AMD CPU's good for low Power Consumption

[thunderman]

The Article age means very little BTW because it's still more than relevant. Reading various threads on this forum and I usually come across something like 'Intel consumes less power' or something along them lines. This thread proves that AMD has the advantage when it comes to low power consuming processors at idle. The 90Nm AMD processors are more hungry.... their 65Nm processors however give Intel a real headache. Businesses who have computers running all day under light usage can.... I believe save considerable energy switching to AMD. Intel has the advantage under load....it's unlikely a computer will be under load all time anyway. As for Intel's MO stepping it's nothing substantial. It should be noted that the enthusiasts choice of processor the 5000+ BE is a 65Nm component.

AMD for Energy Savings! Intel wastes energy! AMD4Life! Intel are Evil!

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

AMD for Energy Savings! Intel wastes energy! AMD4Life! Intel are Evil!

True Sharikou\Sharikou supporter style.

It does remind me of 9nm too. Throw an article up and then watch the craziness ensue, and then come back when things calm down.

Thunderman = Fanboy

 

[Reynod]

thunderman your embarrassing the AMD fanbois here ... me for one.

Give it a break.

P.S. Went to the blog site for a bopeep.

Classic conspiracy stuff ... good for a laugh but far from reality.

Thanks

Oh TC ... the fact (factboy) is the piece of flesh between the right and the wrong hole. Look it up ... meh ... heh heh. Just thought I'd throw that into the pot.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Oh TC ... the fact (factboy) is the piece of flesh between the right and the wrong hole. Look it up ... meh ... heh heh. Just thought I'd throw that into the pot.

LOL, I can't find anything confirming that, but if that's true that's hillarious.

 

[bfellow]

Thunderman, you left your FX-74 on too long

 

[zenmaster]

The Article age means very little BTW because it's still more than relevant. Reading various threads on this forum and I usually come across something like 'Intel consumes less power' or something along them lines. This thread proves that AMD has the advantage when it comes to low power consuming processors at idle. The 90Nm AMD processors are more hungry.... their 65Nm processors however give Intel a real headache. Businesses who have computers running all day under light usage can.... I believe save considerable energy switching to AMD. Intel has the advantage under load....it's unlikely a computer will be under load all time anyway. As for Intel's MO stepping it's nothing substantial. It should be noted that the enthusiasts choice of processor the 5000+ BE is a 65Nm component.

AMD for Energy Savings! Intel wastes energy! AMD4Life! Intel are Evil!

I think I finally figured it out.

Thunderlessman is actually an Intel Fanboy.
That would seem to be the only reason to start Flame threads and then not make any real attempt to support AMD.

The link article showed that Intel's Dual Core CPUs beat all of AMDs Dual Core CPUs.

The very slow and underpowered single cores from AMD did use more power than the fully powered Dual Core Intels.

However, the Semprons still can't beat the very low power Celerons.
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL9XL

Your Intel Fanboism does great things for Intel Thunderman.
By continually raising bad arguements in favor of AMD you are clearly helping prove their inferiority.

 

[jkflipflop98]

thunderman your embarrassing the AMD fanbois here ... me for one.

Give it a break.

P.S. Went to the blog site for a bopeep.

Classic conspiracy stuff ... good for a laugh but far from reality.

Thanks

Oh TC ... the fact (factboy) is the piece of flesh between the right and the wrong hole. Look it up ... meh ... heh heh. Just thought I'd throw that into the pot.

Taint, nacho, gooch. . . never heard fact.

 

[mford66215]

Just wait a year. It will either be 'Yay, AMD's back competing' or 'AMD who?'

Fanboys won't be able to change that process no matter how hard they post.

 

[yomamafor1]

The Article age means very little BTW because it's still more than relevant. Reading various threads on this forum and I usually come across something like 'Intel consumes less power' or something along them lines. This thread proves that AMD has the advantage when it comes to low power consuming processors at idle. The 90Nm AMD processors are more hungry.... their 65Nm processors however give Intel a real headache. Businesses who have computers running all day under light usage can.... I believe save considerable energy switching to AMD. Intel has the advantage under load....it's unlikely a computer will be under load all time anyway. As for Intel's MO stepping it's nothing substantial. It should be noted that the enthusiasts choice of processor the 5000+ BE is a 65Nm component.

AMD for Energy Savings! Intel wastes energy! AMD4Life! Intel are Evil!

Let me dispell some FUDs (actually, a lot of FUDs) here.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/22/budget_overclocker/page7.html

As you can see, 5000+ BE, a 65nm processor, also likely to be cherry picked, consume more power than E6850 at load. However, at stock, 5000+ performs around E6550.

Also note, the energy efficient edition of 3800+, consumes more power than E6750, while perform a lot less.

Now let's compare 5000+'s idle power, shall we?
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/19/the_truth_about_pc_power_consumption/page7.html#system_idlemax_power_consumption

Yet, 5000+ is consistently getting outperformed by E6400 (in synthetic benchmarks)
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/19/the_truth_about_pc_power_consumption/page5.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/19/the_truth_about_pc_power_consumption/page6.html

So, at the moment, Intel has power efficiency advantages in BOTH load and idle, while having better performance. I'm sure when 45nm hits, the gap will only get greater.

So I highly recommend you look around the web, and correct some of your beliefs. With all due respect, I agree with reynod, that you're embarrasing the AMD fans.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I was just checking but didn't the 65nm X2s underperform compared to their 90nm counterparts? And also their "jump" to DDR2 did absolutely nothing for performance.

And right now Phenom is 65nm and has a lot of problems and doesn't compete with a Q6600?

I see how thunderman helps Intels side. I guess all we have to do is let him post and we will see more AMD fan embar"ass"ment. I am suprised AMD hasn't tried to bribe him to shut up.

I think he got sucked into a wormhole and is stuck in 2005. He will probably be stuck there unless someone goes and gets him. Anyone wanna volunteer?

 

[Reynod]

Nope ... the Coriolis effect on the event horizon keeps tearing my wristwatch off on re-entry.

Plus I keep running into this guy from San Fransico who whines about his ex-girlfriend all of the time ...

 

[starcraftfanatic]

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.

I must say you have a point

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

My experience is that most forum search tools are about as successful as an AMD product launch; they take forever and always disappoint.