brisbane cpu for an energy conserving gamer?

The brisbane cpu boasts much less power drain, 65 vss 89 w. I'm trying to build a smaller cased gamer with minimal cooling, but am wondering if the lack of cache size will effect gaming. The review of the new core says that it is only marginal, but will games be effected more than other programs?
Basically, I would be looking towards the higher end, like a 5200+ if they have it. Also, I want to throw in a 256 mb x16 video card, 2 gig ram, a sata drive, a dvd burner, and run vista, all with the Fortron FSP 300(300 watt).

Is this possible? Is it possible with a slight overclock?(bring mem speed to full 800 mhz)
13 answers Last reply
More about brisbane energy conserving gamer
  1. Quote:
    The brisbane cpu boasts much less power drain, 65 vss 89 w. I'm trying to build a smaller cased gamer with minimal cooling, but am wondering if the lack of cache size will effect gaming. The review of the new core says that it is only marginal, but will games be effected more than other programs?
    Basically, I would be looking towards the higher end, like a 5200+ if they have it. Also, I want to throw in a 256 mb x16 video card, 2 gig ram, a sata drive, a dvd burner, and run vista, all with the Fortron FSP 300(300 watt).

    Is this possible? Is it possible with a slight overclock?(bring mem speed to full 800 mhz)



    First, yes a 5200+ will be an excellent gamer CPU. Second, everyone will suggest getting Core 2. It;s up to you. I think right now 5200+ has a better upgrade path but the choice is yours. Oh also, they haven't released above 4800+ for Brisbane. You can get the 4400+ from Newegg right now and the 4800+ is I believe at zipzoomfly.com
  2. I doubt you would notice the difference; however your biggest concern should be the video card. Unless you're at the extremes (fastest cpus or low voltage processors) the power consumption will likely be tiny compared to the difference in gpus.

    GPUS

    CPUS
  3. Quote:
    The brisbane cpu boasts much less power drain, 65 vss 89 w. I'm trying to build a smaller cased gamer with minimal cooling, but am wondering if the lack of cache size will effect gaming. The review of the new core says that it is only marginal, but will games be effected more than other programs?
    Basically, I would be looking towards the higher end, like a 5200+ if they have it. Also, I want to throw in a 256 mb x16 video card, 2 gig ram, a sata drive, a dvd burner, and run vista, all with the Fortron FSP 300(300 watt).

    Is this possible? Is it possible with a slight overclock?(bring mem speed to full 800 mhz)


    Intel ATM has a better performance-per-watt rating
  4. Quote:
    The brisbane cpu boasts much less power drain, 65 vss 89 w. I'm trying to build a smaller cased gamer with minimal cooling, but am wondering if the lack of cache size will effect gaming. The review of the new core says that it is only marginal, but will games be effected more than other programs?
    Basically, I would be looking towards the higher end, like a 5200+ if they have it. Also, I want to throw in a 256 mb x16 video card, 2 gig ram, a sata drive, a dvd burner, and run vista, all with the Fortron FSP 300(300 watt).

    Is this possible? Is it possible with a slight overclock?(bring mem speed to full 800 mhz)



    First, yes a 5200+ will be an excellent gamer CPU. Second, everyone will suggest getting Core 2. It;s up to you. I think right now 5200+ has a better upgrade path but the choice is yours. Oh also, they haven't released above 4800+ for Brisbane. You can get the 4400+ from Newegg right now and the 4800+ is I believe at zipzoomfly.com

    No body will suggest that he get the best gaming CPU as of today.... what we will suggest is that he should get a better graphics card over the CPU choice he is suggesting.

    The 4800+ (Brisbane) is available on Newegg, but I have not been able to find 5000+ (Brisbane).

    Finally, if he were really wanting to go good, a 65 Watt 3800+ would be his best choice, then upgrade when Agena comes out.... cheap CPU, somewhat overclockable, and in an AM2 form factor would give him the Agena pathway --- which will be a much better CPU overall. A 5200+ today would be wasteful with Barcelona around the corner.

    Also, did you not say that once FPS got to 100 it did not matter.... a 3800+ with some overclock will get past 100 FPS with a good graphics card, hence again a 5200+ would be a waste.

    Jack

    I'm with JJ on this one. An X2 3600+ or 3800+ OCed nicely would tide you over very well until K10 drops. 3600+ have been OCed commonly and successfully to 2.8Ghz and up. It's so cheap and you'd be replacing it anyway, so I wouldn't worry about putting a little extra voltage into it if needed even though that's the key thing that reduces CPU lifespan.
  5. Quote:

    Also, did you not say that once FPS got to 100 it did not matter.... a 3800+ with some overclock will get past 100 FPS with a good graphics card, hence again a 5200+ would be a waste.


    This is one thing I still dont quite grasp...

    If the human eye has trouble distinguishing frame rates greater than 30 FPS, why do we always look for more?

    Seems like the best thing to do would be to limit the frame rates to 30 FPS and put the CPU into idle mode and save energy while reducing fan noise.
  6. Quote:
    So when looking at canned or generic gaming benchmarks, the average FPS is usually reported, however the actual interesting number is the minimum frame rate, so choosing your rig or setup should actually guard against the worst case to get the best gaming experience, if you get 100 FPS but 1/3 of the time the minimum FPS falls below 30 FPS (where it is noticable), the gaming experience really isn't 100 FPS.

    This is the failure of BaronMatrix logic.

    Jack


    Remember "Name that Tune"? Wouldn't it be nice to see...

    "I can play 30 FPS in 20% CPU resources." :lol: :lol:
  7. One of the 65nm AM2 processors would likely be about as low power as your going to get using desktop processor right now with out underclocking, unless you take the time to track down one of the EE 35w 3800 X2's from a reputable source.
    You could use a Intel mobile processor but that could get really expensive if you want desktop performance, but you cant get any lower wattage.

    The Lost Circuits review of the 65nm AND X2's gets into the power consumption, performance per watt, and performance issues regarding the change in the cache. Also here is there data about the power consumption of the 35w 3800x2.

    For the Videocard the only ATI card I would consider for a lowish wattage gaming system is the X1900pro(64w), but over all Nvidia 7600 and 7900 series cards have the lowest power consumption. Even for there advantages I do not feel the x1600 is worth the extra power consumed over the 7600, but I do feel the X1900pro is worth the extra power consumed over the 7900gs/gt.
    A thread at Atomic MPC about videocard power consumption.

    Now on the PSU quality 300w will be enough for a minimal system, but I would use something 350w-400w to give you more flexibility. (I'm not sure I would feel comfortable running a x1900pro off a 300w.)
    I would consider the Seasonic 330-380w (They are very quiet), FSP 400w Green PSU or the Antec Earthwat's.
    But any thing else that is 80+ certified list would likely be good enough. (The Coolermaster I would not recommend, it's loud and still has cooling problems.)

    And remember just because a PSU can provide more power does not necessarily mean it uses more power, any good PSU reviews covers efficiency at different loads.

    Also a good place to get info and advice regarding lowering power consumption is Silent PC Review.
  8. The following article from Xbitlabs.com is a bit dated (August 2006), but it does compare the Core 2 Duo E6300 and three Athlon X2 64 CPUs with TDPs of 35w, 65w and 85w.

    AMD’s Response to Intel Conroe: Energy Efficient Athlon 64 X2 CPU

    It's not really a direct comparision of compariable CPUs because the article compares the X2 3800+ (35w), X2 4600+ (65w) and X2 4600+ (85w) CPUs verses the E6300. The E6300 direct competitor would be the X2 4200+/4400+. However, the article isn't about benchmarks, it's about power consumption so the article should give you a general indication of how the various Athlon TDP CPU stacks up against the E6300.

    In a nutshell, if the CPUs were simply idling, then Athlon CPUs will consume less power than the C2D E6300 CPU:

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-energy-efficient_6.html

    However, the picture changes a little bit when 3DMark06 is used to stress the CPUs. As can be seen only the Athlon 3800+ (35w) consumes less power than the E6300 by 20w. But the X2 3800+ is also a slower CPU.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-energy-efficient_7.html

    The difference between the E6300 and the X2 4600+ (65w) is 15w. Generally speaking it is not surprising that the X2 4600+ consumes more power because it is faster than the E6300. If an Athlon X2 4200+ (65w) or 4400+ (65w) were compared, then the wattage difference will be less.

    In my opinion, if you can find a 35w TDP version of the Athlon 64 X2 5000+, then it may (or may not) consume less power than a comparable Core 2 Duo CPU. However, the 65w TDP version will almost definitely consume more power than a C2D CPU.

    If power consumption is really your main concern then you need to take a look at the video card you are using as well as the power supply. In general, ATI video cards uses more power than a comparable nVidia card. The only exception at the moment is nVidia's DX10 8800GTX GPU. This card consumes more power than any single ATI Radeon GPU, then again ATI does not have a comparable DX10 vidoe card for sale at the moment.

    The following are a few power consumption articles from Xbitlabs.com:

    Faster, Quieter, Lower: Power Consumption and Noise Level of Contemporary Graphics Cards

    ATI Radeon X1950 Pro against Nvidia GeForce 7900 GS (page 6)

    Directly Unified: Nvidia GeForce 8800 Architecture Review (page 11)

    ATI Radeon X1650 XT Graphics Card Review (page 4)

    In every case, the nVidia GPUs consume less power than their direct ATI GPU competitors. For example, the Radeon X1900XTX consumes 120.7w at stock speed compared to 84.2w that the GeForce 7900GTX consumes. Of course, overclocked GPUs will consume more power than the stock speed versions.


    The power supply unit (PSU) plays the most significant role in overall power consumption. It is always a good idea to set aside a decent amount of money for a PSU from $70 - $200 depending on how much power you are looking for. The reason why the PSU is important is because it converts AC electricity to DC electricity. This conversion is not 100% efficient, there is always a power loss when converting one to another. The electricity that is lost is converted to heat.

    The peak efficiency of PSUs ranges from 65% to 85%. Low cost PSUs (read as cheap) are generally on the lower end of the scale while more expensive PSU tends to be more power efficient. My general preference is just about any PSU made by Seasonic. That includes thier own namebrand, Corsair, and the Antec NeoHE series. Seasonic PSUs tends to be very efficient, very quiet, and very reliable. They also tend to be more expensive than your average PSU.

    The Seasonic S12 Energy Plus SS series is one of the most efficient PSU you can buy. They are rated up to 88% efficient. Here's an example:

    SeaSonic S12 Energy Plus SS-550HT ATX12V / EPS12V 550W Power Supply

    So how does efficiency affect your total power consumption? Assume your gaming PC consumes 300w of power when you are playing games. 300w of power is the average powerful gaming PC with a high end CPU and a single high end GPU. PSU #1 is 70% efficient, PSU #2 is 85% efficient. The following is the amount of power the PSU will draw from the AC outlet from a simplic point of view:

    PSU #1
    300w / 70% = 428.6w

    PSU #2
    300w / 85% = 352.9w

    As can be seen above, the PSU alone can mean difference of 75w of power consumed.

    However, it is a bit more complicated than that. You want to match up the "right size" PSU to the amount of power your PC will be using. The load placed on the PSU also affects the efficinency. Assume the following characteristics for two 85% efficient PSUs, PSU #1 is 450w and PSU #2 is 1000w.

    Load %....................................Efficiency %

    1 - 30..........................................50
    31 - 45........................................60
    46 - 65........................................70
    66 - 80........................................80
    81 - 95........................................85
    96 - 100......................................80

    PSU #1 (450w)
    Load = 300w/450w = 66.67%
    Efficiency = 80%
    Power drawn from AC outlet = 300w/80% = 375w

    PSU #1 (1000w)
    Load = 300w/1000w = 30%
    Efficiency = 50%
    Power drawn from AC outlet = 300w/50% = 600w

    The above examples shows that even though both PSUs are rated up to 85% efficiency, PSU #1 (450w) will waste less power. The moral of the story, don't buy an excessively powerful PSU unless you know you will tap into that power later on.
  9. Quote:
    The brisbane cpu boasts much less power drain, 65 vss 89 w. I'm trying to build a smaller cased gamer with minimal cooling, but am wondering if the lack of cache size will effect gaming. The review of the new core says that it is only marginal, but will games be effected more than other programs?
    Basically, I would be looking towards the higher end, like a 5200+ if they have it. Also, I want to throw in a 256 mb x16 video card, 2 gig ram, a sata drive, a dvd burner, and run vista, all with the Fortron FSP 300(300 watt).

    Is this possible? Is it possible with a slight overclock?(bring mem speed to full 800 mhz)



    First, yes a 5200+ will be an excellent gamer CPU. Second, everyone will suggest getting Core 2. It;s up to you. I think right now 5200+ has a better upgrade path but the choice is yours. Oh also, they haven't released above 4800+ for Brisbane. You can get the 4400+ from Newegg right now and the 4800+ is I believe at zipzoomfly.com

    No body will suggest that he get the best gaming CPU as of today.... what we will suggest is that he should get a better graphics card over the CPU choice he is suggesting.

    The 4800+ (Brisbane) is available on Newegg, but I have not been able to find 5000+ (Brisbane).

    Finally, if he were really wanting to go good, a 65 Watt 3800+ would be his best choice, then upgrade when Agena comes out.... cheap CPU, somewhat overclockable, and in an AM2 form factor would give him the Agena pathway --- which will be a much better CPU overall. A 5200+ today would be wasteful with Barcelona around the corner.

    Also, did you not say that once FPS got to 100 it did not matter.... a 3800+ with some overclock will get past 100 FPS with a good graphics card, hence again a 5200+ would be a waste.

    Jack


    The 5400+ is less than $250. I always say buy as much as you can afford so you have a little cushion. Since I don't really get into OC,I would point someone towards the higher speed chip, especiallyif they are looking at it anyway.

    I could say get the smaller HDD, the slower DVD, the slower RAM, etc. to save money but that wasn't what he asked.
  10. Never get the slower RAM on an AMD system.
  11. wow that's a lot of information.....
    Thanks a TON guys.
    I think i'm looking at a regular Windsor 5200+ core, even though it will use a bit more wattage. I don't think i'll be overclocking it a ton, but i'm sure i'll keep it nice and cool (thinking of heatpipe cooler like i have on my socket A now) so it's passive and yet cools like crazy!

    I don't think Direct X 10 is really necessary for the games i'm playing so far, but is it needed for windows vista? If not, i'm thinking of going with a 7900GS (if i recall, that was one of the better cards on performance and energy, otherwise it was 7600...?)

    Also, a Biostar Mobo.... I didn't really see any reviews on energy consuming mobo's. I'd like Sata II and some ease with a slight OC.

    2gb ram 800 of whatever sort, TBD....probably kingston
  12. A DX10 card isn't necessary for vista, but future games will be making use of them.

    Remember to get low latency RAM, something around 4-4-4-12 DDR2 800.

    Good luck with your new build :)
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Product