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.
definitely less than the latest AMD offerings. (why does this false info keep circulating?)
there is a fundamental deference between standby (idling) and off, in you car scenario, standby would be waiting for the red light to turn green, how would you feel if you spent 1 liter of fuel just waiting for the light to turn green? now compare it to a car that uses 100ml while doing that , that's the comparison we are doing (in the context of a CPU )
If you let your PC sit idle for hours, turn it off. Avoid running things while not in use. That’s not such a wild idea, is it? Electricity costs are still affordable enough that you could leave a PC running for a whole month and barely pay anything. In the US, for instance, rates are around 30 cents per kWh. Calculate your savings accordingly.
I understand your point but the question is whether AMD consumes more power when under load compared to Intel. Idle usage isn't very informative because the machine is active and using energy, though not always at full capacity. Yes, there are many factors influencing power consumption, the most noticeable being the specific chip model. Generally, a smaller Intel chip will use less power than a bigger AMD chip, and vice versa. However, the real factor is what the system is doing. Are you using it for browsing, gaming, or video editing? Each activity has different power needs for the respective chip. If you choose a smaller chip for encoding, does it actually use less or more power than a larger one? For example, spending 20 minutes encoding with a bigger chip versus 3 hours with a smaller one. Power usage is tracked by devices like the energy monitors on your home, showing total consumption over time. Both brands perform well in their areas, and personally, I don’t see a strong reason to stick with just one type.
it’s clear that many believe AMD offers better performance. think about it—just like with your phone, you’ll see the difference when everything’s running smoothly. i’d also like a quick 2-second wake-up with apps ready, instead of waiting 7 seconds with everything closed and the system busy.
My phone doesn't draw steady power from the grid, but my PC does. You can switch your PC to hibernate instead of sleep, keeping your work progress intact at the same wake time. The issue here is that you're focusing on a simplified idea—AMD's efficiency—but the real point is how much you can achieve with limited power. Most people care less about idle power consumption and more about performance under load. The idea of measuring how long a PC can run on a given power isn't what most care about.
I believe this perspective comes from the era of the 10900K and 11900K CPUs. They were truly powerful machines to approach AMD's top performance. Even then, the xx600K models weren't too far behind. Maybe folks are hesitant to update their 'basic understanding.' Also, the 5800X3D offered good performance for its time.
I would cease believing something if it isn't accurate. AMD proves to be significantly more efficient than Intel for standard desktop CPUs with default configurations. The provided chart illustrates energy consumption for processing a fixed task, showing that the first Intel CPU is at the 8th position and the second one at the 16th. Source: Mic drop
This discussion feels quite small to me. The video is useful as a reference, but it seems the main issue is about idle power consumption between AMD and Intel CPUs rather than performance under load. Still, it depends on how users manage their systems—how often they idle versus run heavy tasks—and whether they truly value power consumption. Under load usage usually accounts for most of the energy used during a session.
Right now, my AMD setup fits perfectly, so I’m sticking with it. If things shift, I’ll stop buying AMD. I don’t understand why everyone insists on one choice over another—just pick what suits your requirements.