THG wants traffic to the site to get ad revenue (as we don't pay a subscription fee) and it got your attention, didn't it? That would be a considered a success on their part then, I suppose...
Now that makes sense to me!!!! Almost the best thing said on this topic to this point!
Erm no MU, that article is in no way a succes, not even in the warped way you describe. It makes me want to not read TH articles again, as I do not want to read biased and incomplete articles.
The article about the Athlon 64 5000+ black edition somewhat makes it up, but I do worry about the quality of TH articles as of late.
Erm no MU, that article is in no way a succes, not even in the warped way you describe. It makes me want to not read TH articles again, as I do not want to read biased and incomplete articles.
The article about the Athlon 64 5000+ black edition somewhat makes it up, but I do worry about the quality of TH articles as of late.
Then dont read them anymore and stop talking about them as well, simply put if you dont like how the owners are doing things you are free to leave. Remeber this is a privately owned forum you whine and cry enough they will open the door for you.
Word, Playa.
Message edited by spud on 10-24-2007 at 08:07:08 PM
That is also a solution to the declining quality of articles and the charts yes, staying silent and leaving.
Not the solution I chose tho, if that's ok with you.
If not, then dont read my posts anymore and stop talking about them as well, simply put if you dont like to read my posts you are free to leave. Remeber this is a privately owned forum you whine and cry enough they will open the door for you.
Idles at 39-40 watts, full load 90 watts. So quiet even under full load you wonder if it's on. Before using the Corsair PS, I had it attached to a good but older/less efficient PC P&C turbocool 350 and it used 50 watts idle and 100 watts under load.
The impact of the power supply is obvious, and since PS wastage is a multiple of component power consumption the first move should always be to use an efficient PS. It saves juice no matter what the load is. In general the higher the load the more it saves.
If not, then dont read my posts anymore and stop talking about them as well, simply put if you dont like to read my posts you are free to leave. Remeber this is a privately owned forum you whine and cry enough they will open the door for you.
You've already whined and cried enough, so just leave.
It's called having a discussion randomizer. Maybe you should try participating in it some time.
All you did in this thread so far was (ironically) whine and cry, without actually making any points.
What a missmatched Intel paid pumper article this one is eh?
Pick a nice low end core2 cpu ... match it against a 5000+ G1 stepping 2.6ghz AMD cpu that we all know has thermal leakage issues because it is as fast as they can currently make on 65nm SOI.
How about comparing a low power cpu Toms? AMD have a heap of them ... surely you know that.
Once again the benchmarks fail to mention all of the finer detail.
I'd imagine the Intel chip was also careully selected.
Once again ... fizzle.
Reputation in the toilet once again.
FUNNY!
Now that AMD is being beat by Intel on the power consumption, AMD zealot forget that Intel "low-end" model perform better then AMD "mid-end" one.
I remember in the P4 and PD days that poeple were bitching about low performances and high power consumption of Intel cpu. And they were right! Now that Intel had cope with both aspect, especially the performances part, AMD fanboy are bitching about review site. WOAH!!! Give me a break.
I wish as much as anyone (fanboy aside) that AMD comes back on track to keep Intel competitive, just not enough to wish review site makes AMD look better then they really do.
I stumbled across this power comparison that does a head-to-head compare of low-power chips from AMD and Intel. It's a worthy read if you're really interested in "The Truth About PC Power Consumption". It's also worth noting that Intel requested the comparison.
In case you missed my earlier post. My BE-2400 overclocked 10% is doing 39idle/90load watts. I had my ram at 2.1V now it's at 2.0V, that ticked it down 1 watt at idle. The Kill-a-watt meter is rated at 99.8% accuracy.
Now that AMD is being beat by Intel on the power consumption, AMD zealot forget that Intel "low-end" model perform better then AMD "mid-end" one.
I remember in the P4 and PD days that poeple were bitching about low performances and high power consumption of Intel cpu. And they were right! Now that Intel had cope with both aspect, especially the performances part, AMD fanboy are bitching about review site. WOAH!!! Give me a break.
I wish as much as anyone (fanboy aside) that AMD comes back on track to keep Intel competitive, just not enough to wish review site makes AMD look better then they really do.
By the way, good work TOM's
Did you bother to read more than one sentence of this thread?
Did you bother to read more than one sentence of this thread?
Have you? Both THG and the TechReport Clearly show Intel's lower power reductions.
If you look at any AMD except the EE or 45w BE they score very poorly.
However, Intel's Low Power C2D Chips are the 21xx line.
None of these were represented and would come in far lower than the AMD EE chips.
So even Intel's non-EE chips only use a couple watts more than AMDs EE chips.
Have you? Both THG and the TechReport Clearly show Intel's lower power reductions.
If you look at any AMD except the EE or 45w BE they score very poorly.
However, Intel's Low Power C2D Chips are the 21xx line.
None of these were represented and would come in far lower than the AMD EE chips.
So even Intel's non-EE chips only use a couple watts more than AMDs EE chips.
That's not fair. Current Intel products should be only be compared to non-released, next generation AMD products.
Also, Intel processors are too expensive, they rape consumers, but their processors are also priced too low, they're trying to put AMD out of business.
I never said intel doesn't have low power consumption.
In fact i said Intel currently has the best performance per watt, due to the impressive Core architecture. (that must please at least a few of the intel fanboys right?)
I just said AMD would have put up a MUCH stronger fight if a chipset would have been used that is on par with the chipset used for the intel system when it comes to power efficiency, instead of the power hungry nforce.
Also using one of the EE athlon processors would have been much better, (like the black edition), especially since that processor is still much cheaper than the intel processor used.
I also said that the article makes no sense whatsoever, in that it acts as if it's comparing processors, (amd vs intel) when really it's comparing so many different parts to so many different parts that is gets ridiculous to base any conclusion on the article except that THAT intel system beats THAT amd system due to PSU, chipset, and partly processor.
Hilarious to see I am upsetting some of the intel fans by criticizing an article that favors Intel...
I never said intel doesn't have low power consumption.
In fact i said Intel currently has the best performance per watt, due to the impressive Core architecture. (that must please at least a few of the intel fanboys right?)
You're right.
Quote :
I just said AMD would have put up a MUCH stronger fight if a chipset would have been used that is on par with the chipset used for the intel system
Right.
Quote :
Also using one of the EE athlon processors would have been much better, (like the black edition), especially since that processor is still much cheaper than the intel processor used.
Yeah.
Quote :
I also said that the article makes no sense whatsoever, in that it acts as if it's comparing processors, (amd vs intel) when really it's comparing so many different parts to so many different parts that is gets ridiculous to base any conclusion on the article except that THAT intel system beats THAT amd system due to PSU, chipset, and partly processor.
Right again.
Listen, I think we all agree the article could have been better. But they didn't lie about anything. Intel is still more efficient than AMD. Please stop complaining.
Well I'm glad you agree Kyle.
If all would agree, I would stop explaining myself, and you would stop telling me to stop complaining.
Wouldn't that be awesome...
That's not fair. Current Intel products should be only be compared to non-released, next generation AMD products.
Also, Intel processors are too expensive, they rape consumers, but their processors are also priced too low, they're trying to put AMD out of business.
Also, Intel processors are too expensive, they rape consumers, but their processors are also priced too low, they're trying to put AMD out of business.
Yes sir. It pokes fun at how some people say Intel charges too much because of their record profits. While another group of people say that Intel charges too little and is doing so to put AMD out of business.
