Benchmark Results: Power Consumption
I’ve been having fun logging power in my graphics card reviews, so I’m going the same route here. I took data for all 10 configurations, but that turned out to be very messy on a single chart. So I left out the two lower-end Sandy Bridge chips, along with the Lynnfield and Clarkdale processors.
With six different series on the graph, there are some interesting observations to make. First, the Phenom II X6 1100T sucks down a lot of power, seemingly followed by the Phenom II X4 970.
In all actuality, when you run the averages, Intel’s Core i7-950 turns out to be the second most power-hungry processor (the X6 1100T winds up at 197 W, the i7-950 sits around 181 W, and the X4 970 averages 180).
|PCMark Vantage Complete Run||Core i7-2600K(Sandy Bridge)||Core i5-2500K(Sandy Bridge)||Core i7-950(Bloomfield)||Core 2 Quad Q9550(Yorkfield)||Phenom II X6 1100T(Thuban)||Phenom II X4 970(Deneb)|
|Average System Power||163.99 W||164.34 W||181.73 W||161.56 W||197.12 W||180.91 W|
How do Intel’s two fastest Sandy Bridge-based chips fare? The Core i7-2600K sits at 164 W. So does the Core i5-2500K. Compare those figures to the Core 2 Quad Q9550, which averages 161 W. Then go back and look at the PCMark Vantage results page. The Core i7-2600K pulls a first-place finish. The Core 2 Quad winds up last. Are these 32 nm chips more efficient (getting more work done within a similar power profile)? Yeah, we’d say so. We'll be following up in the next couple of days with a story dedicated to comparing Sandy Bridge's efficiency to a number of other platforms. More on that soon.