How power hungry was netburst clock for clock?

You can probably find the data you're looking for on AMD and Inte'ls websites. When all else fails, Wikipedia is a very strong source of data. You might have to do some calculations yourself.

What is your definition of clock for clock?

AMD wasn't too far behind Intel in power consumption on some models. AMD processors of course run at lower speeds while Intel's netburst processors topped out around 4ghz.

Good luck and post your findings.

Intersting question. The thing is tnat it changed alll the time with the processor revision...

Im pretty sure my Northwood is comparable to a AMD.

I dont have any in formation but mayeb you can do this kind of math. Find a web site that gives a measured power Draw under full load for a given CPU, take that Draw and divide it by speed of the cpu in Mhz, then you'll have a What/mhz that you can compare.

If Iterations reads this he might have a better way to do it since he seams expert with Conroe charts

Um right! did'nt think but I guess you still include Chipset and all that stuff inside the measurement, just make its harder to find 2 computer equiped witht he Same Hd's etc.

Still his question was clock for clock.

So 100w greater would mean the intel take 1/3 more power cvlock for clock, most likely 1/5 or something. Maybe the relation is proportional(not linear thats for sur, maybe exponential) to the number a stages in the processor pipeline?

Intersting topic, not anywhere near the time to look into it =)

Still his question was clock for clock.

So 100w greater would mean the intel take 1/3 more power cvlock for clock, most likely 1/5 or something. Maybe the relation is proportional(not linear thats for sur, maybe exponential) to the number a stages in the processor pipeline?

Intersting topic, not anywhere near the time to look into it =)


he would have to check several sites for tests at different speeds. As I said, you can't easily measure just what the CPU is using.

You can Isolate it to just Mobo and RAM (even get rid of that with using AM2). Im sure it wouldnt be that much of a varible during power draw tests.

Of course Intel's extra cache might as well.

Don't forget that AMD CPUs contain an onboard memory controller while Intel chips have the controller on the Northbridge. It may be difficult to make a fair comparison because of this unless you can isolate either controller or assume that the majority of energy used by the Northbridge comes from the memory controller.

could you please cite your reference?

Let's just say "You could have lit up Broadway,Off-Broadway, and Off-Off-Broadway with the amount of energy you wasted by not using an Opteron"

ACTUAL AMD billboard.All that education and job experience, and this is the best you can come up with? Go bore the Wall Street crowd, and leave the forums to people who actually care.

This doesn't make much sense because prescott needs to run at a higher clock in order to get the same performance. This is due to the larger pipeline. That is why AMD went away from using frequency to label processors. A 1.2GHz AMD had performance similar to a 1.5GHz Intel Northwood. This is why AMD advertised it as a 1500+, even though it was a 1.2GHz CPU. Therefore you need to compare performance/watt based off of benchmarks and power at the wall. This is the best way to compare performance, especially with conroe.

This doesn't make much sense because prescott needs to run at a higher clock in order to get the same performance. This is due to the larger pipeline. That is why AMD went away from using frequency to label processors. A 1.2GHz AMD had performance similar to a 1.5GHz Intel Northwood. This is why AMD advertised it as a 1500+, even though it was a 1.2GHz CPU. Therefore you need to compare performance/watt based off of benchmarks and power at the wall. This is the best way to compare performance, especially with conroe.

No, he is simply looking for an answer to the question -- if you pit the processors clock tick for clock tick, which consumes more energy?

I am assuming he wishes to compare things like CPU leakage, power draw, etc. under the same conditions physically and not by trying to match up performance.

You are quite correct, the long pipeline requires extra power and is less efficient IPC (instructions per second wise), thus the need to ramp high clocks to achieve similar computational performance.

We can estimate it though without going into great detail. The formulation for dynamic power in a processor can be calculated by:

Power = C * V* V * F (C is cumulative capacitance at the gate level, V is drive voltage, and F is frequency).

Thus if you were to scale a 3.6 GHz P4 with a dissipation of 105 watts from 3.6 to say FX-62 speed which is 2.8, then the power should scale roughly about 2.8/3.6 or 0.77 which would put power at 81.7 Watts. Lower than an FX-62 of 125 watts, and even lower than a 4800+ at 89 watts.

This rather simple and straight forward analysis, though, is not entirely correct --- it is back of the envelop pure and simple. Don't take it as absolute, the analysis will require much further digging and explanation.

Jack

While i understand what he is going after, i am just saying that this analysis has little purpose since the cores are so different. Comparing frequency/power accomplishes little because every part of the pipeline is smaller on a P4 CPU. With a transistor of a constant speed will consume X amount of power. If a logic device is Y transistors deep, then it will consume XY Watts/clock. If a different logic device is twice as deep, it will consume 2XY Watts/clock, but will run at 1/2 of the speed but do approximately the same amount of work. (based off of simple logic, not actual power equations).

what are you looking for my friend is called TDP .....just look on intel site ..and select your netburst processor

whatever....just look for more details at intel or amd site.....

agree..but to proove this will require more than computer addict..will require heavy technical background experience ....
many folks arround here seem to forget that behind fancy names and terms hide many many many .... many years of experience

good luck

I apologize; I thought you had forgotten about me! Your time and effort are greatly appreciated.