I take it you measured system power draw at idle? and were not using the display heads at the time?
There were users elsewhere running a 3900X at 3.1 GHz fixed to prove that it got 65W - it did. Can't remember the workload - may not have been using AVX units.
It also doesn't tally up with results from
reviewers.
y-Cruncher: 115W
Handbrake x264: 139W
Handbrake x265: 132W
Which is entirely in line with AMD's default PPT
setting:
Do you have PBO enabled? [As at this point, stock TDP goes out the window, as can be observed within the review.]
Oh and I note you are inferring that TDP == Power consumed. It does not. It never has, but it is commonly misunderstood as being the same thing.
not at idle, full load handbrake, no PBO no thank you that regulation isnt for me
I know those reviews with pure package power displaying only CPU power, but I couldnt care less about them, since the important is system power
https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1869/bench/Power.png (this is blender, which uses a little less power than handbrake)
and here
https://techreport.com/review/34672/amd-ryzen-7-3700x-and-ryzen-9-3900x-cpus-reviewed/13/ and other when you look at whole system vary from 220 to 250W
while measuring mine I did look at the power meter the whole time and power fluctuated from 215 to 250W with average of 240W, which is completely in line with the reviews (and with other users on this forum)
I know TDP isnt power, but the whole f.g web is using it suddenly as power..and you know since when?....since Intel released 9900K
I am pissed by the double standards used on the internet (and couldnt care less that WCFtech and other roflcopter fanbased sites use it), but I am more pissed that the double standards are used on the tech forum like anandtech, I expected more
tdp doesnt mean power, so why are users pasting package power comparing to listed tdps of amd and intel and even ignoring their own definiton...biased lie nothing else
since the 7900X whole system consumes about the same as 3900X, I expect the 10920X (+2 cores vs 7900X) to consume the same with some improvements Intel made
about that pricing- interesting and since in Intel they are masters of market deception we should analyze that pretty much shock move- my point of view
- intel knows amd has demand problems and the 3900X price rises (as was 9900K before)
- intel uses this moment to enter the core wars (up to 18C) with aggresive pricing
- that way they put pressure on AMD to release their 16C with aggresive pricing- that is the reason they cancelled 16C variant
- they are adressing AMD profit- as I like my 3900X much, it has to cost a fortune with its 70MB cache to manufacture at 7nm...while Intel uses their fine tuned 14nm
- joe user will see with intel 4 important marketing things from Intel- coarz number, extreme processor, 4,8GHz turbo OMG, 4mem channels (not 2, not that it matters), moar pcie lines I want that
- so amd will be competing with 3950x with less lanes, less channels and lower turbo frequency and with that clockgate they didnt earn much trust ..
- intel is master of marketing......with worse product, since 3950x will except pure mem bandwitch tasks tear the cascade lake x lineup
age of stupidity comes again...