Returning to Intel options for motherboards

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next

gamb1no
Member

226

03-09-2016, 03:31 AM

#11

On your i7 11700F without power limits in BIOS, it consumes 198 watts during Cinebench testing.

gamb1no

03-09-2016, 03:31 AM #11

On your i7 11700F without power limits in BIOS, it consumes 198 watts during Cinebench testing.

NaomiGames_MC
Junior Member

03-09-2016, 05:27 AM

#12

When examining the stack, there are 228w PL2 across the entire range from i5(k) to i9(k). It seems premature to conclude based on leaks alone.

NaomiGames_MC

03-09-2016, 05:27 AM #12

When examining the stack, there are 228w PL2 across the entire range from i5(k) to i9(k). It seems premature to conclude based on leaks alone.

ethan2901
Junior Member

03-09-2016, 05:44 AM

#13

We're attempting to mislead Intel, as they're expected to consume a lot of power.

ethan2901

03-09-2016, 05:44 AM #13

We're attempting to mislead Intel, as they're expected to consume a lot of power.

Anselhero
Senior Member

582

03-10-2016, 10:19 PM

#14

Certainly, though there will be some variation. I believe 228w PL2 isn't suitable across the board. Probably just a temporary placeholder.

Anselhero

03-10-2016, 10:19 PM #14

Certainly, though there will be some variation. I believe 228w PL2 isn't suitable across the board. Probably just a temporary placeholder.

xEchoz
Member

208

03-11-2016, 05:23 AM

#15

We'll observe the outcome. My i7 is marked as a 65-watt unit. I understand the reasoning behind bypassing the limits—I fully grasp that overclocking a K SKU is always demanding in terms of power.

xEchoz

03-11-2016, 05:23 AM #15

We'll observe the outcome. My i7 is marked as a 65-watt unit. I understand the reasoning behind bypassing the limits—I fully grasp that overclocking a K SKU is always demanding in terms of power.

louie018
Posting Freak

824

03-29-2016, 04:05 PM

#16

It seems like your power draw is way higher than expected. Those numbers are definitely not efficient.

louie018

03-29-2016, 04:05 PM #16

It seems like your power draw is way higher than expected. Those numbers are definitely not efficient.

Flashice
Member

172

03-29-2016, 04:41 PM

#17

A bit of a debate about power specs—150W versus 250W while GPUs come with 460W BIOS settings.

Flashice

03-29-2016, 04:41 PM #17

A bit of a debate about power specs—150W versus 250W while GPUs come with 460W BIOS settings.

LarsMatena
Senior Member

602

04-06-2016, 04:35 PM

#18

I'm still catching up on this too, but from what I know the 8600k was around 95w (wow), 9900k is near 140w, and I’m pretty sure 10900k is better than what I remember. The 11900k was pushing 300w+ in some sources, and there were leaks suggesting a pcore boost to 300w+ with 320w GPUs (Intel even admitted it). They’re saying 450w is coming soon, and the 5600x is now at 144w. I’ve seen 5950x at 180w for me once I started increasing it.

LarsMatena

04-06-2016, 04:35 PM #18

dylosama
Member

150

04-07-2016, 02:35 PM

#19

It wasn't an all-core setup at 4700 MHz with Linpack Xtreme. I've noticed 240W from my 5900X, which usually works fine, but at 7nm it's different.

dylosama

04-07-2016, 02:35 PM #19

It wasn't an all-core setup at 4700 MHz with Linpack Xtreme. I've noticed 240W from my 5900X, which usually works fine, but at 7nm it's different.

Qandii
Member

233

04-08-2016, 03:46 AM

#20

That was just an exaggerated estimate. CPU power consumption below 300 watts is generally not realistic these days because GPUs consume a lot of energy.

Qandii

04-08-2016, 03:46 AM #20

That was just an exaggerated estimate. CPU power consumption below 300 watts is generally not realistic these days because GPUs consume a lot of energy.

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next