Had a bit of spare cash (rare these days) so looked into buying a better 12th gen processor.
I bought a 12400F but found it doesnt have graphics onboard.
So decided to go for 12000 series but with graphics and something a little faster.
The 12600k works at 4.9GHz and takes about 125 watts max.
I also looked at 12900k 5.2GHz but that takes up to 250 watts max !
So for 300MHz more it needs twice the power !
So went for the 12600k.
Seems to do the job well for what I need it for, mostly PCBCAD work and software development.
The 12900K is also about twice the price of a 12600k for not a big difference in performance.
I bought a 12400F but found it doesnt have graphics onboard.
So decided to go for 12000 series but with graphics and something a little faster.
The 12600k works at 4.9GHz and takes about 125 watts max.
I also looked at 12900k 5.2GHz but that takes up to 250 watts max !
So for 300MHz more it needs twice the power !
So went for the 12600k.
Seems to do the job well for what I need it for, mostly PCBCAD work and software development.
The 12900K is also about twice the price of a 12600k for not a big difference in performance.
if you were running prime 95, overclocked, yeah, sure, you'd pull that during that time (probably more like 225, look for some reviews that measure this)
on average for most tasks, i'm sure you're most likely be floating around sub 100. heck even sub 50, with some peaks here and there as your workload needs it. gaming would probably push you into the 100s depending on the game and GPU used
its not like it just is pulling 250 at all times...
Same goes for top end graphics cards which can pull hundreds of watts.
If your not gaming they don't take much.
I just use graphics on CPU and that pulls about 15 watts.
My pc is on most of the daytime so a few hundred watts cost builds up over time.
I spotted a pc power supply for sale which is 1200 watts !
If your not gaming they don't take much.
I just use graphics on CPU and that pulls about 15 watts.
My pc is on most of the daytime so a few hundred watts cost builds up over time.
I spotted a pc power supply for sale which is 1200 watts !
Perhaps that's why Apple has kicked Intel out of the sockets and is now using ARM-based CPUs even in their desktops and laptops. The Mac Pro being the exception ... for now.
Tom
Tom
My older computer runs W10, Intel core2-6600 2.4Ghz processor, and the graphics is through an older gaming Radeon X1950 PRO card.
Power supply is an Enermax 650W.
Nothing wrong here.
Power supply is an Enermax 650W.
Nothing wrong here.
True, but if it does not get the power WHEN it wants it, the PC crashes.
My desktop is a G3220(!) with TDP 53 W. It is rated 3GHz but it idles 0.8Ghz. There sure is no 53+ Watts coming out of it just surfing forums. It's maybe 20W coming out the box, and a third of that may be idle loss in the "250W" power pack and several fans. The CPU is running 35C in a 24C room and it is not a giant heatsink so can't be much core power.
I have better monitoring on my ultrabook. When I am just sitting there blank-eyed the power consumption goes WAY down. This is a faster CPU than the desktop yet power drain falls below 10W if I dim the display and let it sit. The laptop battery is like a sheet of cardboard (lithium slab wrapped in plastic), and that would not run as long as it does if it used real power.
Same technology in desktops even if the max peak is higher.
That's because modern FAST stuff uses electricity. They also make 1500W PSUs...
The RTX-4090 coming soon from Nvidia is confirmed to draw more than 600 Watts.
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/8572...tx-4090-600w-power-usage-confirmed/index.html
And because a 327 engine is not big enough if someone can sell you a 427 or 454 or a 500 engine. Even if a 97CID would be plenty for your beer-runs.
Like all those Phase Linear 400s driving Klipsches in small apartments. You can work these things at 1% of what they "can" do.
And because most PSU makers "round-up", or downright lie, or quote a number they won't hold for a whole minute. (See US FTC power 'ratings'.)
And because most users do not have the least clue. Will my 45W lamp burn brighter if I upgrade to a 200 Amp fusebox? Makes sense to some.
OpenHardwareMonitor is FOSS and reports CPU Watts.
My "53W" CPU actually sucks 4W to 18W when I am not abusing it.
Yes, I remember SETI@Home and the smell of cooked fans in the morning. Finally had to stop running that thing.
My "53W" CPU actually sucks 4W to 18W when I am not abusing it.
Yes, I remember SETI@Home and the smell of cooked fans in the morning. Finally had to stop running that thing.
That's what a governor is for... Limit the clocks and save power...
Put a lawnmower carb on a Ford V8 and get ~6L/100km 🙂
https://www.motor1.com/news/595204/ford-maverick-v8-lawn-mower-carburetor-power-tour/
I remember first pc's with CPU in DIP package with no heat sink !
My first pc was an 8088 (8 bit 8086) processor running at 10MHz. 256K RAM, 2 floppy drives and no hard drive.
Monitor was amber.
My first pc was an 8088 (8 bit 8086) processor running at 10MHz. 256K RAM, 2 floppy drives and no hard drive.
Monitor was amber.
Simulations on PSpice these days take 30-40 sec. Back then it would have been HOURS with the ever-present danger of crashing mid-simulation. No nostalgia here...
The 12600K is a 10 core chip with 6 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores. The 12900K is a 16 core chip with 8 performance cores and 8 efficiency cores. There are more processor cores available on the 12900K chips and they need to be fed. Depending on the use case the 12900K chip may offer no improvement at all over the12600K when causally surfing the web, or a whole bunch of improvement on a multi threaded application like a DAW or video editing workstation.
Consider an automobile with one of those fancy engines that can disable some cylinders when they are not needed. An engine that can run on 2, 3 or 4 cylinders will consume less fuel than an engine that can run on 2, 4 or 6 cylinders when performing identical tasks with 4 cylinders running simply because there are less parasitic frictional losses. The support circuitry for those extra cores eat power even if the cores are idle.
Just like that car engine run all 16 cores at max speed and the chip will get hot. It's support circuitry will detect this and pull back the throttle. Hook a heavy trailer to the hitch of my Honda element, mash the go pedal to the floor up a two mile grade and the tach will settle in at 5000 RPM in third gear for about a minute, then the "brain" starts pulling back the power. 250 watts will heat up a chip quick even with water cooling.
I have fun tweaking my x86 home desktop computer to reach the absolute minimum power consumption, while being still useful and responsive. My power supply is a 12V 2.5A power brick; the CPU draws about 2W on normal tasks, and it is passively cooled. The OS is Windows, higly tweaked and streamlined to fit in the power envelope. My 27-inch monitor draws more power than the computer itself when it runs at 100% CPU. Nowadays, a low power desktop computer is very easy to build: just load a Linux distribution with lightweight desktop on a ARM-based single board computer. But it is a challenge to get a low power, passively cooled x86 board with Windows to perform in a stable way at reasonable speed with modern hardware and software.
Back to the original post, I've measured good workstation performances on core i7-12700k. Single-threaded applications such as CAD are benefitting from the large cache memory. When multi-threaded loads such as simulations are performed, a massive and tall heatsink is needed to avoid a pretty quick performance crash due to thermal throttling. This CPU is basically the fastest desktop one that can still be air cooled. A slight core undervoltage does help to reduce the power dissipation and enables the use of a standard cooler that does fits inside a non-gaming computer case. By the way, it is also possible to fit current jumbo-sized CPU coolers inside many whitebox tower cases from early 2000: the Pentium-D CPU had the same overheating issues. I have actually done so with a Chenbro tower workstation case from about 2001. It already had 120mm rear fan mounts and the extra depth required for today's KW gaming power supplies and triple fan graphics cards. It is funny because it looks like a clumsy worthless old PC, but it does have top notch performances. It was a special build for an application that carried some risk of being stolen.
Some of the latest big CPU coolers are built in a very nice way because gaming PC cases have transparent sides; and they have silent fans too. A perfect part for some class-A amplifier designs, I guess.
Back to the original post, I've measured good workstation performances on core i7-12700k. Single-threaded applications such as CAD are benefitting from the large cache memory. When multi-threaded loads such as simulations are performed, a massive and tall heatsink is needed to avoid a pretty quick performance crash due to thermal throttling. This CPU is basically the fastest desktop one that can still be air cooled. A slight core undervoltage does help to reduce the power dissipation and enables the use of a standard cooler that does fits inside a non-gaming computer case. By the way, it is also possible to fit current jumbo-sized CPU coolers inside many whitebox tower cases from early 2000: the Pentium-D CPU had the same overheating issues. I have actually done so with a Chenbro tower workstation case from about 2001. It already had 120mm rear fan mounts and the extra depth required for today's KW gaming power supplies and triple fan graphics cards. It is funny because it looks like a clumsy worthless old PC, but it does have top notch performances. It was a special build for an application that carried some risk of being stolen.
Some of the latest big CPU coolers are built in a very nice way because gaming PC cases have transparent sides; and they have silent fans too. A perfect part for some class-A amplifier designs, I guess.
Yes. I remember a multi-step manual process (a lot like job-control on a mainframe), wrapping it in a BAT file, with a BEEP at the end, then leaving the room. (After a pause to be sure it didn't barf on the first bite.) On a 4.77mHz 8088, without 8087 (the edu version did not demand a 8087; the pro version did.)
Imagine buying a chip with so many performance cores, so many efficiency cores - and end up really using 1 efficiency core 98% of the time. Intel clearly selling Bugatti Veyrons when Honda Civics would do nicely for "going back and forth to work".
Who among us even know what apps were written with the intelligence to slice and dice themselves across multiple processors and then put themselves back together when finished? So much easier to write a single thread. Percentage of single thread apps versus those that can truly multi? I have no idea, among the ususal suspects.
Intel's marketing is genius and keeps most believing we need more, More MORE; hopefully every year! They're obviously successful at it and good for them. They assume everyone who uses a PC games and market as if that's true.
Who among us even know what apps were written with the intelligence to slice and dice themselves across multiple processors and then put themselves back together when finished? So much easier to write a single thread. Percentage of single thread apps versus those that can truly multi? I have no idea, among the ususal suspects.
Intel's marketing is genius and keeps most believing we need more, More MORE; hopefully every year! They're obviously successful at it and good for them. They assume everyone who uses a PC games and market as if that's true.
If you want a low powered slow POS buy a Pentium or Celeron, not an HEDT.
FWIW, my laptop is an i3-3217U slow POS - my phone is three times the speed.
My desktop can compile Audacity in 90 seconds though, and it takes 5 seconds to export a 10 minute FLAC in 24/96.
My Pentium 120 from the 90's took 45 minutes to encode one 5 minute MP3. I don't miss that.
FWIW, my laptop is an i3-3217U slow POS - my phone is three times the speed.
My desktop can compile Audacity in 90 seconds though, and it takes 5 seconds to export a 10 minute FLAC in 24/96.
My Pentium 120 from the 90's took 45 minutes to encode one 5 minute MP3. I don't miss that.