The World's First 65 W Desktop Quad Core

By Frank Voelkel
published

System Power Loss: 141 W Under Full Load

Apart from the power consumption of the individual CPUs, the power requirements of the platform as a whole are important, as this is the value that represents actual cost.

phenom x4 9100e

Under full load, the performance of the complete system with Phenom 9100e was impressive. The 9100e system needs approximately 30.5 W less than the smallest Phenom X4 9500; the margin between the two processors is just 300 MHz. Here, the much better efficiency of the low-power Phenom is clearly evident.

phenom x4 9100e

While idling with Cool’n’Quiet, there is nothing special about the Phenom 9100e. In this mode, it consumes almost the same amount of energy as the other Phenom X3 and X4 CPUs.

Frank Voelkel
50 Comments Comment from the forums
  • xx12amanxx
    VERY INTERESTING...
    Reply
  • custommadename
    People can still play games with this quad core. Sure, it's not as fast as a quad core from Intel, but it's evidently more than suitable to handle today's games. However, for about $200 it's a horrible value.
    Reply
  • Just a quick question... at 1.8GHz is this chip even competitive with a higher speed dual core (even when considering 4 core vs 2 and considering multi-core optimized applications)?

    It'd be interesting to add in a Intel mid to high range dual core and look at the power consumption and performance vs the relatively low clocked quad. Dropping the clockspeed so low would seem to give back most of the games from having 2 extra cores (and would be worse for SW that cannot use 4 cores).
    Reply
  • JSP78
    Im an Q9450 owner and to just drop the multipler on the QX9770 and use the same vid isent fair.
    My Q9450 VID = 1.1v, EIST drops VID to 1.0375v
    C1 stepping, slawr l806a762
    I bet thats gonna make it hard for the phenom to beat
    Reply
  • thuan
    Page 12 title is wrong. It's 9.8% not 8.8%. Just mention it, as it seems no one's noticed it yet.
    Reply
  • royalcrown
    This just goes to show how crappy "Barceloney" really is.

    Consider the fact that one can buy an e8400 or 8500 which uses the same power, can keep up with AMD's quad cores (even when they are over clocked), and also DESTROY this thing at gaming. WHY exactly would I buy this piece of crap again Frank ?!?!

    I guess if I ran Cinebench benchmarks all day and did NOTHING else, then this cpu would look good.

    People that buy quad cores are not going to care about 35 watts, they want to brag about speed OR get their work done ASAP, and AMD is crap for that right now !
    Reply
  • Reynod
    An excellent review Frank ... well done.

    Very impartial ... showing the strength's and weaknesses of the low power unit.

    The overclocking limit of 2.4 would be interesting to explore further.

    Can you elaborate on what settings you went to ... and the HTT frequency please?

    Cheers,
    Reply
  • Reynod
    An excellent review Frank ... well done.

    Very impartial ... showing the strength's and weaknesses of the low power unit.

    The overclocking limit of 2.4 would be interesting to explore further.

    Can you elaborate on what settings you went to ... and the HTT frequency please?

    Cheers,
    Reply
  • OMA
    Why did you underclock the l3 cache and memory controller? The ht link is ment to be overclocked, not underclocked! L3 runs the same speed as ht link not 2,4 ghz. Slow L3 is a big bottleneck in games.
    Reply
  • skittle
    comparing power consumption of a 1.8ghz phenom with a stock q6600 and touting the phenom as the power consumption king is a very inaccurate conclusion. The articles here just keep getting worse and worse... seriously who hires these clowns?
    Reply