Desktop : Higher performance or higher efficiency ?

[AtenRa]

OK people,

Just to see what most of AT users really want,

Do you want more performance at a cost of higher power usage or higher efficiency at a cost of stagnated performance from your Desktop CPUs. ?

In other words, do you want more performance than current IvyBridge Socket 1155 but with 100+W TDP CPUs or do you want same performance with lower power usage. ?

ps: Obviously at the same current price points.

 

[ShintaiDK]

But its a moot point isnt it? We still get better performance and better efficiency at the same time. So you lack option 3.

 

[Sleepingforest]

And don't forget that performance/watt can often be translated into pure performance with overclocking. It's kind of a flawed poll too, since there are other options (more performance/watt at the same time, more iGPU power at the cost of CPU power and/or power efficiency, and so on).

That, and as desktop enthusiasts, we are a tiny, almost irrelevant demographic to Intel/AMD.

 

[mikk]

I want better efficiency+better performance.

 

[SPBHM]

higher efficiency, like Sandy Bridge vs Nehalem.

 

[Arkadrel]

Honestly I think CPUs are strong enough now for most things, meanwhile heat production and noise from fans is still a annoyance (the solution to this part, is higher efficiency).

I put my vote for effieciency.

Any top line CPU currently, to really see differnces in performance, you need like crossfire 7970's or SLI 680s.

I think its safe to say the "avg joe" user, doesnt have that kinda GPU setup, thus even for gameing CPUs are reaching good enough states.

 

[Smoblikat]

Id take more performance over anything else. Im fine with 130W CPU's and 250+W GPU's.

 

[ALIVE]

i prefer higher efficiency
well the programmers should try to max the cpu architecture as the ones they write code for consoles. instead of relying of more power to run their low optimized code.

and yes a jaguar or atom will be my next pc lol
if amd or intel decide to make a refresh for the desktop area
if not i will take a xeon -l

 

[Gikaseixas]

Id take more performance over anything else. Im fine with 130W CPU's and 250+W GPU's.

same here

 

[Kippa]

Over 9000 power!

 

[rgallant]

I wouldn't spend any money just to lower cpu wattage ,from 77 - 120w???? @4.6 down to what ?
-I'd be better off trashing my oc'd 580 sli to save 200 watts. for a $1k [+ block] titan for the samish game play lol.

 

[Yuriman]

I typically buy the more power efficient parts, tbh, but high-end ones. The 7850 is more efficient than the 79xx cards, and Ivy Bridge didn't really offer a notable improvement over Sandy and was a little more expensive when I bought my chip, but I still went for Ivy because of its efficiency improvements.

I like a balance, something like Intel's idea that performance improvements should happen, but not at the expense of efficiency.

___

I have often lived in small apartments or (in the past) dorms, and high-power parts make my room uncomfortable, as at some point they put out more heat than the air conditioner can keep up with.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

the truth is theres really a dearth of applications that require faster chips for the average user, so i could see why they would now decide to focus more on power efficiency. but fa me, since you axed, since you axed, id ratha have something faster, i dont care about power usage at all on a desktop

 

[OBLAMA2009]

But its a moot point isnt it? We still get better performance and better efficiency at the same time. So you lack option 3.

hes like, axin', wood you like peanut butta or jellie on you sammich?

 

[OBLAMA2009]

higher efficiency would also mean smaller probably, and dats a good thang. i was reading on the web that microATX is disappearing and since i hadnt built a computer in a while i looked on the microcenter website and all the boards are atx, which i dont want. i hardly ever switch out or add anything to my computers anymore but i do like having two dvd's.

 

[AtenRa]

hes like, axin', wood you like peanut butta or jellie on you sammich?

Actually im like this,

Do you want a quad core + HT 130W 4,2GHz (4.7GHz Turbo) Haswell ??

or Core i7 4770K at 3.5GHz and 82W TDP ??



Do you want a Six core + HT 130W 3.8GHz (4.2GHz Turbo) Haswell ??

or Core i7 4770K at 3.5GHz and 82W TDP ??



ps: same price

 

[blackened23]

the truth is theres really a dearth of applications that require faster chips for the average user, so i could see why they would now decide to focus more on power efficiency. but fa me, since you axed, since you axed, id ratha have something faster, i dont care about power usage at all on a desktop

The hell is this crap? Are you trying to be funny?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Where's the "lower performance and efficiency but I saved 75 bucks" option for the AMD guys?

 

[rgallant]

Where's the "lower performance and efficiency but I saved 75 bucks" option for the AMD guys?

whats $75.00 when you'll trying to save the known worlds and you can't aim your ion canon on the invaders because of lower frame rate stutters ?

 

[SiliconWars]

Where's the "Anandtech moderators should stay the hell out of these topics instead of inciting intel fanboys" option?

Mod callouts are a VERY bad idea
-ViRGE

 

[Bill Brasky]

Efficiency. I hate computer noise since my desktop is in my living room. An inaudible 3770k would be more than enough for me.

 

[SiliconWars]

Like Bill above, I voted for efficiency because lower Watts equals quieter systems.

 

[Hulk]

I'll take the highest clocked part I can get my hands on since all modern processors throttle down when not loaded. This behavior in effect turns a highly powerful part into a highly efficient part. Consequently fulfilling both of your poll answers at the same time.

 

[Ken g6]

I want higher efficiency in the summer when my computer fights the A/C, but higher performance in the winter when it doesn't.

well the programmers should try to max the cpu architecture as the ones they write code for consoles. instead of relying of more power to run their low optimized code.

Well, I wouldn't mind that, either.

 

[FreshJR]

First I want a better OS than microsoft, octo-core, then power efficiency in that order. It's sad that surfing the internet on my phone is smoother than my computer. (Not page load times, but gpu accelerated scrolling)

But tablet/laptop products should run at the max speed possibles that gets a 12-24 hour battery. Couple that with a user selectable max clock selecting the battery life desired. No point to cut power after 24 hours.

Desktop should have crazy power states.
5/W for internet, videos, random typical uses etc.
100W for CAD, FEA, Compiling, whatever really justifies full power.