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, 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%.
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
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!
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.
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.
---------------
Every artist is a cannibal,every poet is a thief,they all kill their inspiration then sing about their grief
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.