Over the years, Intel’s client processor lineup has featured its common array of overclocking ‘K’ fashions, and extra just lately the ‘F’ sequence that come with out built-in graphics. The bulk of the lineup nevertheless are nonetheless the variations with no suffix, the ‘nones’, just like the Core i7-10700 on this evaluate. These processors sit in the midst of the street, virtually at all times having a 65 W TDP in comparison with the 91-125 W overclockable fashions, but additionally having built-in graphics, not like the F household. What makes it attention-grabbing is once we pair considered one of these 65 W components towards its 125 W overclocking counterpart, and if the additional base and turbo frequency increase is definitely well worth the cash in an period the place motherboards do not appear to care about energy?
Intel’s Core i7-10700 at 65 W: Is It Really 65 W?
The understanding of the way in which that Intel references its TDP (thermal design level) values has gone by means of a mini-revolution in the previous couple of years. We have had an almost-decade of quad-core processors at round 90 W and 65 W, and most of them would by no means reached these numbers even underneath turbo modes – for instance, the Core i5-6600Ok was rated at 91 W, however peak energy draw was solely 83 W. This has been the norm for some time, till just lately when Intel needed to begin boosting the core depend. As we’ve slowly gone up in core depend, from four to six to eight and now 10, these numbers have appeared virtually arbitrary for some time.
The cause comes right down to what TDP actually is. In the previous, we used to imagine that it was the height energy consumption of the processor was its TDP ranking – in spite of everything, a ‘thermal design point’ of a processor was virtually nugatory in the event you didn’t account for the height energy dissipation. What makes Intel’s state of affairs totally different (or complicated, relying on the way you wish to name it) is that the corporate defines its TDP within the context of a ‘base’ frequency. The TDP would be the most energy underneath a sustained workload for which the bottom frequency is the minimal frequency assure. Intel defines a sustained workload one by which the ‘turbo finances’ has expired, and the processor will obtain its greatest frequency above base frequency (however not turbo modes) .
The level about ‘not turbo’ is the important thing ingredient right here. Intel’s TDP scores are solely in impact for the bottom frequency, not the turbo frequency. If a PC is constructed with a most energy dissipation in thoughts, permitting a processor to turbo above that energy might need catastrophic penalties for the thermal efficiency of that system. The different angle is that Intel by no means quotes the turbo energy ranges (also called Power Level 2, or PL2) alongside the opposite specs, though they’re technically within the specification paperwork once they get launched.
On prime of all this, motherboard producers additionally get a say in how a processor performs. Because turbo energy is barely an elective suggestion from Intel, technically Intel will settle for any worth for the ceiling of the turbo energy, and settle for turbo underneath any circumstances if the motherboard producer desires it. Motherboard producers overengineer their motherboards to assist longer turbo instances (or overclocking), and they also will typically ignore these Intel really useful values for PL2, permitting the processor to turbo tougher for longer, and in a variety of instances of premium motherboards, indefinitely.
So why does all this matter with respect for this evaluate? Well my key comparability on this evaluate is our new processor, the Core i7-10700, up towards its overclocking counterpart, the Core i7-10700Ok. Aside from the suffix distinction, the Ok variant has a TDP virtually twice as excessive, and this manifests virtually solely within the base frequency distinction.
| Intel SKU vs SKU (an homage to Spy vs Spy) |
||
| Intel Core i7-10700Ok |
AnandTech | Intel… |
