Consumo de Energia?
Consumo de Energia?
It's a poor method for evaluating something. It could work well when paired with a CPU and its power consumption chart, but it exaggerates the power usage of other parts that might vary between Intel and AMD (such as the motherboard). It also adds more uncertainty, with inconsistencies in the GPU, motherboard, drives, RAM, and everything else.
Intel processors remain significantly quieter than AMD ones. When evaluating overall system energy use, factoring in both active usage and idle periods (including cooling efficiency and wiring quality) makes power consumption a less critical concern. As long as your cooling setup and electrical connections are solid, it becomes a valid benchmark. Full system power tests still work well for accurate readings. These measurements reflect real-world conditions rather than isolated component effects.
EDIT: It looks like I might have misunderstood earlier. Other assessments indicate Intel's idle power is lower, and based on my observations, mine is similarly low. This could warrant further verification.
Obtaining CPU power consumption data is quite challenging—you can purchase a simple power meter for around $15 at a hardware store, but finding tools to read directly from the EPS 12V cable is difficult. Although not perfect for scientific work, for a general audience the complete system power draw figures are sufficient. It indicates the power supply requirements for the graphics card (such as an RTX 3080) and that’s typically all the information most reviewers need.
Many folks got confused by the 10,900k power draw numbers. I say most of them are just gamers or not heavy power users. The gap between 200w and 300w chips doesn’t really matter because they rarely run at full capacity outside benchmarks. Even with a weekly encoding job, it won’t stop the extra energy waste from another AMD chip. From my experience with an OC 10900KF, the CPU usage is negligible. GPUs can handle over 450w without issue. Still, those numbers don’t really impact real-world decisions. Power use is usually just a minor concern—either top of priorities for big projects or completely irrelevant. It’s one of the weakest points I’ve seen when choosing CPUs.
Techpowerup typically displays clear, understandable graphs : https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel...en/20.html The figures represent the complete system usage, yet you can quickly gauge a CPU's power use by subtracting idle consumption from heavy workloads and adding a modest margin, roughly 10 to 20 watts. For instance, a Ryzen 5600x running idle uses about 50 watts while its multi-threaded load reaches 126 watts... this suggests an estimate of around 75 to 85 watts. Anandtech also features a BENCH section detailing CPU power usage along with relevant conditions and notes : https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2020/2734 They recorded 75 watts for the 5600x model. Their latest review of the 12900K hasn't been added yet... you can observe core counts and use that to approximate its power draw from the data – the 12600K has six performance cores. https://www.anandtech.com/show/17047/the...mplexity/4
It has been too much focus on it, yet it still counts. I’d rank it around fourth after price, performance, and features. The issue with power use for gamers is that it raises the cost, size, and space needed for cooling. A 200W processor can fit in a compact $60 air cooler like the Scythe Fuma 2, but at 300W it struggles. Even the NH-D15 might not handle steady 300W loads well, pushing you toward water cooling. The H150i is decent, though—it’s three times pricier and needs a much bigger case than the Fuma 2. While power isn’t the highest priority, it still affects overall system cost and ultimately influences the top choice.
I understand your direction, but I have some differences. Initially, we need to clarify what constitutes an acceptable setup. Is it really crucial if your CPU throttles under heat with a more affordable cooler during high-demand tasks? How often do you encounter these scenarios beyond typical power issues? You should choose a cooler suited for the specific needs – as laptops already balance heat, performance, and size. It’s part of the trade-off, and generally, performance drops a bit but is often justified by everyday use. If gaming is your sole focus, a powerful cooler isn’t always essential. A decent model like the Scythe Fuma 2 works well for gamers on a 12700k. Personally, it’s a nice upgrade but not mandatory. Many of us still prefer stability over constant cooling, even if it feels unrealistic. In contrast, my car could use a stronger cooler, but I don’t push it daily. Also, regarding power consumption during idle, it’s a widespread concern that drives innovations like cylinder deactivation in cars – to conserve energy when not in use. This is why we need metrics that matter beyond just immediate cooling needs.
It's accurate that some scenarios require less energy, yet power usage remains important. The $60 cooler is now considered reasonable. Your worries about power consumption being misused as a criticism are valid. The argument works best when context is clear. For gaming, a high-core-count CPU isn't always necessary. While newer chips like Alder Lake and Zen 3 offer higher clock speeds, they remain unlocked, so performance gains aren't limited. Intel's 12600K has a smaller cache compared to the 12700K and 12900K models. On the other hand, AMD's 5600X delivers nearly the same performance as the 5950X. If I were focused solely on gaming, I'd stick with my 9600K, as it meets my needs without extra cooling costs. There are situations—like running large Unity projects—where a higher-end GPU like the 5900X performs better than expected. In such cases, investing in a cooler based on gaming specs might not be justified if the actual usage is lighter. Essentially, I'm looking for a balance: choose a CPU that matches your workload rather than chasing maximum numbers blindly.