Quote Originally Posted by Kayin
Crisped the VRM. It puffed some smoke from under the heatsink, but before, at startup, it was flickering my G15 REALLY bad, and then it smelled horrible.
Hmm... never heard of that apart from with faulty boards, especially with the low power CPU you had running and I've never used extra fan cooling either just to test the longevity of the VRMs, with no problem. Bad luck I suppose.

Some Relevant News Around:-

Here's the new Athlon X2 4850e 45W I plan to get for my 780G build. AMD has dropped the "64" moniker after the Athlon name for the new X2's... initial review shows it oc'd to ~3100MHz stable: http://www.hardspell.com/doc/hard/69064.htm

New AMD FAQ explaining 45W and more: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...00.html#117799
Q: What desktop processor lines will transition to the new model numbering conventions? Will AMD Athlon™ FX processors be included?
A: AMD plans to apply the new model numbering conventions only to new AMD Athlon™ X2 dual-core, AMD Athlon™ or AMD Sempron™ processors.

AMD plans to apply slightly different model numbering conventions to AMD Phenom™ FX processors that are similar to the same incremental progression as the previous AMD Athlon FX solutions and not to follow the new model number conventions. Consumers can expect to see AMD Phenom FX processor solutions following this trend as product enhancements continue.

Upcoming AMD Phenom FX quad-core processors may have model numbers for processors for AM2+ socket platforms as well as processors for dual-socket 1207+ platforms.
Speak of the devil

Check this out, IBM recently made photonic inter-core switches for SOI CPUs, already tested within a fully functional CPU, which have a major energy consumption reduction as well as tiny, nano sizes (capacity of 2000 within 1mm² IIRC), but also, 40GB/s per switch bandwidth between the cores http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/...ics.index.html

And carbon nanotubes have beee found as faster interconnects than traditional copper for CPUs: http://www.newelectronics.co.uk/arti...rm-copper.aspx

PC Power Efficiency Testing:-
I found no better resource than my home nation Department of Energy for all information on this, as they have set up the ENERGY STAR rating and 80% PLUS SMPS ratings for this exact reason, as well as nearly all the major semiconductor and electrical firms working in alliance with them to set these accepted criteria, which includes Intel and Via providing mutual guidelines. So since I'm about to test system power now (got a new Phenom and GBT Odin) I read up on everything needed and thought I should share these bits from all the most official bodies.

Here's some info on how the ENERGY STAR rating is worked out and applied to our PC's, what it's looking for (very briefly) and it's conditions. It tells us how the major national energy laboratories, electrical firms, Government advisories and sub-segments measure and categorize these things and what they see as accurate ways with energy measurements.

Aim: Their ultimate aim is to reach Standby power of 1W for all electrical devices (P.Bush ordered this initiative for all Government sector computing equipment in 2001).

Intel's comment on PC power efficiency metrics => Energy Star Computer Program Discussion Guide: Version 4.0, Tier 2.0 dated November 9, 2007, United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Department of Energy:
Quote Originally Posted by How we should test PC efficiency
How can performance under different EEPA workloads best be integrated into Energy Star? Intel Feedback: There are three primary metrics for performance that could result from an EEPA approach: Energy Consumption, Time to complete workload(s), and explicit performance. Each has pro’s and con’s but Intel would advocate for either Energy Consumption (over the duration of the workload(s)) or Time to complete workload as the preferred metric.
Quote Originally Posted by Applications we should use to test power efficiency
Should EPA use the same approach used in Tier 1 for Workstations or should they be handled differently? Intel Feedback: Intel recommends changing the specification, as implied in our Tier1 discussions. Intel recommendation is to utilize the HPC benchmark Linpack; and graphics routine SpecAPC, and capture the energy consumption to complete 2 cycles encompassing inactive power levels [AC power using a laboratory-grade power meter].
UUT = Unit Under testing
Quote Originally Posted by System Power Consumption Efficiency Testing Directives
The maximum power for workstations (AC) is found by the simultaneous operation of two industry standard benchmarks: Linpack to stress the core system (e.g., processor, memory, etc.) [using "n" arrays] and SPECviewperf® (version 9.x or higher) to stress the system’s GPU.

This test must be repeated three times on the same UUT, and all three measurements must fall within a ± 2% tolerance relative to the average of the three measured maximum power values.

Maximum Power Testing
*Set the meter to begin accumulating true power values at an interval of 1 reading per second, and begin taking measurements. Run SPECviewperf and as many simultaneous instances of Linpack as needed to fully stress the system.
*Accumulate power values until SPECviewperf and all instances have completed running. Record the maximum power value attained during the test.

Standby (Off Mode) Testing
*With the UUT shut down and in Standby, set the meter to begin accumulating true power values at an interval of 1 reading per second.
*Accumulate power values for 5 additional minutes and record the average (arithmetic mean) value observed during that 5 minute period.

Idle Mode Testing
*Switch on the computer and begin recording elapsed time, starting either when the computer is initially switched on, or immediately after completing any log in activity necessary to fully boot the system. Once logged in with the operating system fully loaded and ready, close any open windows so that the standard operational desktop screen or equivalent ready screen is displayed.
*Exactly 15 minutes after the initial boot or log in, set the meter to begin accumulating true power values at an interval of 1 reading per second. Accumulate power values for 5 additional minutes and record the average (arithmetic mean) value observed during that 5 minute period.

Sleep Mode Testing
*After completing the Idle measurements, place the computer in Sleep mode. Reset the meter (if necessary) and begin accumulating true power values at an interval of 1 reading per second. Accumulate power values for 5 additional minutes and record the average (arithmetic mean) value observed during that 5 minute period.



Category A: All desktop computers that do not meet the definition of either Category B or Category C below will be considered under Category A for ENERGY STAR qualification.

Category B: To qualify under Category B desktops must have:
  • Multi-core processor(s) or greater than 1 discrete processor; and
  • Minimum of 1 gigabyte of system memory.

Category C: To qualify under Category C desktops must have:
  • Multi-core processor(s) or greater than 1 discrete processor; and
  • A GPU with greater than 128 megabytes of dedicated, non-shared memory.

In addition to the requirements above, models qualifying under Category C must be configured with a minimum of 2 of the following 3 characteristics:
  • Minimum of 2 gigabytes of system memory;
  • TV tuner and/or video capture capability with high definition support; and/or
  • Minimum of 2 hard disk drives.

Tools developed specifically for the ENERGY STAR Partnership Agreement to scientifically capture desktop PC usage scenario data for power efficiency analysis:
PC Usage [by Via] is a program that collects computer activity as well as application activity.
UTrack [by Intel] is a program that collects time stamped data on CPU activity (C-States and allocation), and I/O activity via keyboard or mouse.
Also, a friend sent me a link today, 10 months too late, confirming exactly what I had told you long back, almost in August '07 - funnily by Fuad with Intel engineers. Intel saying K10h native design+IMC was the way to go all along which they could not physically make and get working at 65nm or they would've: http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...=6353&Itemid=1

Once again, it is very clear and obvious a long while back esp. if you have trustworthy knowledge by informed contacts. 2G native K10 at 65nm was doubted immensley as literally impossible at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Annual Conferences since 2006, that's why there was huge interest and hype in K10h developments and ongoings by most in this field. It was mission impossible for even the worlds best engineers. If you know any manufacturing level employees at Intel personally, ask them and they'll tell you how difficult it is to manufacture and why. And... Nehalem isn't the name of what's coming up as an upgraded mutation of Core 2 either AFAIK.