This article states the following power consumption:
> The 10900K has a 125-watt TDP, for example, while AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X's is just 105-watts.
My understanding from other articles (like [1]) is however that Intel had to _massively_ increase the amount of power the CPU consumes when turboing under load:
> Not only that, despite the 125 W TDP listed on the box, Intel states that the turbo power recommendation is 250 W – the motherboard manufacturers we’ve spoken to have prepared for 320-350 W from their own testing, in order to maintain that top turbo for as long as possible.
Somehow it feels like back in the Pentium 4 days again.
> The 10900K has a 125-watt TDP, for example, while AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X's is just 105-watts.
My understanding from other articles (like [1]) is however that Intel had to _massively_ increase the amount of power the CPU consumes when turboing under load:
> Not only that, despite the 125 W TDP listed on the box, Intel states that the turbo power recommendation is 250 W – the motherboard manufacturers we’ve spoken to have prepared for 320-350 W from their own testing, in order to maintain that top turbo for as long as possible.
Somehow it feels like back in the Pentium 4 days again.
[1]: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15758/intels-10th-gen-comet-l...