YABA - AOpen's Powermaster

[slvr_phoenix]

<b>Yet Another Bad Article - <i>AOpen's Powermaster</i></b>

Anyone read that crap?

Likewise, we had to wait until recently to learn out how its smaller competitor, AMD, could use lower clock speeds to achieve equivalent performance levels.

<i>Recently?</i> Really. Because this hasn't been true for years? **ROFL**

But extending this idea to under-clocking as well as over-clocking is something that AOpen has pioneered

Maybe that's because without being able to adjust the voltage on the fly, there's not much to gain from underclocking on the fly.

Even if we must add a disclaimer to our power dissipation measurements because of insufficient time to test as thoroughly as we might have liked, our findings are both quantifiable and significant.

Speaking of quantifiable and significant findings ... <i>where are they</i>? We've given no hard numbers, nor any benchmarks to support those numbers. There are no facts given to justify any of this article. Given the above, that there is no undervolting, this makes sense since the difference, if even repeatedly quantifiable, would likely be far from impressive.

Speaking of hard facts and numbers, let's look closer at <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20050407/images/powermaster-screenshot-big.gif" target="_new">their picture</A>. Why is it that CPU-Z is saying 1.3<b>10</b>V at 3663.<b>5</b>MHz while the green text on the screen is saying 1.3<b>20</b>V at 3663.<b>05</b>MHz? While the difference is minimal, what is the point of putting big green text on the screen if the numbers don't even match?

And speaking of voltages that don't match, let's look at the <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20050407/aopen-04.html" target="_new">other CPU-Z screen captures</A>. Why is it that when the CPU is running at 3.4GHz the voltage is 1.3<b>15</b>V, but when it's <i>underclocked</i> to 2.4GHz, the voltage is 1.3<b>54</b>V? So <i>underclocking</i> raises the voltage by about .04V?

Come on THG. <i>I</i> could have written a better article than <i>that</i>.

<pre> 😱 <font color=purple>I express to you a hex value 84 with my ten binary 'digits'. 😱 </font color=purple></pre><p>@ 185K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

 

[ChipDeath]

I haven't read any of their articles since the one about the the rubber-band machine gun... I kind of lost faith in Tom's as a Hardware review site at that point - and the ol' faith store was getting pretty low anyway.

---
Winnie 3200+ @ ~2.5Ghz, ~1.41V
1Gb @ 209Mhz, 2T, 3-5-5-10
Asus 6800GT 128Mb

 

[ChipDeath]

incidentally, I think I can still remember how to make a semi-automatic rubber-band gun out of lego.

---
Winnie 3200+ @ ~2.5Ghz, ~1.41V
1Gb @ 209Mhz, 2T, 3-5-5-10
Asus 6800GT 128Mb

 

[slvr_phoenix]

I'm generally the same, but sometimes I can't help myself. On occasion on my way to THGC I see an article title that <i>sounds</i> interesting. I really should know better by now, but I guess I still remember enough of the old THGC to give up all hope that one day they'll write an article worth reading again.

Although, I suppose that one on the wireless laser mouse wasn't so bad. If I had money to waste, I'd possibly buy one.

But all the same, sometimes I do read a THG article, and sometimes its just <i>soooo</i> bad that I have to complain. :O

<pre> 😱 <font color=purple>I express to you a hex value 84 with my ten binary 'digits'. 😱 </font color=purple></pre><p>@ 185K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

 

[endyen]

The up side? Maybe a decent mobo maker, or two, will take up the chalenge. The concept is good, even if Acer isn't.
I read the piece because I like the idea. There are a lot of people who would benefit, if this could be made to work right. I look for the same direction from other mobo makers. If it does happen, we will be able to thank Tom's, for doing it's part ( though admittedly very badly)

 

[slvr_phoenix]

The problem is though that unless you dynamicly modify the vcore, you're not really saving much power when you underclock.

And the weird thing was that their tests showed that the vcore <i>raised</i> when you underclocked. :\

But yeah, if someone could do it right it'd be a great technology... except that modern CPUs are already doing something similar on their own. How much does it gain from both the motherboard and the CPU underclocking the system over just the CPU underclocking itself?

Some hard numbers would go a long way to prove the feasability.

<pre> 😱 <font color=purple>I express to you a hex value 84 with my ten binary 'digits'. 😱 </font color=purple></pre><p>@ 185K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

 

[endyen]

The thing is, acer didn't utilize the votage scaling of the chip. Just one flaw, that a good mobo company would have caught. I'm sure there are many more.

 

[slvr_phoenix]

The thing is, acer didn't utilize the votage scaling of the chip. Just one flaw, that a good mobo company would have caught. I'm sure there are many more.

It looks to me like they did use it, they just used it <i>backwards</i>. :O But yeah, a <i>good</i> mobo company would have done better. Hell, even MSI probably would have done better. They'd have quality control issues and driver issues, but they'd have done <i>that</i> better anyway. 😉

<pre> 😱 <font color=purple>I express to you a hex value 84 with my ten binary 'digits'. 😱 </font color=purple></pre><p>@ 185K -> 200,000 miles or bust!