It's hard to grasp how much power a CPU uses without the right explanation.
It's hard to grasp how much power a CPU uses without the right explanation.
The latest GN video discusses changes in power consumption for the 9900K and 10900K models. The 9900K operates at 93 watts across all cores, which is within normal limits. However, the 7th line mentions an overclocked version running 300 MHz faster—though it seems the base frequency isn’t uniform across cores. This suggests a significant increase beyond just 300 MHz. The power usage jumps by about 100 watts for such a modest speed boost, and there’s confusion about whether the clocks are being pushed further than expected. Regarding the 10900K, the stock model draws 130 watts, but the final line indicates an overclocked version with higher voltage and even more power consumption—around 200 watts extra. The exact cause of these changes isn’t clear from what was shown.
They're likely running at their maximum safe speeds, matching their rated currents. That doesn't reflect the real clock speed, which should be lower. The updated components automatically ignore power caps by default, but reducing power consumption will also cut energy use.
CPU performance increases rapidly with vcore and clock speed, causing power consumption to grow exponentially rather than linearly. A clear illustration is available for the i7-2600K here: https://forums.anandtech.com/proxy.php?i...fdc5aaa2d3
I was wondering how the 9900K manages such high power consumption despite being only a modest overclock. At stock it runs at 93, but at 220 MHz it hits 300 MHz? Unless the actual speed is even lower—perhaps a single core instead of four—and the stock 4.8 GHz is really just one core. That would mean the overclock could exceed 300 MHz across all cores. I need to confirm this.
Secondly, the 10900K isn’t being overclocked at all. It’s actually running at 100 MHz below the stock speed. The only changes are minor voltage adjustments. Yet it’s drawing 316 watts compared to the stock’s 130—how does that work? If WoodenMarker is correct about the 9900K, then its overclock seems justified, but what about the 10900K? It’s running slower and using more voltage, which shouldn’t double its power usage.
The 10900K supports a maximum power draw of 125W, while the 9900K has a limit of 95W. https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/...0-ghz.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/...0-ghz.html Comparing these devices requires understanding the turbo settings and time constraints defined in the BIOS. At default configurations, some motherboards apply standard Intel turbo values and set power limits accordingly. Certain boards may push overclocking beyond official specs, while others might boost voltage for extra stability, leading to higher energy use. Intel no longer openly shares turbo ratio details. ThrottleStop can detect these default settings, revealing things like a 50x boost multiplier when only one or two cores run, dropping to 47 when all eight are active. Disabling low-power modes can prevent proper turbo activation, especially if the C states are turned off—a practice often used by testers. Setting a CPU to its strict 95W limit will greatly reduce both performance and energy use. Making accurate comparisons is nearly impossible without full transparency for each processor and board tested. Stock configurations should not be considered excessive when discussing Intel chips.
Initially, I wondered why you mentioned the stock power of the 10900K—just checking if there was any overclocking. The voltage increased slightly, but power consumption jumped to 316 watts, which is 200 watts more than the original specs. With my experience, I thought extra voltage shouldn’t cause such a big spike. Regarding the 9900K, even with turbo limits turned off, the clocks still slowed down. The 5.1 GHz running on all cores pushed overclocking beyond 300 MHz across the board. That’s what I was thinking.
power consumption depends on transistor count, frequency, capacitance, and voltage squared. Higher clock speeds usually demand greater voltage, which impacts power in an exponential way. Applying overclocking can lead to substantially increased energy use, especially at the upper hundreds of MHz.
Since clock speed doesn't increase proportionally, GPU performance follows the same trend. A 15% boost in power on my 7900XT translates to roughly a 7% improvement in speed. The 7950X CPU, for instance, doubles its power output for about a 5% performance gain. Beyond a certain threshold, gains become exponential, requiring significantly higher current to achieve minor speed improvements.