Posted by secure 6 days ago
> I get the general impression that the AMD CPU has higher power consumption in all regards: the baseline is higher, the spikes are higher (peak consumption) and it spikes more often / for longer.
> Looking at my energy meter statistics, I usually ended up at about 9.x kWh per day for a two-person household, cooking with induction.
> After switching my PC from Intel to AMD, I end up at 10-11 kWh per day.
It's been the bane of desktop AMD CPUs since Zen 1. Hopefully AMD will address this in Zen 6 but I don't have too much hope.
Zen APUs have no such issue.
My 7840HS idles at 3W when plugged in and around 0.5W when running on battery power.
The IOD (die) is extremely inefficient for all desktop Zen CPUs as it never truly idles.
To make matters worse, the x570 chipset basically runs this I/O die upside down as a chipset and sucks twice as much power at idle as the x470 chipset it replaced. I expected them to replace this hack of a product used for the high end when Asmedia's efforts were delayed but all that platform got was B550. It was pretty clear they weren't chasing this part of the market during AM4's heydey, no real idea where they are at now with chipsets on AM5. But given few people talked about how crappy that chipset was in this respect I guess they might be right it wasn't important to most people.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/1brs42g/amd_please_tac...
I don't bloody care that AMD CPUs seem to be more power efficient than Intel's. For most people their CPUs are completely idle most of the time and Zen CPUs on average idle at 25W or MORE.
Many Zen 4 and Zen 5 owners report that their desktop CPUs idle at 40W or more even without the 3D cache.
I have reasons to believe you're making this up.
Not a single user has seen such low idle power consumption for desktop Zen AMD CPUs.
I mention that since you seem to be on Windows, which itself has a hard time to just shut up, but that is also easily paired with bad drivers, stupid software and bad peripherals.
I happen to be on Fedora Linux 42 and Windows 11 but my primary OS has been Linux for almost 30 years now.
Idle power consumption under Windows and Linux is exactly the same. Linux doesn't have any magical tricks to make it lower.
Windows has more services running in background but they don't meaningfully affect idle power consumption at all.
The entire Reddit topic confirms my statement, multiple over hundreds of reviews confirm what I said, yet it's
> paired with bad drivers, stupid software and bad peripherals.
It's kinda hard to be an AMD fan when you live in an alternative reality, huh?
> It's kinda hard to be an AMD fan when you live in an alternative reality, huh?
Guess someone doesn't want to be embarrassed.
Pass -fuse=mold when building.
A big surprise for me, having owned both a Ryzen gen 1 & 3 previously, was that this time my system posted without me needing to flash my BIOS or play around with various RAM configurations. Felt like magic.
An ideal ambient (room) temperature for running a computer is 15-25 celcius (60-77 Fahrenheit)
Source: https://www.techtarget.com/searchdatacenter/definition/ambie...
using to much airconditioning is also not comfortable. i used to live in singapore. we used to joke that singapore has two seasons: indoors and outdoors. because the airconditioning is powered so high that you had to bring jacket to wear inside. i'd frequently freeze after entering a building. i don't know why they do it, because it doesn't make sense. when i did turn on airconditioning at home i'd go barely below 30. just a few degrees cooler than the outside so it feels more comfortable without making the transition to hard.
Seattle was like this a couple of decades ago when I moved there. People sneered at me when I talked about having air conditioning installed at my house. Having moved from a warmer part of the country, I ignored their smug comments and did it anyway. The next few years I basked in the comfort of my climate-controlled home while my coworkers complained about not being able to sleep due to the heat.
It is actually 2.9999, precisely.
coretemp-isa-0000
Adapter: ISA adapter
Package id 0: +40.0°C (high = +80.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
Core 0: +38.0°C (high = +80.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
Core 1: +39.0°C (high = +80.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
Maybe today's CPUs would not be able to handle it, I am not sure. One would expect these things to only improve, but seems like this is not the case.
Edit: I misread it, oops! Disregard this comment.