Don’t assume AMD is the best! There are other options worth considering.
Don’t assume AMD is the best! There are other options worth considering.
intel consumes significantly less power when idle because of its E-cores, drawing around 4 watts while idle—measurements suggest only half a watt. In contrast, amd uses 50-30 watts when idle, with the ccd chips at 50 watts. If you spend nine hours a day on your pc, amd still uses less overall power. However, real-world usage makes this difference less noticeable for most users. a notable example is dragon range on youtube, where you can stream 4k smoothly for years on a similar battery. intel isn’t always the most efficient, but it works well for many people. an exception exists with the ryzen 7000x3d during intense gaming; the i3 12100 still edges out in power efficiency, though its idle performance suffers due to chiplet communication. generally, i5 13400(f) outperforms i5 12600k(f) in work mode, even if it uses more power during gaming.
we just prefer affordable options i don’t really mind power costs we know exactly how much energy a device uses until you start pushing it to its limits like with an intel chip or a ryzen then you end up with a messy situation
Typically discussions about AMD CPU performance focus on usage rather than idle consumption. While comparing idle power usage is relevant, it remains quite subjective—especially as AMD introduces new features like E-cores. Laptops present a unique scenario. Most folks don’t claim Ryzen CPUs are superior in laptops, and any such assertion is likely incorrect. Recent AMD laptop processors have shown notable gains in power efficiency.
I don't believe efficiency matters much to most individuals. It only becomes noticeable when the setup is part of a big installation in an office or school with hundreds or thousands of systems, where you won't see the impact on your electricity bill. It also varies with your tasks. If you mainly browse, efficiency might look better with Intel, but you wouldn't be using the 300W 13900k unless you spend most of your time on that. For CPU-heavy jobs like gaming<|pad|> or video editing, efficiency tends to improve with AMD, though you'll likely notice little change on your bills unless you have a large number of computers running. The main reason I picked Ryzen is cost. The price difference between platforms is smaller—AM4 is cheaper and the 5600 costs less than the 12400, making it a better value for similar performance. I'll always choose the more affordable option.
they’re being suggested because of their efficiency in new builds and planning. the main factor is often the balance between cores and performance, whether it’s more Intel cores versus AMD’s ST performance, along with better motherboards and RAM options. prices for CPUs are similar, so the choice comes down to system architecture and component quality.
Fair point, but I still don’t fully grasp why some believe AMD is more efficient. It seems meteor lake might shift the balance (they’re moving to 2 proper TSMC nodes and half a TSMC node compared to AMD’s half proper 1, plus the IPC advantage and lower clock speeds—meaning more power per silicon leads to better performance). (The proper is because TSMAC 4nm and 5nm are quite similar.) No, I’ve suggested Ryzen 7000 to many, but I’m pointing out one major factor people often overlook during the “it depends” discussion. AMD does tend to win in many scenarios, but it really comes down to the situation—Intel and AMD both have strengths depending on what you’re working on. I began this thread because it feels like people focus only on Intel’s offerings and miss the bigger picture.
AMD processors consume a lot of energy. It's curious how much power NVIDIA GPUs are drawing from the outlet.
It's great that your vehicle runs efficiently even when you're not using it.