System Builder Marathon, Q4 2012: $1,000 Enthusiast PC

Deals
By
published

Power And Temperature

Idle power consumption is pretty close when you look at both boxes. Moreover, power use under a graphics load is fairly similar. No surprise there, right? We're using the exact same card in both machines, after all.

The real differentiator comes from swapping back and forth between processors under load. AMD's FX uses about 150 W more than Intel's Core i5.

This is amazing. Why? The FX-8350 is actually undervolted when we overclock it. And yet, it draws significantly more power from the wall.

Thermal readings require some context, since voltages, heat sinks, and fans all have an impact on how far we're able to push each platform. However, we observe that the GPU idle and load numbers are very similar between both builds (as we'd expect). The Core i5 idles much cooler than AMD's FX. The Core i5 is also cooler at its stock settings. Of course, when we overclock, though, both get pushed as far as possible at their respective clock rates. And so, they end up roughly as hot.

Don Woligroski
126 Comments Comment from the forums
  • CaptainTom
    So a 600w PSU for one 670? Get a 500w, get kingston RAM that is $20 cheaper, a $50-$70 liquid cooler for the FX, and BOOM! More performance for the same price. I get you wanted to test a similar system, but just make that a different article...
    Reply
  • serhat359
    Could have used a 6 or 4-core FX and made more money for a better cpu cooler and case. You have already demonstrated that more than 4 cores aren't used in gaming and here you have an 8 core CPU...
    Reply
  • dkcomputer
    Thats like... The worst possible $1k build. wow
    Reply
  • boulbox
    @Serhat i agree with you but this would be a better all around build. I think he could have done better though
    Reply
  • dkcomputer
    Swap mobo for ASRock Z68 PRO3 GEN3 LGA 1155 Intel Z68 and processor for a sandybridge i5-2500. No overclocking needed.
    Reply
  • wolley74
    Dat hitachi HDD, you guys do know that Seagate Barracudas are around $70 for 64MB cache 1TB storage and SATA 6 right? and arguably are far more reliable
    Reply
  • aznshinobi
    Why wouldn't you drop down a bit to the FX-8320, that's about $40 saved, that could save you enough money to get the 7970 which clock for clock is better than the GTX 670.
    Reply
  • mouse24
    serhat359Could have used a 6 or 4-core FX and made more money for a better cpu cooler and case. You have already demonstrated that more than 4 cores aren't used in gaming and here you have an 8 core CPU...
    Its not 8 core, its 4 core with dual modules per core. Shared resources. Its why you see an increase in performance between a 4300 and an 8320
    Reply
  • DjEaZy
    http://valid.canardpc.com/2604796
    Reply
  • yyk71200
    mouse24Its not 8 core, its 4 core with dual modules per core. Shared resources. Its why you see an increase in performance between a 4300 and an 8320No, its other way around. It is 4 module cpu. Each module contains two integer cores (thus 8 cores total) and one FPU. It is more like reduced 8 core than full 8 core. Neverthles, Intel still is better.
    Reply