If you still think like before, just remember that usually, more cores = more power consumption, but Intel is same cores, big increase in power consumption. We call Intel power hungry because an 8 core uses almost half the power of a 96 core cpu. Not counting the small cores cuz it's supposed to be 'efficient'. it drawing more than 300 watts is just unreasonable for an 8 core.

If you want to be amazed look no further to the incredible double standard and hypocrisy of AMD fbs.It's easy why we critique Alder lake when it has only 8 cores and a bunch of garbage cores. Just have a look at the comments and read what the AMD fbs were saying. The other day there was an article about Intel’s Alderlake cpus having an increased peak current limit requirement, which is exactly the same thing (peak power requirement is peak current limit requirement for a very brief period (typically 1ms) times 12V ). But now that’s AMD there are all sorts of justifications: the number of cores, the performance, the duration of power draw, etc, etc. What I simply stated is that if this news was about Intel cpus, I can guarantee you that the AMD fbs would be posting all over calling them power hungry, fire hazard, spaceheater, nuclear power station, uncoolable, inefficient, etc, etc. PCWarrior said:In my post above, I did not take a position of whether any of these power limits are reasonable or not. If you want to be amazed look no further to the incredible double standard and hypocrisy of AMD fbs.

Your logic amazes meIn my post above, I did not take a position of whether any of these power limits are reasonable or not. Samipini said:If AMD did this with 28 cores, then we would be outraged too.

Amd zen 4 genoa