CPU Power Consumption TRUTH?

[carmicael]

---

Conclustion:

Our two power consumption tests, which we created to track the actual system power consumption over time, are rather simple, and don't necessarily reflect application scenarios, or user habits over a period of time longer than 90 minutes. We did not install anti-virus software, messengers, download clients or other software that could increase the system power consumption in idle and when under load. All we did is to track the power consumption for the entire duration of each test run and calculate the average power requirements (in watts) and actual power required (in Wh).

The results speak clearly, showing that performance is still a major issue, even when the primary goal is to save power in average desktop environments. The results leave us with serious doubts about the strategy of some processor makers that release products with the single focus on energy efficiency. These may be great for specific applications, but certainly not for most desktop PCs.

Leading people into buying a low-power, high efficiency processor for desktop use is misleading, because the user could end up in a scenario in which her or his low-power components will have to run at substantial loads all the time. In such a case, all the power savings could be gone, and an average system might turn out to be more efficient.

Here are the facts from our test results:

• Power consumption must not only be looked from a minimum and maximum power consumption standpoint, but must be tracked using applications and benchmarks that truly simulate PC use over time. Performance and energy efficiency are closely related, and you cannot have ideal energy efficiency without a certain level of performance.
  
  
• The Athlon 64 X2 system we used consumed more energy than the Core 2 Duo E6400 machine, whether it was idle, running our power consumption benchmarks, or under maximum load. I want to make clear that faster Athlon processors would look better, but they would also require more power. The same applies for faster Core 2 processors.
  
  
• The Core 2 Duo E6400 system completed the SYSmark 2007 Preview run 14 minutes earlier than the Athlon 64 X2 5000+. As a consequence, the Intel system went back to an idle state earlier, which of course results in considerably less total power consumed. During the same time, the AMD system had to stay at a higher activity level for a longer period of time, which eventually meant that it required as much as 50% more power than the Intel system!

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/...ion/index.html

[cmac]

is this true? if yes, glad to know coz I am using intel.

[carmicael]

In my humble opinion, I think Tom's Hardware is right. In order to determine TRUE power efficiency, you also have to weigh in performance, because, the faster your task is completed, the lesser the power consumption (in most cases).

[okimangelo]

nice post. Thanks bro.

[carmicael]

Haha...
Pero I would like to point out:

This is not to discourage AMD die-hards or fanboys at all. This is the plain truth. The upcoming Phenom processors(codenamed Agena/Kuma based from Barcelona), are still worth the wait. Maybe some juice will come out this time, and it may hit intel hard.

This is not intel fanboyism.

[IT]

thats correct!!! but .. para nako ang pama-agi sa imong pc componets include lcd like example...

PSU 400 watts :
processor :
motherboard :
agp or pci : -------- kana ra imong gamiton, diba? mas less power consumtion. basic componets lang gamiton. if naay kay extra drives or hdd unplug nalang nako mge power wire
memory :
hdd :
dvdrw :
lcd :

BUT I PREFER AMD kaysa Intel tagam ko hehehe. DEPENDE RANA NIMO IF ITS WORTH. BE PRACTICAL.

[carmicael]

It's up to you if you prefer AMD. As of karon, better energy efficiency ang gi-offer sa C2D compared sa X2.
Again, I'm pointing out my opinions based on facts. It's up to you people to interpret the facts. That's the blessing of democracy.

[boj]

well, i agree on this statement:

In my humble opinion, I think Tom's Hardware is right. In order to determine TRUE power efficiency, you also have to weigh in performance, because, the faster your task is completed, the lesser the power consumption (in most cases).

pero there's just a very slight difference in power consumption...
i think it doesn't matter if u use intel or amd, ur electricity bill is still gonna be more or less the same...
just my 2 cents...

[teH_tHirD]

i read up (i think on anandtech or another toms article) that the x2 is uses less power on idle but consumes more power when on load compared to core2duo. naa na sa end-user kung i-unsa niya paggamit ang computer para maka-tipid jud og consumo. i think better ang x2 for the low-end/common consumers and core2duo for hardcore gamers and cpu-intensive activities.

[spookey]

i read up (i think on anandtech or another toms article) that the x2 is uses less power on idle but consumes more power when on load compared to core2duo. naa na sa end-user kung i-unsa niya paggamit ang computer para maka-tipid jud og consumo. i think better ang x2 for the low-end/common consumers and core2duo for hardcore gamers and cpu-intensive activities.

i totally agree with you bro...