Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Power consumption Article (Paid Advert for INTEL)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2007 9:16:14 AM

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/19/the_truth_about_...

What a missmatched Intel paid pumper article this one is eh?

Pick a nice low end core2 cpu ... match it against a 5000+ G1 stepping 2.6ghz AMD cpu that we all know has thermal leakage issues because it is as fast as they can currently make on 65nm SOI.

How about comparing a low power cpu Toms? AMD have a heap of them ... surely you know that.

Once again the benchmarks fail to mention all of the finer detail.

I'd imagine the Intel chip was also careully selected.

Once again ... fizzle.

Reputation in the toilet once again.


October 19, 2007 9:57:16 AM

Once again, the AMD zealots can't get out of the dark hole and admit the truth and the only truth. Lol @ those who still tout AMD for energy efficeint. I guess they can't compete on the performance front, they have to switch over and talk about power saving.
Even if the article's result favors AMD as a more power efficient, which I surely did not, I would stil buy Core 2 Duo for now. Why? Simple, because I don't care about a mere difference in power cost. At 15 cent per KWH, my current energy rate, I can surely pay 15 cent more per day to have a system that can out perform the competitions by 100%.
October 19, 2007 10:01:02 AM

ok how can you stay that i bet my quad will run cooler that amd. no i am not a fan boy at all. intel has a better cpu all togather over amd. so please dont call my a fanboy or what ever you call it. i own a x2 4200 and a q6600 G0. and i own other athlon barton core. i am just saying. intel is on top right now. and its a fact. so take your amd fan loving stuff some where else
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2007 10:12:10 AM

Both are 65nm, both perform about the same (well actually, the Intel out performs the AMD chip), so what are you saying? and the Intel CPU (e6400) - its the same as it originally was a year ago!
October 19, 2007 10:14:41 AM

Yeah it's a strange article.
We allready knew the difference between the core architecture and the much older amd 64 architecture when it comes to performance and power efficiency. I think AMD's claims are about their upcoming processors rather than the ancient one used in the article.
Also the AMD processor used is not exactly the most EE processor AMD offers in that performance segment, I just fail to see the point of the article.

A waste of everyones time if you ask me.
How about instead of wasting everyones time, some Tomshardware folks go and update the graphics charts, that are also (coincidence) leading potential customers away from amd and ati by providing misleading information.
October 19, 2007 10:24:22 AM

OK, I read it and am somewhat disappointed in that you can use EE chips and find a C2D equivalent. Also a die shrink from an arch as old as the k8 doesnt help here that much, even with EE being used. Maybe its a article to contrast the upcoming AMD chips, and at a bad time as well, being as AMD needs to make sales, and their new product will soon be out. Kinda like a doctor ripping the wound wider to see how bad it is, before he sews it up.
October 19, 2007 10:40:44 AM

This article is utter rubbish! Not scientific in the least. Their quoted power usage includes the motherboard etc. Any monkey could choose a power hungry older generation Athlon board and a current generation Intel board to make Intel look good.

And the REAL truth is. Couple a AMD BE-2400 with a current 690G and a power efficient 80+ power supply and you have an amazingly power efficient combo. I've got that combo, it flatout works.

BTW, If your a speed junky, go ahead and buy all the high wattage components, just remember to turn your computer off when you're not using it ;)  My systems are up 24x7, and most of the time they're idling, waiting for something to do. That's a pretty normal operation mode for UNIXish systems. They like to do cron jobs and such at say 3:33 in the morning.
October 19, 2007 10:48:14 AM

Also, why the hell did they use the crosshair MB for the AMD system?
Like, really, just why?
AMD 690G has been out for ages.

What a mess this article is.
October 19, 2007 10:55:03 AM

The power source chosen is too powerfull to run in high efficient mode.
A power source run at optimum efficiency between 20% and 100% of rated power. The intel system draw from the wall at idle 87W, and the source probable output 60-65W, that's aprox. 11% of nominal power of "Sky Hawk Power One GM570PC ATX 2.01, 570 W" . For mainstream use is enought 300W, and will run at optimum efficiency. http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/manu_psu.htm (some efficiency graphics there)

I don't find the link now, but in some article was compared power consumption of different mainboards, and the Asus was the most hungry.The Intel and AMD platform should be tested with the same brand of mainboard, and in the same segment of price.(budget/mainstream/performance).
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2007 11:08:18 AM

Exactly ...

And I have both Intel and AMD systems too.

What would have been fairer woud be to list all of the CPU's.

Do a comprehensive test.

Not another paid ad.

Happy to see the warts and all ... no problems there.

If I were building a system now there is no doubt I'd build a QX6600.

Informing "Joe public" properly is the responsible thing to do.

It's just so poor to do a 20 minute test and write it up as a definitive article ... just bottom of the barrel really.
October 19, 2007 11:31:30 AM

10xBsod said:
The Intel and AMD platform should be tested with the same brand of mainboard, and in the same segment of price.(budget/mainstream/performance).


Not a terrible idea, but it still leaves too much wiggle room to selectively pick motherboards with good/bad power profiles. I think a more appropriate method would be to select motherboards that have the best power consumption characteristics for each platform.

BTW, when was the last time you saw a motherboard with specs that plainly state it's power consumption? I think it's about time we start getting the real facts.

http://www.silentpcreview.com/ is about the best place I've found for getting the low down on power supply efficiency numbers. There are some high-power supplies that have high efficiency even when they're running low loads.

Tasks: 66 total, 1 running, 65 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni,100.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st

100% idle BE-2400 99% of the time. It's PDQ the other 1%. ;) 
October 19, 2007 11:57:22 AM

I don't believe that rig using 340w with just a 86GT and a AM2.
Mine maxes at 320w with an 88GTS and a 2,5ghz socket 939 opteron 90nm, 2gb 500mhz ddr1, two raptors and one 320gb drive.
October 19, 2007 12:22:33 PM

Seriously. I want some of Intel's cash, too.

Why would YOU EVER USE a current Nvidia chipset when trying to show the difference in AMD versus Intel Platforms?!??!?!?

I have a 7600GS, raptor, and 2350 running one the 6150/430 chipset that at MAX LOAD uses less power than BOTH of these systems. If just the onboard graphics were used, it would be UNDER 100 watts at max load.

If Tom's wanted the article to be fair, they could have either used the Nvidia chipset for the Intel system OR the AMD chipset for the AMD system. Either way, things would not look so out of balance.

Furthermore THE VAST MAJORITY of computers are EXTREMELY under-utilized, and thus, IDLE power consumption is what is occuring 85-90% of the time. The MINORITY of computer users are enthusiasts or gamers, even though we as enthusiasts seem to forget this at every opportunity.
October 19, 2007 12:53:26 PM

Reynod said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/19/the_truth_about_...

What a missmatched Intel paid pumper article this one is eh?

Pick a nice low end core2 cpu ... match it against a 5000+ G1 stepping 2.6ghz AMD cpu that we all know has thermal leakage issues because it is as fast as they can currently make on 65nm SOI.

How about comparing a low power cpu Toms? AMD have a heap of them ... surely you know that.

Once again the benchmarks fail to mention all of the finer detail.

I'd imagine the Intel chip was also careully selected.

Once again ... fizzle.

Reputation in the toilet once again.
If you don't like the truth, go to AMDZone.
October 19, 2007 1:07:02 PM

:lol:  . o O (wow)

All I can say is... if you want power efficiency, don't use a high end video card with it.

I've already figured out that I pretty much loss all my power efficiency when I got my 8800 GTS installed.

I've mentioned it once, and mention it again. I use a P3 killowatt meter, that measures power consumption. So it shows the wattage being drained. I also recently ended up buying new batteries for my UPS, which I had to power up and drain a few times to get them... heh, fit.

So.. basically my old P4 system (6800GS AGP) used at idle around 110-115watts. My dad's E4300 (7300GT PCI-E) uses 107-109watts at idle. And finally my system, E4400, which typically used the same amount of power with the 7300GT, now sits at idle of 167watts with the 8800 GTS installed.

Now to mention the run times on my UPS.

I can run my linux P4 3ghz system 6800GS for about 20 mins and it starts beeping.

My new... :cry: 

Will last about 11 mins and start beeping.

I wish I did have an AMD64 system to compare... but, it comes to show ya not only should the CPU be looked at, but other hardware as well. Especially... the GPU. :lol: 
October 19, 2007 1:32:22 PM

Just cause AMD uses more power and is less efficient does not mean that this advert/article is NOT paid for by intel....

But then again, if you want to play games then you will have to pay the power bill either way, so shut up and stop whining.
October 19, 2007 1:46:11 PM

While it was not a great article, I'm sorry to say it was not terribly slanted.

Yes, they could have used the AMD Athlon X2 BE-2400 rated at 45w.
However, The Intel 2xxx series also use very very little power since they have 1/4 of the L2 Cache of the chip shown.

The e6400 Chip is really not a great chip to showcase for power either.
It has 4mb of cache, but only 2 is used. The E6420 actually uses all 4mb of cache but is also more power efficient due to newer steppings.
So the e6420 would have given better results but used less power.
They also could have upgrade to a e6550 which also would have used less power and given much better resuls.

These chips simple represent moderate samplings of what is available.
They did not attempt to make the most power efficient solution possible.

(Note: If you want your GPU to be more efficient, just crank down the CLOCK speeds when not gaming and browsing the NET. The 8600GT selected for the test is a reasonable card for a home user. It is relatively light on power usage, but can be used by a light/moderate gamer.)
October 19, 2007 2:02:18 PM

zenmaster said:
While it was not a great article, I'm sorry to say it was not terribly slanted.

They did not attempt to make the most power efficient solution possible.



I'd politely disagree. It was in fact slanted by choice of motherboards. If they want to make it an AMD -vs- Intel showdown then they should take the MB power consumption out of the picture. If they want to make it a platform -vs- platform showdown then the only logical solution is to choose the most power efficient MB/CPU available for the platform.

It doesn't matter much anyway...those that need to know, know what they need to know. Those that don't, read articles like this and think they know what they need to know.
October 19, 2007 2:06:38 PM

i think they choose E6400 and X2 5000 due to their close 3D Performance?

check this out

-------------------------------------------------
Here are the facts from our test results:

Power consumption must not only be looked from a minimum and maximum power consumption standpoint, but must be tracked using applications and benchmarks that truly simulate PC use over time. Performance and energy efficiency are closely related, and you cannot have ideal energy efficiency without a certain level of performance.
The Athlon 64 X2 system we used consumed more energy than the Core 2 Duo E6400 machine, whether it was idle, running our power consumption benchmarks, or under maximum load. I want to make clear that faster Athlon processors would look better, but they would also require more power. The same applies for faster Core 2 processors.

The Core 2 Duo E6400 system completed the SYSmark 2007 Preview run 14 minutes earlier than the Athlon 64 X2 5000+. As a consequence, the Intel system went back to an idle state earlier, which of course results in considerably less total power consumed. During the same time, the AMD system had to stay at a higher activity level for a longer period of time, which eventually meant that it required as much as 50% more power than the Intel system!

the bold area indicates that the AMD machine's meansurment was a whole 14 mins longer than intel's configuration?

Tomshardware should have gave a figure on how fast Intel's config has completed the test, using that we can get a %
October 19, 2007 2:20:37 PM

Everyone take a nice big, relaxing, breath. Unless it's a smog day out in California.

This article fails, but not because it compares AMD to Intel, or is biased in anyway. The conclusion does not carry through from the facts presented.

Comparing a slower, less efficient PC to a faster, more efficient PC cannot lead the conclusion:
"The results speak clearly, showing that performance is still a major issue, even when the primary goal is to save power in average desktop environments."
Had the slower PC been more efficient, you could get to this conclusion. As it stands, about the best you can conclude is that 2 year old PC's are generally less efficient than new PC's, or something like that.

If Tom's wants to make a conclusion about run speed and efficiency, they should either compare a range of core duo PC's, preferably across max power consumption lines, or compare a core duo to Via's 1.5 Ghz ridiculously low power system, or AMD's 2 Ghz low power system. At the least, find a slower system with less power consumption than the core duo.
October 19, 2007 2:30:33 PM

zenmaster said:
(Note: If you want your GPU to be more efficient, just crank down the CLOCK speeds when not gaming and browsing the NET. The 8600GT selected for the test is a reasonable card for a home user. It is relatively light on power usage, but can be used by a light/moderate gamer.)


Heh... well for a 8800, using rivatuner and pushing everything down as far as it can go:

Default speeds - GPU@588 Memory@920


Reduced all the way - GPU@295 Memory@460


Power consumption only reflected 12watt difference changing the 2d clocks.

And is still 35watt more then my old P4. :lol: 
October 19, 2007 3:07:32 PM

jabliese said:
Everyone take a nice big, relaxing, breath. Unless it's a smog day out in California.

This article fails, but not because it compares AMD to Intel, or is biased in anyway. The conclusion does not carry through from the facts presented.

Comparing a slower, less efficient PC to a faster, more efficient PC cannot lead the conclusion:
"The results speak clearly, showing that performance is still a major issue, even when the primary goal is to save power in average desktop environments."
Had the slower PC been more efficient, you could get to this conclusion. As it stands, about the best you can conclude is that 2 year old PC's are generally less efficient than new PC's, or something like that.

If Tom's wants to make a conclusion about run speed and efficiency, they should either compare a range of core duo PC's, preferably across max power consumption lines, or compare a core duo to Via's 1.5 Ghz ridiculously low power system, or AMD's 2 Ghz low power system. At the least, find a slower system with less power consumption than the core duo.


apparently it takes a new member to come in here and bring light to the fault in the logic of the article... and NOT just whine from fanboi-itis. well done man. :sol: 

While the conclusion is not supported by the test, the idea that efficiency is more than simply raw power consumption is solid. From dictionary.com:

ef·fi·cien·cy
1. the state or quality of being efficient; competency in performance.
2. accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort: The assembly line increased industry's efficiency.
3. the ratio of the work done or energy developed by a machine, engine, etc., to the energy supplied to it, usually expressed as a percentage.

with that in mind, performance MUST be included in any efficiency measure as it is a RATIO of time vs energy supplied. The article is intriguing in the assumption that a fast proc has the potential of beating a power frugal proc, regardless of max power usage. I say "assumption" only b/c they really did not bring that point home in the testing. (as jabliese pointed out) My gut/intuitive reaction is that a test for that would prove it correct. Not that it would stop the fanboi whining. ;) 

as for the idea of it being anti-amd... meh, I just don't see it. Sure, all the fanbois for either camp will ALWAYS have issue with components selected in this type of comparison. Reality is that those fans will NEVER be pleased. ever.

Honestly, I enjoy articles like this on Tom's. Even when they just miss the mark of supporting the conclusion like this one, they still bring up some solid thoughts to make you go "hmmm..."

Rock on.
October 19, 2007 3:25:22 PM

The reason I found this article a bit pointless is this: the E6400 is 80+ (Canadian) dollars more expensive than the X2 5000+ in my city...so it's gotta be better, right? Either speed or efficiency. So what's the point of this article? lol
October 19, 2007 4:19:15 PM

As a point of reference here's a thread where people are actually measuring total system power with AM2's combined with Asus M2A-VM's. I don't have a watt meter so I can't check mine (yet). Even with standard 65nm AM2's the low-power measurements are astounding.

http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37...
October 19, 2007 4:21:59 PM

I guess the new THG is still learning to write detailed review...so I would just give them a little more time to get the feel of it.

Simply calling the review as "paid pumper for Intel" is very irresponsible, as this directly discredit the author.
October 19, 2007 7:09:37 PM

I could see some complaint in the choice of motherboards, and that could likely take into account some of the 12W difference at idle, and some at max load, but I really don't think the motherboard selection is going to make a huge difference on that 47W difference at max load. It would also not have any noticeable impact on the fact that the Intel system finished the last test in considerably less time. If someone has some proof that AMD has some mainstream motherboards that use 50W less then what they choose in that article then there might be some basis for argument. (but the difference would have to be greater then that to make up for the power usage difference caused simply by running at max load longer)

Also the AMD boards are supposed to, in general, use less power then Intel because of the integrated memory controller on the AMD chips. Its not like they could change motherboards and change that AMD advantage.

The complaint about the power supply choice is pointless because both systems used the same power supply. Also since the AMD system was drawing more power it should have been in a higher effeciency range of the PSU then the Intel system was. Unless you want to claim the AMD system was using less power and the Intel system was using more but the PSU efficiency change somehow made that reverse, but that doesn't even make any sense.

There is a huge number of processor combinations they could have chosen to compare, and any choice they could have made would have got people flaming them for being biased. Both chips were produced at about the same time, they both clearly have the '05 stamp on them, and they are comparing medium range chips, not the newest from both. While an ultra low power choice may have changed the numbers a bit, it would have been much less useful for actual user consideration. Why? Because most people here are going to be picking mid range chips and not the ultra low end anyway, no semi-enthusiest is going to care what sort of power usage they get if they can't run the games and programs they want to run.
If they wanted to they could have got the E6750 instead, its running about the same price as the E6400, but its also more powerful and the newest C2D revison, and people would complain that its not fair to AMD because they haven't had any revisions to their line that are comprable to that chip. They could even have went with the E6420, which is better then the E6400 but its also a newer revison and will use less power too. If they had went with a X2 6000 people would complain that they picked the most power hungry AMD chip, if they went with a X2 4600 then people would have complained because they picked an AMD chip that was obviously less powerful and skewed the results because of that.
October 19, 2007 8:37:30 PM

cbxbiker61 said:
I'd politely disagree. It was in fact slanted by choice of motherboards. If they want to make it an AMD -vs- Intel showdown then they should take the MB power consumption out of the picture. If they want to make it a platform -vs- platform showdown then the only logical solution is to choose the most power efficient MB/CPU available for the platform.

It doesn't matter much anyway...those that need to know, know what they need to know. Those that don't, read articles like this and think they know what they need to know.


What you forget is when you compare the two you MUST compare the platform that supports them, duh. That's like saying you're not having a fair comparison of a gas and diesel car because they don't run on the same fuel. OF COURSE THEY DON'T! That's part of the test. They did it as fairly as possible. All the AMD fanboys keep calling out Intel for padding their stats because of the lack of IMC decreases the power consumption of their processors, but this test shows fully working system's total power consumption, so they cancel each other out. Articles (not just this one) have shown Intel has caught up, if not surpassed, AMD in the energy efficiency market.
October 19, 2007 8:43:31 PM

AMD's current desktop lineup reminds me of my old friend, Prescott.

Nobody should be allowed to compare AMD and Intel in anyway

And Reynod calls me a troll.


If an Intel E6400 is low-end do you realize how that would categorize AMD products?
October 19, 2007 9:15:00 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
AMD's current desktop lineup reminds me of my old friend, Prescott.

Nobody should be allowed to compare AMD and Intel in anyway

And Reynod calls me a troll.


If an Intel E6400 is low-end do you realize how that would categorize AMD products?


um...ultra-value end? :D  :D 
October 19, 2007 9:21:01 PM

AMD fans can always find an excuse to explain any AMD defeat in comparison. If you want to bring on the BE series, I can also bring on the T7600 combine with an ASUS N4L-VM. Now, which product from AMD can compete with such a user desktop solution from Intel and Asus? As of right now, who has the most energy efficient CPU? the answer is Intel. Who has the highest performance CPU, once again it is Intel. Who has the best price/performance CPU? AMD on the low end, Intel on the high end. AMD was a little too late to drop their prices on CPU. I remember 6 months ago, AMD cpus are still way overcharged.
Also, it favors the high performance cpu- as the article pointed out- when you are running a quadcore from Intel that needs about 150 w more, but finish a video encoding in 50-70% less time than a comparable AMD cpu. The over all system energy and time saving are priceless! Most AMD zealots didn't see this, I guess they build computers and have them @ idle for the rest of the time.
October 19, 2007 9:36:57 PM

noblekitty said:
AMD fans can always find an excuse to explain any AMD defeat in comparison. If you want to bring on the BE series, I can also bring on the T7600 combine with an ASUS N4L-VM. Now, which product from AMD can compete with such a user desktop solution from Intel and Asus? As of right now, who has the most energy efficient CPU? the answer is Intel. Who has the highest performance CPU, once again it is Intel. Who has the best price/performance CPU? AMD on the low end, Intel on the high end. AMD was a little too late to drop their prices on CPU. I remember 6 months ago, AMD cpus are still way overcharged.
Also, it favors the high performance cpu- as the article pointed out- when you are running a quadcore from Intel that needs about 150 w more, but finish a video encoding in 50-70% less time than a comparable AMD cpu. The over all system energy and time saving are priceless! Most AMD zealots didn't see this, I guess they build computers and have them @ idle for the rest of the time.


I don't think it is just the amd "zealots" but ANY fanboi from either camp. Neither are satisfied unless the "enemy" processor is cast into utter destruction and despair while all their fans are sniffling in the corner. All that while their own respective winner is on a throne higher than God Himself and all bow to the wishes of the processor king...

...while they may not say that exactly, they sure act like that is what they want...

...and when you actually read what you posted, you sound suspiciously like one of "them"...

you don't wear underwear w/ "intel inside" on them do you? ;) 
a c 126 à CPUs
October 19, 2007 11:22:52 PM

It is not an Paid Intel advertisment. Thats just ignorance right there. You have to compare what Intel has with what AMD has and since K10/Phenom isn't here then it has to be K8.

What I find funny is that not only does it run cooler but it also beats the AMD in performance at almost a 500MHz clock speed drop without a IMC.

The only way anyone will be happy with THG, especially the AMD fanbois, is when they have a real Phenom to test. What I want to know is that since the Barcy has been out for a while and THG has not been able to get one. In fact there are relativley few review sites that have one for testing.

Anywho. I do prefer Intel as my experience has been very good. I like AMD for the competition as they drove Intel to drop the proce of my current quad core to $266 and thats a bargain right there.

Right now AMD has a very limited "top dawg" area. Maybe in the uber I only turn on my PC to check email area they have the best watts/performance but Intel owns the mid to high end with authority. Even when they have a northbridge and FSB they still can keep up or beat AMD. I just wounder what Nehalem will do. But I am sure AMD will strike back with Phenom and then it will be an even battleground till Nehalem which is roughly 8-9 months away?
October 20, 2007 12:14:42 AM

noblekitty said:
I can also bring on the T7600 combine with an ASUS N4L-VM.


A BE-2400 vs a T7600. That's would be a shootout worth seeing (even though it would be comparing a desktop processory to a notebook processor). And a T7600 costs what? And would take how may years to pay for the additional power savings? You'd be old n gray before you saw a monetary return.

A BE-2400 costs $20 more than the comparable standard X2 that performs identical. At approximately 20 watts (+ PS loss) less * 24/7/365 how long does it take to recoup the $20. Not too long.

Mom and Pops (and companies) would make decisions based on factors like. What does it cost up front? What does it cost to operate per year? Using those criteria the AMD BE processors are hard to beat.

October 20, 2007 12:18:53 AM

What's funny is that Barcy was released with the caveat that we shouldn't use TDP anymore and should use AMD's new magical power rating system instead. This article is actually more aligned with AMD's new system and they get spanked. Now, granted, this wasn't a Barcy test, but it's likely that the Phenom will be in a similar situation when compared to Penryn when it's released. :-D
October 20, 2007 12:58:29 AM

wolverinero79 said:
What's funny is that Barcy was released with the caveat that we shouldn't use TDP anymore and should use AMD's new magical power rating system instead. This article is actually more aligned with AMD's new system and they get spanked. Now, granted, this wasn't a Barcy test, but it's likely that the Phenom will be in a similar situation when compared to Penryn when it's released. :-D


Hard to say how Barcelona will perform when it hits the desktop market. I see nothing wrong with a company moving towards an average power consumption figure. The Barcelona's ability to power down cores when under low utilization makes a lot of sense. We'll have to wait and see how it works in the real world.

AMD's move is like a car company saying: so far we've been rating our car's on how many miles per hour they go, now it's time to rate miles per gallon.

The performance race always rates highly on sites like Tom's. Kinda like comparing Ferrari to Porsche. Interesting yes. Affects most people, no. Anyone pay attention to cost or MPG on those cars, just the EPA.

Power consumption is really more of a Chevy vs Ford scenario. People interested in cost, yes. People interested in MPG, yes. People interested in how fast they go, some are.
October 20, 2007 1:01:04 AM

cbxbiker61 said:
Hard to say how Barcelona will perform when it hits the desktop market. I see nothing wrong with a company moving towards an average power consumption figure. The Barcelona's ability to power down cores when under low utilization makes a lot of sense. We'll have to wait and see how it works in the real world.

AMD's move is like a car company saying: so far we've been rating our car's on how many miles per hour they go, now it's time to rate miles per gallon.

The performance race always rates highly on sites like Tom's. Kinda like comparing Ferrari to Porsche. Interesting yes. Affects most people, no. Anyone pay attention to cost or MPG on those cars, just the EPA.

Power consumption is really more of a Chevy vs Ford scenario. People interested in cost, yes. People interested in MPG, yes. People interested in how fast they go, some are.


A better analogy is, the car company replaced "the maximum amount of fuel an engine can consume" with "average miles per gallon"
October 20, 2007 1:19:38 AM

older processors have less leakage - the match was fair

intel wins again
October 20, 2007 5:07:47 AM

Overall, the impression I got, even though I do see the different views on this topic, AMD has indeed have been the ones to push how power efficient their product was. That stuck in my mind for basically all their new AMD64 products.

In this case, the way I see it compared to the E6400, which seem to be on par or better then the 5000, The power consumption was obvious. To me it is just a shrouded gimmick on power savings. It would have been nice to see the other AMD cores 45w compared as well, but each are 65w TDP.

But then again, through all this testing that some people do, how many of us forum readings actually see the power difference? I've seen it with my killowatt meter, but then how accurate is it?

My new system OC to 2.8ghz, with a 8800GTS is no where near power efficiency from my dads E4300 OC to 2.4ghz with a 7300GT. :lol: 

And its kind hard to tell how they came up with their results. My power readings are directly from the PSU, which I feel as though gives me the overall power drain. So basically its:

AC Wall outlet > UPS > 6 pack outlet > Killowatt meter > PC PSU
a b à CPUs
October 20, 2007 6:58:25 AM

Why can you people never stop bitching about every article they publish? Maybe toms should stop writing articles altogether, but then, you'd bitch about that too wouldn't you?
a b à CPUs
October 20, 2007 6:59:06 AM

If they could've isolated the mobo's consumption, we wouldn't have alot of people blaming that selection. I feel that if they took 2 or 3 different mobo's and used the same CPU/RAM/PSU/CASE/GPU/etc., we could see the difference between the several mobo's selected. Than you take the similiar power loss mobo's and use these to test your total power draw. I know that this would minimize the idle draw and then you would thoerectically would just be measuring the CPU/RAM/GPU/HD draw during the bench tests or the like. Having the equivalent base idle drain would help to minimize that variable. I'm not taking any sides on this, because the article throws in too many variables for my liking. I'm probably not alone here, but probably in the minority. I know un-educated computer buyers won't know about these possible variables and would view this article differently than those that are educated better. I'm not complaining here, just pointing out a few differences that I see, so THG's please keep writing articles, we (I) don't want that to stop. Alot of people take their computers way too personal, sorta like guys with their cars. Once they've built something they take pride in it and don't want anyone raining down on their parade.
October 20, 2007 7:08:32 AM

randomizer said:
Why can you people never stop bitching about every article they publish? Maybe toms should stop writing articles altogether, but then, you'd bitch about that too wouldn't you?


Because apparently... if the article doesn't agree with their perspective, they'll just flat out discredit the article as being "paid pumped".
a b à CPUs
October 20, 2007 7:22:55 AM

Guess what, Anandtech is also "paid" to prove that Core 2 is better than K8/K10.
October 20, 2007 7:41:11 AM

randomizer said:
Guess what, Anandtech is also "paid" to prove that Core 2 is better than K8/K10.


Guess what, sharikou is also "paid" to prove that K8/K10 is vastly superior than any Intel's offering :pt1cable:  :pt1cable: 
a b à CPUs
October 20, 2007 8:19:33 AM

Sharikou isn't human, it's a piece of flawed software that outputs erroneous data labeled as "facts".
October 20, 2007 8:39:31 AM

cbxbiker61 said:
I'd politely disagree. It was in fact slanted by choice of motherboards. If they want to make it an AMD -vs- Intel showdown then they should take the MB power consumption out of the picture. If they want to make it a platform -vs- platform showdown then the only logical solution is to choose the most power efficient MB/CPU available for the platform.

It doesn't matter much anyway...those that need to know, know what they need to know. Those that don't, read articles like this and think they know what they need to know.



Uhh.. did you read the article?

The point of the article was to show what was the most power efficient MB/CPU available between 2 competing products and to show you that the products that claim to be 'power efficient' might not actually be so because of their lower performance. It was NOT to show the post power efficient chip of all of the choices with all of the MB/chipsets combinations.
October 20, 2007 9:44:05 AM

Just a blunt point of view on the article, I'd have to agree with what the article presents. The main point that sticks in my mind:

Both CPU's are 65w.

However the differences:

E6400 - 2MB shared L2 - 2.13ghz
5000+ - 1MB L2 - 2.6ghz

Some of you guys point out the definition of efficiency. Well.. the E6400 is running at a slower ghz, and keeping par or better on the benchmark tests. However if you guys think it should be more even, it changes the TDP, as well as comparing differences, which should give you a percentage of performance.

So in contrast to that, power savings are just a gimmick to help sell their products. If you wanted to play the latest games or what not, its not exactly going to run well, for say on the best laptop, which would be somewhat more power efficient then a desktop.

But I guess its going to be somewhat of an on and on argument because of the different components that will also effect power consumption.
a b à CPUs
October 20, 2007 11:28:34 AM

Wow guys ... I went off to do some PR consulting for a day and came back to this ...

TC ... yeah ... I'm a troll too (that's how I can tell ... you know).

Actually I got the term "paid pumper" from reading one of the mad professor's articles ... sorry bout that ... I was rude on that point and apologise. Must not go to that website again ... damages the synapses ... heh heh.

The authors have both been writing articles for years ... no excuses there really ... so no apology from me on penmanship, or academic rigour in terms of applied research.

I'd have compared the entire range of both current lineups, plus I would have measured the power at the point, I'd have possibly also compared both lines using two different psu's (as a poster earlier pointed out).

This sort of lazy review should be condemmed because it allows the casual reader to take away a false impression from a simple click.

We all know it is much more complex an issue.

I also would like to credit them for identifying the issue of power saved whilst a task has been completed. Its a valid point and needs to be taken into account ... and it favours Intel (justly) too.

Lets face it, many PC's sit there idling much of the time ... I'd have made much of that fact when comparing systems too.

<hears the screams of gamers crying "ours are maxed out most of the time">

With 47 posts it is clear the faithful want a solid review THG crew ... please consider doing one and accept my apolgies for being trollish !!
October 20, 2007 12:08:29 PM

Reynod said:
accept my apolgies for being trollish !!


From one troll to another, we forgive you!
October 20, 2007 12:17:10 PM

The problem is we want the best of both worlds.

Tom's puts out quite a few articles, usually at least one a day during the week. Unfortunately, they are often not comprehensive enough to be of real use. There are so many "What Ifs" in this article.

I wish I could find it, but there was a great article on CPU power consumption that show the power usage on a huge array of CPUs under idle and under load. It also included what they termed reasonable OC's so you could see what a 2160 used running @ 1.8 and what it used running @ 3.2. It also did the test in just about every current desktop AMD/Intel Chip.

The selection of a single AMD and a single Intel really leaves so much uncertain. What of the Low Watt AMD? What of the 1meg vs 4meg C2Ds? What of the new G0 stepping CPUs?

Here is an examle of a useful Tom's Article.........

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/08/21/energy-efficient...

The performance tests were just a waste of time and effort in the CPU article. These tests already exist all over the web and on this site. Just reference back. Spend the time testing an array of CPUs. Then use user has a real source he can use to cross reference the other articles that test the performance of an array of CPUs.
!