- Status
designasaurus
Honorable
- Sep 1, 2012
- 52
- 0
- 10,630
I am using an AMD cpu myself, but unfortunately power consumption does matter (if you pay for your own electricity). 75W vs 55W at idle is a big difference, and it's the best case scenario for AMD if you don't even consider the cost of power at load.
A simple calculation for a 24/7 computer on all year at idle only (obviously in the real-world there would be periodic load situations that would actually increase the difference):
I3 = 55W, FX 4170 = 75W
- The difference between the two cpus is 20W. 20W is .02 kW.
- The price of electricity where I live is .11 $/kWh
- For simplicity, there are 365 days in a year at 24 hours each. This equals 8760 hours in a year.
(8760 h)*(.02 kW) = 175.2 kWh
- This is the difference in energy usage between the FX and the i3 over the course of a year. The FX will use 175.2 kWh more energy in this scenario.
(175.2 kWh)*(.11 $/kWh) = $19.27
- This is how much money using 20W extra power compared to the i3 will cost you over the course of a year when you leave your computer on 24/7 and it never goes above idle usage. If you only have your computer on 8 hours a day and it is at idle the whole time, the cost drops to $6.42 per year.
This is why I cannot say AMD has competitive price/performance anymore. The price difference will only go more in Intel's favor as you use your computer more heavily, because the wattage differential between the two cpus is greater at that point than at idle. AT A MINIMUM, the FX will cost me $20 more PER YEAR, which if I keep it several years like I am currently doing with my old Athlon (which was power-competitive with the Intels of its day), it will cost me perhaps 60-100 dollars more than the retail price implies. A huge difference. That sort of price difference would take me into Core i5 territory. The takeaway is that I could buy a $200 processor right away and have superior performance through its lifespan, or save the future cash and buy an i3. Either way AMD cannot win. I may still buy AMD anyway when I upgrade, simply because I enjoy overclocking, messing with settings, and not having "Intel Inside" on my box, but if I do so, it will not be for any rational reasons.
A simple calculation for a 24/7 computer on all year at idle only (obviously in the real-world there would be periodic load situations that would actually increase the difference):
I3 = 55W, FX 4170 = 75W
- The difference between the two cpus is 20W. 20W is .02 kW.
- The price of electricity where I live is .11 $/kWh
- For simplicity, there are 365 days in a year at 24 hours each. This equals 8760 hours in a year.
(8760 h)*(.02 kW) = 175.2 kWh
- This is the difference in energy usage between the FX and the i3 over the course of a year. The FX will use 175.2 kWh more energy in this scenario.
(175.2 kWh)*(.11 $/kWh) = $19.27
- This is how much money using 20W extra power compared to the i3 will cost you over the course of a year when you leave your computer on 24/7 and it never goes above idle usage. If you only have your computer on 8 hours a day and it is at idle the whole time, the cost drops to $6.42 per year.
This is why I cannot say AMD has competitive price/performance anymore. The price difference will only go more in Intel's favor as you use your computer more heavily, because the wattage differential between the two cpus is greater at that point than at idle. AT A MINIMUM, the FX will cost me $20 more PER YEAR, which if I keep it several years like I am currently doing with my old Athlon (which was power-competitive with the Intels of its day), it will cost me perhaps 60-100 dollars more than the retail price implies. A huge difference. That sort of price difference would take me into Core i5 territory. The takeaway is that I could buy a $200 processor right away and have superior performance through its lifespan, or save the future cash and buy an i3. Either way AMD cannot win. I may still buy AMD anyway when I upgrade, simply because I enjoy overclocking, messing with settings, and not having "Intel Inside" on my box, but if I do so, it will not be for any rational reasons.
chesteracorgi
Distinguished
- Apr 11, 2011
- 1,956
- 0
- 20,460
I hope that Piledriver gives Intel IB a better run for the money, but despair that AMD seems to be in a downward spiral in its desktop competition with Haswell on the horizon. If AMD can't provide decent competition on the desktop, we can only hope that an ARM SoC solution will migrate to the desktop to keep the heat on Intel to produce a better & cheaper product.
daglesj
Distinguished
- Jul 14, 2007
- 485
- 21
- 18,785
[citation][nom]Chesteracorgi[/nom]I hope that Piledriver gives Intel IB a better run for the money, but despair that AMD seems to be in a downward spiral in its desktop competition with Haswell on the horizon. If AMD can't provide decent competition on the desktop, we can only hope that an ARM SoC solution will migrate to the desktop to keep the heat on Intel to produce a better & cheaper product.[/citation]
Currently and for the foreseeable future that's like saying "I do hope that Lambretta's scooter division will come up with a engine design to rival Ferrari's F1 designs.
Some folks go from one extreme to the other.
Currently and for the foreseeable future that's like saying "I do hope that Lambretta's scooter division will come up with a engine design to rival Ferrari's F1 designs.
Some folks go from one extreme to the other.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]adgjlsfhk[/nom]Given The performance of this gen AMD, I would much prefer if they kept the same performance, but took down power by 15%[/citation]
You can probably take it down by around that much with undervolting. From what I've read, Piledriver will reduce power consumption in addition to providing a performance boost, not keep power consumption the same. They might keep some of the same TDPs, but that doesn't mean that power consumption won't come down. Either way, we'll find out soon enough.
You can probably take it down by around that much with undervolting. From what I've read, Piledriver will reduce power consumption in addition to providing a performance boost, not keep power consumption the same. They might keep some of the same TDPs, but that doesn't mean that power consumption won't come down. Either way, we'll find out soon enough.
Reynod
Administrator
- Mar 26, 2007
- 14,921
- 16
- 42,215
My Kymco Vibe 50 scooter ... is like an i3 ... really good on juice and comfortable to ride.
I could do 50 plus laps of the GP circuit on the fuel the F1 car uses for one lap ... though it wouldn't be as much fun and I'd probably fall off a few times worrying about the UPS man sleeping with my wife (SP S16E10).
Where do I pickup my prize for winning the divergent thinking competition?
I could do 50 plus laps of the GP circuit on the fuel the F1 car uses for one lap ... though it wouldn't be as much fun and I'd probably fall off a few times worrying about the UPS man sleeping with my wife (SP S16E10).
Where do I pickup my prize for winning the divergent thinking competition?
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
What I'd like to see is redoing this sort of article after disabling two cores in the FX. If they don't matter much for gaming, then they are just wasting power that doesn't need to be consumed.
For simplicity's sake, you could use thread affinity controls in the shortcuts to tell them to only use core 0 and core 3 or core 0 and core 1 (depending on how you want to do it). It wouldn't bring power consumption all the way down to the i3, but it would help at load with these games.
For the more advanced user, one could use PSCheck or a similar program to it in addition to thread affinity so that both well-threaded and lightly-threaded workloads could be optimized for. Sure, none of this is stuff for the average user, but really, how many of us are average users here at Tom's?
Regardless, it's still a very good article. Thanks, Tom's
For simplicity's sake, you could use thread affinity controls in the shortcuts to tell them to only use core 0 and core 3 or core 0 and core 1 (depending on how you want to do it). It wouldn't bring power consumption all the way down to the i3, but it would help at load with these games.
For the more advanced user, one could use PSCheck or a similar program to it in addition to thread affinity so that both well-threaded and lightly-threaded workloads could be optimized for. Sure, none of this is stuff for the average user, but really, how many of us are average users here at Tom's?
Regardless, it's still a very good article. Thanks, Tom's
[citation] In my opinion, if you are on a budget, the FX4170 can be a decent cpu, it is $10 cheaper than the i3, it isn't much but might be able to give you a slightly bigger budget on graphics. Its not a complete wash either. The power consumption might be high but nothing a desktop can't handle, would be more expensive for people who pay more for power but generally in north america, power is pretty cheap.[/citation]
In my opinion, if you are on a budget, you will definitely consider the power consumption and power efficiency of your system. That's where i3 will shine as a decent CPU.
In my opinion, if you are on a budget, you will definitely consider the power consumption and power efficiency of your system. That's where i3 will shine as a decent CPU.
[citation][nom]esrever[/nom]In my opinion, if you are on a budget, the FX4170 can be a decent cpu, it is $10 cheaper than the i3, it isn't much but might be able to give you a slightly bigger budget on graphics. Its not a complete wash either. The power consumption might be high but nothing a desktop can't handle, would be more expensive for people who pay more for power but generally in north america, power is pretty cheap.[/citation]
In my opinion, if you are on a budget, you will definitely consider the power consumption and power efficiency of your system. That's where i3 will shine as a decent CPU.
In my opinion, if you are on a budget, you will definitely consider the power consumption and power efficiency of your system. That's where i3 will shine as a decent CPU.
nforce4max
Splendid
- Sep 9, 2009
- 8,337
- 0
- 31,460
AMD needs to switch its cpu lineup to TSMC for production and dump GF. It is the manufacturing process that is keeping these cpus hotter than hell. SOI just sucks and there is a reason why Intel never adopted it.
[citation][nom]abitoms[/nom]One thing in the review's last page's title really piqued me"...but Tomorrow Shows More Promise for AMD".Tomorrow...as in ... Oct 16, 2012 or is it only figurative?[/citation]
well, in that case it would be day after tomorrow, that's supposedly when vishera comes out
well, in that case it would be day after tomorrow, that's supposedly when vishera comes out
Well, it looks clear, that AMD's piece is actually two core thing with some addition /just like hyperthreading/. From there on it's a matter of software optimization as well as some choices and trades in the hardware /higher clock rate in expense of lower IPC/.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
Not necessarily. In single/lightly threaded ass the 4170 will be notably faster thanks to a much higher clock. As threads are added, the 6100 will perform better but, once again, it's hampered by the clock.
The FX-6100 is a decent CPU if you're an overclocker though. Much more potential there.
jaquith
Glorious
- Feb 8, 2009
- 14,235
- 27
- 49,290
Real World
$120 AMD FX-4170
$130 Intel Core i3-3220
+
(3) $20 Pizzas plus a Liter or two of Coke
===========================
$190 Intel Core i5-3330 or other Intel i5
Whatever CPU you get chances are you're stuck with it on average for 3-5 years and being short sighted if your use is Gaming and or you care about performance numbers then pay now or pay many times later.
Money Savings - Work:
Further, if you factor in your time having any value what so ever then clearly the fastest CPU you can afford. Example of Time & Money:
$10 per hour, 28.5% Application processing cost and $70 CPU upgrade cost. How long does it take to pay off the $70 added cost?
$10/hr * -28.5% = -$2.85 loss per hour
$70 / -$2.85/hr = 24.56 hours
So in less than a week assume a 40 hour week the up cost of a CPU paid for itself lock, stock and barrel. Now if you use the CPU 5% (1/20th) of the time then 20 * 24.65 hours = 491.2 hours / 24 hours/day = 21 days or in less than a month of your 36 - 60 months (3-5 years) of ownership.
I see folks making bad choices on 'penny pinching' all of the time and not looking at the larger picture. Now if this CPU is for home use or and nothing taking up your time then frankly you can even get a cheaper CPU for email, Facebook, twitter or you name it.
Money Savings - Gaming:
I suggest you look at Don's prior Article - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120.html
It depends on what impact the CPU has on the games you play, but more times than not to achieve a 10-20-30 FPS (loss) requires a significantly more expensive GPU than the $70 difference in CPU cost moving to the Intel i5's. Bad ROI.
Most importantly, mixing a high-end Radeon HD 7970 ~$400 with either a $120-$130 CPU makes no sense to me whatsoever. In the forums you'll never see an i3 or FX-4XXX and an HD 7970, instead always an Intel i5-2500K Sandy Bridge or currently the hot pick is i5-3570K Ivy Bridge.
$120 AMD FX-4170
$130 Intel Core i3-3220
+
(3) $20 Pizzas plus a Liter or two of Coke
===========================
$190 Intel Core i5-3330 or other Intel i5
Whatever CPU you get chances are you're stuck with it on average for 3-5 years and being short sighted if your use is Gaming and or you care about performance numbers then pay now or pay many times later.
Money Savings - Work:
Further, if you factor in your time having any value what so ever then clearly the fastest CPU you can afford. Example of Time & Money:
$10 per hour, 28.5% Application processing cost and $70 CPU upgrade cost. How long does it take to pay off the $70 added cost?
$10/hr * -28.5% = -$2.85 loss per hour
$70 / -$2.85/hr = 24.56 hours
So in less than a week assume a 40 hour week the up cost of a CPU paid for itself lock, stock and barrel. Now if you use the CPU 5% (1/20th) of the time then 20 * 24.65 hours = 491.2 hours / 24 hours/day = 21 days or in less than a month of your 36 - 60 months (3-5 years) of ownership.
I see folks making bad choices on 'penny pinching' all of the time and not looking at the larger picture. Now if this CPU is for home use or and nothing taking up your time then frankly you can even get a cheaper CPU for email, Facebook, twitter or you name it.
Money Savings - Gaming:
I suggest you look at Don's prior Article - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120.html
It depends on what impact the CPU has on the games you play, but more times than not to achieve a 10-20-30 FPS (loss) requires a significantly more expensive GPU than the $70 difference in CPU cost moving to the Intel i5's. Bad ROI.
Most importantly, mixing a high-end Radeon HD 7970 ~$400 with either a $120-$130 CPU makes no sense to me whatsoever. In the forums you'll never see an i3 or FX-4XXX and an HD 7970, instead always an Intel i5-2500K Sandy Bridge or currently the hot pick is i5-3570K Ivy Bridge.
bustapr
Distinguished
- Jan 23, 2009
- 1,613
- 0
- 19,780
hey THG dudes. very good article.
have you guys ever benched a bulldozer with disabled cores(some bios changes so that an fx cpu runs with 1 core per module instead of 2 or entire modules disabled)? Google doesnt turn up anything from this site, theres barely any reviews on this subject, and it really would be an interesting read. the forums say the cpu are more efficient and fast running only 1 core per module, but Ive never really seen any good reliable benchmarks.
have you guys ever benched a bulldozer with disabled cores(some bios changes so that an fx cpu runs with 1 core per module instead of 2 or entire modules disabled)? Google doesnt turn up anything from this site, theres barely any reviews on this subject, and it really would be an interesting read. the forums say the cpu are more efficient and fast running only 1 core per module, but Ive never really seen any good reliable benchmarks.
[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]Nice review, but you guys really need to consider removing BF3 single player from CPU tests... by now we all know that single player pretty much doesn't care about CPU and it creates a misleading picture for people since you *DO* need a beefy CPU for multiplayer.[/citation]
BF3 is GPU intensive regardless of which chip you use, MP exhibits this feat enough, I have done 42 minute Fraps benches using multiple CPU types and the results are pretty common throughout, BF3 is GPU bound SP and MP.
BF3 is GPU intensive regardless of which chip you use, MP exhibits this feat enough, I have done 42 minute Fraps benches using multiple CPU types and the results are pretty common throughout, BF3 is GPU bound SP and MP.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
It makes a heck of a lot of sense when you're benchmarking to look for a bottleneck. It makes a lot of sense when you're looking for the CPUs limitations. Why assume the 7970 is too much for a $120 CPU? A few years ago this was not the case, and anything more than a $150 CPU was a total waste on games.
From a real-world perspective, absolutely. I totally agree that benchmarks like this that show us sub-$170 CPUs aren't best suited for high-end graphics. Having said that its still useful info for folks who might plan to upgrade their graphics card before their CPU, and then swap out their CPU later.
Unfortunately, the current generation of Zambezi FX chips have no gaming upgrade path, FX-4170 is as fast as it gets and the 8150 is actually slower at stock clocks. We'll see if Vishera can help with that.
On the other hand, socket 1155 has a beautiful upgrade path.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
Given the improvements made even in Trinity, I find it hard to believe that the next few micro-architectures from AMD won't be very good improvements too, especially considering how AMD has been extremely public about many of the changes that they'll make with each generation and what those changes are.
[EDIT BY CLEEVE: I'm so sorry Blaze, I intended to click reply and must have accidentally clicked edit. I'm not trying to abuse my moderator powers, just slippery fingers and clumsiness. My sincere apologies, I lost some of your post and can't get it back.
]
[EDIT BY CLEEVE: I'm so sorry Blaze, I intended to click reply and must have accidentally clicked edit. I'm not trying to abuse my moderator powers, just slippery fingers and clumsiness. My sincere apologies, I lost some of your post and can't get it back.
]blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]sarinaide[/nom]BF3 is GPU intensive regardless of which chip you use, MP exhibits this feat enough, I have done 42 minute Fraps benches using multiple CPU types and the results are pretty common throughout, BF3 is GPU bound SP and MP.[/citation]
BF3 MP with many players is probably the most CPU intensive game available right now (it's probably also the most well-threaded). BF3 is very graphics-intensive too, but it is still capable of being extremely intensive on the CPU if you load up the player counts.
BF3 MP with many players is probably the most CPU intensive game available right now (it's probably also the most well-threaded). BF3 is very graphics-intensive too, but it is still capable of being extremely intensive on the CPU if you load up the player counts.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
I dunno Blaze, how many Trinity benches have you seen using an external graphics card for gaming vs. a Core i3?...
General improvements yes, but it's a little too early to make a positive call for the future of AM3+ gaming methinks. I'm working on it though.
ScrewySqrl
Champion
- Aug 2, 2010
- 11,199
- 232
- 53,540
would have been nice to see the A10-5800K in there too, as we know its also fairly competitive with the i3-3220.
Dax corrin
Distinguished
- Jan 20, 2009
- 146
- 0
- 18,680
Equal or more performance for gaming (my primary PC usage), almost half the power use, same price = win for Intel for me.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question New pc build r9 7900x3d rtx 4080 super no post only ram rgb turns on- Started by Harvey Durward
- Replies: 4
-
RTX 4070 vs RX 7900 GRE faceoff: Which mainstream graphics card is better?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 62
-
Question Is there any program i can get to show me the battery level of my speaker?
- Started by Aussie_Wolfhound
- Replies: 3
-
-
Question GPU Doesn't output any display when PC is turned on and the fans don't spin either. How do I fix this?- Started by UltiWasTaken
- Replies: 12
-
Question My 3200mhz Ram Sticks won't go over 2666mhz without crashing + problem with new ram- Started by Timon_Geo
- Replies: 4
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram