Well, we need some better CPU+VRM tests for current AMD and Intel parts to truly confirm that. i7 will be difficult though, since it takes power from the MB and the VRMs.Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Well, we need some better CPU+VRM tests for current AMD and Intel parts to truly confirm that. i7 will be difficult though, since it takes power from the MB and the VRMs.
A Q6600 isn't all Intel alternatives. Yorkfields would drop idle and load power consumption even further.
Yes, on hexus power draw is a bit higher than on some other websites, very good Zucker!
I don't quite get how I have to save my face now that you show me a website that shows slightly different results, than the one I was talking about.
If you are assuming I am in any way interested in what you think about me, I have to disappoint you. I could not care less if my life depended on it.
Oh and when I said the intel alternatives, I ment the intel alternatives in that review, being the Q6600 and the I7. I guess you guys are not going to make it easy for me, which is understandable when one realizes just how much feelings you have for intel.
Last edited by Miss Banana; 01-14-2009 at 11:23 AM.
Like I said, power consumption needs to be reviewed more in depth. Lostcircuits had Phenom II 940 using 8-13W at idle(depending on board), and 68-77W at load(again, they used 2 different boards). The multitasking looks good based on the hexus review.
It doesn't matter, the onus is on you to make yourself clear:
here's more for you from the tech report, for links check the first page of this thread. Note that the Intel systems are on Extreme chipsets, x48/x58 which are powerhogs; the P45 will show lower numbers:
Huh ? First of all, I'm quoting a fellow forum member , who's opinion was worth reading and secondly , AMD themselves, positioned Phenom 2 as a competitor for Q9400 and asked accordingly to be reviewed,
How exactly is this a flamebait ? Overly sensitive today ?
Yeah , the comparison might not be the smartest, either way I apologize for it and reaffirm my intention of debating forcefully, ironically and last but not least ,in a not personal fashion.Wow, comparing another poster to a prostitute. That's really low.
I realize that these topics can become heated, but that's no reason to drop any pretense of objectivity and just start attacking other posters outright.
My point about the red text still stands however. It's fine for reinforcing a point ; posting everything in red is a sign of disrespect towards the forum members IMO.
You said "all intel alternatives", which include the Q9400 and Q9550.
If you read every word in my post you would've noticed the little "if". So, I wasn't making any assumptions or conclusions about anything, I was giving a hypothetical scenario - one that might be true.
Sad to see were this thread is going the last two pages. Just because of a (bad) review.
And Zucker: In the Hexus review, Ci7 draws just about 25% more than a 25% slower PII. Care to comment?(In idle the numbers are 16%.)
Apology accepted, people often say things they don't mean when they get upset. I do not think that the shade of red I picked is in any way disturbing or making my posts or this forum less readable, but if you strongly disagree with me, feel free to ignore me.
About the power consumption, intel does better for a given rendering or encoding text, but someone does not render or encode, and a system spends a lot of time idling, the platform with the best idle power consumption is still the best choice the way I see it.
What I ment was all the intel alternatives participating in that benchmark. Making a statement about intel processors NOT in that benchmark, when the statement itself is a RESULT of that benchmark is rather silly.
If it really makes you happy we can pretend you are right though, having an argument with you about what I ment is a bit pointless.
Last edited by Miss Banana; 01-14-2009 at 11:38 AM.
Check the task energy graph of my post above from the TechReport: Even though Ci7 draws more power it finishes the task way faster than the PhII; in effect, for the amount of energy used in the completion a given task, the Ci7 is better than any other processor to date: Which would you rather have: a processor that consumes 2000w in 4hours to complete a given task, or a processor that consumes 1500w in 3 hours to complete that same task?And Zucker: In the Hexus review, Ci7 draws just about 25% more than a 25% slower PII. Care to comment?
Last edited by Vapor; 01-14-2009 at 11:56 AM.
To be fair, that's really only one perspective, Cinebench...other tasks might stress the system differently, and different platforms could show different power numbers. So it's not the best test to examine CPU power consumption Again, Lostcircuits showed that a motherboard alone can add or subtract 10W for the Phenom II. As for the Intel chipsets, I read the TDP's on the x48/58 aren't actually that high.
TDP's: ( i didn't see x58 on the list, i'll look for it elsewhere)
X48: 26.5 W, 12.3 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
P45: 22 W, 9 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
edit: X58: 20-24W, 8W idle
Last edited by ryboto; 01-14-2009 at 11:51 AM.
Look at the graph I posted above and calculate how much more power it would take for the AMD system to equal the Ci7 system. You'll have your answer then.To be fair, that's really only one perspective, Cinebench...other tasks might stress the system differently, and different platforms could show different power numbers. So it's not the best test to examine CPU power consumption Again, Lostcircuits showed that a motherboard alone can add or subtract 10W for the Phenom II. As for the Intel chipsets, I read the TDP's on the x48/58 aren't actually that high.
TDP'si didn't see x58 on the list, i'll look for it elsewhere)
X48: 26.5 W, 12.3 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
P45: 22 W, 9 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
Edit: If you subtract those numbers from the TDP of P45 from X48, then the C2Q system wins all across the board on the hexus review. The point is, when it comes to power consumption, nothing that AMD offers on the desktop actually fares better than any Intel, based on actual system usage save for the 65nm quads from Intel.
Last edited by Zucker2k; 01-14-2009 at 11:55 AM.
Sorry to step in here, but are you even reading ryboto's post?
Let me help out:
What this means is that there are other tasks besides Cinebench that a computer can do, that show a different result for power consumption per task.To be fair, that's really only one perspective, Cinebench...other tasks might stress the system differently
I understand you are very happy you saw a power consumption per task benchmark where intel beats AMD, but telling us once would have been enough.
How is a sig full of anti-AMD rehtoric flamebait? You need this explained to you?
The chipset, the RAM, the southbridge, all of these consume power, the ICH10 has a TDP of 4.5W. Doing subtraction is going to give you approximates. Even the 790 chipsets use power, so if you subtract from the intel system, you'll have to do similar math for the AMD system also. Plus, TDP is maximum, so using that number is a large assumption. Like I said, look to LostCircuits, I even posted the figures way back in the infancy of this thread.
Doing some minor cleanup here....
Jakko, you've worn out your welcome here. And as it turns out, FUGGER did not give you permission for a 2nd account after your first was removed from Xtreme News!
Well it's easy math. If CPU A consumes 25% more energy than CPU B while being 25% faster it is going to consume the same amount of energy. So the Cinebench (as previous poster stated) does not show the whole picture.
Besides, your example is quite stupid, a CPU that consumes more for a longer period of time than a processor that's faster and consumes less, yeah I would choose the latter (that being the PII no?
Hahaha, well that sure is an interesting (and hysterical) way to interpret a color. I think if my motive would have been to come across hating, I would have picked a brighter, more agressive shade of red.
No I do not hate anyone T Flight, allthough I do think some of the people here could use a vacation.
Yes I noticed, but that is his opinion, my opinion is that cinebench loads all four cores, isn't that worth a mention? Also, other reviews show the same. Ci7 healthily beating PII and drawing more power while doing so, but the logic remains the same: Ci7 always producing more and doing the finishing the average task in less time. My prediction is you'll see this happen in an overwhelming majority of cases. It is not about power draw, it is about power consumption needed to finish a task. Haven't you geniuses figured that out yet?
Good post with a sentence that goes too far
TDP is maximum if you're not overclocking
Last edited by Zucker2k; 01-14-2009 at 12:08 PM.
Did anyone argue about the task efficiency? Seriously? I just said it only defines one case. Sure the i7 has it beat, but as I recall, Phenom 2 is competing with Core 2 Quads, not i7. Not to discount the ability of i7.
do you mean TDP can be considered maximum when overclocking? I'd agree, it's probably higher. These reviews were testing stock though, so you can't technically assume chipsets are using their full TDP in those tests, especially considering CPUs rarely live up to their TDPs.TDP is maximum if you're not overclocking
How ironic
Friends shouldn't let friends use Windows 7 until Microsoft fixes Windows Explorer (link)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks