Todd_a

Distinguished
Jun 7, 2005
67
0
18,630
Explain to me this. If THG is comparing the top of the line new P-M 2.13Ghz CPU against the Athlon64/FX and the P4, why does he always use the older 130nm cores? The P-M and P4 use the latest 90nm chips and fastest chipsets, but he uses usually a slower board and older CPUs. Now why do I complain? Well a magor part of this test is power draw and the 90nm Venice and Winchester cores use MUCH less power (about 1/3-1/2 the power). Performance wise they also use SSE3 and a faster memory controller. He also uses an ASUS A8N-SLI. This is not the fastest NF4 board out there, but also it generates a ton of heat. I bet the chipset draws more power than the CPU would at idle. With the stock cooler at 8000RPM it still runs about 70'C. I replaced the cooler on mine and it is still around 60'C (but much quieter at 2500). If you are not running SLI, then why use this power hog. Heck even a ATI, VIA, or SiS chipset can compete just as good and likely draw half the power.

So lets see... You take that P-M running at 66w and compare it to THG results and the Athlon64 3500+ looks really bad at 201w. Now you drop the GeForce6800GT and you take off 40w, the chipset is likely another 20w and the CPU is likely at least 40w. Now you are looking at 100w. Does that P-M look that good now? That puts the Athlon64 CPU and chipset drawing only about 40w more than the P-M system. Now also take into acount that the P-M board and CPU cost a lot more and things start to look even better for AMD. He also pointed out that playing a DVD was a 25% load. Well with Cool-n-Quiet on on my Athlon64 3500+ Winchester core it sits at 1Ghz and 1.1v and still uses about 10% load and the stock all aluminum heatsink (which is much smaller than the older Athlon64 heatsinks) can also run with the fan turned off and tops out at about 50'C. To make that more impressive, that is in a closed case, which THG did not do. Heck I even run the 120mm 1600RPM Antec fans at about 5v. These fans run at about 850RPM. The case tesmps float around 33'C (I wanted quiet more than cool). He runs the P-M in open air at likely 21'C in his A/Ced lab.

He also will not touch 64 bit for any of these tests. Windows64 bit is out and he should have no problems getting drivers. The performance got games is pretty close to 32 bit, but in a lot of other tasks the Athlon64 would see huge jumps in performances. I have seen many applications show 5-20% quite often with some running twice as fast. Even the Yonah will not get 64 bits until the end of next year.

Now take that a step forther. He used the fastest P-M at 2.13Ghz which costs about $700. For that price you could get an Athlon64 X2 4400+ easy. Now people say the P-M overclocks great... well most will do 2.3-2.5Ghz, but only a few have actually made it into the 2.6-2.7Ghz on air cooling. Well the 4400+ overclocks quite well too. AMDZone got theirs to 2.8Ghz with the air cooling and only a tiny votage bump (1.425 if I recall right).

The P-M clock for clock is VERY close to the Athlon64, but in 64 bit applications the Athlon64 will pull ahead quite easy. If you run thread applications or multiple applications the X2 will smoke the P-M (which is a fare comparison based on cost). If you compare overclocking, likely the Athlon64 E6 cores will still overclock better (on average). Then there is SLI. Now P-M system has SLI. ASUS has no BIOS update to support the addaptor in an NF4-SLI P4 board either, so for gaming performance you could compare a P-M 2.13Ghz with a GeForce 6800GT against a similar priced Athlon64 3500+ with 2 GeForce 6800GTs in SLI. Which do you think will win in games now?

Overall I would say this was an unrealistic slanted article that showed nothing more than that yes the P-M is a good low power CPU that performs well, but the comparisons were a joke. If I was making a HTPC, then a P-M would make a great choice, but otherwise it is not worth the added cost and with more applications going 64 bit an threaded over the next few years, the P-M will become obsolete much faster.
 

thematrixhazuneo

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2005
84
0
18,630
That was a perfect iteration of what I was thinking to myself. Only you did all the typing for me lol j/k. Serously though, THG should just admit they are biased. But then again who else will support the intel market machine.
 

P4Man

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2004
2,305
0
19,780
If you want to see how Venice compares to 130nm A64's, look here:

<A HREF="http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/p4_840/20.shtml" target="_new">http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/p4_840/20.shtml</A>

Spectacular is the only word I can think off..

Also have a look at the 840EE, the cpu *alone* (so excluding power supply ineffiency) draws a staggering 147W, well above intels 130W TDP. An Athlon X2 is almost half of that, 78-86W depending on the temperature, and well below its 110W TDP.

Unfortunately, they didn't include Pentium Ms, but I would assume a PM @2.133 GHz to draw less than a Venice @2.4, but at the same clock, and if you include northbridge power draw, the difference will be all but neglectable for desktops, even SFF. Quite possibly the A64 even runs cooler under load (while no doubt, the PM does significantly better in sleep mode which is important for laptops, but at only a few watt, irrelevant for desktop systems).

But you wouldn't expect THG to tell you that, would you ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
 

phial

Splendid
Oct 29, 2002
6,757
0
25,780
The venice is available everywheres at the same price as the other models. Theres no reason why they couldnt have used a venice.

-------
<b>It's a man's obligation to stick his boneration in a women's separation; this sort of penetration will increase the population of the younger generation.</b>
 

Todd_a

Distinguished
Jun 7, 2005
67
0
18,630
I already figured it was about 150w by looking at the data THG had on there stress test:

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=210030#210030" target="_new">http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=210030#210030</A>

The other thing I noted was the power... the power meter shows ~360w... that is at the plug with the AMD system running. With both systems going the total is 820w. That puts the P-EE system at ~460w. That is 120w more. Now the PS is supposed to be an ATX 2.0 so it is at least 70% efficient. That puts the AMD system at ~250w and the P-EE at ~320w. The only differance between them is the memory, motherboard, and CPU and seeing as they both use NF4 chipsets and DDR2 is supposed to draw less power, that puts the power draw of the P-EE EXTREMELY high. Assuming the X2 draws about 80w, that P4 is potentially drawing ~150w or more. Now either AMD's is drawing much less than what it is rated for or Intel's is drawing MUCH more (or a little of both).
It is sad... really sad. That article does show some interesting results. Too bad they could not show those numbers for a P-M, but I do not think they use the 4 pin power connector. They could have also dumped in so AthlonXP numbers too just for fun. AMD does a pretty good job on the X2 at 86w compared to the P-EE at 147w. The Venice is very impressive though at only 30w. I would not be supprised that clock for clock the Venice is actually the same or lower power draw compared to the P-M. If it draws 27w at 2.13Ghz (or even slightly lower), then at 2.4Ghz it likely draws 30w or more. A lot of the advantages the P-M has over the turn in power draw is the chipset's power draw.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Todd_a on 06/21/05 04:11 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

P4Man

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2004
2,305
0
19,780
While you're editing, you might want to use URL tags, and provide a shorter description for the URL, so that your post (and this thread) fits my desktop. Not all of us have 24" widescreen monitors :)

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
 

dunklegend

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2005
2,079
0
19,810
Like <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=210030#210030" target="_new">this</A>
Read the FAQs

<font color=blue>If everything seems to be going well, you obviously don't know what the hell is going on</font color=blue>
 

Todd_a

Distinguished
Jun 7, 2005
67
0
18,630
I'm used to another board that does nice signatures, lets you insert pictures (as long as you have them host somewhere), and does the URL thing for you. Comapared to the average length of my posts the URL length is nothing. :D
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
It's possible that the person doing the testing didn't have a Venice or San Diego in hand. That's a very real possibility considering Tom's is spreading out their testing among an editorial team that spans the globe.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 

Viditor

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2001
29
0
18,530
It's possible that the person doing the testing didn't have a Venice or San Diego in hand
Yes, but then why do the test at all? I mean if you don't have the tools to do a proper evaluation, then why not wait until you do?
You can understand why writing an article like this appears to be just a thinly veiled piece of spin rather than a true review can you not?

Cheers,
Charles
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
Of course, but then again, consider the system I use for reviewing hardware...

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 

Todd_a

Distinguished
Jun 7, 2005
67
0
18,630
THG has tested all the AMD chips including the Winchester and Venice cores, why use the older 130nm chips for a comparision when AMD no longer even makes them. It just makes no sense.

I was reading that Lost Curcuit article from the beganing and noticed a few interesting things.

<A HREF="http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/p4_840/18.shtml" target="_new">http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/p4_840/18.shtml</A>

The idle wattages for the Venice were VERY impressive at 8.4w and as far as I can tell this is without C&Q enabled. Even the Newcastle's idle wattages were respectable at 22.4. The P-EE 840 was 54. I wish they showed a P-4 3.8Ghz for comparisions in those tests.

The other cool thing was they showed the Venice overclocked to 2.78Ghz and the load wattages were only 40w. That is not too bad... a 15% overclock yielded a 25% increase in power and that was likely with a voltage hike. The X2 overclocks about the same as the Venice core, so at 2.8Ghz this thing likely draws about 107w. That is quite high, but still managable. It also means the standard 4 pin power feed can handle it (2x12v at 5a is 120w). The P-EE 840 on the other hand requires a special plug usually used in dual CPU XEON servers with more 12v pins. Not a chip I would want to mess with.
 

TRENDING THREADS