Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD power consumption is a lie

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Systems
Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 28, 2001 7:54:54 PM

After playing with my <A HREF="http://www.panamax.com/products/" target="_new">Panamax MAX6000</A> ACregenerator, I decided to test the current draw from 2 systems since it had the cool option. MAX5500 pictured is the analog version but has same features.

2 test systems, I did the test myself on 2 nearly identical systems. AMD consumes 50% more power.

AMD 1900+ Epox 8KHA+ not overclocked retail HSF
1 Maxtor ATA133 40GB drive
1 Kenwood 72x CDROM
SB Audigy
Gainward GF3
1 case fan

P4 2.0Ghz P4X (Intel reference mobo w/wilmette core) retail HSF
1 Maxtor ATA133 40GB drive
1 Kenwood 72x CDROM
SB Audigy
Gainward GF3
1 case fan

AMD system:
Idle 77.4 watts
Running 3Dmark2001 145.3 watts
Running seti@home 210.3 watts
Sleep 44.2 watts (had to reset to wakeup)
peak 270 watts w/ drive active
This explains why a cheap 300 watt PSU can fail


Intel:
Idle 74.5 watts
Running 3Dmark2001 98.0 watts
Running seti@home 130.7 watts
Sleep 16.0 watts
peak 180 watts w/drive active

I used the same Antec tower case on both systems w/400w PSU

Call me a liar, drag out your white papers, jump up and down. AMD uses more power. Hence the need for beefy PSU and HSF.

Here is a little more info from a different source, use the <A HREF="http://www.apc.com/template/size/apc/" target="_new">Selector</A> and config 2 systems. Im sure APC is a trusted source when it comes to knowing something about power consumption.

Blame it on the motherboard?? =P

More about : amd power consumption lie

December 28, 2001 8:06:48 PM

The P4 idled at a mere 16 watts, no surprise there. Intel's been in the business long enough to control power consumption. I'm surprised there was such a difference between the two overall, I would've expected it to be closer.

Just out of curiosity, what was the Intel reference mobo?


Interesting link, too. Bit better than Zombo.
According to that, my power consumption is 303w. No wonder my Hipro 300w was a bit taxed.

If I switched to a P4, 263w.
If I switched to dual Itaniums, 583w. :wink:

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by FatBurger on 12/28/01 02:09 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2001 8:20:15 PM

Do you know if the power readout you are getting is an instantaneous value, or some kind of average, RMS perhaps? Maybe the machine you have is reportings some other parameter than the data you compare it with, eh?

If not, can anyone say lawsuit?
Related resources
December 28, 2001 8:20:27 PM

Good post. Very informative. I wonder what the power draw would be running the 'Burn' utility. Though a comparison with the Pentium 4 system running 'Burn' would not work, as it is optimized to use all pipelines on an Athlon, not on a Pentium 4.

The logical extension of this analysis would seem to indicate that an Athlon running at high intensity would therefore produce more heat than a Pentium 4, since wattage creates heat.

Just for completeness can you post the 3DMark2001 scores you achieved while running these tests? I would like to ensure no throttling was occurring. Once we establish that there will be no basis for the debunking of this information.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
December 28, 2001 8:25:47 PM

Nice to see you again, Raystonn. Where've you been?

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
December 28, 2001 8:27:24 PM

In one of two places: 1) Hard at work, 2) At home addicted to Everquest. ;) 

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2001 8:30:03 PM

Hey, Ray, what do you say?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
December 28, 2001 8:37:12 PM

While managing to make a few posts at the Vapochill forums as well as over at HardOCP, I see.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
December 28, 2001 8:41:10 PM

Interesting post! Rather than blabbering posts mindlessly, you have actually done some tests! I'm impressed! Quite interesting info!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
December 28, 2001 8:45:26 PM

<Accidental post to the wrong person removed.>
December 28, 2001 8:47:10 PM

Yes Agent Smith, I do get around! Though I have not posted at either of those places in a few weeks now either.

I continue to patiently wait for January 8th. I am also happy to see that I will be buying a new motherboard in a little over 3 months. Technology marches on, and at a faster rate than once announced...

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2001 9:11:36 PM

Hi Raystonn,

When you mention the 6th I am assuming this is because of the Northwood release. My question: is PC1066 support going to coincide with this date also, or some later date? Haven't seen anyone selling it yet. Will the PC1066 require a new chipset too?

Sorry Mr. FUGGER about straying from topic.
December 28, 2001 9:20:13 PM

"is PC1066 support going to coincide with this date"

The Northwood will be released using a 400MHz System Bus (FSB). It will be released later using a 533MHz System Bus. An Intel chipset that supports the full use of this bandwidth will be released when this version of the Northwood is released.

I should note that A) this does not prevent other manufacturers from releasing motherboards built to a PC1066 specification, and B) with the proper motherboard and Samsung PC800 RDRAM, you can overclock your system to PC1066 specifications. Many people are overclocking in this fashion already.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
December 28, 2001 9:30:40 PM

Jan 6th is the end of Raytsonn's NDA, I presume. New Intel chipset supporting PC1066 in three months? Interesting, should be quite the platform.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
December 28, 2001 9:36:42 PM

Fugger, you should be proud! See! No flaming!! It's the way you presents your information that sets people off not the information itself. Now, if only AMDMeltdown would learn this....hmm, then we'd be in a perfect world...hehe.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
December 28, 2001 9:40:01 PM

I agree. Combination with northwood and the fsb at 133x4 should really kick the amd in the arse pretty hard.

Lets hope AMD loses it's arrogance and come up with something new and innovative *laughs hard* lol ya thought that was funny too. Maybe do some important changes with the thouroughbred. Perhaps add sse2 if they can and support for faster FSB and maybe a full blowen version of a thermal diode! (lol sad thing everything i mentioned the pentium 4 already has, whats up with AMD? they seem to be doing nothing but getting a beat down).

If AMD was smart they would have something up there sleeve, but they're not Intel so lol. Ouch! lol ... i'm just kidding so relax! laugh for once in your life.

The new pentium is looking more and more impressive. To bad the price is outragous! *rolls eyes* who would be insane enough and spend 700 for a cpu? lol!

ok i'm done blabbing away...

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
December 28, 2001 9:52:54 PM

AMD_Man: No flaming...yet. Hopefully this thread stays flame-free.

Sk8er: First, FUGGER posted this because Kelledin and others claimed that the P4 used more power, and he disagreed.

AMD losing their arrogance? They're starting to get some pride in their company, I wouldn't say they're arrogant though. They have the (currently) best performing processor on the market, I wouldn't say they desperately need to innovate.

Who would pay 700 for a CPU? Someone who has been around computers for a decent amount of time and remembers spending more than that.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
December 28, 2001 9:55:00 PM

wow! That was the most hypocritical post ever, hehe! I don't get it! Are you for or against AMD?

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
December 28, 2001 9:55:57 PM

$700? With today's processor prices yes, that would be very expensive. I am wondering now from which AMD fan site you got that price? I can guarantee you that price is way off the mark on where a 2.0GHz Northwood will be priced at PriceWatch. The 2.2GHz processor will be a bit of a premium more than the 2.0GHz version however, since it will be the new top of the line. You always pay more for the top of the line. However, that $700 price quote is still outrageous even for the 2.2GHz part.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
December 28, 2001 10:00:56 PM

First there was the arrogance of Intel then the arrogance of AMD to now be replaced, once again, with the arrogance of Intel? Anyone betting on Cyrix?

I want to die like my Grandfather...in my sleep...not screaming in terror like his passengers.
December 28, 2001 10:04:57 PM

???

"Sk8er: First, FUGGER posted this because Kelledin and others claimed that the P4 used more power, and he disagreed."

mmmk ? - i'm wearing pants and they are blue ??? do you care? no. so why do i care fugger and what his face were argueing over something soo meaningless? And why didn't he keep the post within the post he was argueing in?

"AMD losing their arrogance? They're starting to get some pride in their company, I wouldn't say they're arrogant though. They have the (currently) best performing processor on the market, I wouldn't say they desperately need to innovate."

lighten up. Like it matters any. you need to stop spending $700 for cpus and go buy a sense of humor.

"Who would pay 700 for a CPU? Someone who has been around computers for a decent amount of time and remembers spending more than that."

That absolutely makes no sense!?

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
December 28, 2001 10:06:54 PM

lol i'm not for any company that takes money from me. It's not hypocritical because i really don't care lol. I just state facts and truths, otherwise it's just a joke and you should just relax and laugh for once!

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
December 28, 2001 10:08:54 PM

Quote:


"Who would pay 700 for a CPU? Someone who has been around computers for a decent amount of time and remembers spending more than that."

That absolutely makes no sense!?

No, it makes perfect sense! Long, long ago in the dark ages, CPUs cost over $700USD!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
December 28, 2001 10:09:59 PM

"oh jeezus round the stupid thing to the nearest 100 dollar mark! lol"

Not even close...

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
December 28, 2001 10:13:23 PM

Oh ok fine 600 dollars i was off by 1. Typical mistake in the computer world lol.

CPU New Price Old Price Cut
Pentium 4 (0.13 micron Northwood)
2.2GHz $560 $610 8%
2.0GHz $364 $420 13%
Pentium 4 (0.18 micron Willamette)
2.0GHz $340 $401 15%
1.9GHz $240 $273 12%
1.8GHz $193 $225 14%
1.7GHz $163 $193 15.5%
1.6GHz $133 $163 18%


http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/22922.html

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
December 28, 2001 10:16:59 PM

You asked, so I answered. Maybe you should take a trip to the sound card section, you remind me of a recent "friend" I made :wink:

This is a serious thread, in all honesty you should expect serious replies to your "jokes". If you didn't make a serious statement, then you can ignore my replies. I'm treating them as serious, if I'm wrong then...well, just don't let it bother you.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
December 28, 2001 10:18:04 PM

every company is arrogant and every company doesn't give two cheese its about us but our business.

Why you even care is beyond me.

I'm more interested in the technology and not the company lol.

If you stop being such a bubblegum fan and just study this technology it's very impressive!

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
December 28, 2001 10:20:08 PM

lol ya they cost millions of dollars and was the size of buildings, so does that mean we have to spend millions of dollars and have computers the size of buildings too? lol see how it doens't make any sense?

so how was your christmas by the way?

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
December 28, 2001 10:28:00 PM

ohhh just tryin to lighten things up a little! it seemed soo dull and boreing. "oh the amd chip runs more watts" lol
your talking about watts!? so you pay a couple more pennies for electricity. Unless you're in california well then ya that could be a problem.


anyway ... i did post something useful lol.. the pentium 4 prices are in there somewhere.

it was interesting though, the wattage usage, just had to spark up the forum lol! which i think i did people keep posting stuff to me lol.

you'll know when i post something serious because i always back it up.

aiight laterz.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
December 28, 2001 10:40:30 PM

"2.2GHz $560 $610 8%
2.0GHz $364 $420 13%"

"The Register" claims it will launch at $610 and $420? Those figures are just wrong. Do not put too much faith in tabloids. While I am not at liberty to say exactly how much they _will_ cost at release, I can say it is a far cry from $700.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
December 28, 2001 10:42:53 PM

Instantanious readings, +/- 1watt margin of error, for the most part its a steady reading, when drive goes active I see exactly what the draw jumps too.

Sure rayston, i'll do GF3 and R8500 scores. I am pushing for best overclock atm.

My collection of chipset/video cards is growing

P4X is the part number for our socket 478 reference design board w/i850 chipset. versions include 1394 firewire, Adaptec dual SCSI320, HPT374 ATA133 RAID 0,0+1,1, and dual 10/100/1000 copper lan.

I need to close the L1 bridges so that I can open them again. It feels like im doing open heart surgery atm, first attempt was no good... At least the patient did not die.

Our Phillips CBS (PCI cross bar switch) doesnt with this chipset, nor does it work on 760 chipset.

Long weekend for me, and Im cutting out early.
December 28, 2001 10:43:51 PM

lol, I was referring to 2000! Remember the 1GHz P3 or 1GHz Athlon?

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
December 28, 2001 10:50:15 PM

Haha, you said what you wanted to say, then say relax just kidding.
I didn't think AMD was under any pressure, aren't they still the fastest in most?
What new pentium is looking more and more impressive. What happen to the old one that was suppose to be the future? Enough said. I'm a simple man and the P4 has me all confused. There's the Rbus what ever, Sdram, now DDR, what's that 3 new chips. Like I said I got lost after they change to Sdram. If Intel played my game faster I would build one. Sorry not into Quack. But if I started spending that kind of money I would be crazy.

The AMD is the here and now.

The Intel is the future that never seems to come fast enough;)

defrage is child's play-fdisk
December 28, 2001 10:50:42 PM

Dont take this the wrong way FUGGER, but I would rather believe Intel and amds white papers, than your "independant" testing.

But I will not flame you or call you a liar, I will in fact watch this thread to see what others think of your testing.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
December 28, 2001 10:52:15 PM

high five! I see a lot of red faces in the audience!

hmm, were's kelledin?

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
December 28, 2001 10:55:29 PM

Dont forget that Northwoods will be starting at 1.6Ghz for a little over 100 bucks. seems more than fair to me.

I expect Wilmettes to drop to $100 area for 1.9Ghz while the 2.0 should be a little over $200.

I can boot and run at 2860Mhz with a 2.2Ghz CPU and retail HSF (sunflower). It seems the PC800 ram are all underrated. I can use the 4x setting or the 3x and cannot break 2860 booting. so there is something else limiting me atm since I have swapped out ram a few times now trying to find better.
December 28, 2001 11:19:07 PM

"... Northwoods will be starting at 1.6Ghz for a little over 100 bucks"

Ummm, what? I hope this is sarcasm... :) 


"It seems the PC800 ram are all underrated."

The Samsung ones certainly are. Most of them will run at PC1066 with no problem.


"I can use the 4x setting or the 3x and cannot break 2860 booting. so there is something else limiting me atm since I have swapped out ram a few times now trying to find better."

You are running your RDRAM without the PC800 spec when you use the 130MHz external frequency with the 3x multiplier, so the RAM is not the problem. It is either the processor or the motherboard. Not many motherboards come equipped with RDRAM Clock Generators capable of using a 133MHz external frequency. The jitter starts to become a problem. This may be your case. You also could simply be running up against the limits of your processor.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
December 28, 2001 11:20:17 PM

We have PE's (project engineers) who spec out sites for installation. they have always stated AMD uses more power, I have always believed them.

I have asked a PE to build me a device to measure current draw from a 110v outlet, should take him a few days to draw up the circuit design in P-CAD so you can build one at home.

Another place to find what your machine is drawing is check your Smart UPS (for those that own one) to see if it has this function.

Most states are .11 cents per Kwh, California is .15 cents per Kwh

The formula is:

Amps x volts (115 or 230 volts) = watts x hours per day of operation ÷ 1000 x cost per kilowatt hour.

This calculates to: (using 21" monitor @ constant 115w draw)

1 x 115 = 115 watts. 115 watts x 24 hours = 2760. 2760 ÷ 1000 = 2.76.

2.76 x .15 = .414 or 41 cents per day to run my monitor. With 30 days in the month I multiply the .41 cents per day x 30 days and I get $12.42 which is the price it will cost me per month (a 30 day month) to run my monitor!
December 28, 2001 11:23:37 PM

"With time comes reduced prices! :) 
thats how it should be lol"

Yes, with time a product will drop in price as it moves from being new to being old. However, the price for state of the art (for example the fastest processor available) is usually about the same over long periods of time. The product in this category constantly changes, but not the price itself. The only thing that really alters this forumla is the economic climate. In a recession, you tend to lower prices to keep sales levels at approximately the same level. However, these prices will go back up eventually as the economy heals and consumers have more money.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
December 28, 2001 11:38:12 PM

great stuff there fugger
course it leads to the inevitable question...

were the people who created the electrical specification sheets for amd/intel on smack?
(which would explain the discrepency between your results and published figures)

also... do u have any idea on the current/wattage differences between the two different mobos & ram combo's?


- Know thyself
- Seek
- Love
- Cherish Life
- And do not Yield!
December 28, 2001 11:41:22 PM

Taking that a step further, let us plug in the wattage for those who run seti@home in the background.

Your figures state that an AMD-based system running Seti@home, without the hard drive being active all the time (non-peak) draws 210.3 watts. Your figures also state that a Pentium 4-based system running the same software in the same situation draws 130.7 watts.

210.3 watts x 24 hours = 5047.2 watt-hours, or 5.0472 kilowatt-hours, per day.
Multiply that by $0.15 per hour and you get $0.75708 per day.
This comes out to about $22.71 per month, or $276.52 per year spent on electricity to power your AMD-based system.

130.7 watts x 24 hours = 3136.8 watt-hours, or 3.1368 kilowatt-hours, per day.
Multiply that by $0.15 per hour and you get $0.47052 per day.
This comes out to about $14.11 per month, or $171.85 per year spent on electricity to power your Intel-based system.

You save over $104 over the course of a single year if you have the Pentium 4-based system. How long does a typical user hold onto a system, 3 years? Hobbyists may hold onto a system for.. 2 years at most? What is the price difference between the Intel and AMD based systems? Approximately $160 according to CPU prices at PriceWatch. You make this up in about 1.5 years of ownership due to a lower electric bill, do you not? Which system actually costs less to purchase and operate when you take everything into account? (Of course if you still live with mom and dad, you do not care about the electric bill. But I am sure they do.)

Just some food for thought...

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
December 28, 2001 11:46:00 PM

What do you mean sarcasm? "Northwoods will be starting at 1.6Ghz for a little over 100 bucks"

Were a few days from annouce, so will the 1.6 will not be released or they will not be under $150?

I have not recieved any 1.6 samples, but they are on my list of product offerings for january. I am not 100% on price, since we do not sell OEM cpu's or CPU's alone.

We only use samsung RDR. all so far work at 130FSB. Ill need to pelt the CPU, upgrade the chipset heatsink, and chill the case to break my current barrier. I have already rulled out my ram as a problem.
December 28, 2001 11:47:55 PM

Quote:
also... do u have any idea on the current/wattage differences between the two different mobos & ram combo's?

I was thinking the same too. Just wonder how they affect the power consumption.

:smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.
December 28, 2001 11:48:12 PM

You said 1.6GHz. I read 2.6GHz. My mistake... ;) 

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
December 28, 2001 11:50:59 PM

last nite i saw a article on the evil register ;) 
they had a link, to a link to a place selling 2.2Ghz northwoodies.
i thought they wernt out yet?
mega expensive anyway... more than even what they should be released for $679
<A HREF="http://www.googlegear.com/ggweb/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?P..." target="_new">http://www.googlegear.com/ggweb/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?P...;/A>

p.s. nice to see u again ray

- Know thyself
- Seek
- Love
- Cherish Life
- And do not Yield!
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!