Not really, If the amount of work/throughput has increased at any given consumption then it's more efficient is it not ?
-
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?
- Thread starter Poneros
- Start date
Not really, If the amount of work/throughput has increased at any given consumption then it's more efficient is it not ?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
he said heat output is a measure of efficiency.
It's not and never will be.
Your saying the number of calculations it can perform is a measure of efficiency. Which to anyone is very obvious and completely different.
I would counter with heat is wasted energy. It hasn't been converted to work. All things being equal, less energy being converted to heat enables more work to be performed. Less heat as a by product is always desirable for many reasons, degradation, cooling etc.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
You don't understand how physics works.
It has to be converted to heat. If it's not being converted to heat then you could argue it's inefficient.
I think someone needs to go back to school.
Well this thread is in flames.
Is there some magic machine somewhere that turns energy into "work" but not "wasted energy".
You don't get to do anything without turning a useful form of energy into a useless form.
Efficiency is getting what you want with the least amount of energy.
A cpu using 200W isn't wasting 200W, that's what that design needs to do the electron shuffling.
Is there some magic machine somewhere that turns energy into "work" but not "wasted energy".
You don't get to do anything without turning a useful form of energy into a useless form.
Efficiency is getting what you want with the least amount of energy.
A cpu using 200W isn't wasting 200W, that's what that design needs to do the electron shuffling.
Soldato
Yes. If you watch the latest HU video its even simpler. Game at anything above 1080 and your GPU bound. Its like 1fps difference between a £200 and a £500. As long as your on a 6c 12t or similar you should be prioritising the GPU with what money you can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSxuiWih_Z8
Soldato
Last edited:
awkward
Indeed. I'm always wary of dealing in absolutes. The fact that some can't that efficiency by definition is how little energy is wasted whilst performing work amazes me. Light, heat, sound etc. are wasted if that's not what you intended to produce. Last time I looked CPUs aren't designed to produce any of them they are merely wasted byproducts. One of the reasons AMD was keen on more cache was to prevent wasted energy moving data around.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1634...i710700k-review-is-65w-comet-lake-an-option/2
That should end efficiency discussions.
Intel easily hits double peak power consumption if left to defaults. And "65W' 10700 managed to consume more than "125W" 10700K. Both exceeding 200W
That should end efficiency discussions.
Intel easily hits double peak power consumption if left to defaults. And "65W' 10700 managed to consume more than "125W" 10700K. Both exceeding 200W
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2016
- Posts
- 542
Efficiency is the proportion of input energy that went to achieving a specific task. In terms of computation, the currents that carry information are tiny, and hence the efficiency of the system is poor.
By definition ALL the heat produced by a CPU is "Waste Energy".
I completely agree that even if efficiency is poor, there is useful output. Ultimately we need to think of efficiency as a relative comparison between the efficiency of different processors not an absolute efficiency measure - because in absolute terms CPUs are shocking.
Associate
Heat is a byproduct.. therefor it's ineffecient by definition of being generated in the first place...less heat from the CPU means a more effecient CPU at the same workload/speed etc
Comparing cpu 1 at 4.5 at 60c Vs CPU 2 at 4.5 at 70c then CPU 2 is less effecient at the same power draw. efficiency isn't just the power draw but the conversion too or have I oversimplified it?
But there are multiple areas a CPU can be either or in
Comparing cpu 1 at 4.5 at 60c Vs CPU 2 at 4.5 at 70c then CPU 2 is less effecient at the same power draw. efficiency isn't just the power draw but the conversion too or have I oversimplified it?
But there are multiple areas a CPU can be either or in
Last edited:
Soldato
You can't guage efficiancy on running temperatures, too many variables.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
Heat is a byproduct.. therefor it's ineffecient by definition of being generated in the first place...less heat from the CPU means a more effecient CPU at the same workload/speed etc
Comparing cpu 1 at 4.5 at 60c Vs CPU 2 at 4.5 at 70c then CPU 2 is less effecient at the same power draw. efficiency isn't just the power draw but the conversion too or have I oversimplified it?
But there are multiple areas a CPU can be either or in
So you are saying Einstein is wrong?
If you put energy into something you get an Equal amount of energy out.
Therefore if you put 65w of electricity into a CPU and it doesn't produce 65w of heat, light, sound, etc then that is impossible.
So a 65w CPU will always expel 65w of energy elsewhere.
But a 95w CPU will always expel 95w of energy elsewhere.
Also the 95w cpu might be able to do 10 times the number of calculations. Therefore it's dumb to use core speed as a measure of efficiency too.
Some people really do need to go back to school
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
Ok what energy should a CPU be producing?
Actually, almost everything ends up in heat. By the law of Conservation of energy, all the energy (which is power multiplied by time) has to end up somewhere. Almost all processes inside a computer end up turning the energy into heat, directly or indirectly. For example, the fan will turn energy into moving air (=kinetic energy), however the moving air will be stopped by friction with the surrounding air, which will turn its kinetic energy into heat.
The same goes for things like radiation (light from the monitor, EM radiation from all electrical components) and sound (noises, sound from loudspeakers) a computer produces: They too will be absorbed and transformed into heat.
If you read of a "percentage" that ends up in heat, that may have referred to the power supply alone. The power supply should indeed turn a large percentage of its input into electrical power, not into heat (though it does produce some heat as well). This energy will then be turned into heat by the rest of the computer
.
Associate
No I think you are missing the point lol go read it again and keep your knickers on. You cant produce energy without heat correct, but you can improve the process. Look at quantum computing for example. Heat is a byproduct of the conversion still it's no the end goal is it?
Ps maybe you should go back to school and learn to be less rude
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
No I think you are missing the point lol go read it again and keep your knickers on. You cant produce energy without heat correct, but you can improve the process. Look at quantum computing for example. Heat is a byproduct of the conversion still it's no the end goal is it?
Ps maybe you should go back to school and learn to be less rude
Read my above post.
Also we are talking about £200 generic CPU for home use not quantum computing which costs millions and uses specialised parts.
Once intel starts making quantum CPU for £200 you may have a valid point but not right now. It will likely never be the case either. Quantum will be for commercial use only and for large corporations that can afford them.
Associate
Again you failed to grasp the point, it's not about the CPU but the process which is the same regardless of the chip. Heat is a waste product.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
It's a byproduct which will always remain and cannot be removed.
Whatever wattage you out in will eventually be turned to heat.
You cannot remove the heat other than wasting power and making them more inefficient by making them produce sound or light instead which eventually turns to heat further down the chain.
You cannot for example put 65w in and only get 15w of heat. That is impossible unless your producing 50w of sound and light.
Associate
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
That's what I'm saying in a more simplified way. We are both in agreement
Therefore you cannot use heat as a measure of efficiency. Which is what I've been saying since the first post.