Benchmark Results: Efficiency
Six cores are decidedly fastest at completing our efficiency workload.
Interestingly, average power consumption was lower on five cores than on four during our workload.
Total power used scales well. It's obvious that the many-core configurations require less total power to complete our workload.
As a result, the higher active core counts deliver better performance per watt.
61
Comments
Related Stories :
- Six-Core Analysis: AMD’s Phenom II X6 Gets Scaled Down
- Phenom II X6: First Details Of ‘Thuban’ Design Emerge
- Scaling Summary: DDR3 Memory On Core 2, Core i7, And Phenom II
- AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Review: The New Six-Core Flagship
- DDR3 Memory Scaling On AMD's Phenom II X4
- Phenom vs. Athlon Core Scaling Compared
- Report: AMD Phenom II X6 CPUs in Short Supply
- Efficiency: Optimizing The Clock Rate Of AMD's Phenom II X6
- AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 'Black Ops' Overclocking
- AMD Phenom II X6 1090T And 890FX Platform Review: Hello, Leo
thats a nice motherboard
WinZIP should just be dropped from the benchmarking suite until a multithreaded version comes out. It's always the same, flatline graph.
Interesting article, thanks for the work.
WinZIP should just be dropped from the benchmarking suite until a multithreaded version comes out. It's always the same, flatline graph.
Speaking of graphs.
Toms - The majority of your graphs are in descending order (6 cores to 1), but some of them are ascending. Was a little confusing for a moment until I realized the switch up.
good job on the tests! i have the same complaint: using a 750w psu with a system that uses between 80 to 200watts. a 300-400 watt psu would be best.
the system is idling at 80watts and the system is using a velociraptor (which is not that efficient) and a discrete gpu (idling at ~15watts)... this means you can get this baby to idle at 60watts or so if you use the onboard gpu and a more efficient hdd... and if you use a proper size, efficent psu then this could get even lower. that is so sexy! one could make a silent and efficient system with this. no wonder thubans are in short supply.
and yes... drop that stupid winzip from tests. hardly anybody using that. you can make zips with windows xp. if you are lazy you just trial winrar (indefinetly
) and if you are not lazy you get 7zip.
Winzip is dead. Can you use 7zip from now on please Tom!
Just replace winzip with 7zip it support multi thread if i recall
would have liked to see how much further you could overclock this thing if you're only running 3 or 4 cores.
Thing with lame is that nothing limits you to run it only once, I am usually starting at least 4 of them at once, each using one of my 4 CPU cores. This way it scales even better then most multithread applications.
freaking GRAPH INCONSISTENCY !!!! this seems to be the curse of this site. No one of the reviewers thinks about proper data presentation. If you are graphing 6 to 1 cores performance numbers, do it consistently. that way I can just look at the best result in the graph nad see which one was worst and which one was best. now I need to read the column labels anyway in each graph just to make sure I get the correct information.
also what's with the Cinebench single threaded graph ? all have the same result except single core but top to bottom it goes 4 3 6 5 2 1 !!! WTF !!!!
Normalized Power And Efficiency Results page is all nuts ... the unit is % not Watts
realy crap data presentation in the whole article ...
also what's with the Cinebench single threaded graph ? all have the same result except single core but top to bottom it goes 4 3 6 5 2 1 !!! WTF !!!!
It's ordered from best to worst (top to bottom), but as the graphs are probably auto-generated the labels aren't taken into account and equivalent results don't have any particular order.
Interesting article.
A big jump from a single core to a dual ...
Well done.
Off-topic but I would love an educated answer..
Any news on whether 'Fusion' PPU's will work on existing MB's?
Also I have a doubt about Liano or whatever (the desktop part).. They say that it has the processing power of an HD5770 for graphics calculations but at the same time it's only one unit doing all the maths.. so does this mean that it can reach that goal only when it doesn't have a lot of CPU jobs?
Is it meant to be the winning competitor of SandyBridge or is that what Bulldozer is all about?
Thanks in advance..
And I'd also like some sources for the answers you provide..
Hmmm, it may not be the best "gamer-CPU," but for those less interested in maximum overclocks (such as myself), and/or who multi-task a lot or use well-threaded apps, this chip looks very nice.
Any 'true' reason for the thump down?
Nice article but nothing really shown that 95% of Toms readers didnt already know fairly well.
As Toms has stated a thousand times if you need more cores buy the model with them if you dont stick with the lower core model and save your money, anything else is a waste of money or a crapshot.