Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD: The Lies About Power Consumption Start Here

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 10, 2007 3:24:46 PM

I don't know but I've abbandoned AMD for good and got an Intel E6750-and does it fly!
December 10, 2007 3:27:59 PM

Looks like AMD got caught with its hand in the cookie jar again. :non:  First it changes usage from TDP to ACP to hide its power usage, then it doesn't tell the whole story about the ACP.

On the other hand, it does look like clever marketing to those who don't know better and/or are too lazy to investigate. To people buying their computers at Best Buy, they probably won't know and wouldn't understand if you tried to explain it to them.
Related resources
December 10, 2007 3:33:22 PM

I did a little snooping on the net, and it looks like AMD purposely deflate its own TDP rating, for marketing purposes.

For Phenom 9600, it has a TDP of 95W, which is identical to Q6600 G0 revision. So theoretically speaking, it should consume the same power as Q6600, right?

Here's TechReport's review on Phenom.



Doesn't look too "identical" to me. So either AMD is grossly understating its TDP, or Intel is grossly overstating its TDP. Which one does it seem more likely?
a b à CPUs
December 10, 2007 3:35:48 PM

{Purposely didn't read the article}


Let me guess:

(1) Intel publishes balls to the wall max.
(2) AMD publishes based on anticipated workloads.
(3) This has been known for some time, and wasn't a problem before.
(4) It's going into the holiday season, the writer needed a story, but didn't want to work that hard.


Am I right? Am I wrong? Should I have just asked for bets??
December 10, 2007 3:43:51 PM

Scotteq said:
{Purposely didn't read the article}


Let me guess:

(1) Intel publishes balls to the wall max.
(2) AMD publishes based on anticipated workloads.


My Guess:

(1) Intel publishes balls to the wall max playing Oblivion.
(2) AMD publishes based on anticipated workloads playing Solitare.
December 10, 2007 4:09:51 PM

In the Desktop arena Intel only lists 65W, 75W, 95W, 105W and 130W. Looks to soon be joined by 150W for the Xeon QX9775 for the Skulltrail motherboard.

Intel has yet to come out with any processor listed below 65W DTP. I'm sure if they wanted too they could come out with a 45W DTP especially for any of the new Penryn based Dual Cores.
December 10, 2007 5:17:58 PM

Scotteq said:
{Purposely didn't read the article}


Let me guess:

(1) Intel publishes balls to the wall max.
(2) AMD publishes based on anticipated workloads.
(3) This has been known for some time, and wasn't a problem before.
(4) It's going into the holiday season, the writer needed a story, but didn't want to work that hard.


Am I right? Am I wrong? Should I have just asked for bets??


I rarely side with AMD, but to a certain extent I must hear.
The writers assumptions were way off, even when looking just at Intel.

The E2140 and the E6750 have the same TDP.
However, the power they use at stock and clocked to the same speed is quite a bit different.
The E2xxx series uses far less power due to less cache.

Clearly you cant relate TDP or the Avg power consumption to closely.

For Intel, the TDP is clearly far more for an entire class of processors and even the highest of the high's max TDP even under extreme OC's.

The TDP for the Latest AMD chips appear to be closer to the max for the each individual chips.
December 10, 2007 6:14:54 PM

AMD lies, its mistake or someones faults finding? :)  The find is interesting, but writer should have gone all the way to prove or disprove this theory (like getting the cpu's and testing them!), now its juts pointing out few figure changes without understanding why it was done and immediately publicly call "AMD lies!".

Did they asked AMD to clarify? No.
Did they tested and saw for themselves? No.
Do they know ACP is tested in the wrong way and this article proves it? No.

Its unprofessional.

To quote discussion (by Sahrin) in DT:

"DT: There is no other feasible explanation of why a 20 W TDP increase would be accompanied by no increase in ACP.

Bull. AMD has historically defined TDP's for entire models in ONE number. This is why all parts of type X will be released at 95W, or 105, or 135W - when there's no way in heck the lowest-end part has the same power usage as the highest-end part. Every part gets released in the same envelope, because AMD plays the power game conservatively.

Maybe, they increased the TDP figure to raise the power envelope? Maybe it's to make room in the spec for FUTURE parts, that haven't been released? This would mean that the TDP would change - but the ACP wouldn't because the the ACP is based on ACTUAL POWER PERFORMANCE - not a design spec, like TDP. TDP is the maximum envelope in which any chip may run - ACP is the power that the typical user can expect to see. The only difference between AMD and Intel on this score is that Intel was already telling this lie.

Furthermore - if you can't conceive of a change in maximum power not affecting the average, then you've never sat in a statistics class before.

I won't deny it's possible DT may be right here - but 10 seconds of testing would verify this information. It's so circumstantial and anecdotal as to make even the most ignorant of deductive reasoning squirm.

This is FUD, from Dailytech itself. Congratulations, DT - you're today's Elmer.

So if you're a corporate customer planning to buy many thousands of these chips, your thinking is to disregard AMD's material specifically designed for this purpose, instead opting to do validation yourself?

No, I'm going to look for hard information before coming to a misinformed conclusion. First I'll apply fundamental understanding of the concepts (AMD's definition of TDP v. AMD's definition of ACP v. Intel's definition of TDP v. a middle school-level understanding of statistics) and then go out a see if others (those that get these documents and publicize their opinions of them (READ: Hardware Review Sites) have had the opportunity to test the chips against the information (like when AMD claimed they were seeing 40% performance improvement with K10 - it was unclear to what exactly they were comparing K8, so DT (or someone, I believe it was you guys) took an engineering sample and tested their claims - and it turned out they were wrong, or that the claim was being misinterpereted in AMD's favor by the community at large) to see if there is a discrepancy.

Circumstantial would indicate this is some corner case: it's not. Anecdotal would indicate there is some testing going on period. There is not.

Circumstantial = derived from circumstance. You have no basis in fact (that is, no empirical evidence, just a document from AMD that you are inductively using as a basis for your conclusion; without the circumstance of the document you would have no case - imperfect usage, I grant you, but not fundamentally incorrect).

Anecdotal = based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation. That exactly describes the point I'm trying to make - that DailyTech is using a piece of evidence that is questionable, a synthesis that is questionable, and no additional evidence beyond it. It's like reading Fudzilla, only with a better layout.

These are white papers produced for corporate clients. If there is a large mathematical / logical mistake, that's not ancedotal or circumstantial.

If there's anything other than exactly what DT's implying, then it's absolutely anecdotal and circumstantial.

When DailyTech manages to misspell Ballmer's first name on the front page and someone raises issue, that's not circumstantial or anecdotal at all. It's in error, just like these whitepapers.

It is - but I don't think it merits the full force and fury of a front-page DT article alleging that a (relatively) upstanding company is "lying" to its customers. Certainly, when DT makes a spelling error there are no front-page headlines saying "Kubicki is t3h stooopid" and then tying the misspelling inductively to that rather poorly formed conclusion.
December 10, 2007 6:18:39 PM

That FX-74 must be uber-powerful to consume that much power
December 10, 2007 7:38:08 PM

measure power at the wall. Period
December 10, 2007 8:28:24 PM

just out of curiousity how does the 6400+ use less power than the 6000+?
December 10, 2007 8:41:55 PM

Harrisson said:
Bull. AMD has historically defined TDP's for entire models in ONE number. This is why all parts of type X will be released at 95W, or 105, or 135W - when there's no way in heck the lowest-end part has the same power usage as the highest-end part. Every part gets released in the same envelope, because AMD plays the power game conservatively.


Far too conservatively seeing that Intel's faster processors absolutely dominate all AMD processors in power use.


Harrisson said:
Maybe, they increased the TDP figure to raise the power envelope? Maybe it's to make room in the spec for FUTURE parts, that haven't been released? This would mean that the TDP would change - but the ACP wouldn't because the the ACP is based on ACTUAL POWER PERFORMANCE - not a design spec, like TDP. TDP is the maximum envelope in which any chip may run - ACP is the power that the typical user can expect to see. The only difference between AMD and Intel on this score is that Intel was already telling this lie.


The ACP almost as useful as the 400w PSU recommendation from my graphics card. I wouldn't put a heat sink rated to 40W on a processor that uses an average of 40W; I would find the maximum thermal dissipation from the CPU and use an appropriately rated HSF.
December 10, 2007 8:47:34 PM

j0j081 said:
just out of curiousity how does the 6400+ use less power than the 6000+?


Better speed bin. In other words, 6400+ are more cherry-picked than 6000+, thus results in better thermal.
December 10, 2007 8:50:56 PM

cfvh600, I am proud of your thread title making abilities. It brought a tear to my eye just to see I'm rubbing off on people!
December 10, 2007 9:02:25 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
cfvh600, I am proud of your thread title making abilities. It brought a tear to my eye just to see I'm rubbing off on people!


:lol: 
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 10, 2007 10:32:13 PM

bfellow said:
That FX-74 must be uber-powerful to consume that much power


Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the FX-64 a chip for the Quad FX set up? And it consumes 2x the power as the Q6600 idle and load and is not faster.

As for the Phenom being rated at 95w, with AMDs new ACP(love how they decided to change from TDP to ACP) it is made to make them look better even though they are not as efficient as a Q6600 yet alone a QX9650(idle and load)

I think Hector decided on ACP. Its funny. I miss the AMD that had a good product cuz what they said was true instead of being lies.

I just hate how many lies have come and more and more. Lies = baddddd..... :non: 
December 10, 2007 11:28:05 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the FX-64 a chip for the Quad FX set up? And it consumes 2x the power as the Q6600 idle and load and is not faster.


The FX-74 was the top chip for the QFX (aka 4x4). It ate more power then anything else, produced more heat then almost anything else, and was slower than almost anything else. Ok, it did do some thing well enough, but not so much as to justify its cost. AMD had promised a FX-76 that would correct all the problems, but then AMD forgot its promise and never produced the FX-76, which pounded the last nail in the QFX coffin. That broken promise is what makes some people wonder if the Phenom will really be fixed or if AMD will eventually decide to abandon the Phenom idea as well.
December 10, 2007 11:34:37 PM

Quad-core AMD Opteron HE
68 W
79 W
55 W
55 W

it's very normal for tech companies to tweak specs to
their marketing advantage.

AMD has defined a power consumption spec that may
or may not be adopted by other companies.

the 68 and 79 numbers are of interest because they
compare to the 80 watts that the intel Harpertown
consumes @ 2.33 GHz
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

those are TDP numbers.

it's pretty hard to fudge the numbers on
an ammeter measuring input power for an
AMD system.

if AMD does that, i'll be worried.

if i was an investor, i might ask at the
shareholder meeting why don't they fire
the guys that came up with ACP or whatever,
and give the money to the engineers as
performance bonuses.
December 11, 2007 12:06:26 AM

Lies????.....who cares, this whole power consumption thing is for people who can't pay their electric bills. How many of you believe the EPA ratings for gas mileage posted on new cars. Well those are optimistic estimates but are they lies? My water heater has a big sicker on the side of it that says the average cost per year is $397.00. That is an estimate and it can vary so if I pay more than what the sticker says is that a lie?

I imagine the power consumption are estimates and under certain circumstances you will use more or less power depending up what you are doing with your computer. I am sure it is not an exact science because certain times of the day things cost more to run, different areas charge different rates.....etc........

If the new Phenom used 10X as much power as the Core2 but it was twice as fast how many of you would really worry about power consumption....? Now I know that some of you would and I know the whole issue of using less power and making chips and other electronics that are more efficient etc......but come on lies............

Stop sensationalizing everything!


A lie is a deception.............do you think this is a deception.......?
December 11, 2007 12:07:31 AM

caamsa said:
who cares, this whole power consumption thing is for people who can't pay their electric bills.


You and Baron cared a year ago when AMD had energy efficient processors. But of course that's not a factor anymore.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 11, 2007 12:52:04 AM

Yeah I remember when they took a Pentium D 805 and Oc'ed it to what 3.2GHz? and it literally spanked the crap out of anything top end from Intel or AMD. It of course used more power which obiously negated the performance to that of a high end AMD. But now it doesn't matter?

Why does it not matter when AMD post a 95w ACP(Average consumed Power) and uses more than a Q6600 G0 at 95w TDP(basically under max load or Total Dissipated Power)? Hell right now the most efficient CPU in performance per watt is the QX9650 which even at load running at 3GHz uses less than than a Phenom 9600 under load running at 2.3GHz.

What pisses me off is that AMD is trying to hide the fact that their CPUs are no where as efficient as Intels CPUs clock per clock or even when compared to Intels 45nm parts it gets worse. What I find funny is that when OC'ed to 3.8GHz the QX9650 didn't even reach its TPD of 135w where as the Phenom 9700 was reaching its TDP/ACP whatever easily.

I don't respect a company that lies and uses tricks on their consumers. Even Intel knew that Prescott was a let down and tried to fix it but admited defeat.

AMDs lies go further than just the TDP. It goes into the performance and how they keep trying to make it seem like a non issue that they made false claims and haven't even apologized..
December 11, 2007 12:53:05 AM

ACP is a load of crap. Nobody cares about AMD's average power consumption on applications that they deemed to be "normal use." Give us the absolute maximum that the CPU will dissipate. If we want average consumption we will have to test the whole system at the wall to get a meaningful measurement, rendering ACP effectively meaningless.

It's not AMD's inferior processors that are getting me down. They're having some troubles right now on many fronts and I hope that they return to competition as soon as possible. There is no excuse for the way the company has been acting lately. I'm not saying that AMD should come out and say "our entire manufacturing process is FUBAR right now" or anything, but they could at least refrain from lying and spreading FUD. That would be a start.
December 11, 2007 1:20:26 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
You and Baron cared a year ago when AMD had energy efficient processors. But of course that's not a factor anymore.


:lol: 

Do you see what processor I own? Please......stop............. :lol:  or you will loose your credibility....... :pt1cable: 

The only time I see a major increase in my electric bill is if I have to use my clothes dryer during peak hours... :ouch: 


I think you all make too much out of this..........................lies lies lies lies....................

TC here are some post titles for you for tomorrow......

1. AMD blamed for global warming and green house gases due to power hungry cpu's

2. Phenom TLB error causes shift in magnetic field increasing risk of skin cancer.

3. New study suggests that AMD users lie more than Intell users.

4. World War III breaks out......some speculate that AMD is to blame......

Take your pick................... :kaola: 
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 11, 2007 1:26:05 AM

caamsa said:
:lol: 

Do you see what processor I own? Please......stop............. :lol:  or you will loose your credibility....... :pt1cable: 

The only time I see a major increase in my electric bill is if I have to use my clothes dryer during peak hours... :ouch: 


I think you all make too much out of this..........................lies lies lies lies....................

TC here are some post titles for you for tomorrow......

1. AMD blamed for global warming and green house gases due to power hungry cpu's

2. Phenom TLB error causes shift in magnetic field increasing risk of skin cancer.

3. New study suggests that AMD users lie more than Intell users.

4. World War III breaks out......some speculate that AMD is to blame......

Take your pick................... :kaola: 


I have to laugh at your humor. lol. Nice one.

But you have to look at it this way. If Intel did the same thing, everyone would be up in flames. AMD needs to be treated the same way as Intel as they need to start to fess up. How can you believe in a company that makes false promises? How can we even believe that AMD has 45nm? Or that Bulldozer will even come out and improve anything?

AMD needs to stop talking and start walking. That is my only rule. If Intel did it with Conroe, AMD can do it too. I think their head got a little too big with A64 that they forgot that they could be beaten at any time and they need to work.

Forgot to add that we do know Intel has working 32nm as shown at IDF along with Nehalem.
December 11, 2007 1:34:09 AM

jimmysmitty said:
I have to laugh at your humor. lol. Nice one.

But you have to look at it this way. If Intel did the same thing, everyone would be up in flames. AMD needs to be treated the same way as Intel as they need to start to fess up. How can you believe in a company that makes false promises? How can we even believe that AMD has 45nm? Or that Bulldozer will even come out and improve anything?

AMD needs to stop talking and start walking. That is my only rule. If Intel did it with Conroe, AMD can do it too. I think their head got a little too big with A64 that they forgot that they could be beaten at any time and they need to work.

Forgot to add that we do know Intel has working 32nm as shown at IDF along with Nehalem.


I agree AMD needs their feet put to the fire. This is good for them and if they can over come their short comings then maybe they will be better off in the long run. I just have to laugh at all of these negative posts on a daily basis about AMD. I mean come on now there is more important stuff going on in the world right..................?.....right......

Things like....well this...............

What you think TC?

Michigan lags in natural resource spending
How much does Michigan treasure its environment?
Enough to spend only 0.4 percent of the state's $8 billion General Fund budget this year to protect it.
How do we compare with other states in spending on natural resources?
We're at the bottom of the list.

I wonder if AMD has anything to do with this............ :D 




December 11, 2007 1:43:51 AM

pausert20 said:
In the Desktop arena Intel only lists 65W, 75W, 95W, 105W and 130W. Looks to soon be joined by 150W for the Xeon QX9775 for the Skulltrail motherboard.

Intel has yet to come out with any processor listed below 65W DTP. I'm sure if they wanted too they could come out with a 45W DTP especially for any of the new Penryn based Dual Cores.


The new Celerons are 35W TDP.....albeit single core.

caamsa said:
:lol: 

TC here are some post titles for you for tomorrow......

1. AMD blamed for global warming and green house gases due to power hungry cpu's

2. Phenom TLB error causes shift in magnetic field increasing risk of skin cancer.

3. New study suggests that AMD users lie more than Intell users.

4. World War III breaks out......some speculate that AMD is to blame......

Take your pick................... :kaola: 


I'm not sure about the others, but #3 definitely seems to be true.

a c 99 à CPUs
December 11, 2007 1:47:45 AM

zenmaster said:
I rarely side with AMD, but to a certain extent I must hear.
The writers assumptions were way off, even when looking just at Intel.

The E2140 and the E6750 have the same TDP.
However, the power they use at stock and clocked to the same speed is quite a bit different.
The E2xxx series uses far less power due to less cache.


It primarily uses less power because it is clocked lower and can use less voltage. More cache = more transistors = more heat, but cache is a portion of the CPU that does not run particularly warm nor use a whole ton of power, so the additional cache adds little to the thermal dissipation. Some of the certain logic parts run the warmest- I want to say the ALUs or the FPUs ran the warmest. If anybody remembers better than I do, please chime in.

Quote:
Clearly you cant relate TDP or the Avg power consumption to closely.


Nope, because the average power consumption will vary considerably on not only the duty cycle (how much of the time the CPU is executing instructions) but also on what type of program the CPU is working on as different programs will use different mixes of instructions and hit certain parts of the CPU harder than others.

Quote:
For Intel, the TDP is clearly far more for an entire class of processors and even the highest of the high's max TDP even under extreme OC's.


AMD could also do the same- they could rate the Athlon 64 X2 BE series at 65 watts like all of the rest of the Brisbane Athlon 64 X2s. But they binned the CPU at 45 watts so they can sell it at 45 watts as they think it will give them a market advantage. My real question is why Intel hasn't done this also as all of the Pentium Dual Core CPUs I've seen tested draw less than 45 watts and many of the E4000 series units do as well. I am guessing it was a hedge against the manufacturing process nor panning out all that well and they actually needing that thermal "wiggle space" to sell the chips, but it might have been for convenience (a single heatsink/thermal solution across the board) as well.

I highly doubt that "highest of the high's max TDP even under extreme OC's" bit. Perhaps a Pentium Dual Core ramped up to a 3.something GHz speed will fall under the 150-watt line that the 3.2 GHz Skulltrail CPU is designed to draw. Overclocking a CPU raises its thermal dissipation greatly, especially if voltage increases are used to reach that speed. And since every CPU is a touch different, overclocking to its maximum will be at a variable speed and voltage and thus will be very hard to estimate how much power it will draw without actually OCing it.

Quote:
The TDP for the Latest AMD chips appear to be closer to the max for the each individual chips.


I actually find that more useful as it gives a better idea of what the chip I actually have my paws on dissipates, not the top chip in the line.
December 11, 2007 1:56:46 AM

Wow. This is pathetic people. Lies? Deceit? Get real. I'll make this very clear.

ADVERTISING YOUR PRODUCT AT x TDP/ACP IS A SHEER MARKETING TACTIC.

If AMD came straight out and said, "Yup folks, we consume more power! but we came up with a new measurement to disguise it and make us look good! All is well." they would lose a TON of business.

You all need to take a serious step back, inhale a deep breathe, and look and what your bickering over. NONE of you know how business works I take it. Or else you'd know that you market your product to LOOK the best or to BE the best. That's EXACTLY what both Intel and AMD do, as well as EVERY corporation in existence.

We might know a thing or two about CPUs and how they work, but does Joe Blow down the lane know? Probably not. Do you think he'd purchase a product that on the box says, "#2 in power saving!"... No. He's probably buy the one that says, "#1 in power saving!"

AMD is trying to make money, if it means making up a new method of power ratings than all the power to them. It's about making money and profit. That's how business works people.

Jesus...you all need to go retake Business 101 or just plain shut up. Good grief.
December 11, 2007 2:29:53 AM

justinmcg67 said:
Wow. This is pathetic people. Lies? Deceit? Get real. I'll make this very clear.

ADVERTISING YOUR PRODUCT AT x TDP/ACP IS A SHEER MARKETING TACTIC.

If AMD came straight out and said, "Yup folks, we consume more power! but we came up with a new measurement to disguise it and make us look good! All is well." they would lose a TON of business.

You all need to take a serious step back, inhale a deep breathe, and look and what your bickering over. NONE of you know how business works I take it. Or else you'd know that you market your product to LOOK the best or to BE the best. That's EXACTLY what both Intel and AMD do, as well as EVERY corporation in existence.

We might know a thing or two about CPUs and how they work, but does Joe Blow down the lane know? Probably not. Do you think he'd purchase a product that on the box says, "#2 in power saving!"... No. He's probably buy the one that says, "#1 in power saving!"

AMD is trying to make money, if it means making up a new method of power ratings than all the power to them. It's about making money and profit. That's how business works people.

Jesus...you all need to go retake Business 101 or just plain shut up. Good grief.


Someone forget to take their Midol this morning?
December 11, 2007 3:04:54 AM

turpit said:
Someone forget to take their Midol this morning?


I prefer Celexa. :pt1cable: 
!