For the people that argue about power consumption:
You have to consider the
cost of ownership of HW. If a $110 CPU costs $10 more annually and you usually keep a CPU for 2 - 4 years, you can add $20 - $40 to that CPU. In effect, it becomes a $130 - $150 CPU (18% - 36% price premium). Knowing that, you can instead choose another more efficient CPU even at a much higher price.
Energy prices are
increasing - so the cost of ownership you calculate is usually very optimistic.
In Europe, we pay about twice as much for electricity as those in the U.S.A on average.
Most people ignore this but if you have a company with hundreds of PCs and some servers, you tend to notice the money drain and then apply it to your own household.
Having said that, I have bought an inefficient but cheap PC for my sister 5-6 years ago that she only uses like once per week and a tablet. So the cost of ownership is very low in this case. Both are getting replaced by a single Windows tablet this year anyway.
MajinCry :
@ Jaroslav Jandek, Refer to the A8 7600.Remove the GPU part, and we've got an awesome low power chip. If AMD works with that and manages to superclock it due to the very low TDP, I say we'd have a winner.
Sure, it would be low power (depends on your definition of low). You should actually read the article and look at the efficiency graphs... If you consider low power, you must consider the performance at that power level. You can have a very low power CPU but if it is slow, it will end up consuming more energy per task. That is what the efficiency graph tells you.
The
A8-7600 is slightly less efficient than
A10-7850K, because it is so slow - it consumes 11.7 more Wh running the benchmarks. And of course, Intel CPUs are almost twice as efficient - after all, they only need to power half as many transistors on a better manufacturing process.