Power Consumption

One of the key topics in power consumption recently has been whether Intel’s approach to power, or to how it represents its Thermal Design Power (TDP) values, is valid or not. Intel’s take on TDP is that it should represent the sustained power of the processor, which unfortunately does not take into account any of the turbo modes available to the users (or disclose how long those turbo modes should be available for). Part of this is not only confusing, but motherboard manufacturers rarely use Intel specifications for these limits anyway, as you can read in our article covering the practice here.

With the Core i9-9980XE, the typical representation of power is used: stick to the turbo tables unless the system is thermally compromised. In this case the 165W TDP value is a guide, not a limit or a suggestion – it relies on the quality of the silicon and the ability of the motherboard manufacturer to be stable, performance focused, and competitive.

Comparing the Core i9-9980XE to the Core i9-7980XE, the new processor has a higher base frequency by 400 MHz, a higher single core turbo frequency by 100 MHz, and a higher all-core turbo, but uses a newer 14++ manufacturing process and soldered thermal interface material. The peak power consumption numbers are as follows:

Power (Package), Full Load

Looking at the full chip values, the peak power consumption we observed for the Core i9-9980XE is 192W.  This is 9-10W higher than our Core i9-7980XE sample.

If we remove the ‘idle’ power numbers away to see the core-only power, then the Core i9-9980XE uses around 152W just for the cores, which should be around 8.5W per core. The 32-core Threadripper 2990WX by contrast uses around 6W per core.

If we look at the efficiency of each processor, with our power numbers taken during a POV-Ray run:

The Core i9-7980XE gets a performance per watt of 43.3 POV-Ray points per watt - the new Core i9-9980XE scores a little less at 42.7, as for the extra 5% of power, we get a 3.6% increase in performance. For competition, the only HEDT processors coming close are the other Intel HEDT parts, or the 2990WX at the top right of the diagram. Obviously, this is benchmark specific, but an interesting comparison nonetheless.

Gaming: F1 2018 Core i9-9980XE Conclusion: A Generational Upgrade
POST A COMMENT

145 Comments

View All Comments

  • Lolimaster - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link

    Till intel changes the way it builds high core count cpu's they can't compete with AMD and it will be even worse next year when AMD made an already cheaper way to produce high core count cpu's even cheaper, to sick levels. Reply
  • Gasaraki88 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link

    I'm actually more interested in the i7-9800X vs. the i9-9900K. I want to see how the overclocking is compared to the i9-9900K before I just in to X299. Reply
  • TheJian - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    I stopped reading when I saw 8k with a 1080. Most tests are just pointless, as it would be more interesting with a 1080ti at least or better 2080ti. That would give the chips more room to run when they can to separate the men from the boys so to speak.

    Vid tests with handbrake stupid too. Does anyone look at the vid after those tests? It would look like crap. Try SLOWER as a setting and lets find out how the chips fare, and bitrates of ~4500-5000 for 1080p. Something I'd actually watch on a 60in+ tv without going blind.

    Release groups for AMZN for example release 5000 bitrate L4.1, 5-9 ref frames, SLOWER. etc. Nfo files reveal stuff like this:
    cabac=1 / ref=9 / deblock=1:-3:-3 / analyse=0x3:0x133 / me=umh / subme=11 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.00 / mixed_ref=1 / me_range=32 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=2 / 8x8dct=1 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=0 / chroma_qp_offset=-2 / threads=6 / lookahead_threads=1 / sliced_threads=0 / nr=0 / decimate=0 / interlaced=0 / bluray_compat=0 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=8 / b_pyramid=2 / b_adapt=2 / b_bias=0 / direct=3 / weightb=1 / open_gop=0 / weightp=2 / keyint=250 / keyint_min=23 / scenecut=40 / intra_refresh=0 / rc=crf / mbtree=0 / crf=17.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=0 / qpmax=69 / qpstep=4 / ip_ratio=1.40 / pb_ratio=1.30 / aq=3:0.85

    More than I'd do, but the point is, SLOWER will give you far better quality (something I could actually stomach watching), without all the black blocks in dark scenes etc. Current 720p releases from nf or amzn have went to crap (700mb files for h264? ROFL). We are talking untouched direct from NF or AMZN. Meaning that is the quality you are watching as a subscriber that is, which is just one of the reasons we cancelled NF (agenda TV was the largest reason to dump them).

    If you're going to test at crap settings nobody would watch, might as well kick in quicksync with quality maxed and get better results as MOST people would do if quality wasn't an issue anyway.
    option1=value1:option2=value2:tu=1:ref=9:trellis=3 and L4.1 with encoder preset set to QUALITY.
    That's a pretty good string for decent quality with QSV. Seems to me you're choosing to turn off AVX/Quicksync so AMD looks better or something. Why would any USER turn off stuff that speeds things up unless quality (guys like me) is an issue? Same with turning off gpu in blender etc. What is the point of a test that NOBODY would do in real life? Who turns off AVX512 in handbrake if you bought a chip to get it? LOL. That tech is a feature you BUY intel for. IF you turn off all the good stuff, the chip becomes a ripoff. But users don't do that :) Same for NV, if you have the ability to use RTX stuff, why would you NOT when a game supports it? To make AMD cards look better? Pffft. To wait for AMD to catch up? Pffft.

    I say this as an AMD stock holder :) Most useless review I've seen in a while. Not wasting my time reading much of it. Moving on to better reviews that actually test how we PLAY/WATCH/WORK in the real world. 8K...ROFLMAO. Ryan has been claiming 1440p was norm since 660ti. Then it was 4k not long after for the last 5yrs when nobody was using that, now it's 8k tests with a GTX 1080...ROFLMAO. No wonder I come here once a month or less pretty much and when I do, I'm usually turned off by the tests. Constantly changing what people do (REAL TESTS) to turning stuff off, down, (vid cards at ref speeds instead of OC OOTB settings etc), etc etc...Let's see if we can set up this test in a way nobody would do at home to strike down advantages of anyone competing with AMD. Blah. I'd rather see where both sides REALLY win in ways we USE these products. Turn everything on if it's in the chip, gpu, test, etc and spend MORE time testing resolutions etc we actually USE in practice. 8k...hahaha. Whatever. 13fps?

    "Ashes has dropdown options for MSAA, Light Quality, Object Quality, Shading Samples, Shadow Quality, Textures, and separate options for the terrain."
    Yeah, I'm out. Dropdown quality is against my religion and useless to me. I'm sure the other tests have issues I'd hate also, no time to waste on junk review tests. Too many other places that don't do this crap. I bought a 1070ti to run MAX settings at 1200p (dell 24in) in everything or throw it to my lower res 22in. If I can't do that, I'll wait for my next card to play game X. Not knocking AMD here, just Anandtech. I'll likely buy a 7nm AMD cpu when they hit, and they have a shot at a 7nm gpu for me too. You guys and tomshardware (heh, you joined) have really went downhill with irrational testing setups. If you're going to do 4k at ultra, why not do them all there? I digress...
    Reply
  • spikespiegal - Saturday, November 24, 2018 - link

    Just curious, but how many of you AMD fanbois have ever been in a data center or been responsible for adjusting performance on a couple dozen VMware hosts running mixed applications? Oh wait...none. In the mythical world according to AMDs BS dept a Hypervisor / Operating system takes the number of tasks running and divides them by the number of cores running, and you clowns believe it. In the *real world* where we have to deal with really expensive hosts that don't have LED fans in them and run applications adults use we know that's not the truth. Hypervisors and Operating systems schedulers all favor cores that process mixed threads faster, and if you want to argue that please consult with a VMware or Hyper-V engineer the next time you see them in your drive thru. Oh wait...I am a VMware engineer.
    An i3 8530 costs $200 and literally beats any AMD chip made running stock in dual threaded applications. Seriously....look up the single threaded performance. More cores don't make an application more multithreaded and they don't make contribute to a better desktop experience. I have servers with 30-40% of my CPU resources not being used, and just assigning more cores won't make applications faster. It just ties up my scheduler doing nothing and wastes performance. The only way to get better application efficiency is vertical, and that's higher core performance, and that's nothing I'm seeing AMD bringing to the table.
    Reply
  • Michael011 - Wednesday, December 12, 2018 - link

    The pricing shows just how greedy Intel has become. It is better to spend your money on a top end AMD Threadripper and motherboard. https://mobdro.io/ Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now