AMD Phenom appears in pricelist

[nemrod]

Hornet, you forgive psu efficiency

[KTE]

well ram consume 5 watt each (10W for both) then the geforce6200 (dont know ho much this baby takes but i guess nothing below 15W) 2x raptors (real powerhogs 8W each in idel = 16W) the mobo itself also takes ~20W (x38 chipset)

so were @ 61W only for the additional components

so this means we are @ a good 90W.

DDR3 RAM idles at 5W each 1GB? That is DDR idle usage. That card consumes hardly anything because its not loaded and CPU is loaded so most draw is completely from the CPU. Motherboard chipset 20W seems fair even when the chipset has no use.

Hornet, you forgive psu efficiency

[H] know very well what real power consumption means (Paul does some decent PSU testing), they took into account PSU efficiency and gave the real VDC, which they state as the actual system power draw in watts - can it get any clearer? So trying to get 40W/60W/80W out of that is impossible and is akin to saying more than one review is completely wrong.

10W+20W+16W+5W= Still gives 100W for just the CPU rather than 40W or 60W some would feign us to believe. This is ludicrous if you understand electronics and how Penryn was made as you are saying these ≥3GHz parts are 60W/80W but cannot explain why Intel never thought that and decided to label them 130W/136/150 for desktop consumers and marketing instead. You are trying to tell me you know better than 1000+ professional processor engineers and over a few thousand Intel employees yet without evidence to disprove them.

Further than that, Intel always has low voltage binned parts later down the year, the lower binned highest quad parts at 0.8/0.9V will be 20W lower, so using your beliefs that comes say 40W/60W and they are formed of two same modules, so that gives 20W/30W maximum load for a 3GHz Wolfdale. This is really getting from bad to worse. I'm out of this thank you, because this is equivalent to claiming 90W full load usage by 3GHz Phenom FX.

Can you predict what the TDP of the next highest end Penryn quad will be (after 3.2GHz if it ever sees light of day)?

I've already heard arguments of 4GHz 120W TDP just before it was released but that was ridiculed by Intel themselves.

[nemrod]

10W+20W+16W+5W= Still gives 100W for just the CPU rather than 40W or 60W some would feign us to believe. This is ludicrous if you understand electronics and how Penryn was made as you are saying these ≥3GHz parts are 60W/80W but cannot explain why Intel never thought that and decided to label them 130W/136/150 for desktop consumers and marketing instead. You are trying to tell me you know better than 1000+ professional processor engineers and over a few thousand Intel employees yet without evidence to disprove them.

I believe we can stop this discussion. You're right on the fact the power is take after the psu. But even with that you have a lot of data above from different sources showing power of cpu is low. You still thinking full system power is cpu power, we have discuss yours data removing different part to have the power of the cm+cpu. I could have add again that it's a X38 motherboard with an hungry chipset etc... But ok penryn are the worst processor ever made, fugger never show 5.8 GHz on cascade on this kind of baby and so one...