Ryzen vs i7 (Mainstream); Threadripper vs i9 (HEDT); X299 vs X399/TRX40; Xeon vs Epyc

You tagged on the Vega thing is why I put that. I get the price/performance metric and I get why to get AMD now (performance now, 7nm soon). That is where it came from (this coming from me who plans on getting 8 vega 64 for mining in a couple days)....

 

It wasn't so much an advertisement as me remembering it myself, don't spend all my $ on a new CPU without budgeting for a Vega too

 

I ordered my Biostar MB that supports up to 12 cards, so I'll be good. Then, after the first month, putting them all under water.

Edit: at current price of crypto plus the 70MH/s rate, that is almost $1K per month at my current energy costs. So, next year, all gravy and pay my simple bills.

 

Make sure you spread it across a few "secure" wallets rather than all in one basket, too many people losing their coinage lately and it's likely to get worse before it gets better.

Good luck with that all, 12 GPU's is a big investment!!

Let us know how the hashing really goes, it might even exceed 100+

 

I will if they end up being the winner of the performance crown. I do get what you are saying though and the idea has some merit. I'm just not going to spend money to make a statement unless they do come out on top, and then I will do so without hesitation. And, you know me well enough already... day-to-day performance is not what floats my boat. If I cannot win at overclocked benching, then I'm not interested in it and it offers no value to me. If the concept of fantastic day-to-day performance for substantially less money was what mattered most to me I would be all over your suggestion about making my sentiments count by purchasing AMD. So, I am agreeing with your idea other than the fact it doesn't work for me. Without the passion for overclocked benching being my driving force, then I'm fine with using a $150 dual core Chromebook running integrated graphics. There's not much in the middle for me.

 

I plan on an offline ledger. It's like a smart encrypted thumb drive. Much safer. Transfer per day or a couple times per day to it and you are ok. Ledger nano s (look it up).

I'll start with 8. That is $4K, hence waiting on TR. $5k after psu, mb, etc.

I'll definitely let you know. Also, I'll see how the cards work with my 6700K before putting them to work! ;-)

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Edit: this is based on ether, dash, zcash to recover ROI, then have enough block chains for 1yr+ service, while trading the currencies like in the market to maximize return. I've been reading tax treatment documents for fun lately...

 

Glad to see the Ryzen chips doing as well as they are. While they may not be the new king, the price to performance factor should certainly have Intel considering some changes in all aspects of the market. As you can see by my signature I don't update very often. My last upgrade kind of screwed me as far as longevity goes. Intel quickly abandoned the LGA 1366 socket except for their server chips. So for my next upgrade with AMD promising to support AM4 at least until 2020 I know where my money will go. If AMD can bring a competitive GPU to market with Vega and keep the prices down I'll even consider snagging one of those too.
I'm no fan of AMD (at least not since the days of using a pencil to enable overclocking, for those old enough to remember), and I'm no fan of Intel. I'm a fan of getting the best usage for the money spent, and right now it looks like that's AMD. So congrats to them for finally bringing some competition to the market. It's been long overdue.

 

From another thread: http://www.ariesys.com.tw/workstation/ARP690-P.htm

You could probably make something like this work.

 

I shared something similar to that with a better display to my friend who does video editing for a car show on TV. Awhile back, he asked about powerful laptops and I pointed him to Clevo for when on site. He has a water cooled, multi-GPU rig at home, but after I saw this, I had to share. Now, if only it had TR or X299, although with TR and the extra lanes, you could do that and a Red graphics accelerator and do a lot of your work on site on the fly.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

I'm sure it could be modified. There are ATX and E-ATX boards for TR.

 

TR doesn't overclock well. The manufacturing process AMD is using hits the wall at about 4 GHz, same as the other Ryzen chips. 4 GHz for Ryzen is like 5 GHz for Kaby Lake in terms of ceiling. AMD has extracted majority of the performance potential at stock, realistically you can bump it up a few hundred MHz at most for 50% more power draw and destroying Ryzen's awesome perf/W efficiency (which I know you don't care about but it's worth noting).

 

Yeah, it could probably work. But, that is just so... so... ugly. I'd imagine something more like a thicker P870 that still has some style to it. But, that's all pie in the sky anyway at this point. I could have a change of heart again, like last time, but I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be doing the laptop thing any more. I will definitely keep my P870 and 16L13 until they are too tired and worn out to be useful, but I don't intend (at this point) to spend more money on laptops. It's just too restrictive and too expensive, and way too much gimping crap going on with firmware, sloppy cooling, etc. I'd rather put the next $4K on some wicked desktop stuff. Probably won't spend any more money buying anything for at least another year though. The only way I would do it now is by selling both laptops and using the money from that to buy desktop parts.

 

The all core boost clock is 3.6. The average overclock seen so far is 4.0-4.1, with one reviewer mentioning a bios that will lower voltage amount to reach a set clock, meaning you can run it higher with less voltage shortly. By my calculation, that is about a 10-15% overclock (4.2 achievable by custom loop according to EK). That is alright clocks.

Intel, you get about 15%-25% over the all core boost. All that means is they left performance on the table to make you feel better. There are multiple factors to determine final performance. I could give a **** about speed if the numbers are there. Faster isn't always better, or I'd ask where your FX chip from AMD is at. Also, did you see the power draw from the 7900X? You can pull 400W on that 10 core if completely opening it up, whereas the system wattage was 400 and the chip wattage was 285W on the TR. Do you even know numbers? Try reading and understanding before speaking. At 285W when overclocked, it outperforms Intel's 10 core pulling [email protected]. So, let's back up and try that again, shall we? Also, learn to read the numbers over the slant, like the bias at PCPer, shall we...

Those are primarily sold for on-site video production rather than laptops. But I definitely hear you.

 

You sound triggered.

This is the max OC these reviews reported for the 1950X w/o going to extreme voltage and/or exotic cooling, or having a golden sample:

TweakTown - 4 GHz
TechSpot - 4 GHz (358W system draw, 101W increase over stock, 30W < 7900X @ 4.5 GHz)
Guru3D - 4 GHz (382W system draw, 121W increase over stock)
Ars Technica - 3.9 GHz (552W system draw, 101W increase over stock, 45W > 7900X @ 4.6 GHz)
PC Gamer - 3.9 GHz (intermittent crashing, >400W system draw, >50% increase over stock, >90C temps, 3.8 GHz @ 1.25V fully stable)
KitGuru - 3.95 GHz (522W system draw, 190W increase over stock, 123W > 7900X @ 4.6 GHz)
Gamers Nexus - 4 GHz (283W CPU-only draw, 132W increase over stock, 55W > 7900X @ 4.5 GHz)

I think I see a trend...

 

Thanks for collecting the data, that's great, and up from the 3.8ghz typical for Ryzen, excellent

As BIOS updates come out, a lower voltage one I've heard is on the way, faster memory support and better cooling plates - the current adapters don't have good coverage (See Gamers Nexus video), things should pick up and solidify 4.0ghz, with 4.1ghz/4.2ghz possible with more voltage and/or better cooling.

There's no need for a rocket launch with every PC, stable solid performance outperforming x299 / i9 @ lower power draws by 100w+ at 1/2 the price is enough

 

As soon as EK releases their new TR CPU block, I'll be golden. I am also building an i9 rig but that's going to replace my current home workstation while I challenge myself with TR. I see it this way. With i9 7940X, I am NOT going to delid it and void the warranty on a $1400 CPU. Unfortunately, that is going to be the only way to extract the best performance out of it...unless Intel does change their mind and uses solder.

The TR build, on the other hand, is going to be my playground. Extracting the highest level of performance out this platform is going to be tough but will be the most rewarding, at least in my eyes. Everything is going to be a contributing factor to maximize TR's performance. I haven't been this excited in years about the potential of a new platform.

After the smoke clears, the i9 will still be the "overall" performance king but that toothpaste on the die kills it for me.

 

I think I see a trend, too. Maybe not the same one. The people at Ars Technica, PC Gamer and KitGuru either don't know what they're doing or they drew the shortest straws for TR in the silicon lottery and got defective samples. They should ask for replacements and start over with their testing or learn how to overclock properly. Not sure which.

Very sad results from all of them. Also, if it is not primarily user ignorance, 50% is not a good ratio of winners versus losers in the lottery.

I would do some testing just to be certain my 7940X was a good overclocking sample first, then I would go ahead and delid it. I wouldn't worry too much about the warranty on the one part of the entire system that is the least likely to fail. While it does happen once in a great while, Intel CPUs rarely ever die. If I couldn't delid the thing, then there would be absolute no point in owning it. I'd go nuts knowing it was not soldered and I was not doing the best I can do.

It might actually be a blessing that Intel has not soldered the IHS. One might get better temps after delid with Conductonaut or CLU on the die than it would with factory soldered IHS. Don't let your fear about voided warranty shackle you and keep you from doing what is best for you and your beast. That is a terrible ball and chain to have to drag around and it will stifle your pleasure if you allow it to control you.

 

Here's what they other guy didn't mention: OC3D and other news agencies worked with Der8auer to find out how he got 400W pulled on the CPU when they were in the high 200 range. They found out common overclocker settings which you and I use at the start of setting up any build. This unlocked it to 400W. Those reviewers cited are reviews without those settings in bios. Here, we don't know if the changes were incorporated, although, OC3D saw over 600W system draw when unlocked like that, while the VRM stayed cool, unlike the X299 platform. So, fully unlocked, the 10 core and 16 core can draw around 400W, except Intel's server chips have seen 500-600W power draw, which means Intel's HCC chips WILL draw more than a fully unlocked TR chip (unlocked meaning proper settings in the bios to OC).

Also, I agree he picked the worst reviews, because everything I saw said the opposite. Many of those are WAY under frequency with WAY higher temps than what I saw from the reviewers I trust.

PCPer gave the exact line of 400W bs and presented it in the same way he did, of which he didn't collect the data until I said it and used very specific reviewers. The "professional" reviewers, except for a handful, don't know actually how to do what we do.

You want a good, trustworthy review, check out this from OC3D, using true OC techniques, and look at the 4.2 OC scores. He didn't get a binned sample, reviewers don't know what they are doing, didn't know the junction temp offset is 27C higher than the die temp, etc.

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews...extreme_and_ryzen_1950x_threadripper_review/1

Lots of bad info on reviews out there. Also, I've seen the spread of scores. The less I trust a site, I've noticed they have lower scores on certain benches.


Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Edit:


So it looks like a 326.8W CPU core power according to HWinfo. Not 400, whereas you should see his works and Der8auer's on the 7900X power draw.

 

Also, look back at those reviews cited. Almost all of them say they pulled less than the 7900X. They also stopped at the Tctl temp in the 80s. If you look, the Tdie in tweaktown shows in the image the difference with both Tctl and Tdie. The die temp is 27C cooler than the junction reading because they employ a 27C offset. This means they left performance on the table and only usually had the CPU, on OC, in the 50C range! Some reached out to AMD to find out about the offset, some did not. You can also see who used the updated software to read it and who did not. This response from @Carrot Top is a joke!

Guru3D - Max temp on die for OC - 55C
Tweaktown - Max temp on die for OC - 85.5C
TechSpot - Max temp on die for OC - 56.5C
Ars Technica - couldn't get 4.1 stable so went to 3.9 and set it to 1.35V max just because AMD said 1.35V? says 78C temp, but ZERO pictures to confirm and likely was at 51C on die due to the offset, with numbers that seem WAY high compared to the others
PC Gamer - only mentions above 90C (likely the offset again); used 1.375V for 3.9 (didn't know about Vdroop and likely was doing many things wrong).
Kit Guru - used Level 1 LLC (completely WRONG setting, which should be like level 3 LLC, IIRC), 1.3875V (see first part), Claims 85C, but if you check the offset, the temp was likely 58C
GamersNexus - used direct line reading - 283W under load and temps in the 60s to 70s (estimating because they gave delta over ambient)

You conflate the comparison data stated on the 7900X on purpose, without giving direct watt to watt comparison @Carrot Top , I wonder why?

 

Yes, in almost all cases the professional reviews are a joke and they do not know how to do the things that we do in most cases.

This (and budget constraints) are why I will watch and wait until all of the talking heads go away and HWBOT is filled with examples of the best Team Red and Team Blue have to offer. I will compare what guys like us do with ThreadRipper to what guys like us do with i9 Extreme and make a decision how to spend my money with eyes wide open. I stopped being an early adopter a while ago. Even when I do adopt early, it is with great fear and trepidation. That is a dangerous way to live in terms of finances. But, it's not that bad waiting either, because it is fun to watch the saga unfold. And, it makes me very happy to see some hardcore rivalry and contemptuous dialogue for a change. Seemed like those days were over. It so nice to see it coming back.

 

Yeah, it's the extreme side of customization potential while still being somewhat self-contained. Like the opposite of a Zenbook. There really is something for everyone.

And I'm in the same boat. I went desktop/tablet and I'm not really on the road enough to justify a laptop right now.

 

Intel Coffee Lake: The Next Big Step For Gaming CPUs?

 

looks like a cherry picked result to me.

one getting 4.2, the others getting 3.9 and 4.0 average, first glance can tell right away is cherry picked.

 

I noticed an article on TR vs Intel's i9 and they say that Intel has superiority in IPC and clock speeds.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/08/amd-threadripper-review-1950x-1920x/

Articles like those keep reinforcing the idea AMD lags behind Intel in overall IPC performance.
This is way too exacerbated... if compared to clock per clock... Intel manages at best 18% increase in single threaded performance over Threadripper for example because it is able to overclock a single core to 4.5 GhZ (and lo and behold, that clock rate is much higher in comparison to AMD's).

Where are the graphs comparing clock per clock ratios between AMD and Intel?
I'd like to see equalized single threaded performance on say both Threadripper 12c/24th and i9 7900x clocked at 3.8 GhZ singe core and then see how much is the difference in IPC.

If Intel's 18 core CPU's maintain a much lower base clock rate in comparison to TR (less than 3 GhZ), in multithreaded programs they will likely LAG behind AMD.

Not to mention the fact that most programs out there still aren't optimized for Ryzen and TR.

 

Strange if Intel push out 18 cores chip and let it be killed by AMD's 16 cores Ain't that stupid.

 

Especially since the AMD ThreadRipper is 1/2 the price, and twice as nice.

 

If AMD's processors could OC as Intel, it would be a bloodbath Intel would only be better with moore cores. And not all buying processors with maxed number cores. Intel's best weapon is OC'ing. Nothing more than that.

 

Lol. I do agree, but I did point out issues with those that got 3.9GHz. Since I've got the day off, I was working on collecting the reviews I could find to show, in a table, the overclock achieved, if overclocked, the wattage used for stock and overclock, and maybe later a score comparison of programs and games for the 1950X (sorry, no 1920X data, even though I know some would like it). After that, I will go through with the same sources I found, noting the author (want the same person doing the comparison as OC is an art and people will change small things without thinking about it that can vary scores significantly). I'm excluding, for the moment, the scores directly attributed to an AW build.

Then, after that is done, I'll go to the 7900X to try to find the same, noting any differences in hardware used (ram speeds and timings, graphics cards used, etc.). Give me a little time, as I found more data points, including an article with 4.1GHz, then I have to go through the videos of reviewers that don't have articles or blogs but that are widely shared to varying degrees.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Edit: so far, 4.0-4.1 seems common. At 4.15-4.2 seems toward the cherry end. Hot hardware, I believe, got 4.175 with their AW review, but was a chip sent by AMD, so may be cherry.

 

what would be an acceptable way of telling one product's advantage over another? also difference between acceptable and correct way differs from each individual and their standard. ultimately if majority of people tend to believe and not think for themselves to realize the real pros and cons, do we blame the reviewer or the people.

imo each individual should figure out their needs and has the responsibility of learning hardware they purchase to an extent and yes sometimes it is upseting to see your favoured hardware not getting the praise they should have receive. imho most people dont care enough which is why overclocking and enthuiast side of thing is dying.

 

you could certainly do that, you can bring me an article saying 7900x can only X frequency with such ram, such mobo etc. since i know better i wouldnt believe what some reviewers say as i go from my experience, for an intel cpu.

 

What I'm trying to do is get a better picture with all variance, then get a cumulative review average so that people can get an idea on performance. This isn't the be all end all of what is possible, as I'm not including exotic cooling, etc. I will mention on air, AIO CLC, or custom water. We all know how we do, so I'm not doing this as gospel, but to get an idea of the silicon and performance on both sides.

 

i just read hardocp's review they said about 3.9 is what they get without throttling due to heat. now i donno if its really heat throttling as they didnt point throttling out in details but i'll just go along with them because im lazy and i dont have TR chip to test myself.

 

So, what I'm seeing is a pattern. Hardware Canucks tried the Corsair h90, couldn't get past 3.9 because of heat. Used the TT water 360mm AIO, got 4.0 and better temps (didn't give temps on the TT, but [email protected] on the Corsair).

But we saw a similar issue with Intel needing better cooling, too, or being limited to 4.5 or 4.4 on some reviews. So you have a point there. But, one of them yesterday said they couldn't do 4.1 stable, so they did 3.9. Also, AMD has .025 increments. So stepping back 0.2 automatically invalidates the inclusion of that result. The other two were worried on voltage, but one admitted to using the LLC setting that allows for the largest Vdroop, meaning under load his voltage was way less. If he didn't compensate, this means he wasn't properly volting or knowing his limit, which invalidates that 3.9 score as not knowing what to do.

But, you are right heat seems to hit both AMD and Intel CPUs hard for HEDT, except for the redesign on VRM cooling that was used on X399, which seems to have fixed what was seen on the X299 platform.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

The problem is that some articles are glorifying Intel's IPC beyond reason. Fact remains that Intel is ahead of AMD in IPC by about 5%... maybe 10%... this is not a large amount by any stretch of the word, and is more or less there due to software being written to take full advantage of Intel's hardware (not the other way around). When games for example started optimizing for Ryzen, we saw a pretty big increase in performance coupled with BIOS updates.
Intel gets an additional boost from being able to turbo boost a SINGLE CORE to 4.5 GhZ.
This gives a very skewed picture to people when it comes to AMD's performance - and sensationalizes something beyond measure.
I would like to see a more tempered representation of both hardware's strengths and weaknesses.

 

That's at stock, but reviewers were doing that on all cores after OC.

 

I believe Gamers Nexus tested the BIOS update theory and showed little improvement. Software optimization showed the most. Where the updated BIOS did work was AGESA 1.0.0.6, but ONLY if the person knew how to customize ram timings. Some show great uplift with faster ram, others did not. This is another area of inconsistency on reviews, but is dependent on how much the reviewer played with Ryzen. So, there are so many variables, it is hard to control for ATM.

But it is worth noting that optimizations for Ryzen gave a great uplift to AMDs old CMT architectures on performance, suggesting that there is a bias in programming. But I don't want to rehash that conversation as we've had it many times. The only question is adoption of the hardware and whether the software engineers then optimize for it. But even with this, we have seen awesome scaling on SMT compared to HT.

 

What's wrong with Ryzen?

 

You are what's wrong with these Ryzen / Coffee Lake muddled results.

Let's wait for release and actual comparable comparisons, none of what you've given is comparable.

 

honestly i just think 16c at that high of a voltage will be tough regardless how power efficient it is. also in the end we cant overcome physics for first gen 14nm no matter how binned it is. once ryzen hits over a certain frequency the amount of voltage and current needed will grow exponentailly, intel is no different in that regards.

if its me i'd buy a 5ghz cpu but only run it at 4.8ghz because i dont want voltage to go over 1.3 or 1.25v dependin g on temp i'd lower it more, just so i can have a high enough frequency with excellent temp. in a way its stupid and waste of money but just my preference.

the article shows what intel is capable of in terms of frequency, it shows what ryzen is capable of too by not having too much heat and stability as a trade off. if people think intel's IPC (skylake and beyond) is 10-15% then their calculation somewhere along the line is wrong by my understanding, which by no means is 100% correct. i feel that kabylake's architecture is about 6%-7% at most faster than ryzen, the higher frequency allows snappiness in a system as well as ST workload to be much faster because intel is capable of going 4.8-5ghz dependent on the CPU chip and number of cores.

if people think 5ghz intel vs 4ghz AMD is like 30% faster in IPC then they could be wrong in one way or another.

 

[email protected] is +13400 in 3DM11 physics with crippled Windoze X. 8700K has 50% more cores. I asked what's wrong with Ryzen. Especially the R1700 aka 8 cores

 

Optimizations. 3DMark took how long to fix it on the decline in scores? Considering they didn't until everyone knew due to the video being covered by tech news companies, how long do you think it will be with no one blaming them for lack of optimization and people saying Ryzen isn't for gaming?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

You keep mixing things up, you linked the 8700 to the word Ryzen, then just now you showed the 6700k is beat by the 8700 and the R1700, even though it is running at much lower clock rate, uncomparable.

That's why I said, wait for real tests with comparable results, not snip picked smatterings of unrelated runs.

I don't want this kind of time wasting stuff, I want real comparisons.

Be patient the ThreadRipper scores and comparisons will come out, as will the RX Vega, and about 2-3 months from now the release and real production benchmarks for Coffee Lake will arrive, and we can compare them against Ryzen 2 and ThreadRipper

 

Threadripper ain't and will not be put in laptops The 6700K 3dm11 physics score is what I get. Of course oc'd but with half of R1700 cores and who is already used in laptops. Remember Asusbook? And locked firmware(no oc possible). I talk about processor who can and will be used in laptops.

 

But that's exactly the picture they seem to be getting from reviewers that say things like 'vastly superior IPC and clock speed'.
On IPC they are dead wrong... on clock speed, closer to accurate.
Plus, most of the software out there is optimized for Intel hardware (which reviewers seldom mention)... not AMD. Majority of testing is done on programs that AMD needs to brute force it's way through (or is not getting used on properly - Threadripper was seldom being stressed to capacity in mostly tested software for example in programs that didn't really optimize for Ryzen, let alone TR).
I just detest these kinds of incomplete reviews. They're cheap, focus on gaming for the most part, unoptimized software and don't take other things into account to give readers proper information,.

There was barely 1 highly comprehensive article on how Intel skewed AMD APU's for instance in terms of OEM's and damaged their influence in the market for over 10 years. That was just about the only thing I saw that came close to accurate description of what happened in a whole segment of the market.

 

For TR, that isn't exactly true. The optimizations are not there fully yet, but many reviewers, even companies I do not normally see doing so, used benches and software that is for true performance metrics to test TR. In fact, to those companies' credit, some were more exhaustive than the 7900X paces they used. But, there are lots of things in play here, and everyone roundly said TR is a beast! Just that you need to be sure you can use it. Intel muddied the waters with their controlled leaks, but we should be careful on ripping reviewers, some of which went far beyond their normal tests for this product.

 

yep people are stupid like that, reviewers are like that too send out great review to continue getting free samples. you just gotta write in comment section of their review explain to people why they are stupid and its not 30% but only 6-7%.

 

i still havent given up hope man. hoping to see a x299 laptop in either clevo or acer. chances are close to nil. then theres 8700k in clevo i want to see the HEATSINK asap, heatsink for CPU ofcourse. it'll be ashame to pass on 780w PSU from eurocom and other gud stuff, imho eurocom did great job there supporting our needs and i wanna grab something from them.. just waiting on the machine..

 

TR probably won't be in laptops with this iteration of Ryzen due to too high TDP.
Perhaps on 14nm+ (which seems less likely as this process will probably improve clock rates and efficiency to a certain degree)... more likely we could get TR at 7nm (in Ryzen 2 form) and greatly reduced TDP with slightly higher clock speeds, and improved IPC.

Of course, by Ryzen 2, we will likely see either Vega or Navi being used as an IGP in AMD APU's.
Navi would be of great benefit as it could for example connect 2 or more mobile Polaris RX 580's via infinity fabric. Though there are rumors that Navi will simply be Vega with IF (which wouldn't be bad at all depending on it's performance - it DOES have huge amount of compute hardware which needs to be geared towards gaming via developers to be fully used).
If 14nm+ alone results in an increase of efficiency and clock speeds, by the time 7nm rolls out, I wouldn't be surprised if AMD decided to make an entry level dedicated GPU with 4 infinity fabric connected Polaris GPU's that have been enhanced on an architectural level.
Of course, this depends on whether 14nm+ will affect AMD GPU's - but they also need to move away from the manuf. process that prohibits high clock speeds if they want to boost the GPU beyond architecture while maintaining or improving efficiency.

 

I can't see more than 10 cores for laptops coming in very long time. Both from Intel and Amd. 99% of laptops today's is with soldered hardware. And 45w is the golden standard as most laptops is thin and flimsy. Rather expect the TDP for processors will decrease rather than increase for laptops.

 

Since at anytime these variables are dictated to some point by the lottery, you are smart not to use some database as a set in stone guide. Now experience form in Intel, that is somewhat voided by the x299 and skylake-x platforms, unless you are saying you have that experience too?