Lynnfield benchmarks up

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Sigh...

These parts are chosen specifically for a reason. What do you think 'energy efficient' parts are except BAD cpu's? The reason they have low TDP is because they are guaranteed to fail above a certain level of performance.

Or do you really, *honestly* believe that certain cpu's come off the wafers being more 'energy efficient'.

Good god I really am in amongst a crowd of hopeless cases if so.
 


They also bin at lower voltages. Your logic also applies to AMD processors with lower TDPs and X3s CPUs as well.


I wouldn't call lower binning chips from either company bad, but rather I would say they are not as good as higher binning chips, but that's all just perspective.
 


actually, a good batch of silicon could be used to have lower voltage at the same speed (or much lower voltage at lower speeds), thus decreasing the TDP of the chip

even a normal batch of silicon you could effectively lower clock and voltage and get an "energy efficient" chip
 

Never trust wackypedia.
"Thermal Design Power: (Also referred to as Thermal Guideline) The maximum amount of heat which a thermal solution must be able to dissipate from the processor so that the processor will operate under normal operating conditions. "
Click to expand...
 


Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the case with VID? We all know that each chip comes with a different VID. Less VID, as far as I know, requires less voltage to run the chip at that stock speed. That's why the majority of the time lower VID chips have a higher OC head-room because they can take more voltages compared to higher stock VID chips. That is why you are considered to be lucky if you pull a lower VID chip 😛.

So.........basic logic, less voltage = more energy efficient O_O


*side tangent - not all electronic parts are made equal. That's the case with binning as well. Why does some GPU on graphics cards can run at higher speed and are guaranteed by the company to perform at those higher levels? You tell me 😛
 
Ok here is the truth.

i5 is a superior platform than dragon at that price range because it is FAR faster clock for clock (2.66 vs 3.4 Ghz), it overclocks higher (hitting 4.0 Ghz more consistently), and has the same advantage with 2 single GPUs as i7, but lags behind i7 with 3 or 4 GPUs. That said, AMD has a great corner on the market with the Phenom II 940 at $150 right now, for a single GPU setup you can't beat that with a decent sub $100 motherboard.

To be honest I even see i7 as a larger niche market than Phenom II, it only gives a benefit with 3-4 GPUs and extreme professional software.

Viva la LGA 1156!
 
All you geniuses will for sure have a good answer to this.

Let's say an intel mobo has a 95w TDP, you put in a 95W TDP cpu.

What happens when you decide to overclock it?

Take the newest AMD 965 BE, 140W TDP. The top mobo you can get is 140W right? So are you telling me that a 965 BE cannot go above 3.4ghz at all???
 

wiki is better aboutit now, there are many pages where if something is changed 15min later it will revert back to the original page
 


on the 95w board, you may actually be limited on the OC due to the fact that the board can't deliver enough power (in a sense the amount of power it draws is linked to the TDP), my guess is that hey state 95w TDP to be on the safe side but really the vboard may be able to handle 105w, 125w, depends on the quality

on the 140w TDP board, who knows what they actually handle, 140, 150, 160 even like above, depends on quality

if you bought a PCCHIP board, would you expect it to OC as nice as an ASUS or Gigabyte board

EDIT: added about 140w TDP board
 
Ok here is the truth.

i5 is a superior platform than dragon at that price range because it is FAR faster clock for clock (2.66 vs 3.4 Ghz)
Click to expand...

Wut? At 2.66ghz, the i5 loses every single benchmark vs the 3.4ghz PII. It is only when the i5 is *overclocked* that is catches up. Turbo = overclocking, there is NO difference at all.


it overclocks higher (hitting 4.0 Ghz more consistently)
Click to expand...

You know that after 1 days benchmarks? I very much doubt the i5 750 is as good an oc'er as the 965 BE tbh. Normally I go with Anand and theirs got to 3.9ghz. The first 940 BE on Anand got to 4ghz, it was only when they shifted all their benchmarks to 64-bit the overclocks started to suffer.
 



'may'...'guess'...


in other words you really don't know do you mindless?
 


100% agreement. i7 is just too expensive right now and the price\performance is off.

At the $200 price point Intel is going to rock AMD with the i5, but if you're looking for more of a budget gamer a high clocked X3 is going to save money with minimal gaming performance cost (because not many games are taking advantage of four cores).

Just because the i5 750 is better than the PII 965BE, doesn't mean that i5 750 is the default choice for every system. At lower price point AMD still has many awesome offerings. The i5 is just a shifting down of the low-end of Intel dominance, Intel now is the best choice at $200-250, and the only choice above that. But below $200 AMD is going to still be a great option.
 
Er, I don't really feel like entering into a giant flamewar, but isn't the 965 BE clocked at quite a bit more than the i5 750, and last time I checked, clocks matter a lot in real life applications? I'm just throwing this out there, but wouldn't a decent comparison be to have 2 identically clocked cpus for comparison, either by overclocking the i5 or underclocking the 965/955?

Also, I'm not sure what the big deal is about turbo either, if its there in the background making things faster why not use it?

I'm not really sure why there is even an argument, from what I've seen, the reviews have generally favored i5, citing lower power consumption at stock speeds, and lowered costs compared to the 920 as well as the 965.

Plus, AMD lowering prices on the phenoms is all gravy with me.
 


like i said, depends on the quality of the board, they are times when people put 125w TDP chips in 95w TDP board, and they work fine, other times not

but this is more about the power needed for the chip, if the board can support it then good, if not too bad (they use the TDP marker because its easier than listing all of the chips compatible with the given board)
 
"Thermal Design Power (TDP)
Analysis indicates that real applications are unlikely to cause the IOH component to
consume maximum power dissipation for sustained time periods. Therefore, in order to
arrive at a more realistic power level for thermal design purposes, Intel characterizes
power consumption based on known platform benchmark applications. The resulting
power consumption is referred to as the Thermal Design Power (TDP). TDP is the target
power level to which the thermal solutions should be designed. TDP is not the
maximum power that the IOH can dissipate."

This is straight from intels' own website. Like i stated in my statement, INTEL's definition of TDP is NOT AMD"s definition of TDP. That is why when you OC with intels' chip, you ARE GOING OVER TDP.

PDF link

http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/designguide/320840.pdf
 


i agree about AMD having offerings below these prices, hell i have a PII X4 810, and i love it
i have an estimated 75 TDP because of lower voltage (i use 1.2 instead of 1.325
 
The i5 = Core2 quad 1 year later, with 'improvements' such as turbo mode...which is basically just the same as overclocking your cpu...

However, intel get to post lower idle wattages, and bribed benchmarkers can post benches with the cpu described as 'i5 750 @ 2.66ghz' when in actual fact it is operating at 3.2ghz. Since they got bunged a huge wad of cash, that's all ok. ;p

Just remembed that when you buy intel, a certain percentage of what you paid goes on their legal fees, bribery and global warming.
 


3.2GHz in single threaded apps, the turbo goes down when there are more threads loading the cpu
 
Jenny - The wafer itself isn't more efficent, but the average quality of the transistors that come out can be (each die is slightly different). This is why an E8200 wont overclock as high as an E8500, and will heat up a lot earlier, even though they come from exactly the same revision design and exactly the same factory line.

The TDP value is provided by Intel, so that OEM part makers can ensure their system will deal with xxxW of heat - this allows them to use the fastest processor in that range/stepping without overheating. Intel's stock heatsinks are designed with this number in mind.

Once you overclock past about 10-15% you're going to start overloading the factory heatsink, and definately going past TDP. This is why we end up watercooling or using massive air heatsinks, because the OEM gear which is rated to TDP figures is no longer sufficent.

This is also why overclocking motherboards have much bigger power setups than the minimum required for the best in the stepping.

There is no way whatsoever that my E8500 is operating at below 65W with 1.52V @ 4.3Ghz. On the factory heatsink, it'd be thermal throttling all day everyday.

Also the S series processors overclock just as high as the normal ones, but since they're more expensive, the value for money isn't worth it. I've seen lots of E8400S and Q8200S overclocks, they're good CPUs that produce less heat. I'm not sure about pricing over there, but the S parts are double the price of normal parts here.

EDIT: most of this is said above, I replied too slowly. Sorry.
 
So intel can post lower TDP because they don't use the maximum, AMD do.

What was it about ACP again? Oh ye ACP is AMD's method of bringing down TDP right? So what are intel doing except bringing down TDP to suit themselves?

We can pretty much say that a 95W TDP intel chip is equivalent to a 125W AMD then?
 

It was your quoting of wacky's wrong description that prompted my response, and my quote is also taken from Inhells description.
 


because at some you have to do that manually, Turbo Boost is controlled by the cpu, no user intervention

and please don't call me an intel fanboi, i use AMD because in games, it matters little
 

Seriously, when do you give up? We already told you and linked you what turbo mode is. I'm pretty sure you are literate as you can reply to our posts.

Intel's i5 have lower idle wattages b/c of their new power gate transistors.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=4

"Intel made a very important announcement when Nehalem launched last year. Everyone focused on cache sizes, performance or memory latency, but the most important part of Nehalem was far more subtle: the Power Gate Transistor."

"Using some clever materials engineering Intel developed a very low resistance, low leakage, transistor that can effectively drop any circuits behind it to near-zero power consumption; a true off switch. This is the Power Gate Transistor."

"On a quad-core Phenom II, if two cores are idle, blocks of transistors are placed in the off-state but they still consume power thanks to leakage current. On any Nehalem processor, if two cores are idle, the Power Gate transistors that feed the cores their supply current are turned off and thus the two cores are almost completely turned off - with extremely low leakage current. This is why nothing can touch Nehalem's idle power:"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom