Power Efficient

[tylerlu97]

I was wondering in general who makes the more power efficient processor amd or intel?I'd rather save more in the long run.I'm specifically looking at the fx 8350 and i5 3570k.

 

[CDdude55]

While the the Piledriver FX chips has improved on power consumption over Bulldozer they still don't hold much of a candle to current Intel chips. Plus you have to consider that the 3570K is Ivy Bridge so it's built on a 22nm process while Piledriver is still 32nm which contributes to the heat output.

Power draw, heat output and overall performance is still in Intels hands.

 

[ASHISH65]

Intel.

 

[jaguarskx]

Overall, Intel makes more power efficient CPUs than AMD.

Forget the FX series, they are basically power hogs so when comparing CPUs on power consumption consumption alone. It's best to compare Intel's Pentium G/i3/i5/i7 to AMD's Llano/Trinity APUs.

Simply stated, when idling AMD's Trinity APUs consumes around 7w less than Intel's CPUs. The exception may be the Pentium G series; due to being "cut down versions" of the Ivy Bridge architecture, it likely consumes a little less power than the i3/i5/i7 CPUs, thus narrowing the gap with Trinity. However, once the CPU (or APU for AMD) starts doing any amount of work, then Intel's CPUs definitely consumes less power.

So....

Idle and "sitting pretty"... AMD uses less power, but only around 7w, maybe 10w.

Doing any amount of work Intel consumes around 10w - about 40w less power depending what is being done. Watching a movie... 10w difference. Playing games... likely about 40w difference... if not more...

 

[jaguarskx]

Here's some power consumption charts from the following review. The test rig has a nVidia GTX 680 just for reference.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-a10-5800k.html#sect0

Note that "System Power Consumption, 100% Load, W" does not mean playing games. The GTX 680 alone uses up to around 165w - 175w alone when playing games.