimes powers up and climbs to around 500MHz. Obviously they can't process data but they'll still consume a small amount of power and throw out heat. Even so, they're still more efficient than the Intel equivalent.
 
Ignoring the optimised results, doesn't this just show that 'stock' there isn't really much difference in power consumption between AMD and Intel when gaming?

I can't remember where I found it, but at least one of the latest CPU reviews shows system power consumption between latest Intel and AMD to be about 20 watts difference, maximum. It hardly seems worth worrrying about if you mainly game. That's less than 10% of what my GPU consumes. Most reviews just quote terrifying max power consumption, a bit like Furmark used to be used for GPU reviews.

If you were doing productivity tasks and maxing out all cores, that's a different matter of course.
 
Undervolted the 10 core Intel CPU but left the 12 core Ryzen CPU stock, using curve optimiser i can reduce the power consumption by 20% and run 4.9Ghz all core, use the curve optimiser to target 4.5Ghz you could cut the power by more. i'm using about 75 Watts at 4.9Ghz in a high threaded high load game, less than 40 in a low threaded game.

Why would they undervolt the Intel CPU and not do the same for the Ryzen CPU if not to draw a predefined conclusion? The fact is at 4.9Ghz the Intel CPU would draw twice as much power. This reminds me of all the Intel paid articles back in the early 2000's, which was the last time Intel had their arses handed to them by AMD.

Why is trash like this always on random blogs?

This ariticle is propaganda trash.
 
Last edited:
Undervolted the 10 core Intel CPU but left the 12 core Ryzen CPU stock, using curve optimiser i can reduce the power consumption by 20% and run 4.9Ghz all core, use the curve optimiser to target 4.5Ghz you could cut the power by more. i'm using about 75 Watts at 4.9Ghz in a high threaded high load game, less than 40 in a low threaded game.

Why would they undervolt the Intel CPU and not do the same for the Ryzen CPU if not to draw a predefined conclusion? The fact is at 4.9Ghz the Intel CPU would draw twice as much power. This reminds me of all the Intel paid articles back in the early 2000's, which was the last time Intel had their arses handed to them by AMD.

Why is trash like this always on random blogs?

This article is propaganda trash.

PBO: Advanced
Curve Optimiser: Negative 20 all cores
Core Clock +100

4.9Ghz all core.

16 threads loaded. 76.6 Watts, 65c on a £45 120mm AIO.

ZzpS5a5.jpg.png
 
Ignoring the optimised results, doesn't this just show that 'stock' there isn't really much difference in power consumption between AMD and Intel when gaming?
Well yes, technically both have same TDP. But there is a caveat with Intel. Most motherboards "stock" settings have relaxed power limits for Intel, allowing it to boost longer for that proverbial double power consumption.
If PL1 and PL2 needs to be set manually (as they were in this article stock configuration), doesn't qualify as stock really
 
Intel is trying to pay various PR atm due to the mindshare Ryzen now has outselling intel 6 to 1.
Intel lost and are really sore losers
 
Well yes, technically both have same TDP. But there is a caveat with Intel. Most motherboards "stock" settings have relaxed power limits for Intel, allowing it to boost longer for that proverbial double power consumption.
If PL1 and PL2 needs to be set manually (as they were in this article stock configuration), doesn't qualify as stock really

Yes, I remember reading sometwhere (might have been gamersnexus) about MB manufacturers exploiting this just so that they could claim the lead in benchmarks, even if it was by just a couple of percent in an arbitrary use case.
However, I'm still curious about actual CPU power consumption when gaming. Would be nice to establish some facts without spin and side taking/victim claiming.

I'll have to dig out what I found, but from memory it was about 20 Watts difference on average.
 
Back
Top Bottom