Shop for All
|
Core 2 Duo E8400 Dual Core Processor |
Compare the top 5 lowest prices by hovering your mouse over the product names on the left |
$199.99 |
|
Core 2 Quad Q6600 Processor | $199.99 | |
|
Core i7 I7-920 Quad Core Processor | $349.99 | |
|
Core 2 Q9550 Quad Core Processor | $219.99 | |
|
Phenom II X4 940 Quad Core Processor | $189.99 |
- power consumption of a pc
- cpu power consumption
- pentium 4 power consumption
- intel power consumption
- power consumption of average pc
- core 2 duo power consumption
- intel cpu power consumption
- power consumption typical pc
- pentium 4 power requirements
- intel power
- how does a core 2 duo compare to a pentium
- cpu power consumption benchmark
- pentium 4 watts
- intel core 2 power consumption
- amd processor power consumption
Partners
The Games selection
violent :
Friday the 24th
Exterminate Santa Claus's elves. Use the arrows to move, S to grab the elves, and A or W to attack them with your sword.
|
kids :
Dr. Joe
You need sound to play this game. Some of these lovely animals are sick, and as a veterinarian, it is your duty to find out what is wrong with them...
|
Sponsored links
Intel Power Consumption Then and Now
- Email |
- Print |
- Comment (1) |
- Share
Table of contents
- 1 – From Pentium 4 to Core 2: Power Consumption Analyzed
- 2 – Processors at 3.0 GHz
- 3 – Pentium D 830
- 4 – Core 2 Duo E6850
- 5 – Core 2 Extreme QX6850
- 6 – Test Setup
The processor typically is the most power hungry component inside an average desktop PC. CPU power consumption first became a real issue as Intel closed in on 4 GHz with its Pentium 4, where 100+ watts was required and optimized cooling became a necessity. However, power requirements and performance did not match up with this chip. The advent of the first Pentium D 800 dual core processor made things even worse, until Core 2 Duo came to the rescue 18 months ago. We have since seen a 400% performance per watt increase, from the Pentium 4 600 series to the recent Core 2 processors. We'll look at some details of that evolution in this article.
When we looked at the typical power consumption of two AMD and Intel systems, we tracked the total power required to perform real-life tasks over time, simulated by BAPCo's SYSmark 2007. This benchmark is based on real-life applications, which process real-life workflows in a multitasking environment. While most publications release test results of minimum and maximum power requirements of components and systems, these results only tell a small part of the story. Power consumption has to be related to performance at all times, because a faster system may return to a more energy-efficient state earlier than a slow machine, and thus consume less power over time, even though the faster solution might have a higher maximum power requirement.
Our first article dealt with an AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (65 nm) and Intel's Core 2 Duo E6400 Compare Prices on Core 2 Duo E6400 . Both are fast and efficient dual core processors, but Intel's Core 2 Duo won the efficiency battle due to its performance advantage, allowing it to resume an idle state quicker than the AMD processor. But how does the Core 2 Duo compare to the Core 2 Quad? And how much better is it when compared to the Pentium 4 and the Pentium D? Let's have a look!
- Should a NON-GAMER upgrade to i7? [CPU & Components]
- amd vs. intel [CPU & Components]
- "1.7GHz. It's there. Unless you need it." [CPU & Components]
- Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design [CPU & Components]
- Curious about power draw... [CPU & Components]
Questions? Ask Tom's community!
Sponsored links
Related forums topics
- HOWTO: Overclock C2Q (Quads) and C2D (Duals) - Guide v1.6.1
- High-end and Luxury P45-GIGABYTE P45T EXTREME Air-Cooling 659MHz
- Thoughts and questions regarding C2D Temperature Guide
- Best Chipset of 2008 so far?
- Why AMD is better than Intel?
- Low power consumption MB/CPU with WoL, ECC & 4xSATA?
- New PC Built, BIOS Underclocking CPU, help?
- Big step to the future,Gigabyte EX58 Extreme with Intel I7 Extreme 965
- When will DDR3 actually be worth it?
- A 4.1 GHz Dual Core at $130 - Can it be True?
- $300 Power Build!
- Advice on this new system build!
- Low power home server
- Need Advice on Cheap Gaming Build
Related news
- Matsushita makes strides in reducing PDP power consumption
- How Google battles its increasing power consumption
- CMOS voltage regulator to reduce CPU power consumption by up to 35 percent
- Intel to trim power consumption of desktop CPUs in half by H2 2006
- Intel to aims to decrease power consumption of desktop processors to 60 watts
The 'SYSmark Performance per Watt' can be misleading when comparing the dual and quad core processors, particularly when looking at other types of loads that make better use of the additional cores. In particular, look at x264 encoding, where a quad-core processor offers nearly double performance. See the graysky's articles on TechARP for actual charts and tables:
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=442
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520
For a load that will use all processors, I believe that testing will show better performance per watt for a quad core compared to a dual (or even single) core because there is little or no additional overhead from the motherboard or powersupply or hard drives when adding an additional core.
It may be easier to understand this by comparing running 2 separate PCs with dual core CPUs in them vs. running a single PC with a quad core CPU. The quad core system won't need another motherboard, power supply, fans, drives, etc. so all those items are areas of power savings.
From the published tests above, the 2 extra cores consume 195-132=63 watts at max load and 94-77=17 watts at idle. That is in contrast to adding a 2nd system identical to the E6850 testbox which used 132 watts at max and 77 at idle.
A simplistic scaling using a spreadsheet, and assuming that performance doubles going from dual to quad cores (reasonable for x264 encodes), shows that:
state cores watts perf/watt perf perf/core perf ratio
Idle 2 77 1.46 112.42 56.21 1
Idle 4 94 2.391914894 224.84 56.21 1.638
Avg 2 90 1.46 131.4 65.7 1
Avg 4 112 2.346428571 262.8 65.7 1.607
Max 2 132 1.46 192.72 96.36 1
Max 4 195 1.976615385 385.44 96.36 1.354
In other words, using the system power numbers given, the quad core can be 35% to 64% more efficient than using a dual core, if given an appropriate load. A look at the Sysmark benchmark scores will show you that it did not scale up very much going from dual to quad.