Still a very serious heat producing thing in one socket compared to the AMD.
This also means it's going to require some rather expensive motherboards since reliably delivering 280W to one socket is no simple task.
Computing and heating in one go.
His reply: These are the showroom-only models where customer won't buy but will feel their (already expensive) not as high end plan is more reasonable.
Essentially it's a part of product marketing segmentation where you create an unobtanium segment that's only there to sell other segments.
It's what humans do. We don't cross the Pacific on a tiki raft or fly to the moon in a tin bucket because our destination is nicer than where we are currently, we do it because we can and because it's awesome.
To stick with the car comparison, let's use Mercedes C class and BMW 3 series as direct competitors, right? They offer broadly the same features, cost the same amount of money, look similar-ish, you get my point.
So now imagine that one year, BMW releases a new 3 series with revolutionary new engine that makes it go faster by few percent than the C class on average, but at the cost of double fuel consumption.
I'm sure you'd go - what are you doing BMW. You aren't Lamborghini, you aren't pushing the envelope here - you are just pushing your existing framework to the absolute max to beat the competition at a huge cost.
This isn't progress, and this isn't a bugatti veyron equivalent. This is just technological dick waving with no regard to power consumption whatsoever.
The AMG and ///M models don't ever get compared on mileage, and almost noone who buys them cares in the slightest. They want to know about the performance, full stop.
Very few ever heeded me.
I should have worded it better, as having owned quite fast cars when I was younger the running costs (both to my wallet and the environment) were something I eventually realized were more important than the performance.
Let me make this even clearer - Intel provides two numbers this time round. One "typical" power usage, and one "peak" power usage for every 12th gen CPU. The peak on the top i9 part is 250W, and looking at the reviews that came out today, it seems correct - the CPU will consume 250W of power when running at full load.
Maybe I misunderstood you?
I do agree with the second part of your reply, and I also don't know who would buy the Intel part over the AMD part. I think Intel's move into space heaters is disappointing, and once AMD revs their process, micro-architecture and moves to DDR5, I suspect they will once again smoke Intel. Pretty poor showing in my opinion.
Why do these formulas matter though, if we know, without a doubt, that a fully loaded 5900X/5950X will just sit at 150W usage, but the new 12th Gen i9 at full load sits at 250W. That's not going by what Intel says or what's on the box, that's actual measured power usage which has been now confirmed by reviews.
So yes, sure, let's not compare the given numbers in the spec - but real life numbers do back it up this time.
It's not insanity. Overclocked enthusiast builds have been pushing over 250W and higher for many years. Quietly cooling a CPU putting out that much heat isn't a mystery any more. Modern coolers are very, very good.
That Intel CPU doesn't come anywhere near 250W during gaming or normal operations anyway. It's not like it's consuming 250W every single time you do something.
Modern GPUs also consume well over 300W during normal gaming, which will be double or triple the consumption of most CPUs. I don't understand this sudden concern about Intel shipping CPUs with high peak TDP.
It does though, that's the whole reason why I'm complaining. While I'm doing a video transcode on my 5900X putting all cores on full load it won't go above 140W. Do the same on the i9 and it will do it marginally faster sitting at 250W.
The point isn't complaining about 250W usage in general. Of course there are other chips, including other CPUs that use that much or more and it's not the end of the world. The problem here is that you're paying a HUGE price for a very minor advantage over the competition or even their own chips. If you clearly can buy a chip that performs very slightly worse for over 100W reduction in power, why would you buy the space heater one.
Yes overclockers have been doing this literally forever, I'm aware, but this is intel making this decision on stock CPU - I just don't find this acceptable at all.
>> I don't understand this sudden concern about Intel shipping CPUs with high peak TDP.
To summarize the above - because clearly the high peak TDP is much higher than that of competing CPUs for a very minor increase in performance. That's just not ok.
uh, people who want more performance? 250w is not some absurd tdp that can't be cooled.