Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Just Noticed on hexus.net I Think!

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 12, 2010 7:16:49 PM

AMD is releasing a new Green Energy Savings Phenom II X6 with a watt requirement of 95 Watts lowered from 125watts Previously! Lower the watts of system watts more money saved on power supplies and eventually more money in the bank for Collector Editons of games :D 

More about : noticed hexus net

a b à CPUs
July 12, 2010 7:30:22 PM

Errr What?

What are you smoking?

See I'm a french speaking person... and what I do is I take the time to ensure that what I write can be read. My grammar is not perfect but at least I take the time to make my posts legible.

You ought to do the same.
m
0
l
July 19, 2010 2:22:01 AM

Less Watt Consumption means less power and energy used, which leads to you shopping for a lower wattage power supply, and less damage on the electricity bill!
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 131 à CPUs
July 19, 2010 2:43:45 AM

GunBladeType-T said:
Less Watt Consumption means less power and energy used, which leads to you shopping for a lower wattage power supply, and less damage on the electricity bill!

A computer will draw only as much power as it needs. You could draw 200W by a 200W system on a 1000W power supply.

I also don't see a source. I could post a post about the new specs on bulldozer, but no one would believe me if I didn't have a source.

What would save more power in a system would be buying a more efficient power supply, such as a 90% efficient one as opposed to the mainsteam 80% efficient ones.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
July 19, 2010 2:47:32 AM

I have bypassed the power supply all together giving me 100% effeciency. Just cut off a few power plugs from some old fans I had, and wired them straight to the motherboard.
Share
a c 131 à CPUs
July 19, 2010 3:01:01 AM

Blckhaze said:
I have bypassed the power supply all together giving me 100% effeciency. Just cut off a few power plugs from some old fans I had, and wired them straight to the motherboard.

That makes no sense to me as nothing can be 100% efficient. You always need a power supply to convert power from 120V AC at the wall to the required DC voltage on the motherboard.

Just cut off a few power plugs from some old fans I had, and wired them straight to the motherboard
This isn't explained well enough for me. It sounds like you took the plugs off the fans, plugged one end into the motherboard and ... where did you plug in the other end?
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
July 19, 2010 3:05:12 AM

enzo matrix said:
That makes no sense to me as nothing can be 100% efficient. You always need a power supply to convert power from 120V AC at the wall to the required DC voltage on the motherboard.

Just cut off a few power plugs from some old fans I had, and wired them straight to the motherboard
This isn't explained well enough for me. It sounds like you took the plugs off the fans, plugged one end into the motherboard and ... where did you plug in the other end?


He is obviously being sarcastic/trolling right now.

OP, all they did was bin them to drop the voltage a little, any one can undervolt their cpu and consume less power. A more expensive energy efficient power supply will cut your power bill more than a slightly more efficient cpu any ways. Not only that, but the Phenom II X6 1035 is 95W, may only be an OEM part right now, but it's been available from Dell for awhile.
m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
July 19, 2010 3:30:15 AM

loneninja said:
He is obviously being sarcastic/trolling right now.

OP, all they did was bin them to drop the voltage a little, any one can undervolt their cpu and consume less power. A more expensive energy efficient power supply will cut your power bill more than a slightly more efficient cpu any ways. Not only that, but the Phenom II X6 1035 is 95W, may only be an OEM part right now, but it's been available from Dell for awhile.

Well said. Isn't the 1035t supposed to be a lower clock anyway, not a "low power" version of current ones? I ask this because the OP claimed a low-power version but provided no source.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
July 19, 2010 4:24:40 AM

enzo matrix said:
Well said. Isn't the 1035t supposed to be a lower clock anyway, not a "low power" version of current ones? I ask this because the OP claimed a low-power version but provided no source.


Yeah it's technically lower clocked, it's 2.6Ghz, not that 200mhz will make much difference in a hex core with turbo core. I know when the Phenom II X6 came out and model numbers were released, some sites showed the 1055T as a 125W/95W part, but here's a link since the op didn't provide one.
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=25269
m
0
l
July 19, 2010 3:32:44 PM

enzo matrix said:
A computer will draw only as much power as it needs. You could draw 200W by a 200W system on a 1000W power supply.

I also don't see a source. I could post a post about the new specs on bulldozer, but no one would believe me if I didn't have a source.

What would save more power in a system would be buying a more efficient power supply, such as a 90% efficient one as opposed to the mainsteam 80% efficient ones.


A+ Certification in the 2009 Edition States its safe to use around 70% and leave the extra 30% for system power up at the start when all devices draw power or if someone hacks into your bios and raises your voltage and watts you have some leeway and some extra wattage on the Power supply thats not being taxed to heavy! Anyways my goal is to save up and get a new phenom IIx6 drawing only 95Watts that is going to be released in Q3/2010! My power supply is only 750 Watts Seasonic that I'm aiming to pickup when I have cash. I think more economically than you becuae I'm an AMD price/performance type of guy! You seem more like a xeon user witht hose high requirements. I'm going to spend around 1300-1500 not 2k-3k!
m
0
l
a c 172 à CPUs
July 19, 2010 3:46:21 PM

Not surprising. My old Q6600 has a 1.2625 volt VID. It will overclock to 3.0 GHz without increasing core voltage.

It will also run at stock speeds on less than 1.2 volts. OTOH, at that voltage it will not overclock. But it shrinks the TDP from 90 watts to about 80 watts.

All AMD needs to do is to select for a low (AMD equivalent) VID. Then sell the low power version for more money.
m
0
l
July 19, 2010 4:25:38 PM

jsc said:
Not surprising. My old Q6600 has a 1.2625 volt VID. It will overclock to 3.0 GHz without increasing core voltage.

It will also run at stock speeds on less than 1.2 volts. OTOH, at that voltage it will not overclock. But it shrinks the TDP from 90 watts to about 80 watts.

All AMD needs to do is to select for a low (AMD equivalent) VID. Then sell the low power version for more money.



Nowadays Its easy to overclock with Asus or Gigabyte with auto settings to help you overclock. back in the dates the multipliers+sustem bus was locked and you couldn't overclock unless you purchased AMD which eventually locked all its settings down due to people overclocking the cheapest editions and not buying the more expensive ones. As for me overclocking requires extra baggage and liquid cooling kits for unadequate performance boosts. Unless they have something like space armour metal on a cpu or gpu its not worth overclocking!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 19, 2010 5:27:17 PM

GunBladeType-T said:
A+ Certification in the 2009 Edition States its safe to use around 70% and leave the extra 30% for system power up at the start when all devices draw power or if someone hacks into your bios and raises your voltage and watts you have some leeway and some extra wattage on the Power supply thats not being taxed to heavy! Anyways my goal is to save up and get a new phenom IIx6 drawing only 95Watts that is going to be released in Q3/2010! My power supply is only 750 Watts Seasonic that I'm aiming to pickup when I have cash. I think more economically than you becuae I'm an AMD price/performance type of guy! You seem more like a xeon user witht hose high requirements. I'm going to spend around 1300-1500 not 2k-3k!


[:mousemonkey:5]

Looks like you might want to look at his system configuration from his profile. [:mohsentux:5]

Quote:

CPU: AMD Athlon IIx4 620 @ 3.22GHz
Motherboard: Asus M4A785-M
Memory: 2x1GB Mushkin PC6400
2x1GB OCZ SLI PC6400 @ 998MHz 5-5-5-18
HDD: WD Black 500GB
1TB WD Green 8mb cache
160GB Seagate 7200.10
Case: Antec Three Hundred
PSU: OCZ modxstream 600W
Graphics card: HIS Radeon 3870


I would have to say he's a more of price/performance than you might think. ;) 
m
0
l
July 19, 2010 6:36:09 PM

You don't need "liquid cooling kits" to get a good, adequate OC. The i5 750 will easily OC on air to 4Ghz, which is a 50% increase over the stock 2.66 Ghz, even with a "cheap" air cooler like the 212+. You can often do this (or get really close) with little to no tweak to the voltage.

This is obviously just one example, but I wouldn't call 50% an "unadequate performance boost."
m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
July 19, 2010 8:52:23 PM

GunBladeType-T said:
My power supply is only 750 Watts Seasonic that I'm aiming to pickup when I have cash. I think more economically than you becuae I'm an AMD price/performance type of guy! You seem more like a xeon user witht hose high requirements. I'm going to spend around 1300-1500 not 2k-3k!

I never said I had a 1000W power supply. I was just giving an example that a 1000W power supply will still only 200W if the PC draws 200W (negating efficiency, for example's sake)
m
0
l
July 19, 2010 10:38:48 PM

warmon6 said:
[:mousemonkey:5]

Looks like you might want to look at his system configuration from his profile. [:mohsentux:5]

Quote:

CPU: AMD Athlon IIx4 620 @ 3.22GHz
Motherboard: Asus M4A785-M
Memory: 2x1GB Mushkin PC6400
2x1GB OCZ SLI PC6400 @ 998MHz 5-5-5-18
HDD: WD Black 500GB
1TB WD Green 8mb cache
160GB Seagate 7200.10
Case: Antec Three Hundred
PSU: OCZ modxstream 600W
Graphics card: HIS Radeon 3870


I would have to say he's a more of price/performance than you might think. ;) 



Well that System Looks not Bad for DirectX10 or Open GL 4.0 But with Dirext X11 or Open CL 1.0 around the corner you want to upgrade to a higher CPU 6cores and a faster graphics card DX11 which will be more complex and draw more watts. I'm thinking into the future like december or january next Year!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 20, 2010 2:48:10 AM

While at least i can at least understand what you're saying, i would recommend following ElMoIsEviL advice and try to make the post more eligible so others can understand what you're saying.



Anyways, about the DX11 and the other stuff.

Even though DX11 is already here, the adoption of it (to me) appears to be slow going just like DX10 was.

1. Part of it is due to the fact Nvidia (1 of few the key players along with ATI/AMD) just started coming out with cards 3 months ago and just starting to hit the "mainstream" market (via GTX 460 just a few days ago).

2. most of the "gaming" market still dont see the need to upgrade from there DX 9 cards. (even though it looks like there are a ton of DX10 cards, there are even more DX9 and possible DX8 cards still running as we speak.)

(yeah us techies would see the need to upgrade but most people (including the majority of gamers) dont upgrade unless there a major performance issue with a new game, the overall system performance, or the computers dies. heck i know people with Gefore 5 and 6 series cards and Athlon and pentium 4 cpus that are still play games)

3. Developers are still making DX9 compatible games. You may ask why? If you make a DX 10 or 11 only game, there only able to target a small section of the total available market. Unless you're a company that only targets those nich sections, that just not a good business practice.

4.The main reason why it slow going, A TON people are on Windows xp (still) which can only (if i remember right) run DX9. So what the point of DX10 or 11 hardware for them?



Now just like DX 11, I some how dont see 6 cores being needed anytime soon for games.

3 years ago, quad core cpu's came around. 3 years later, only tri core cpu's are really being used to there fullest. But yet, when i first joined toms almost a year ago (Just a few days from now where it will be a year :ouch: ) some people were saying that most games would be using the full power of the quads by now.....

Only a few new games have done that..... Most are just using 2 cores and the more demanding games are just using 3 cores. It would be at least another year before most new games are asking recommend 4 cores. Although i think it will be longer than 1 year.


As other guys and I have said to countless people. "Buy what you need now. There will always be something better down the road. "

In this case, If you dont need DX11 cards and/or 6 core cpu's, why bother? By the time you would need it, there will be something that far more power efficient, be cheaper than it is now, and a possibility of being more powerful than whats currently out.

example Core i7 930 and Core 2 quad 9770 EE. $280 (or $200 if you got a micro center near yea) newer cpu vs older last generation top of line $1000 cpu. The core i7 930 can either match or beat the core 2 quad EE in majority of task (gaming, rendering, ect) and it heck of a lot cheaper. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/47?vs=48



Now am i saying Not to get this? no. Im just saying you're probably better off (basing it off a 100% gaming rig) Just get a quad core cpu (like what enzo has done) for some long term useage. It will last longer than year for gaming. Although while i dont care for the DX11 performaces (as there not big yet) I do like the performance/price of the Gtx 460 and Radeon HD 57xx and 58xx cards in DX 9/10 modes but not everyone looking for highest visuals. most are looking for gameplay.

But hey. If enzo doesn't play games for the highest settings, why should he need a new hardware? His current card can still play the latest games that are being made and his cpu can currently meet any game recommended requirements.




So my recommendation for a 100% Highest price/performance gaming rig that you're buying right now that will last right though December of 2011 , i would say

cpus:
Core i5 750
Phenom II x4 955BE

Gpu's:
GTX 460
GTX 470
*GTX 480
HD 57xx
HD 58XX
*HD 5970

*only will recommend these if you have a monitor resolution higher than 1920 x 1080 and have the money to do so.

Those would be my combo choices for the highest end hardware based on price/performance ratio's.
m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
July 20, 2010 5:30:54 AM

GunBladeType-T said:
Well that System Looks not Bad for DirectX10 or Open GL 4.0 But with Dirext X11 or Open CL 1.0 around the corner you want to upgrade to a higher CPU 6cores and a faster graphics card DX11 which will be more complex and draw more watts. I'm thinking into the future like december or january next Year!

You got $400 including taxes for me for a 1055t and radeon 5670? :p 

I figure over the next year, with zambezi release, I'll upgrade to a zambezi cpu, ram and motherboard with a better case. get a second 3870 off my friend for free/cheap crossfire and hold out with the DX11 update at least a year, wait for games to stop supporting DX10 OR for a GPU under $200 to be worth the upgrade.
m
0
l
July 20, 2010 7:23:17 AM

enzo matrix said:
You got $400 including taxes for me for a 1055t and radeon 5670? :p 

I figure over the next year, with zambezi release, I'll upgrade to a zambezi cpu, ram and motherboard with a better case. get a second 3870 off my friend for free/cheap crossfire and hold out with the DX11 update at least a year, wait for games to stop supporting DX10 OR for a GPU under $200 to be worth the upgrade.


Its all about the green energy savings for me more watts saved more green in the pocket! Less dent on the wallet more money to spend on various other items like collectibles! :o 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 20, 2010 10:46:52 AM

GunBladeType-T said:
Its all about the green energy savings for me more watts saved more green in the pocket! Less dent on the wallet more money to spend on various other items like collectibles! :o 


Question? Why so worried about the wattage of the devices within the computer when most of the time the hardware is in idle?

Unless you're gaming 24/7 (no sleeping, eating, ect) or running cpu and/or gpu intensive task like BIONC or Folding@home. you'll be looking into. You shouldn't have to worry about saving a few bucks like that.


Now if you really want to save some greens, get some solar panels or a wind turbine. Costly in the short term but a saver in the long term. ;) 
m
0
l
July 20, 2010 6:08:28 PM

Best answer selected by GunBladeType-T.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 2:07:59 AM

wow, I was kidding, o.o

Don't try that at home!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 12:22:40 PM

Blckhaze said:
wow, I was kidding, o.o

Don't try that at home!


If you dont follow what he said, :non:  you'll look like sparky here

:lol: 
m
0
l
!