While power differences are significant, we really expected even larger differences between the overclocked/overvolted $3,000 system and the stock-voltage overclocked $1,500 build. Given its far lower performance, the $750 system’s efficiency is already starting to look a little weak.
Putting the performance differences into numbers gives us perspective, while also allowing us to further calculate efficiency.
All three machines were built for overclocking and the overclocked $3,000 PC leads the overclocked $750 PC by an impressive 71% (238% ÷ 139%, above). Those with high expectations and less cash might instead find the overclocked $1,500 system’s 53% gain acceptable.
Efficiency is determined by dividing average performance by average power consumption, using the slowest configuration as the baseline.
With 70% higher performance than the slowest configuration while consuming 24% more power, the stock-speed $3,000 machine leads our efficiency chart. Thanks to its use of stock CPU core voltage in overclocking, the $1,500 PC gains 1% in efficiency at the higher speed. Another impressive efficiency increase is the $750 overclocked configuration, as enabling its fourth core improved performance significantly at a marginal power consumption increase.
- The Bigger They Come…
- Test Settings
- Benchmark Results: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
- Benchmark Results: Crysis
- Benchmark Results: DiRT 2
- Benchmark Results: S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Call of Pripyat
- Benchmark Results: Audio And Video Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark And PCMark
- Benchmark Results: SiSoftware Sandra
- Power And Efficiency
- The Harder They Fall