Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Updated AMD processor pricing

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 9, 2007 8:46:03 AM

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/...

Some highlights:
1. The price cuts only cover the desktop processors.
2. x2 4200+ / x2 4600+ are now absent from the price list.
3. The prices of the processors are slightly higher than the previous versions.

I will update the processor roadmap as soon as possible.
April 9, 2007 8:52:21 AM

Wow, $73 for a 3600+ Brisbane! Snowman-PC might see the light of day after all...
April 9, 2007 5:57:07 PM

Yes, this in interesting. The x2 6000 is now a reasonable choice, and non-overclockers that like upper mid range builds can look at the 5600 and 6000 as well priced.
Related resources
April 9, 2007 8:22:34 PM

Quote:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/...

Some highlights:
1. The price cuts only cover the desktop processors.
2. x2 4200+ / x2 4600+ are now absent from the price list.
3. The prices of the processors are slightly higher than the previous versions.

I will update the processor roadmap as soon as possible.
$31 for a Sempron 3000+. Budget machines just got cheaper. Pretty wild when the processor is about 1/2 the price of a suitable mobo. :o  :wink:
April 10, 2007 3:43:35 AM

Quote:
Yes, this in interesting. The x2 6000 is now a reasonable choice, and non-overclockers that like upper mid range builds can look at the 5600 and 6000 as well priced.


The X2 5600+ is well priced (according to the competition), the X2 6000+ is not. After price cuts, the E6600 will be slightly cheaper, slightly faster and VASTLY cooler (the X2 6000+ runs hotter than a QX6800 FFS Link).

I honestly don't understand why people are so excited about the 6000+, maybe it's the 3GHz clockspeed... or the 140W TDP. You know the bigger the better. ;) 

It's funny because not too long ago AMD fans were saying how clockspeed didn't matter, and lambasted Intel for creating furnaces. ;)  :lol: 


(Source Xbitlabs)

In order of performance:

(PI = Performance Index)
E6600 PI 1.68 / Price $224
X2 6000+ PI 1.62 / Price $241
X2 5600+ PI 1.53 / Price $188
E6420 PI 1.52 / Price $183

Spot the odd one out. ;) 
April 10, 2007 4:22:39 AM

Quote:
the X2 6000 now is the sweetspot for Amd fans looking to upgrade! Ill never turn to the darkside of Intel !


Yeah, or I could get a $65 X2 3600+ and clock it to 3GHz myself. :roll:

AMD is milking the K8 for all it's worth, I'm actually happy they have suckers like you buying all their excess inventory, otherwise they'll be further in the red. At least you're a true 'fan(boy)' and buying a semi-high margin CPU, unlike so many other so called 'fans' that are buying the cheapest AMD CPUs available and denying AMD their hard earned $$$. ;) 

On behalf of AMD, thank you. 8) :lol: 
April 10, 2007 4:45:29 AM

I have an Athlon 64 3400 which runs at 2.2Ghz. I may consider upgrading as it is pretty cheap right now by the looks of it.
April 10, 2007 5:22:46 AM

Did you maybe think that us "suckers" with old, say 3500+, cpu's find it easier to just stick a X2 6000+ in there instead of building a whole new rig? I know building a new rig is fun and all sometimes but if you think practical a bit...
April 10, 2007 5:30:23 AM

Quote:
Did you maybe think that us "suckers" with old, say 3500+, cpu's find it easier to just stick a X2 6000+ in there instead of building a whole new rig? I know building a new rig is fun and all sometimes but if you think practical a bit...


Dude, read my post, don't get the X2 6000+, if you must upgrade the highest I would shoot for is an X2 5600+. It's barely 5% slower than an X2 6000+ and costs $40 less.

That, or getting a $65 OEM X2 3600+ and overclocking it to ~3GHz, which would be my preferred option since I'm an overclocker at heart. Heck, you can probably sell your 3500+ for $50 on Ebay and end up spending $15 on a significant upgrade. ;) 

But hey, that's my style, and many people prefer to only run at stock speeds...

Edit... just one more thing... you run an AM2 3500+ right???
April 10, 2007 5:45:38 AM

I was thinkin about the average joe again...my bad. Personally I go with the lower end as well. I got my 3500+ sitting on a nice 2.7Ghz on stock cooling...
April 10, 2007 6:51:04 AM

:)  :roll: :wink:
Quote:
Did you maybe think that us "suckers" with old, say 3500+, cpu's find it easier to just stick a X2 6000+ in there instead of building a whole new rig? I know building a new rig is fun and all sometimes but if you think practical a bit...


Dude, read my post, don't get the X2 6000+, if you must upgrade the highest I would shoot for is an X2 5600+. It's barely 5% slower than an X2 6000+ and costs $40 less.

That, or getting a $65 OEM X2 3600+ and overclocking it to ~3GHz, which would be my preferred option since I'm an overclocker at heart. Heck, you can probably sell your 3500+ for $50 on Ebay and end up spending $15 on a significant upgrade. ;) 

But hey, that's my style, and many people prefer to only run at stock speeds...

Edit... just one more thing... you run an AM2 3500+ right???

Or buy an E6420 and overclock it to 3.0+

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
April 10, 2007 6:56:44 AM

Quote:
Yes, this in interesting. The x2 6000 is now a reasonable choice, and non-overclockers that like upper mid range builds can look at the 5600 and 6000 as well priced.


The X2 5600+ is well priced (according to the competition), the X2 6000+ is not. After price cuts, the E6600 will be slightly cheaper, slightly faster and VASTLY cooler (the X2 6000+ runs hotter than a QX6800 FFS Link).

I honestly don't understand why people are so excited about the 6000+, maybe it's the 3GHz clockspeed... or the 140W TDP. You know the bigger the better. ;) 

It's funny because not too long ago AMD fans were saying how clockspeed didn't matter, and lambasted Intel for creating furnaces. ;)  :lol: 


(Source Xbitlabs)

In order of performance:

(PI = Performance Index)
E6600 PI 1.68 / Price $224
X2 6000+ PI 1.62 / Price $241
X2 5600+ PI 1.53 / Price $188
E6420 PI 1.52 / Price $183

Spot the odd one out. ;) 

140 Watt TDP..?

Really...?

Does that beat the old Prescott 90 Nano 840 EE chip?

Pretty sure that was the old record holder... 130 or so.
April 10, 2007 8:05:16 AM

The record holder, I believe, is The Xeon "Tulsa" processor. Cooling 1.3 billion transistors can't be easy; even at 65nm. It has a TDP of 150W.

Though seeing the 6000+ use more power than the QX6800 is pretty bad.
April 10, 2007 8:17:47 AM

Are there any cpus besides the 5600+ that can be clocked to 3ghz? (with same cache size)
April 10, 2007 8:21:39 AM

Quote:
Are there any cpus besides the 5600+ that can be clocked to 3ghz? (with same cache size)


Nothing is guaranteed in overclocking, but the lower end X2s also can potentially be overclocked to around 3GHz, but some may fall a bit short, say 2.8 - 2.9GHz. The Brisbane core would be a better bet for overclocking, mainly because it runs cooler.

Of course, almost all C2D CPUs can overclock to 3GHz+... you didn't state which brand when you asked the question, but I assume you meant X2.
April 10, 2007 10:21:06 AM

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner but the mail server is off so I'm not notified of replies...

Yeah I do run a 3500+ AM2. Gonna get me a watercooling setup in the next couple of months. First getting that well deserved CPU upgrade. I just gotta get a better mobo as well coz my current one only lets me up the FSB to 232 or something. I'm not sure though but I know it's on max at the moment. It was an emergency build at the time. Had projects and stuff to do and it was just after newyears so no one had stock of anything good.
April 10, 2007 11:09:46 AM

Quote:
the X2 6000 now is the sweetspot for Amd fans looking to upgrade! Ill never turn to the darkside of Intel !

How is it a sweet spot when you've reached the clock limits of the arch?
April 10, 2007 11:12:52 AM

Nice pricing.I'm deffinately getting a X2 6000+ and a X2 5600+.Great pricing on bothe.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.6 TOLEDO
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7950GT KO IN SLI
4X 512MB CRUCIAL BALLISTIX DDR500
WD300GIG HD/SAMSUNG 250GIG HD
ACER 22IN WIDESCREEN LCD 1600X1200
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
3DMARK05 13,471
April 10, 2007 12:28:37 PM

I've been waiting for the 5200+ to drop below $200, and now it has. Now the 6000+ is in the mid $200's all of a sudden, heh, maybe I'll wait a little longer still.
April 10, 2007 4:34:44 PM

Quote:
I've been waiting for the 5200+ to drop below $200, and now it has. Now the 6000+ is in the mid $200's all of a sudden, heh, maybe I'll wait a little longer still.


Can I get a horizontal mount for the 6000+ CPU so I can put a flat plate on the heatsink and make hot tea with that 150watts while I run? :p 
April 10, 2007 5:10:32 PM

Quote:
the X2 6000 now is the sweetspot for Amd fans looking to upgrade! Ill never turn to the darkside of Intel !


Yeah, or I could get a $65 X2 3600+ and clock it to 3GHz myself. :roll:

AMD is milking the K8 for all it's worth, I'm actually happy they have suckers like you buying all their excess inventory, otherwise they'll be further in the red. At least you're a true 'fan(boy)' and buying a semi-high margin CPU, unlike so many other so called 'fans' that are buying the cheapest AMD CPUs available and denying AMD their hard earned $$$. ;) 

On behalf of AMD, thank you. 8) :lol: 

Or maybe he just doesn't like to overclock and realizes that at this price point AMD's processors now handily defeat Intel, unless you're willing to spend $500 on an E6700? Sucker indeed.
April 10, 2007 5:49:13 PM

Quote:
I've been waiting for the 5200+ to drop below $200, and now it has. Now the 6000+ is in the mid $200's all of a sudden, heh, maybe I'll wait a little longer still.


Can I get a horizontal mount for the 6000+ CPU so I can put a flat plate on the heatsink and make hot tea with that 150watts while I run? :p 

I wish!

It's just getting ridiculous - i thought that everyone was all about lowering heat and power consumption these days?

Imagine a quad core x2 6000+ :lol: 
April 10, 2007 6:15:23 PM

Quote:


I honestly don't understand why people are so excited about the 6000+, maybe it's the 3GHz clockspeed... or the 140W TDP. You know the bigger the better. ;) 

It's funny because not too long ago AMD fans were saying how clockspeed didn't matter, and lambasted Intel for creating furnaces. ;)  :lol: 


(Source Xbitlabs)

In order of performance:

(PI = Performance Index)
E6600 PI 1.68 / Price $224
X2 6000+ PI 1.62 / Price $241
X2 5600+ PI 1.53 / Price $188
E6420 PI 1.52 / Price $183

Spot the odd one out. ;) 

140 Watt TDP..?

Really...?

Does that beat the old Prescott 90 Nano 840 EE chip?

Pretty sure that was the old record holder... 130 or so.


While I'd consider the 5600 if I was building right now, I don't really need to say much about the 6000, which is now close to the price/performance curve, and some people like the top. that's their business. About the max power draw, it's notable for people who care about that sort of thing. Obviously, someone getting this chip may have already decided not to overclock (although some will -- and those people are making their own choice).

So for most of it's buyers, they'll be wanting to take advantage of QuietN'Cool, which you should read up on if you haven't already. It's simple enough -- the max power won't be hit much. When someone does hit max power a lot, that's someone using a lot of cpu cycles, and perhaps they are planning for the upgrade again later in the year.

Tempest in a teapot? yeah.
April 10, 2007 7:22:36 PM

Quote:
It's funny because not too long ago AMD fans were saying how clockspeed didn't matter, and lambasted Intel for creating furnaces.


This is the hypocrisy I often refer to in many of my posts :) 

uh oh.....

I don't like seeing you using descriptive put downs, Jack.

Re the 125Watts, by the way, did you forget that most of those 6000s will be burning that 125W maybe 2-5 minutes in a day (and the next biggest group perhaps a hour or two, for the average home movie video thief and such)?

It's interesting to calculate the electricity cost for those heavier users, during say a big 2 hour encoding chunk.

Electricity is very expensive here where I live, about 20 cent per KWh. So for 2 hours of 125W you get 5 cents of electrical cost. Of course all computers burn plenty just being on, but we're focusing on the high draw. The differential vs an 80 Watt cpu is interesting in those 2 hours: about 2 cents.

Obviously, there are other factors that will be more important for this decision. Does the person want the top bin? Do they want the best gaming computer for a certain budget? etc.
April 10, 2007 11:58:57 PM

Quote:
It's funny because not too long ago AMD fans were saying how clockspeed didn't matter, and lambasted Intel for creating furnaces.


This is the hypocrisy I often refer to in many of my posts :) 

uh oh.....

I don't like seeing you using descriptive put downs, Jack.

Re the 125Watts, by the way, did you forget that most of those 6000s will be burning that 125W maybe 2-5 minutes in a day (and the next biggest group perhaps a hour or two, for the average home movie video thief and such)?

It's interesting to calculate the electricity cost for those heavier users, during say a big 2 hour encoding chunk.

Electricity is very expensive here where I live, about 20 cent per KWh. So for 2 hours of 125W you get 5 cents of electrical cost. Of course all computers burn plenty just being on, but we're focusing on the high draw. The differential vs an 80 Watt cpu is interesting in those 2 hours: about 2 cents.

Obviously, there are other factors that will be more important for this decision. Does the person want the top bin? Do they want the best gaming computer for a certain budget? etc.

Did it ever occur to you that there is more to excessive power consumption than just the power bill? Firstly, there is the added strain on the PSU. Then there is the extra heat in the case which has to be dissipated - either in the form of more case fans, or using faster, noisier case fans, or both.
April 11, 2007 12:01:17 AM

In the past clock speed meant little.But over the last several months,since the release of INTELS core2duo,things have changed somewhat.Now you need clock speeds from the current athlon cpu's to compete significantly with the c2d.Maybe a little later down the road,when AMD releases its new core,clock speeds may not matter again.But then again,maybe they will.Only time will tell.Goodluck all.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.6 TOLEDO
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7950GT KO IN SLI
4X 512MB CRUCIAL BALLISTIX DDR500
WD300GIG HD/SAMSUNG 250GIG HD
ACER 22IN WIDESCREEN LCD 1600X1200
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
3DMARK05 13,471
April 11, 2007 12:08:21 AM

Quote:
It's funny because not too long ago AMD fans were saying how clockspeed didn't matter, and lambasted Intel for creating furnaces.


This is the hypocrisy I often refer to in many of my posts :) 

uh oh.....

I don't like seeing you using descriptive put downs, Jack.

Re the 125Watts, by the way, did you forget that most of those 6000s will be burning that 125W maybe 2-5 minutes in a day (and the next biggest group perhaps a hour or two, for the average home movie video thief and such)?

It's interesting to calculate the electricity cost for those heavier users, during say a big 2 hour encoding chunk.

Electricity is very expensive here where I live, about 20 cent per KWh. So for 2 hours of 125W you get 5 cents of electrical cost. Of course all computers burn plenty just being on, but we're focusing on the high draw. The differential vs an 80 Watt cpu is interesting in those 2 hours: about 2 cents.

Obviously, there are other factors that will be more important for this decision. Does the person want the top bin? Do they want the best gaming computer for a certain budget? etc.

Did it ever occur to you that there is more to excessive power consumption than just the power bill? Firstly, there is the added strain on the PSU. Then there is the extra heat in the case which has to be dissipated - either in the form of more case fans, or using faster, noisier case fans, or both.

Indeed! All three of my current home computers are silenced, and two of them took a little work to accomplish it.

Did it occur to you that X does't necessarily imply Y?
April 11, 2007 12:34:08 AM

Quote:
It's funny because not too long ago AMD fans were saying how clockspeed didn't matter, and lambasted Intel for creating furnaces.


This is the hypocrisy I often refer to in many of my posts :) 

uh oh.....

I don't like seeing you using descriptive put downs, Jack.

Re the 125Watts, by the way, did you forget that most of those 6000s will be burning that 125W maybe 2-5 minutes in a day (and the next biggest group perhaps a hour or two, for the average home movie video thief and such)?

It's interesting to calculate the electricity cost for those heavier users, during say a big 2 hour encoding chunk.

Electricity is very expensive here where I live, about 20 cent per KWh. So for 2 hours of 125W you get 5 cents of electrical cost. Of course all computers burn plenty just being on, but we're focusing on the high draw. The differential vs an 80 Watt cpu is interesting in those 2 hours: about 2 cents.

Obviously, there are other factors that will be more important for this decision. Does the person want the top bin? Do they want the best gaming computer for a certain budget? etc.

Did it ever occur to you that there is more to excessive power consumption than just the power bill? Firstly, there is the added strain on the PSU. Then there is the extra heat in the case which has to be dissipated - either in the form of more case fans, or using faster, noisier case fans, or both.

Indeed! All three of my current home computers are silenced, and two of them took a little work to accomplish it.

Did it occur to you that X does't necessarily imply Y?

It does occur to me you go out of your way to 'justify' the 6000+ as a good choice, despite all it's shortcomings.

So the only person who would be interested in the 6000+ would be someone who:
*Doesn't overclock
*Doesn't care about power consumption
*Doesn't care that Intel has a faster processor for a lower price
*Doesn't care that AMD's own 5600+ has 95% the performance at 75% the price of the 6000+

Yeah, I'm sure it makes a great deal of sense to some people, just not me. :?
April 11, 2007 12:46:52 AM

Just read message 25 at bottom of previous page.

If you're not familiar with the difference between AMD's "TDP", and Intel's version, read up (less than 2 minutes). Also if not with "QuietN'Cool" read up (less than 1 minutes).

That should clear it up for you.

btw, never begin by presuming someone is in error. Begin by looking for what you've missed. It's a nice first step.
April 11, 2007 2:30:56 AM

Quote:
Just read message 25 at bottom of previous page.

If you're not familiar with the difference between AMD's "TDP", and Intel's version, read up (less than 2 minutes). Also if not with "QuietN'Cool" read up (less than 1 minutes).

That should clear it up for you.

btw, never begin by presuming someone is in error. Begin by looking for what you've missed. It's a nice first step.


One thing I'm aware of is that AMD is now 'conservative' with it's TDP rating. How is it that a 130W QX6800 draws less power than a 125W 6000+ under load? http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/core2-qx6800/i...


I'm familar with Cool'n'Quiet, and in theory it's slightly more efficient than Intel speedstep by reducing the clockspeed further. However, even when idle, with the exception of the Brisbane core X2 3600+, C2D is equal to or better in idle power consumption.


In fact, with the exception of the FX series, there isn't much of a difference in idle power between AMD and Intel. +- 10W is hardly going to make a noticeable difference either way.

You can go on preaching the virtues of the X2 6000+ if you want, just don't be surprised if I disagree every time you do so. It's what's great about these forums - everyone can have their say without fear of Nazi mods. 8)
April 11, 2007 2:34:40 AM

Quote:
intel is not allmighty, it has its shortcomings also. For most its brand preference. I just plain dont care for intel like some people dont like microsoft or apple. Personally I think my 6000+ runs just fine on a very well balanced system. So what if i dont get 5 more frames per second because i dont have a C2D proc. Guess Im just a dedicated Amd fanboy!


More power to ya, I honestly don't care what anybody buys, it's not my money after all. ;) 

Even if you prefer AMD, there are better choices IMO than the 6000+ (from a price/performance POV), but I think I've said enough about that already. :roll:
April 11, 2007 2:36:13 AM

my friend (do you consider yourself friendly? :-), you seem to presume I'm saying something I'm not.

btw, thanks for the nice graphs.

Just in case post #25 isn't as clear as the author thinks it is (could be!), then I'll restate:

I'd get a 5600.

People buying a 6000 -- not many of those people plan on overclocking.

So, therefore, for those people not overclocking....

They'll use QuietN'Cool, and....

That means most of the time the chip will be....


that's right, quiet and cool.

But!....

If someone plans to do continuous heavy use (professional encoding), then....

such a rare individual should consider the power use at TDP vs the performance!

btw, I'm not a baby killer either!!
April 11, 2007 2:40:26 AM

Why would ANYONE spend the premium on an X2 6000+ if the majority of the time they will be sitting IDLE? Hello? Heard of the $30 Sempron processor? I hear it does pretty welll in idle. :lol:  :wink:

Note I'm not really bashing the X2 6000+ itself, as a CPU it's actually quite decent (apart from the power consumption or overclocking), but like all flagship CPUs it carries a premium - in this case a $50 premium for a 200MHz bump over an X2 5600+.

We're just going in circles now, I've had my say, you've had your say, let's agree to disagree. :wink:
April 11, 2007 2:40:34 AM

Quote:
Just read message 25 at bottom of previous page.

If you're not familiar with the difference between AMD's "TDP", and Intel's version, read up (less than 2 minutes). Also if not with "QuietN'Cool" read up (less than 1 minutes).

That should clear it up for you.

btw, never begin by presuming someone is in error. Begin by looking for what you've missed. It's a nice first step.


http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37270
"AMD measures TDP as maximum power draw for a CPU, Intel as maximum real-world draw. AMD is going to move to the Intel measuring scheme, most likely with GS, and that should 'drop' TDP by about 15%."

Assuming that AMD uses the same PR TDP numbers but on the Intel scale, an AMD extreme TDP would be 125W "average" and ~150W max. On the mainstream TDP, it would be 95W "average" and ~110W max.
April 11, 2007 2:41:12 AM

Quote:
Just read message 25 at bottom of previous page.

If you're not familiar with the difference between AMD's "TDP", and Intel's version, read up (less than 2 minutes). Also if not with "QuietN'Cool" read up (less than 1 minutes).

That should clear it up for you.

btw, never begin by presuming someone is in error. Begin by looking for what you've missed. It's a nice first step.


One thing I'm aware of is that AMD is now 'conservative' with it's TDP rating. How is it that a 130W QX6800 draws less power than a 125W 6000+ under load? http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/core2-qx6800/i...


I'm familar with Cool'n'Quiet, and in theory it's slightly more efficient than Intel speedstep by reducing the clockspeed further. However, even when idle, with the exception of the Brisbane core X2 3600+, C2D is equal to or better in idle power consumption.


In fact, with the exception of the FX series, there isn't much of a difference in idle power between AMD and Intel. +- 10W is hardly going to make a noticeable difference either way.

You can go on preaching the virtues of the X2 6000+ if you want, just don't be surprised if I disagree every time you do so. It's what's great about these forums - everyone can have their say without fear of Nazi mods. 8)

You do know that those readings were taken at the wall socket with a Kill-a-Meter measuring the entire power draw of the CPU, GPU, CPU, memory, chipset, HD, DVD drive, and PSU...
April 11, 2007 2:47:58 AM

Quote:
Just read message 25 at bottom of previous page.

If you're not familiar with the difference between AMD's "TDP", and Intel's version, read up (less than 2 minutes). Also if not with "QuietN'Cool" read up (less than 1 minutes).

That should clear it up for you.

btw, never begin by presuming someone is in error. Begin by looking for what you've missed. It's a nice first step.


One thing I'm aware of is that AMD is now 'conservative' with it's TDP rating. How is it that a 130W QX6800 draws less power than a 125W 6000+ under load? http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/core2-qx6800/i...


I'm familar with Cool'n'Quiet, and in theory it's slightly more efficient than Intel speedstep by reducing the clockspeed further. However, even when idle, with the exception of the Brisbane core X2 3600+, C2D is equal to or better in idle power consumption.


In fact, with the exception of the FX series, there isn't much of a difference in idle power between AMD and Intel. +- 10W is hardly going to make a noticeable difference either way.

You can go on preaching the virtues of the X2 6000+ if you want, just don't be surprised if I disagree every time you do so. It's what's great about these forums - everyone can have their say without fear of Nazi mods. 8)

You do know that those readings were taken at the wall socket with a Kill-a-Meter measuring the entire power draw of the CPU, GPU, CPU, memory, chipset, HD, DVD drive, and PSU...

Indeed. I think to most people system power draw is more relevant than CPU power draw alone. The ONLY differences between the setups is the CPU and mobo.

If I had linked to CPU power consumption alone, people would complain that AMD has the IMC ondie and it's an unfair comparison. With system power consumption, there can be no such excuses. ;) 
April 11, 2007 5:12:41 AM

Quote:
You do know that those readings were taken at the wall socket with a Kill-a-Meter measuring the entire power draw of the CPU, GPU, CPU, memory, chipset, HD, DVD drive, and PSU...
I like how you worked the dual core in there... :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
April 11, 2007 5:33:53 AM

Quote:
You do know that those readings were taken at the wall socket with a Kill-a-Meter measuring the entire power draw of the CPU, GPU, CPU, memory, chipset, HD, DVD drive, and PSU...
I like how you worked the dual core in there... :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Or he could be referring to QuadFX. 8) :lol: 
April 11, 2007 5:37:49 AM

Good one. Can't believe I missed that... :lol: 
April 11, 2007 6:00:53 AM

Quote:
You do know that those readings were taken at the wall socket with a Kill-a-Meter measuring the entire power draw of the CPU, GPU, CPU, memory, chipset, HD, DVD drive, and PSU...
I like how you worked the dual core in there... :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Or he could be referring to QuadFX. 8) :lol: No..That would be...CPU, GPU, CPU, memory,CPU, chipset,CPU, HD, DVD drive, and PSU. :wink:
April 11, 2007 12:06:55 PM

Quote:
You do know that those readings were taken at the wall socket with a Kill-a-Meter measuring the entire power draw of the CPU, GPU, CPU, memory, chipset, HD, DVD drive, and PSU...
I like how you worked the dual core in there... :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Or he could be referring to QuadFX. 8) :lol: No..That would be...CPU, GPU, CPU, memory,CPU, chipset,CPU, HD, DVD drive, and PSU. :wink:

Doesn't it require 2 memory sticks? :p 
April 11, 2007 12:24:57 PM

Quote:
You do know that those readings were taken at the wall socket with a Kill-a-Meter measuring the entire power draw of the CPU, GPU, CPU, memory, chipset, HD, DVD drive, and PSU...
I like how you worked the dual core in there... :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Or he could be referring to QuadFX. 8) :lol: No..That would be...CPU, GPU, CPU, memory,CPU, chipset,CPU, HD, DVD drive, and PSU. :wink:

Doesn't it require 2 memory sticks? :p We could always add another GPU but that is not a necessity.
!