Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD's Smart Strike: Athlon X2 BE-2350

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 18, 2007 12:09:22 PM

AMD's new sub-$100 low-power (45 W) dual core processor defines a new segment in the efficient desktop computing market. How does it compare to Intel's $100 Pentium Dual Core 2160?
a c 99 à CPUs
June 18, 2007 12:56:49 PM

Are you guys going to review the 65 nm Turion 64s any time soon? I have seen them start to pop up in retail laptops like the HP tx1000z and am curious how their power consumption goes compares to the Core/Core 2 Duo and the Pentium Dual Core laptop chips.
June 18, 2007 1:22:24 PM

$90 is very cheap... until you compare it to a $60 X2 3600+. :wink:

It seems AMD is phasing out the older style X2 3600+/3800+s, so I think people should grab em while they still can at existing prices. 8)

As for the two chips reviewed, at stock speeds it really is a toss up between the BE-2350 and E2160, it appears the E2160 is slightly faster overall but it is also slighty more expensive.

To be honest, the overclocking results are slightly disappointing from both camps... 2.5GHz from the BE-2350 and 2.88GHz from the E2160. I was hoping for more, seeing as though people have been claiming 3GHz overclocks from existing X2 3600+s. This is a slightly disturbing trend as it seems to me that AMD's low voltage chips don't overclock very well. The previous 35W EE X2s showed this trait, and the trend is continuing with the latest BE chips.

Meanwhile, the E2160 is relatively new and doesn't really have a big enough userbase to really gauge it's 'overclockability', however it does appear to have a rather random spread compared to the larger cache C2D chips - I've now seen 2.88GHz - 3.5GHz overclocks from this chip from various reviewers. Oh well, who feels lucky? :lol: 
Related resources
June 18, 2007 1:55:47 PM

Quote:
AMD's new sub-$100 low-power (45 W) dual core processor defines a new segment in the efficient desktop computing market. How does it compare to Intel's $100 Pentium Dual Core 2160?


I think this says a lot for the maturity of 65nm. Intel is a little faster, but AMD is much better for power use.

I would also say that bodes well for the TDP of the Barcelona derivatives. If they can bring Kuma in at this TDP, it will put Intel in a similar position as AMD was in when sandwiched between Netburst and Core 2.
I mean that's if you believe that Kuma will be 80% faster than X2 in FP and 30% faster in INT.
June 18, 2007 1:59:00 PM

This paragraph best summarised the BE-2350 against the new Pentium Dual-Core line:

"As expected, the test system with the Pentium Dual Core E2160 was efficient, but it could not reach the low energy requirements of the Athlon X2 BE-2350. At the same time, the Pentium came slightly ahead in many of our benchmark runs, and it is more overclockable as well. While the Athlon X2 BE-2350 failed to reach 2.6 GHz reliably, our retail Pentium Dual Core E2160 managed to go as fast as 2.88 GHz reliably. This is particularly impressive as it comes from a default clock speed of 1.8 GHz, while the Athlon X2 runs at 2.1 GHz."

The BE-2350 is great for those who are very heat conscious, but even then, the difference between the 65w and 45w is nothing compared to 90w and 125w (Athlon vs NetBurst). Maybe it would be more so in the laptop segment, but Intel has lower power chips in the laptop segments, so much so that if one really didn't want heat for their HTPC, they could buy a Core Duo with a Core Duo ready motherboard.

Finally, the PDC outperforms the BE-2350 at stock speeds and can overclock further and easier too (also generating less heat at overclocked speeds).

Best thing for AMD to do now is to release K10.
June 18, 2007 2:56:02 PM

Quote:
Maybe it would be more so in the laptop segment, but Intel has lower power chips in the laptop segments, so much so that if one really didn't want heat for their HTPC, they could buy a Core Duo with a Core Duo ready motherboard.


You likely already know this and just wrote Core Duo by mistake in your post, but I'll be a tool and point it out anyway. The newer Intel Mobile Chips are Core 2 Duos and not Core Duos, and yes they would be a good choice for a HTPC.

Dung
June 18, 2007 3:06:30 PM

Quote:


I think this says a lot for the maturity of 65nm. Intel is a little faster, but AMD is much better for power use.

I would also say that bodes well for the TDP of the Barcelona derivatives. If they can bring Kuma in at this TDP, it will put Intel in a similar position as AMD was in when sandwiched between Netburst and Core 2.
I mean that's if you believe that Kuma will be 80% faster than X2 in FP and 30% faster in INT.


Amd does indeed pretty well regarding the power saving features. And their offer is quite cheap too. While i can see how that might be connected to their maturing 65nm technology, i fail to see the connection between the Barcelona derivatives and this?
June 18, 2007 3:25:07 PM

Quote:


I think this says a lot for the maturity of 65nm. Intel is a little faster, but AMD is much better for power use.

I would also say that bodes well for the TDP of the Barcelona derivatives. If they can bring Kuma in at this TDP, it will put Intel in a similar position as AMD was in when sandwiched between Netburst and Core 2.
I mean that's if you believe that Kuma will be 80% faster than X2 in FP and 30% faster in INT.


Amd does indeed pretty well regarding the power saving features. And their offer is quite cheap too. While i can see how that might be connected to their maturing 65nm technology, i fail to see the connection between the Barcelona derivatives and this?


Barcelona is the third or fourth rev of 65nm. That means that it's "native to 65nm" design should take more advantage of the additions to 65nm (DSL 4 stressors etc.) that AMD has made.
June 18, 2007 3:34:16 PM

Quote:


I think this says a lot for the maturity of 65nm. Intel is a little faster, but AMD is much better for power use.

I would also say that bodes well for the TDP of the Barcelona derivatives. If they can bring Kuma in at this TDP, it will put Intel in a similar position as AMD was in when sandwiched between Netburst and Core 2.
I mean that's if you believe that Kuma will be 80% faster than X2 in FP and 30% faster in INT.


Amd does indeed pretty well regarding the power saving features. And their offer is quite cheap too. While i can see how that might be connected to their maturing 65nm technology, i fail to see the connection between the Barcelona derivatives and this?
I don't think there is any connection between this and the Barcelona. The article just shows AMD is still alive (and mostly well) in terms of power saving and cost.
I hope to see the X2 used in ultra-lightweight notebooks. That should blow the doors off the Pentium-M.
June 18, 2007 3:37:55 PM

Hey does any one know what temps these chips be at idle and under load. I got a new e4300 a few weeks ago and it idles at 28oC and hasnt got past 33oC under load.... will these new chips be much lower at stock cooling??
June 18, 2007 3:48:46 PM

Quote:
Hey does any one know what temps these chips be at idle and under load. I got a new e4300 a few weeks ago and it idles at 28oC and hasnt got past 33oC under load.... will these new chips be much lower at stock cooling??


Nobody really knows how hot the new architecture really is. A big factor is the clock speed. If AMD sells Barcelona at 1.6 Ghz, i wouldn´t expect it to be hot. At 2.6 (if it is released at that speed at all) it will be a lot warmer. But that is a guess.
June 18, 2007 4:00:27 PM

Quote:

Barcelona is the third or fourth rev of 65nm. That means that it's "native to 65nm" design should take more advantage of the additions to 65nm (DSL 4 stressors etc.) that AMD has made.

AMD did quite well with its 65nm transition - at least with it´s basic chips in the 1.9 to 2.6 Ghz range. They still don´t seem to be able to manufacture 3 GHz parts in 65nm though, not to mention anything beyond that barrier. Either they are tweaking their whole product offering on 65nm towards energy efficiency or there is no real benefit to be gained from one chip to another. Given the monstrous size of the logic part of the new Barcelona architecture i really, really doubt that AMD even tries to be as energy efficient as it is with their other chips. To get it running, and that at a decent speed, should be their highest priority. Energy efficiency might be a selling point when it comes to big servers (i.e. cluster) but if they are clocked too slow they simply can´t compete.
June 18, 2007 4:05:10 PM

I don't think it's that surprising that AMD is able to make these... they've been selling what is essentially the same CPU for several years now. If you make the same product for a long enough period of time you're going to get really good at making it. I think these processors will fill a certain niche, but that's not going to pay the rent. Good luck AMD!
June 18, 2007 4:18:24 PM

Quote:
I don't think it's that surprising that AMD is able to make these... they've been selling what is essentially the same CPU for several years now. If you make the same product for a long enough period of time you're going to get really good at making it. I think these processors will fill a certain niche, but that's not going to pay the rent. Good luck AMD!


Yea making a CPU is so easy even a caveman can do it. :roll:
June 18, 2007 4:18:54 PM

Quote:
Hey does any one know what temps these chips be at idle and under load. I got a new e4300 a few weeks ago and it idles at 28oC and hasnt got past 33oC under load.... will these new chips be much lower at stock cooling??


I'm curious to know where you're coming from. Are you just wanting to compare temps or do you in need of a very low heat-output system? On one hand, a low TDP processor like the new AMD under review will not be a blow torch because it draws very little current.
June 18, 2007 4:24:26 PM

I just built a new HTPC but wanted it to have enough power to run HD formats and not require lots of loud fans it also acts as a media server so low energy usage comes in handy too...hence the need for a cool chip im just wondering if there would have been much difference in me waiting for these new chips... and i know they are not strong enough to decode HD streams thats what my passive 8600gts is for :) 
June 18, 2007 4:25:12 PM

Quote:
Finally, the PDC outperforms the BE-2350 at stock speeds and can overclock further and easier too (also generating less heat at overclocked speeds).


That's totally not the issue here. If you have an office with a hundred workstations doing business apps, no overclock will be required and CPU speed is not critical when you're looking in the ballpark of 2GHz. The numbers speak for themselves - for non-demanding apps such as the typical office, AMD is the current efficiency leader.
June 18, 2007 4:52:55 PM

Quote:
I just built a new HTPC but wanted it to have enough power to run HD formats and not require lots of loud fans it also acts as a media server so low energy usage comes in handy too...hence the need for a cool chip im just wondering if there would have been much difference in me waiting for these new chips... and i know they are not strong enough to decode HD streams thats what my passive 8600gts is for :) 


I'm guessing that a good passive CPU cooler and one quiet case fan should do the trick with one of the new EE CPUs.
June 18, 2007 4:57:28 PM

I think I'm sold on the AMD as I have a Celeron 2.8 in my current HTPC and it is both baking and having a hard time with more complex bitstreams what with all the AV, ZA, and other software it must take care.

But where can I buy the new AMDs? I can't find them on PriceGrabber or NewEgg.
June 18, 2007 5:31:24 PM

Quote:

Barcelona is the third or fourth rev of 65nm. That means that it's "native to 65nm" design should take more advantage of the additions to 65nm (DSL 4 stressors etc.) that AMD has made.

AMD did quite well with its 65nm transition - at least with it´s basic chips in the 1.9 to 2.6 Ghz range. They still don´t seem to be able to manufacture 3 GHz parts in 65nm though, not to mention anything beyond that barrier. Either they are tweaking their whole product offering on 65nm towards energy efficiency or there is no real benefit to be gained from one chip to another. Given the monstrous size of the logic part of the new Barcelona architecture i really, really doubt that AMD even tries to be as energy efficient as it is with their other chips. To get it running, and that at a decent speed, should be their highest priority. Energy efficiency might be a selling point when it comes to big servers (i.e. cluster) but if they are clocked too slow they simply can´t compete.


I would say they are purposely not going that high as that would take away from the 90nm chip sales. And also by staying at lower clocks yields will be higher which gives more voulme on the low end. The thing they are going for at this point.

It's much better to limit 3GHz chips to Opteron and retail channel so they can start to ramp those down. I figure the plan is to slowly ramp up 65nm at Fab 30 and cancel the 90nm desktop chips by October.

By then they should have final revs of the desktop Barcelonas ready for volume Then by clocking up to 2.6GHz with Kuma that will effectively replace the higher clocked 90nm chips.
June 18, 2007 5:48:27 PM

I recall when AMD was not doing very well a few years back when they have problems selling AMD K6. They could hardly sell their processors for more than $100.

It looks like AMD is following the same path again. It looks like for the next few quarters AMD will be losing money for a while until they can get a killer product out.
June 18, 2007 6:12:52 PM

Quote:

Yea making a CPU is so easy even a caveman can do it. :roll:

Wow. How original.
June 18, 2007 6:22:41 PM

Quote:
AMD is better in idle power saving, but Intel's more efficient and faster.


The thing is, a significant fraction of the computers in use around the world run at or near idle most of their lives. For those apps, the new AMD chips will save bucks and in this niche, AMD is the current leader.
June 18, 2007 6:30:40 PM

The lower power is nice, and I can see a few places where it makes sense, like in a laptop or an non-air condidtioned room, but I'm wondering how many of us buy systems based on power? How much of the general public and companies buy based on power usage? I hear a little about some companies looking at power usage, but I haven't really seen it past one or two companies. Most people wouldn't know a watt if it bit them in the butt and so buy what the salesman talks them into.
Dropping your power requirements from thermonuclear to pretty cool is one thing, dropping from pretty cool to slightly more cool is another story altogether.
The lower prices of the AMD CPUs are much more attractive than their lower power requirements and even that really minimal right now IMO.
I have never purchased a system based on power usage. I only care about how it performs. I may try to pick a sweet spot for price/performace but I have never looked at power/performance or power/price.
Does this design really help AMD or are they grasping at straws?
How does everyone else here choose their systems?
June 18, 2007 7:29:51 PM

These CPUs make sense for office usage but for the kind of people reading this site (i.e. enthusiasts) they seem to be an irrelevance. Why? Just buy a standard 65nm X2 and undervolt it using RMClock. This way you can also lower the idle VCore below 1.1V which is otherwise the limit I think. You can also undervolt Core 2 Duo with RMClock and get the TDP under 45W easily. This is from recent experience with both platforms.
AMD do seem to have the edge with lower power consumption for compatible motherboards and making these factory under-volted chips available makes a lot of sense. I.e. it’s good PR and they can charge more for the same CPU.
Intel can beat this with the MODT platform but the price and choice of motherboards available makes it a niche area.
It’s nice to see AMD making a good decision by releasing these. They’re hardly earth shattering, but at this point any positive news from AMD is welcomed.
June 18, 2007 7:56:30 PM

I have the best way in power consumption. I unplug the PC and turn off the electricity for the entire block!
June 18, 2007 8:00:24 PM

Quote:
AMD is better in idle power saving, but Intel's more efficient and faster.


The thing is, a significant fraction of the computers in use around the world run at or near idle most of their lives. For those apps, the new AMD chips will save bucks and in this niche, AMD is the current leader.

how about a new slogan

AMD, great for doing nothing :twisted:

only joking though, i do see your point and i think these would be well suited in an office environment
June 18, 2007 8:19:41 PM

Quote:

Yea making a CPU is so easy even a caveman can do it. :roll:

Wow. How original.

Here is a little article for your reading enjoyment.

http://www.maxitmag.com/loose-wires/articles/intel-user...

I guess that makes you superior compared to all the Intel users. Enjoy your slow single core K8.

Quote:
The survey concluded that AMD users tended to be more 'computer smart' and 'enthusiast' orientated having researched the market before purchasing their computer. Most people recognise the Intel brand and tend to purchase bog standard off the shelf computers knowing little about the details of the hardware. People who buy AMD are more creative and willing to adopt new technology more easily.


Good one, tell that to all the rabid AMD fanpois (i.e. Sharikou and his horde).
June 18, 2007 8:26:15 PM

Quote:
I don't think it's that surprising that AMD is able to make these... they've been selling what is essentially the same CPU for several years now. If you make the same product for a long enough period of time you're going to get really good at making it. I think these processors will fill a certain niche, but that's not going to pay the rent. Good luck AMD!


Yea making a CPU is so easy even a caveman can do it. :roll:
ROFLCOPTER :lol: 
June 18, 2007 8:40:49 PM

Quote:
how about a new slogan

AMD, great for doing nothing :twisted:


Tell that to the people that get your paycheck cut...
June 18, 2007 10:40:23 PM

Quote:

Yea making a CPU is so easy even a caveman can do it. :roll:

Wow. How original.

Here is a little article for your reading enjoyment.

http://www.maxitmag.com/loose-wires/articles/intel-user...

I guess that makes you superior compared to all the Intel users. Enjoy your slow single core K8.

Quote:
The survey concluded that AMD users tended to be more 'computer smart' and 'enthusiast' orientated having researched the market before purchasing their computer. Most people recognise the Intel brand and tend to purchase bog standard off the shelf computers knowing little about the details of the hardware. People who buy AMD are more creative and willing to adopt new technology more easily.


Good one, tell that to all the rabid AMD fanpois (i.e. Sharikou and his horde).

I know my CPU is just soooo slow it is completely worthless.... :roll:
June 18, 2007 11:14:31 PM

I think AMD is going in the right direction here. They can't have the performance market, but efficiency is also a good market to go for. If I was building an "always on" machine, let's say a PVR multimedia system I would give heavy consideration into a high efficiency processor.
June 19, 2007 7:16:05 AM

Am I the only one to think they did, yet another, unfair review?
Only the best Intel C2D dual core, and one of their very worst cpus vs the odd selection of AMD's.

Would've made more sense to compare the weaker Intel's C2D to see where they meet up performance wise.

The way they angled this review, it looks like the Intel is the only processor to get for speed. But the Extreme edition isn't exactly cheap. I'd like to see the mainstream C2D's in this review as well. For a proper review..

But I guess this is like Toms have been now for a while, angled or apparently bought reviews, where they completely ignore valid graphics cards, or CPUs..
June 19, 2007 7:25:05 AM

What are you talking about????

The review was the E2140 and E2160 from Intel against the new BE-2350. They through in the 6000+ and the X6800 to show what the low end does against both the AMD and Intel's high end processors.

Please go back and read the article again. You will see what I'm talking about.
June 19, 2007 9:51:34 AM

Quote:
Finally, the PDC outperforms the BE-2350 at stock speeds and can overclock further and easier too (also generating less heat at overclocked speeds).


That's totally not the issue here. If you have an office with a hundred workstations doing business apps, no overclock will be required and CPU speed is not critical when you're looking in the ballpark of 2GHz. The numbers speak for themselves - for non-demanding apps such as the typical office, AMD is the current efficiency leader.

Erm, that's part of the issue here.

The processor isn't just targetting businesses or workstations but all market segments. This includes enthusiasts and gamers on a budget (why else did the E4300 sell so well?).

Not that businesses or workstations aren't important, but I'm just saying that you're applying a target window for this processor when it isn't the case. But if said business was looking for a low power, cheap processor, they wouldn't even be shopping at this price range. They'd be looking at the Celeron-L if they really cared about power efficiency and usage for non demanding apps.

Also, as I said, if you REALLY cared about power consumption, you could just use a laptop CPU (granted you would need a different motherboard).
June 19, 2007 10:57:39 AM

Well for general purpose these cheap dual cores (and the Intel equiv.) are more than fine. Face it, on the dual core front they'll all run pretty demanding applications and play games perfectly acceptably.

Whilst I welcome the lower power consumption and like the idea of some PVR type box under the telly; that box will have to aim for somewhere nearer 10w max idle and 50w whilst working before I'll think about it. If it is to replace the recorder under the telly it should consume the same sort of power as far as I'm concerned. LOL, if I want to listen to a CD I'll just stick it in the proper stereo, sounds better that way too:-)

Just because it is supposedly an 'enthusiast' forum doesn't mean the fastest is the 'best' solution. Sorry but a turbo nutter overclocked quad core under the telly defeats the object, as they say, horses for courses and that may have fallen at the first fence...
June 19, 2007 11:02:39 AM

Quote:

I would say they are purposely not going that high as that would take away from the 90nm chip sales.

Actually an interesting point. They are probably selling 90nm leftovers, just like intel with their netbursts. If they still manufacture them, then i hope it´s only to meet demand until even the last fab has reached 65nm.

Quote:

And also by staying at lower clocks yields will be higher which gives more voulme on the low end. The thing they are going for at this point.

That wouldn´t be a smart move. Selling a 2.2 Ghz chip as just that even though it is capable of 2.8 or 3.0 Ghz within specifications lacks common sense.

Quote:

It's much better to limit 3GHz chips to Opteron and retail channel so they can start to ramp those down. I figure the plan is to slowly ramp up 65nm at Fab 30 and cancel the 90nm desktop chips by October.

After the Opteron pricecuts there isn´t that much money to be made anymore either. It makes sense to to use the 65nm process for the cheap desktop processors though and keep the more expensive Opterons at 90nm since they still generate money - even at 90nm, a feat i wouldn´t attribute to a 90nm desktop processor.
Quote:

By then they should have final revs of the desktop Barcelonas ready for volume Then by clocking up to 2.6GHz with Kuma that will effectively replace the higher clocked 90nm chips.

I suppose AMD doesn´t have the capacity to manufacture different archs in parallel so it could make sense. I hope Barcelona yields are good once they decide to stop 90nm. I somewhat doubt that though.
June 19, 2007 11:05:51 AM

Quote:
The thing is, a significant fraction of the computers in use around the world run at or near idle most of their lives. For those apps, the new AMD chips will save bucks and in this niche, AMD is the current leader.


That´s the dark realm of underperformance where VIA dwells... 8O
June 20, 2007 4:53:14 AM

I see a lot of comments saying these would be good for office usage. How can you compare the cost of running a computer vs the cost of an employee getting work done slower? If the intel gets the job done faster it will be at idle more often than the AMD, which over time could make the intel more power efficient over time. I think there are a lot of factors rather than just idle and load numbers in this test that just cannot be measured without a lot of research and time consuming data collection. There is really nothing to be argued. It's all speculation based off a small set of data.
June 20, 2007 1:11:50 PM

Quote:
I see a lot of comments saying these would be good for office usage. How can you compare the cost of running a computer vs the cost of an employee getting work done slower? If the intel gets the job done faster it will be at idle more often than the AMD, which over time could make the intel more power efficient over time. I think there are a lot of factors rather than just idle and load numbers in this test that just cannot be measured without a lot of research and time consuming data collection. There is really nothing to be argued. It's all speculation based off a small set of data.


I know that for the most part most Office users aren't going to be using cpu intensive tasks.
I don't think that you can make the argument that because Intel gets the job faster that they're going to be at idle longer. It is true that they will
finish earlier but how much faster?

If you were comparing 1 gigahertz Celerons or Durons with the Dual Core Chips described in the post I would see some logic but the performance difference is not big enough between the dual core cpu's from AMD and Intel.
June 20, 2007 2:01:33 PM

It is a valid argument. ANyone that would buy a lesser performing chip because it uses 5 less watts is crazy. I'll give you the fact it's cheaper and then it makes more sense. Over time though the amount of idle time will eventually put the higher performing chip ahead of the lesser performing higher effieciency chip.


Take the XVid example and compare the BE-2350 and the EX6800

Encoding takes the X6800 104 seconds at 129W for a total of 13416W to complete the task.

Encoding takes the BE 181 seconds at 89W for a total of 16109W to complete the task.

So you saved 1 minute and 17 seconds time as well as 2693W by using the X6800.

So lower power does not always = more efficient. If you add in the idle time for the x6800 it will use more power than the BE over the 181 seconds, but the point is you can get a shitload more work done using less power with the higher power chip. Lots of variable can be thrown in, but this 10W lower power consumption is no reason to buy a lower perfroming chip. IMO
June 21, 2007 12:17:40 AM

better than PR
June 21, 2007 1:50:20 AM

Most Office workers aren't going to be using Xvid or video rendering software on their computers, most of the apps they use are word processing apps or Excel. Those kinds of apps typically don't use a lot of cpu power.
June 21, 2007 2:01:12 AM

Quote:
Most Office workers aren't going to be using Xvid or video rendering software on their computers, most of the apps they use are word processing apps or Excel. Those kinds of apps typically don't use a lot of cpu power.


Which brings up the point - why would an office worker doing basic tasks require a dual core CPU in the first place? :wink:
June 21, 2007 2:08:21 AM

Quote:
It is a valid argument. ANyone that would buy a lesser performing chip because it uses 5 less watts is crazy. I'll give you the fact it's cheaper and then it makes more sense. Over time though the amount of idle time will eventually put the higher performing chip ahead of the lesser performing higher effieciency chip.


Take the XVid example and compare the BE-2350 and the EX6800

Encoding takes the X6800 104 seconds at 129W for a total of 13416W to complete the task.

Encoding takes the BE 181 seconds at 89W for a total of 16109W to complete the task.

So you saved 1 minute and 17 seconds time as well as 2693W by using the X6800.

So lower power does not always = more efficient. If you add in the idle time for the x6800 it will use more power than the BE over the 181 seconds, but the point is you can get a shitload more work done using less power with the higher power chip. Lots of variable can be thrown in, but this 10W lower power consumption is no reason to buy a lower perfroming chip. IMO


What the heck do you think the majority of people use their PC's for at work? Video encoding? Burning CD's? Nope. Using word processors like microsoft word, spread sheets programs like excell, accounting software, or stupid specific software programs that are specific to that state,federal, or local government agency. Don't forget the internet, and other business applications. Where I work we all work off of the servers. Now if the servers were faster yea that might help save a little time but the computers in our office...naaaa. How much time will you save? Ok I work 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. So how much time will is save me in a day? 15 minutes? Actually IMO computers cause people to get less work done. People get on the internet, send email etc. So I guess with faster comptuers they would have more time to goof off. :wink:
June 21, 2007 2:15:37 AM

Actually it would be far more efficient to get ultra low powered pc's and use Microsoft's Terminal Services to get the apps to run off the server.
However, Windows Server is not cheap especially when you have to purchase licenses for every pc in the office.
June 21, 2007 2:24:40 AM

Quote:
Most Office workers aren't going to be using Xvid or video rendering software on their computers, most of the apps they use are word processing apps or Excel. Those kinds of apps typically don't use a lot of cpu power.


Which brings up the point - why would an office worker doing basic tasks require a dual core CPU in the first place? :wink:


You bet. Hell we even have a few old Dell pentium II and III servers that run older unix based programs that the state has had for over 30+ years. Our big upgrade last year was to windows 2000. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

They did give every worker a nice IBM laptop computer. 8O
June 21, 2007 7:45:46 PM

Quote:
Anandtech reviews the BE-2350 vs. a E4300, 3800+, and 5000+

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3003&p=9

Guess who had the better power consumption at idle AND load?

EDIT: Unfortunately all were using 8800GTXes LOL




What a lame review Anandtech posted!! OH! I get it, I buy an inexpensive low power cpu and then spend top dollar for a dual 16 SLI motherboard that draws tons of power for features I will never use, Right! That review is worse than stupid!

This review is really lame taking about overclocking! I agree that the top end chips do not belong here. Comparing compression times does not apply here either! We all know that those apps are written for Intel chips.
This is about low power low heat systems. I can not believe the math posted above 16109W! must have been an Intel user!
!