Test Setup

45nm high k MG vs. already week 65nm plus core 2 archetectual superiortity = no contest, I really wish AMD had a twin on 45nm for notebooks.

PCMark only run good on Intel CPU , they found it on VIA chips .

There is a problem in your rationale for calculating power efficiency. You measured the power needed for the systems to complete a 3D Mark test, and then you compared the results, but you cannot do that because 3D Mark gets whatever it can from a processor or a graphics card over a fixed period of time, so technically the systems do not have the same task to complete. It would have been more interesting to test on video encoding or archiving software, because no matter what, the task there is exactly the same no matter what. And if you would have done so, I suspect the final results would have been even more in favor of the intel processors. Hope I'm not wrong!

Who cares about power efficiency. its like getting a big Mac large fries with a diet coke and saying your on a diet. unless all your system parts are purchased with efficiency in mind this comparison is point less .
who buys a e8500 with out a mid to high range graphics card?

Somehow I don't understand the Average power consumption... I thought that 3D/PC Mark Vantage can use 4 cores... How can the low power AMD consume more on average than Q9550s?
That AMD system needs less power in idle and in peak... So it seems that comparing peak power consumption is poinless. Or you have a mistake somewhere else.

maybe someone like a photographer working with big raw files might buy a e8500 with a low-mid (if they do not use Photoshop CS4) graphics card.

i was actually thinking of getting an e8400, 4gig ram and a low end graphics card to do photo editing in lightroom, does anyone know whether a q8200 would be quicker (i doubt it)? i live in south africa, our computer part are quite expensive, so a core i7 920 with 3gb ram (including cheapest gigabyte x58 mb) is nearly double what a mid-range gigabyte 775 mb, e8400 (or q8200 - they cost the same here) and 4gb ddr2 ram is

Why oh why is the Intel E5200 not included here? Anyone even looking at the AMD 5050e would not be comparing it to an E8500 or anything quad core - even if technically at full load those processors could do more work/watt. If you're looking for a truly low-power build, you're looking at the AMD 5050e and the Intel E5200, and you're not overclocking anything. (Maybe the E7xxx series, maybe)

In Hungary the AMD 5050E: under 80USD, 5600+: 75USD,
Intel: E7200: 130USD, E8500:220USD, Q8200S over 300USD, Q9550S over 475USD...
So what are we compare? Phenom???

5050e -> $65
5400BE -> $58

e7200 -> ~$110
e8500 -> $180
etc...
it's an old story that core 2 duo/quad cpus are more efficient than the Athlon X2 cpus, so if you're going to compare these processors again, use processors in the same price range, because the difference in power usage isn't going to pay the extra investment under normal circumstances (I think).

So typical Tom's putting Intel quads against amd dual core. And even high end core duos when the right competition would've been pentiums.

I really wish performance per watt was measured in total system watts, not just CPU watts.

As long as you're looking at performance per watt and trying to see if these products make sense, you should include a performance per watt per dollar graph and see where everything ends up. Ideally that chart should be relatively flat to indicate that you get what you pay for.

Okay, quick price check and a little division later:
(B4B=bang for buck=perforformance per watt per dollar)

price 3Dmark B4B PCmark B4B
Q9550s @ $400 0.470 0.705
Q8200s @ $265 0.657 1.011
E8500 @ $180 1.094 1.489
E7200 @ $120 1.583 2.250
X25050e@ $65 2.846 2.277
X25400+@ $58 2.672 2.224

As we all know, bang for buck gets better when you look at cheaper parts. The X2 5050e actually wins bang for buck and the X2 5400 doesn't do too bad either. Because of the graphically better 780G platform the AMD CPUs leave the Intel CPUs in the dust in 3D bang for buck.

My formatting went to pot but I imagine most of you can make sense out of it.

AMD is really hurting by not having any high-clocked, 45nm dual-core CPUs out. On the other hand, it looks like they are trying to position the Phenom II X3 as a direct competitor to the mid-range Core 2 Duos. How does the efficiency of the X3's (and X4's) compare to those same Intel CPUs?

The Athlon X2's are still fine CPUs for many users, though. I used a 5600+ in a system I built for my mum. It was very cheap and more than fast enough for her needs, and the 780G is a solid platform.

Did Tom's Hardware really just compare 65nm AMD chips against 45nm Intel chips? I want the 10 minutes of my life I just wasted reading this garbage back.

It would take a long time to make up for the difference in price with miniscule power savings on a CPU - like forever.