Guess who had the better power consumption at idle AND load?
EDIT: Unfortunately all were using 8800GTXes LOL
What a lame review Anandtech posted!! OH! I get it, I buy an inexpensive low power cpu and then spend top dollar for a dual 16 SLI motherboard that draws tons of power for features I will never use, Right! That review is worse than stupid!
This review is really lame taking about overclocking! I agree that the top end chips do not belong here. Comparing compression times does not apply here either! We all know that those apps are written for Intel chips.
This is about low power low heat systems. I can not believe the math posted above 16109W! must have been an Intel user!
Guess who had the better power consumption at idle AND load?
EDIT: Unfortunately all were using 8800GTXes LOL
What a lame review Anandtech posted!! OH! I get it, I buy an inexpensive low power cpu and then spend top dollar for a dual 16 SLI motherboard that draws tons of power for features I will never use, Right! That review is worse than stupid!
This review is really lame taking about overclocking! I agree that the top end chips do not belong here. Comparing compression times does not apply here either! We all know that those apps are written for Intel chips.
This is about low power low heat systems. I can not believe the math posted above 16109W! must have been an Intel user!
I agree it's not a real world case that people will put dual 8800 in a budget system. However, if I didn't miss anything and assume data from both TG and AT are correct, doesn't AT's review tell that if a discrete video card is used, the AMD system will end up consuming more power than Intel's? If it turns out to be true, I think TG should add such test in the future review. People may not add two 8800 but it is still possible to have one low to mid-range video card installed in such a system.
I still think this power efficiency argument is crap. I've seen a true comparison running both an AMD and Intel 65nm system under full load for 8 hrs/day for a year (from anantech?). The actual savings was like $20 on the electric bill over a full year. Who actually thinks $20 over a year is worth worrying about? And since no one runs a system for 8 hrs/day under full load, the actual savings are even less.
Until either AMD or Intel can make a considerable change to the power efficiency (which neither has to date), SPEED is where bang for the buck is at. Intel is currently the leader for speed, and will be for the next year or 2.
And for the record, we run a small business and use Excel and MYOB daily. Anyone who thinks spreadsheets don't tax a CPU is just plain wrong.
If you have a lot of computers say 20 or so then that would equal about 400 dollars in a year.
That money could be better spent for something else, if nothing else it'll boost your profits by a slim margin.
Well we have 8 puters running 24/7, 3 of which are at full load for a couple hours/day and 2 of those have 805Ds overclocked to 4.0GHz, and the others 5 systems rarely ever at full load. We've noticed no significant difference in our electric bill when changing from 130nm to 65nm. I doubt 65nm to 45nm will be any different.
I don't quite understand, do you mean you switched to 805 D's and you don't notice any improvement in the electric bill?
Or do you mean you switched from 805's to something else like Core Duo?
If I remember correctly 805 D chips run very hot and consume a lot of power when overclocked.
Watt Hours - the math is correct if you move the decimal point.
13.416 watts and 16.109 watts. That is if full power was needed across that time.
I think the math showing the weight of a heat sink, that could dissipate 16 thousand watts, would be interesting.
Forget dollars saved and think oil not burned and mercury and PCB's not going into the air and and ending up in our oceans and fish. The FDA warns not to eat ocean fish more than once a week as it is. 1000+ watt/hour power supplies is not the right direction. Large companies have thousands of computers so the trend of lower power will have a large impact. If every household lowered their usage by 40-50 watt hours that is the same as the output of several whole powerplants. Buy a compact florescent today for that outside light or hallway or bathroom light that seems to always be left on.
Garrick,
Its not that simple. We upgrade our systems about every year or so.
Currently we have 2 systems running 805Ds which have been in there for about 18 months now. Our other 6 systems were all upgraded from 2-6 months ago and are currently running C2Ds (4xE6320 2 months ago, 1xE6400 6 months ago, and 1xE6420 2 months ago). The 805Ds are overclocked to 4.0GHz and the E6400 is overclocked to 3.2GHz. The rest of the C2Ds are running at stock speeds with stock Intel fans.
If I monitor the power consumption of each system, there is no significant difference from 1 system to the next with the same PSU, both at idle and under full load, regardless of the CPU. The systems running the big PSUs use more energy even though they have more efficient C2Ds.
The previous major upgrade (18 months ago) was to AMD Athlon64 on 6 systems and Pentium D on the other 2 systems. (One system was added at that time.) All A64 systems were overclocked as far as they would go and remain stable.
The upgrade before that (just over 3 year ago) was to Pentium 4 Extremes on all 7 systems. All systems were overclocked as far as they would go and remain stable.
So that goes back roughly 3 1/2 years.
Through all of this, we've noticed no significant difference in our electric bill when the price changes (for electricity) are taken into consideration. Even the extra system made very little impact on the electric bill. Thus, I surmise all this CPU power consumption to be hogwash. The PSU is a much bigger factor than the the CPU for power consumption, regardless of the nm. The advantage of the new CPUs is that they are more efficient (cooler and faster). Energy consumption is just a marketing ploy.
805D:
The 805D does have a reputation of using a lot of energy, and its a totally false reputation when compared to a CPU by either Intel or AMD running at the same speed. Any CPU will use more power at 4.0GHz than it does at 2.66GHz. Hot? I don't think so. The 805D is much cooler overclocked to 4.0GHz than the Pentium Extremes were at stock speeds with the same aftermarket CPU coolers. If I overclock an A64 3700+ San Diego to give similar benchmark scores (as close as it can get anyway), it runs at the same temperature, 58C under full load. At 3.6GHz, which is still a substantial overclock for the 805D, it runs at the same temps as it does at stock 2.66GHz. The Pentium Extremes were constantly throttling down at stock speeds as they broke 77C under full load.
Forget dollars saved and think oil not burned and mercury and PCB's not going into the air and and ending up in our oceans and fish... Buy a compact florescent today for that outside light or hallway or bathroom light that seems to always be left on.
I sure hope you're not talking about the new energy saving Mirabella Slimline/Phillips Genie bulbs. We put those stupid things in our house 6 months ago, only to find out this week that they contain mercury and Australia has no way of disposing of the burned out bulbs at this time. They're considered a bigger hazard than the wasted energy of the old bulbs. They're expensive and brag 8 years of life. So far, 3 have burned out, which is about the same rate that regular bulbs burned out. Talk about marketing crap.
I guess if you're overclocking to the max then naturally you wouldn't see any changes in your power consumption.
Still the average user doesn't overclock their pc so I still stand by my stance that most users will see a reductiion in their energy bill.
What kinds of programs are you running?
Forget dollars saved and think oil not burned and mercury and PCB's not going into the air and and ending up in our oceans and fish... Buy a compact florescent today for that outside light or hallway or bathroom light that seems to always be left on.
I sure hope you're not talking about the new energy saving Mirabella Slimline/Phillips Genie bulbs. We put those stupid things in our house 6 months ago, only to find out this week that they contain mercury and Australia has no way of disposing of the burned out bulbs at this time. They're considered a bigger hazard than the wasted energy of the old bulbs. They're expensive and brag 8 years of life. So far, 3 have burned out, which is about the same rate that regular bulbs burned out. Talk about marketing crap.
Oh really!? so Australia has never used florescent bulbs or mercury vapor lamps and none were ever disposed of right? What have they been doing up to now? Mercury free bulbs are being developed in the mean time Australia should create a safe recycling plan for CFL's. I have had some that when early , but they are all guaranteed so I replaced them for free. My electric bill went down 20%. I have a problem with the attitude that, because you had a bad experience we all should call the whole thing off, life on this planet isn't about you it is about us. By whom, are they considered a bigger hazard than the pollution caused by oil/coal power plants? Give me break!
I guess if you're overclocking to the max then naturally you wouldn't see any changes in your power consumption.
Still the average user doesn't overclock their pc so I still stand by my stance that most users will see a reductiion in their energy bill.
What kinds of programs are you running?
That's my point. You guess, but i know because I've tested for the past 3 years. Any way you slice it, there are now 5 machines running at stock speeds with new C2Ds that haven't effected the electric bill. The fact that these 5 systems were running Pentium Extremes overclocked at one time, A64s overcloced at one time, and are now running C2Ds at stock settings without any impact to the electric bill, is proof that your stance is wrong.
The programs running are irrelevant according to the energy saving advocates, since both under load and at idle are supposedly reduced on the new cores. However, the programs these machines are running now are the same programs they have been running for the last 3 years.
You're not the only one to buy into this marketing hype. Just don't be too disappointed when your bank account doesn't reflect your beliefs.
Forget dollars saved and think oil not burned and mercury and PCB's not going into the air and and ending up in our oceans and fish... Buy a compact florescent today for that outside light or hallway or bathroom light that seems to always be left on.
I sure hope you're not talking about the new energy saving Mirabella Slimline/Phillips Genie bulbs. We put those stupid things in our house 6 months ago, only to find out this week that they contain mercury and Australia has no way of disposing of the burned out bulbs at this time. They're considered a bigger hazard than the wasted energy of the old bulbs. They're expensive and brag 8 years of life. So far, 3 have burned out, which is about the same rate that regular bulbs burned out. Talk about marketing crap.
Oh really!? so Australia has never used florescent bulbs or mercury vapor lamps and none were ever disposed of right? What have they been doing up to now? Mercury free bulbs are being developed in the mean time Australia should create a safe recycling plan for CFL's. I have had some that when early , but they are all guaranteed so I replaced them for free. My electric bill went down 20%. I have a problem with the attitude that, because you had a bad experience we all should call the whole thing off, life on this planet isn't about you it is about us. By whom, are they considered a bigger hazard than the pollution caused by oil/coal power plants? Give me break!
Oh Really.
My attitude is based upon the technology coming out well ahead of the technology to clean it up. I have a problem with your lack of knowledge about a subject that you felt the need to post. So I guess we're even.
Australia has been tossing most bulbs into land fills, the same as the USA has for the most part. If these countrys change every household to the new bulbs, there will be a drastic increase of mercury being put into land fills since regular light bulbs don't contain mercury. (Before you start on how I don't know anything about the USA, I'm a 50 year old American who's only recently moved to Australia.) Consider the ramifications of 5% of households not taking the time to recycle these bulbs properly (and if you use common sense, you know that's a very modest estimate). This mercury will eventually make its way to the water tables.
These bulbs are considered a huge threat by every environmental health and safety group in existence. Read up so you can get your facts straight.
Great. So your bulbs aren't lasting any longer either, making it not just my bad experience with them. Nice that you got a free environment destroying replacement though.
So you save 20% off your electric bill (did you factor in the higher cost of the bulbs and their failure rate which won't be covered under warranty for long when the manufacturers realize that the bulbs don't last as expected?) and your grandchildren will have no water to drink. I guess that's a fair trade off. Doh!
At least Australia is now working hard to make the general public aware of the problems associated with these bulbs. I haven't seen the USA even acknowledge it yet.
