that's quite impressive half the power consumption at the same clock speed!! something tells me that 4GHz oc isn't that impossible after all.
that's quite impressive half the power consumption at the same clock speed!! something tells me that 4GHz oc isn't that impossible after all.
Way to go,edit his own post to make him look like a homosexual...Originally Posted by gallag
Way to come out man, Respect
Dude do you have limits while you're on the public forum?
Way to go,edit his own post to make him look like a homosexual...
Dude do you have limits while you're on the public forum?Do they have a sense of humor where you live?You got to admit, Its a pretty funny sentience even without editing.
I would be happy enough with just the bug free fully optimized Deneb tomorrow, I would imagine that on the hole it would be easier lol (get it)I demand surprise butt-sexness and AMD to release a bug gree fully optimized Deneb tomorrow.
what are you trying to say here?58W? 95-~47=48W.
I do get it.But it's distasteful.Get it?
I would be happy enough with just the bug free fully optimized Deneb tomorrow, I would imagine that on the hole it would be easier lol (get it)
No actually, sigh, I fear you did not get it. I did not write (get it) as in "you get what I am saying mofo", I meant did you get the joke.
Notice the spelling mistake, On the hole should be whole. Did you never hear that old chestnut "On the hole, I find cheep toilet roll to be quite harsh" No? ah forget it.
Well some folks consider ass jokes to be distasteful.
Do you think i'm stupid or what?I saw you smileys but it's obviously distasteful,at least to me.I have pretty good sense of humor,thank you.
I don't really see it as being offensive. It's just a joke, and a pretty light-hearted one at that. We're adults here, aren't we?
Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Rule 1A:
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
Rule 2A:
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
Rule 3:
When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
Random Tip o' the Whatever
You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.
Maybe I was trying to say that Devil's Prophet made a mistake...
It's over ninethousand!!!!
No, but srsly, the graph states that the 45nm Phenom uses 57,... ish watts, while the 65nm (9650 supposedly) uses more than 100 watts. I know the numbers seem off by 10 or so, and that is what he tries to correct. He says: 45nm power consumption is 95W minus the difference in the graphs. Or isn't he?
What now? The graph states ~57 W for the 45nm Phenom, and ~104W for the 65nm Phenom. I cannot believe the graph states anything other than sole cpu power consumption at full load. Those numbers are only off by some 10%, so PSU inefficiency can be ruled out I guess. So where am I wrong?Maybe I was trying to say that Devil's Prophet made a mistake...
Last edited by Devil's Prophet; 08-06-2008 at 02:15 PM.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
They probably measured the current going through the 4-pin, or 8-pin power connector. Since it's just a 12v line, if you know the current, you know the power. Problem is, they'd have to be measuring the power required for the CPU+VRM. So, in reality, the CPU will draw less than the reported numbers. Say the VRM is like 75% efficient, then each processor is really only using 42.7W and 78W respectively. Which sounds more reasonable for the 95W 9650.
OK, sorry... My bad...I know it sounds stupid, but I thoudt that was system's power consumption (I must have drunk something good yesterday
). But it would be great if a system with a 45nm Phenom and a 4850 consumed only 57 watts.
Yeah, that seems plausible.
Also: what percentage of the TDP can be reached when fully stressing an AMD Phenom? I've been hearing stuff about TDP, that it's not the average full stress power usage, but the utter limit the cpu can reach while doing the heaviest stressing session ever possible.
And what is the average efficiency of the VRM's? Does the number of phases have anything to do with that? Etc.
Intel and AMD define TDP differently, but yes--TDP is generally an indicator of worst-case scenario. Average power consumption is going to be less. Sometimes it will be much less.
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
Random Tip o' the Whatever
You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.
I have no idea what the efficiency of the VRMs could be, I just threw out that 75% number randomly. I imagine higher phase circuitry might be more efficient, but I think the main purpose is for tighter power regulation.
MOSFET VRMs are generally very efficient. Just look at the cooling on the mosfets for example. On many boards that can do 150W+, there isn't any cooling assembly at all. It wouldn't take but a watt or two being dumped as heat by each mosfet on such a board to go POP.
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
Random Tip o' the Whatever
You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks