AMD CPU's good for low Power Consumption

thunderman

Distinguished
Nov 13, 2007
107
0
18,680
0
Intel could be costly for businesses, I believe

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/11/energy-efficiency-intel-left-out-in-the-cold/page11.html#energy_index_amd_unbeatable

Quotes from the Tomshardware Article:

AMD remains the champion when it comes to energy costs when idle. Practically all of Intel's processors have to line up behind their rivals from AMD
In our "idle" scenario, we see the Sempron processors and the energy efficient (EE) version of the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ get very good marks thanks to their low power consumption and low price
We were positively surprised by AMD's processors, which were able to leave Intel's - very expensive - flagship models behind with ease. The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ can still give Intel's Core 2 processors some grief.
Whenever low acquisition costs, low follow-up costs as well as low power consumption are important, AMD's processors are still first choice. AMD also currently offers the cheapest dual-core processor. Finally, AMD processors are very suitable for use in quiet systems.
A look at power consumption is important: Our projections for a year's electricity bill ranged from €48 to €221, depending on the processor
 

yomamafor1

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
2,462
0
19,790
2
Well, Techreport would disagree with that.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/13633/15






Need me to say more?

EDIT: At the lower end of the spectrum, AMD is very competitive in terms of pricing, performance, and power consumption. The Energy Efficient edition CPUs don't consume a lot of power. However, in return, they don't possess a lot of power either.

So in the end, if you want both power efficiency and performance, Intel dual cores are much better. With the upcoming 45nm Core 2s, I believe AMD will lose a lot of its ground on power efficiency to Intel.
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
3
In the THG article, the only chips that used the least power were the "Semprons" or the "Celerons" of the AMD world.

Intel's E2xxx series are even lower power than anything tested.
Intel also has even lower power celerons.

Sadly, you still can't find an arguement.
 

nukemaster

Titan
Moderator
Why do you like to pull out old articles? AMD used in Star Wars III(Old news and for clear reason P4 would not cut it)

Have you ever heard of the G0 stepping? They use even less power and give even EE models a run for there money. Not to mention they ARE still faster, so they spend less time at load(get work done faster) and come out on top in a 24 hour period in most cases(since the AMD cpu's in question will have to spend a longer time at load, thats where they are less efficient....)

BTW i NEVER touched a P4(hell I went P1, Celeron, Durron, Athlon, Athlon64, Core2[and quad]) but core2 was Intel's answer to K8. So no fanboy here.....
 

evilr00t

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
882
0
18,980
0

Or someone named "9-inch" comes back a year after being permabanned. Posting pattern seems similar: select pro-AMD topic name, link article, quote with extreme bias and sometimes out of context, then disappear and never defend the article.
 

computertech82

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2006
1,361
0
19,660
145
Actually the post is about the 65nm AMD cpus, NOT the 90nm that Techreport shows (excluding the crappy 65nm Phenom cpus). They (the x2 65nm cpus) are/were pretty good, but mostly at idle and below load. At full load, it's the Intel that's better.
But with the 45nm cpus coming out, really not worth talking about anymore.
 

Shadow_Monkey8192

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2007
9
0
18,510
0
I just new it was a "Thunderman" thread when I read the title...

I just have to say it you just can't defend AMD anymore, and for good reason, their is just nothing worth denfending they just SUCK. I find it really pathetic and wrong when these AMD trolls go around spreading lies, wether it be noobs asking for buying advice or just pasting old CRAP to prove who knows what about AMD. It makes me laugh when people get emotionally attached to such things and waste their time and money pretty much sacrificing themselves for some STUPID purpose. Example: "Im buying AMD cause Intel is evil" "support the underdog buy AMD"

Then the trolls go dig up old news from better times, or search far and wide for a single benchie that could be used to support their master. Or just flat out lie or spin CRAP...

I dont hate AMD they have made some great processors in the past and I have enjoyed using them all they way. But I have lost respect for them this past year with their flat out lies and their stupid attempt to fool the consumer. If AMD ever falls their just no one else blame but AMD, I just hope they can better themselves to keep raising the bar, but it seems unlikely as of right now...

 
AMD processors are very suitable for use in quiet systems.
Rofl... the article pits the E6300 against a sempron.

Also, the conclusion from that article:
The Core 2 Duo E6300 with the L2 stepping asserts itself as the optimal processor, making it the winner of this energy efficiency article.


I guess Thunderman forgot to read the last page :)
 

yipsl

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2006
1,666
0
19,780
0


I'll admit that he's wrong in bringing out a July 2007 article with outdated CPU's on both sides as a comparison, but AMD does not "suck". Even the Phenom isn't that far behind the current equivalent Intel quad core. Just look at the benchmarks in Tom's CPU guide.

In most cases, the benchmarks are closer than Intel was to X2 in the Pentium D days. Where Intel wins is in the "enthusiast" market, at the high end, where AMD has absolutely no offering. Since the 45nm Phenom's will be competing against new Intel architecture, but with only basically improved X2 architecture, I expect there to be greater gaps than at present. Even Swift will not close the gap, but will position AMD in the budget/mainstream category.

That does not mean "suck". Intel fanboys are just as trollish as AMD fanboys. AMD got complacent during the days they led with X2, just as Intel got stubborn with Netburst for a few years. When AMD pays off the debt incurred by buying ATI, then they'll be able to put more money into R&D and will probably have a decent offering at the high end.

Via CPU's suck for gaming. AMD does not. Intel didn't suck totally during Netburst days, they were just on the wrong track and they kept their market share and R&D money by foisting a slightly inferior processor on the "Dude you got a Dell" segment of the market. They had quite a bit of help with that, as many OEM's selling in big box stores did not want to buck the "Intel inside" trend.

Me, I'll upgrade to either a really good X2 for a year, or will just give 65nm Phenom a try. I have a couple of ASUS 690G boards that can handle a Phenom with the available bios flash. Were I building a new system right now, I might consider Intel, except their business practices actually suck. AMD's management sucks. Neither of them has tech that sucks, not even during the Netburst days.

Yes, AMD had the thermal advantage during the X2 vs. Netburst "war" but Intel has it today. We will see who has it when there are new architectures from both companies.



I almost hate Intel. They began the PC processor revolution, but their flat out lies and successful fooling of the consumer during Netburst days made me want to buy from any other company than Intel.

The fanboys I feel sorriest for are the Nvidia fanboys. They've got to be hurting since Intel decided to take AMD up on their offer of free Crossfire, plus the fact that AMD almost bought Nvidia. Now, SLI will mostly show up on new Nvidia chipset boards for AMD processors, while Crossfire shows up on both AMD and Intel platforms as the new defacto standard.

Me, I only buy one card per PC, so I'm looking forward to Swift and better hybrid Crossfire in 2009. What is going to happen to hybrid SLI when AMD integrates a 3000 series GPU as a core alongside 2 or 3 K10 cores? Will AMD eventually give up on CPU's without a GPU core, or will those just exist for the notebook market and budget desktop hybrid Crossfire market?
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
yomamafor1, Thank you for posting that. I love how the QX9650 uses less power than most even when under load. And that FX-74 uses almost double what my Q6600 uses.

He put it in some very harsh words. I think he should have stated that right now Phenoms are not that good for price/watt/performance measures as a Q6600 uses less power per watt and gives better performance. Also the QX9650 uses less power when idle and when under load than a Phenom 9700 which is kinda sad with a 600MHz difference. Kinda like a P4 Prescott vs a X64 X2.

nukemaster, you missed out. Before A64 the P4 series was awesome. Any of the Northwood series was great. I had a 3.2GHz P4 and now a 3.4GHz P4 EE in my old system and it can rip a dual layer DVD to single layer in 7 minutes. My old P4 3.2GHz took 30 minutes.

AMD had their glory with the X2 series and had a big chance to keep it or stay near it with Phenom but it seems to me that they screwed it up. Right now Intel deserves a lot of credit since they went from a dead end to a great product that gives us what we want.

I want AMD to stay competative but what thunderman does is just sad. What happened a while ago doesn't matter now. And comparing a enthusiast CPU to a low end CPU is stupid. Its like comparing a 8800Ultra to a Radeon 9000. Just not relivant.
 

turpit

Splendid
Feb 12, 2006
6,376
0
25,780
0


Thanks JK, hugs-n-kisses to you too :kaola:

If this is 9nm, or sharipoopookitty, or MMM, or any of the others, theres nothing I can do about it until they violate TOS. Nothing in the TOS that prohibits someone from being stupid or a retard, so, if it really is 9 inch or any of the others, I cant do anything about it until they show their true colors and start calling other people names or threatening them.

In the mean time, much like one of our regulars, I find these posts hugely amusing, and ultimately counter productive, IF the OP's intent is to promote a manufacturer using outdated or false information.....just look how many responses there are disproving the post and thus setting the OPs credibility to the appropriate level...i.e not to be trusted. Personally, I think the system worked exactly the way it should, with no moderator intervention required.

:kaola: :pt1cable:
 

starcraftfanatic

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2007
469
0
18,780
0
I love how these fanboy threads get the most replies and reads. Why do you guys even waste your attention on this crap? (outside of helping counterinform the undereducated readers)
 

turpit

Splendid
Feb 12, 2006
6,376
0
25,780
0


Meh...maybe, but I dont think so, at least from what Ive seen to date.....far too polite, hasnt called anyone &^&*Y, or #@$#@$%#, or #@#%$@$#@ yet, and wandering aimlessly in the year 2005.
 

yomamafor1

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
2,462
0
19,790
2


That's because most "help me" threads are repetitive. With all due respect, most "help me" OPs don't spend enough time searching for the answer themselves. How many "my processor is running at lower speed" threads have been created? How many "E6850 vs. Q6600" threads have been created? There are even reviews from reputable sites that directly answer these questions.

On the other hand, you can always get a kick out of these fanboy threads. Its sort of like an entertainment now. This is also the reason why many people frequently visit sites like sharikou's blog.
 

turpit

Splendid
Feb 12, 2006
6,376
0
25,780
0



Word
 

jkflipflop98

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2006
1,374
1
19,295
3


:kaola: I'm not pickin on you or anything dude. This guy has the same MO as 9picometer. Just starts a thread with some obscure AMD drivel taken totally out of context and then doesn't come back to talk about it at all. Well, I guess youre right. It all seems to balance out in the end, no?
 

Similar threads