Are there any ultra low TDP systems with near top single thread performance?

[oliver555]

Hi All,


This question is off the back of another I asked earlier, but I thought it would be better to post another question rather than add to the last one.

I only browse internet, but I do use firefox and chrome simultaneously with imacros (an online game not graphics orientated) and I do use a dozen or two movie stream tabs.

For my needs, I'm after as zippy a system as possible. I know I need a bunch of ram and an SSD, but what should I go for? Desktop i3, G3258, something else or a laptop processor?

I'm after best performance/price BUT, "price" includes total system energy costs. I also want a system that is quality and will last at least 8 years. My system budget is $400-$600 (OS not needed but including shipping to UK).

Thanks folks.

 

[Karsten75]

Mainstream Intel processors use around 88W maximum, mostly way less than that.

But your post is so full of contradictions, I doubt you really know what you're asking us to recommend to you. Since we can't look up your posting history, it's also hard to discern that past conversation that lead to this question.

 

[bmacsys]

Hi All,


This question is off the back of another I asked earlier, but I thought it would be better to post another question rather than add to the last one.

I only browse internet, but I do use firefox and chrome simultaneously with imacros (an online game not graphics orientated) and I do use a dozen or two movie stream tabs.

For my needs, I'm after as zippy a system as possible. I know I need a bunch of ram and an SSD, but what should I go for? Desktop i3, G3258, something else or a laptop processor?

I'm after best performance/price BUT, "price" includes total system energy costs. I also want a system that is quality and will last at least 8 years. My system budget is $400-$600 (OS not needed but including shipping to UK).

Thanks folks.

Ultra low "TDP" generally equals a very weak cpu. A system that lasts 8 years? When it only cost you $600? Shipped to UK from the USA? You must believe in Santa and the tooth fairy.

 

[oliver555]

s@karsten I clicked solution by mistake. What contradictions can I clear up so you can answer? I've said what I want it for. You can replace 'ultra low' with as low as possible for my needs. @bcmac why don't you tell me what is possible. Fairytales? Lol. Don't ask, don't get. I've had an Acer laptop last longer. Thanks.

 

[Karsten75]

s@karsten I clicked solution by mistake. What contradictions can I clear up so you can answer? I've said what I want it for. You can replace 'ultra low' with as low as possible for my needs. @bcmac why don't you tell me what is possible. Fairytales? Lol. Don't ask, don't get. I've had an Acer laptop last longer. Thanks.

I deselected your "best answer" on my previous post.

You refer to imacros as a game, but it seems to be a scripting language for internet browsing.

How do one stream "a dozen or more" movies simultaneously? to where? How are these tabs being watched? Are you ripping them to disk or what?

In computer terms, performance is achieved at the expense of power. As such, it is contradictory to ask for "zippy" performance while decrying energy costs. What is the cost of electricity and what is an acceptable monthly/annual amout to spend? Not many people budget this in a system. More RAM, for instance, will alter the equation.

Why would you spend money shipping from the US to the UK when most systems could be sourced from the UK in the first place?

Lastly, if you have that many browser tabs with apparent high demand, why are you looking for excellent single-thread performance?

 

[oliver555]

s@karsten I clicked solution by mistake. What contradictions can I clear up so you can answer? I've said what I want it for. You can replace 'ultra low' with as low as possible for my needs. @bcmac why don't you tell me what is possible. Fairytales? Lol. Don't ask, don't get. I've had an Acer laptop last longer. Thanks.

I deselected your "best answer" on my previous post.

You refer to imacros as a game, but it seems to be a scripting language for internet browsing.

How do one stream "a dozen or more" movies simultaneously? to where? How are these tabs being watched? Are you ripping them to disk or what?

In computer terms, performance is achieved at the expense of power. As such, it is contradictory to ask for "zippy" performance while decrying energy costs. What is the cost of electricity and what is an acceptable monthly/annual amout to spend? Not many people budget this in a system. More RAM, for instance, will alter the equation.

Why would you spend money shipping from the US to the UK when most systems could be sourced from the UK in the first place?

Lastly, if you have that many browser tabs with apparent high demand, why are you looking for excellent single-thread performance?

Thank you for deselecting- the curse of mobile use.

Using imacros for a game, not imacros as the game itself.

I open a dozen or so movie tabs and let them play. I copy them from temp files later.

The only reason I mention shipping and the price in $ is because prices are from 30% to 60% cheaper in $. Whether or not I actually buy from UK or elsewhere will come down to the price and the shipping cost.

You have to excuse my use "single threaded" I am clearly not up on the terminology (which is why I'm here for answers on the system I should get). I mention single thread because I'm always hearing how multi cores aren't utilised unless you are a gamer/intensive user. People that are looking for "normal use" are often told to go by single thread performance. I'm taking threads to be equivalent to cores.

I realise processor performance uses energy, so I'm looking for the lowest TDP for the performance I'm after. So, I guess you would look from above the "ultra low" TDP upto 88W and mark off the point where an increase in TDP doesn't bring comparable increase in performance. I didn't know ram would be a decent factor. I was thinking of upto 16GB of ram over 4 channels, but if this isn't necessary I could drop that to 8-12GB and also the channels from 4 to 2-3 if need be. I am going for peformance features but I have not considered their impact on TDP. I am going purely on recommendations (like upto 16GB ram and an SSD 3) given to me elsewhere, but I did mention I wanted a low TDP system at the time of asking about what would suit my needs.

Thanks.

 

[oliver555]

Any answers to my question?
Thanks.

 

[Karsten75]

I read your question, and was going to ignore it since I thought we were miles apart. However, I got called away and thought about it some more, since it was quite vexing.

I think what you want can be framed with fewer parameters to arrive at a satisfactory outcome. My interpretation of your requirements is a highly efficient computer that is effective as multi-tasking and employs energy-efficient methods to conserve resources while those resources are not active.

My thinking is that almost any Intel processor (and I speak of Intel only because I'm not as familiar with AMD) employs technologies such as "speedstep" to ratchet down the power consumption of the processor during inactive or low-activity periods. So even though the processor is rated at, for instance, 88W, it will hardly ever consume that much - only during periods of intense use. Sleep states and other energy-efficient methods will further preserve energy.

My first suggestion would be to look at the new. small systems Intel, Gigabyte and a few other manufacturers make - such as the Intel Nuc, the Gigabyte Brix, Zotac Z-Box, etc.

You need not look further than a medium-sized Intel i5 processor, and perhaps even an Intel i3 might suffice. There is no need for a discrete graphics card, the integrated graphics in the i3/i5 should be sufficient, a nice SSD and no more than 4-8GB or LPR DDR3 RAM should see the rest of the build.

Let me know your thoughts.

 

[oliver555]

I read your question, and was going to ignore it since I thought we were miles apart. However, I got called away and thought about it some more, since it was quite vexing.

I think what you want can be framed with fewer parameters to arrive at a satisfactory outcome. My interpretation of your requirements is a highly efficient computer that is effective as multi-tasking and employs energy-efficient methods to conserve resources while those resources are not active.

My thinking is that almost any Intel processor (and I speak of Intel only because I'm not as familiar with AMD) employs technologies such as "speedstep" to ratchet down the power consumption of the processor during inactive or low-activity periods. So even though the processor is rated at, for instance, 88W, it will hardly ever consume that much - only during periods of intense use. Sleep states and other energy-efficient methods will further preserve energy.

My first suggestion would be to look at the new. small systems Intel, Gigabyte and a few other manufacturers make - such as the Intel Nuc, the Gigabyte Brix, Zotac Z-Box, etc.

You need not look further than a medium-sized Intel i5 processor, and perhaps even an Intel i3 might suffice. There is no need for a discrete graphics card, the integrated graphics in the i3/i5 should be sufficient, a nice SSD and no more than 4-8GB or LPR DDR3 RAM should see the rest of the build.

Let me know your thoughts.

Pretty much that is what I'm after. An energy efficient multi tasker, although I'd want the efficiency as much as possible when the system was under load too, not just idle.

I was recommended i3 or an overclocked G3258 for price and performance due to something called ECC RAM support. However, energy efficiency was not a part of that question. That's why I posted this question, to include energy efficiency.

If my choices are between an i5 and an i3, as the i5 does not support ECC RAM do you think it is still an even choice?

Thanks Karsten.

 

[bmacsys]

I read your question, and was going to ignore it since I thought we were miles apart. However, I got called away and thought about it some more, since it was quite vexing.

I think what you want can be framed with fewer parameters to arrive at a satisfactory outcome. My interpretation of your requirements is a highly efficient computer that is effective as multi-tasking and employs energy-efficient methods to conserve resources while those resources are not active.

My thinking is that almost any Intel processor (and I speak of Intel only because I'm not as familiar with AMD) employs technologies such as "speedstep" to ratchet down the power consumption of the processor during inactive or low-activity periods. So even though the processor is rated at, for instance, 88W, it will hardly ever consume that much - only during periods of intense use. Sleep states and other energy-efficient methods will further preserve energy.

My first suggestion would be to look at the new. small systems Intel, Gigabyte and a few other manufacturers make - such as the Intel Nuc, the Gigabyte Brix, Zotac Z-Box, etc.

You need not look further than a medium-sized Intel i5 processor, and perhaps even an Intel i3 might suffice. There is no need for a discrete graphics card, the integrated graphics in the i3/i5 should be sufficient, a nice SSD and no more than 4-8GB or LPR DDR3 RAM should see the rest of the build.

Let me know your thoughts.

Pretty much that is what I'm after. An energy efficient multi tasker, although I'd want the efficiency as much as possible when the system was under load too, not just idle.

I was recommended i3 or an overclocked G3258 for price and performance due to something called ECC RAM support. However, energy efficiency was not a part of that question. That's why I posted this question, to include energy efficiency.

If my choices are between an i5 and an i3, as the i5 does not support ECC RAM do you think it is still an even choice?

Thanks Karsten.

There is no need whatsoever for ECC ram. ECC ram is used in servers. It is both expensive and slow.

 

[James Mason]

yeah, an intel T processor consumes less power, but also delivers less performance.

I'm not really sure why you're so concerned with the power consumption though.

This will only use roughly 109 watts.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4130T 2.9GHz Dual-Core Processor (£92.49 @ Ebuyer)
Motherboard: MSI H81M-E33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard (£34.12 @ Amazon UK)
Memory: Crucial 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory (£48.52 @ CCL Computers)
Storage: Transcend SSD370 128GB 2.5" Solid State Drive (£47.53 @ CCL Computers)
Case: Zalman ZM-T4 MicroATX Mini Tower Case (£14.50 @ CCL Computers)
Power Supply: XFX ProSeries 450W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply (£38.80 @ Aria PC)
Total: £275.96
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-02-27 23:30 GMT+0000

 

[Karsten75]

Have a look at the NUC and Brix systems in my last post. There are many models of those with various levels of "zippiness".

You really don't need ECC RAM as has been observed, unless we're missing some other requirement. I'd never recommend an overclocked processor for someone on an energy efficiency quest - overclocking pushes the processor into areas of energy inefficiency and the power consumption curve becomes non-linear, also puts higher demands on cooling. Many forms of overclocking also cannot be removed, thus making the processor run at maximum performance, power consumption and heat dissipation at all times.

 

[oliver555]

Power is a consideration because I'm looking at total cost and will be using the system for much of the day. Also because my needs are not so great I'd hope it wouldn't be a big ask. There's no point (in looking for bang for buck) if any savings made on the cost of one system over another is totally blown away due to power consumption where the extra performance wasn't comparably better too.

 

[oliver555]

Thanks to All and to Karsten. I know what it's like having to answer questions when the asker needs a lot of correcting. 😉

 

[oliver555]

One more thing.

How many channels should I split the RAM over? More are better but considering I also want to keep the power within limits what do you think I should go for?

Thanks.

 

[Karsten75]

The number of channels have almost no measurable impact on energy consumption. Decide if you want to go with a conservative amount of RAM and leave room for expansion - in that case configure your RAM so you can double it if you want to expand (Eg. 4 GB now and 4 more later, or 8 now and 8 later), then see what options the motherboard or system has for installing that amount of RAM.