Originally Posted by Waltibaba
That is a massively clickbaity and really badly written article. I was expecting more from NBC...
Intel's TDP != AMD TDP.
Intel's is long-term sustained maximum heat generation at base clock, while AMD's is absolute peak load power consumption.
The Intel CPU turboing to 3.88GHz on a single core will be drawing far over 15W. AFAIK it allows around double TDP by default on single core peak turbo for a very short while (just enough for the duration of the geekbench single core benchmark).
The 3900X will be using 105W maximum on all core full load, though with only 1 core loaded will realistically be in the 40-50W range. It can, however, sustain that load over more than a few seconds or minutes.
Even given enough cooling, Intel's CPU wouldn't come anywhere near the 3900X in single core performance running any load for more than 5 minutes. Once the peak turbo timer runs out, it will return to stable turbo or even lower, close to stock, which is likely around 2 Ghz.
I really dislike these super short benchmarks, they don't say anything about actual performance. Who's gonna play a game for only 5 minutes?
I really couldn't get along with any of the dual core ULV Intel's even for normal (non-productivity) use, they are just too freaking slow. While these quad cores have made it a little better, their sustained performance vs battery consumption (note: I didn't say TDP) is not good enough compared to an old Sandy, Ivy or Haswell 35-45W socketed quad core to warrant upgrading.
My thoughts exactly. Yeah the potential for super high performance in bursts is excellent, but when it's literally limited to something like... 30 seconds for these super low TDP parts, that's falling flat on its face for when it really has to sit there, chugging away. AMD doesn't have this problem.
"Now, before drawing any conclusions, we'd also like to point out that this score is the highest we've seen for the Ice Lake 1065G7 so far. In a previous leak, we've seen the same CPU score somewhat lower (5234) in a Dell XPS 13 7390 although, there could be many factors for the same including pre-production units, unoptimized software, etc.
I'm sorry what though? Unoptimized software? Excuse you? It's freakin' INTEL. They've been the only serious choice for gamers and other CPU users in laptops and desktops since until two years ago! You mean to tell me that this new processor scores substantially lower in a LAPTOP, the environment in which the performance actually matters, because software may be unoptimized? Or is it because they can't mount a desktop cooler on it and keep this chip unrealistically cool under load with unlimited power and TDP restrictions lifted as well?
Lord, look a the 8750H for example. How many laptops are there with varying performance numbers in subsequent Cinebench runs? Initial runs are spot on, but after like... 10+ runs, unless the laptop has top-tier cooling, the scores are anywhere from 10-15% lesser than the first runs, generally. It's kinda funny. The 45w TDP thing needs to stop being used in the spectrum of "technically it's 45w TDP because..." and go back to "It's 45W TDP."