Similar standards that include power constraints.
Similar standards that include power constraints.
Are there any references that evaluate newer and older CPUs within the same power budget, such as 100W? I’m looking into how performance improvements might be tied to higher power consumption rather than just better design. This is especially relevant for a 9700K system where efficiency matters. The topic seems underrepresented or inconsistent in current hardware testing. Let me know if you'd like help finding reliable data sources.
Beyond energy consumption, improvements in clock speed and design play a key role. I've reviewed several articles from HuB and GN that provide metrics such as performance per watt or power usage per joule. For instance, a recent review from Gamers Nexus (timestamped) offers detailed insights: https://youtu.be/8KKE-7BzB_M?t=595. While finding exact figures for the 9700K might be challenging, using a watt meter could help replicate their benchmark calculations (essentially watts multiplied by runtime).
It depends on your needs. Skylake can handle lower power use during gaming compared to newer generations, but it doesn’t match the FPS potential of 11th-14th gen CPUs. If your GPU runs at full capacity while the CPU keeps up, skylake is a solid choice. However, if your CPU struggles (like with a 4090 at high resolutions), newer models will give you more frames per watt. When choosing within power limits, 12th-14th gen chips generally offer better performance and efficiency. Intel’s X3D outperforms both in speed and efficiency across the board.
Reviews consider each chip's TDP, it doesn't make sense to assess a 14900K at 65W. The base power per core stays relatively stable. Your 9700K runs at 100W with 8 cores, while the 13700K uses 125W but includes 8 extra cores. The AMD 7700 delivers 65W for 6 cores. Generally, gains in clock speed and IPC are noticeable, especially with overclocking, which can boost performance by about 5% on Intel processors—though this isn't fully comparable.
That's not the way it functions. Fabrication nodes are continuously improving in size and efficiency, while maintaining similar power consumption, which means they become faster and more effective... AM4/5 typically uses around 65 watts, for instance, and most of them replace outdated, inefficient processors with modern designs. That’s exactly what DDTS would do!
Absolutely, he’ll handle it with a GT530 and a 200W power supply.
I don’t have a specific reference for this, but the 9700K operates around 10W idle and 70W peak. Upgrading the CPU could potentially lower its power draw. Your setup of 75fps with a 6900XT suggests you’re already in a solid range—checking CPU upgrades would depend on your current model’s specs.
Explore platforms such as TechPowerUp, which often provide power usage and efficiency evaluations: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel...0k/16.html. A CPU that performs better under full load tends to be more efficient at partial loads too. I’m aware that HuB/GN sometimes lists metrics like frames per watt, though this is more common for GPUs than CPUs. Such specific benchmarks are probably rare; you’ll likely need to rely on general efficiency standards and adjust accordingly.
Observe, the issue is clearly what it is. Recent high-core chips appear to have significantly more overhead, yet under identical (lighter) conditions they *appear* to consume more power. I believe it's reasonable to conclude they typically draw more power when idle. That’s my take. The main point is that there aren’t many examples. It would be great if this was discussed more in reviews. Appreciate your assistance!
It's accurate that the "overhead" and idle/light load power on 6th to 9th generation chips is usually better than 11th to 13th and Zen 4. For the 10th generation, the situation varies. While it doesn't apply universally, looking at YouTube videos—such as comparisons of 9700K/9900K versus 13700K with CPU power details—can help illustrate these differences.