At idle and low load scenarios you probably won't see much difference in power consumption at the wall with a full system. I remember,an ancient Llano A8 based system I built on a tight budget for someone with one of the 400W FSP OEM PSU,and it consumed between 34W to 47W at the wall during web browsing and watching videos,and it was using an mATX motherboard and that PSU was not the most efficient at low loads. I have built 20+ mini-ITX and Shuttle SFF PC builds in the last 7 to 8 years,and people always seem to look at artificial scenarios for power consumption. I have done both Intel and AMD based ones.
Even things like video encoding are peak operations and CPUs like the Core i3 and A10 are not really the target anyway for people doing much of it anyway,ie,you would use a Core i5 and the like anyway. When it comes IGP performance the AMD CPUs are faster in games even if more power is consumed.
The thing is though for web browsing tasks anything over 2GHZ Core2 level performance is more than enough. A Q6600 is more than enough for most web browsing and office purposes nowadays,as long as the IGP is capable of video decode and flash acceleration and this is why you are seeing more and more laptop sales being lost to lower performance tablets. People are sticking with their laptops longer,and now you are seeing tablet sales figures being added to laptop ones IIRC,as the lines get blurred.
I could argue that even a cheap Celeron dual core(or AMD equivalent) is probably enough for most basic purposes anyway.
Moreover,usage habit are the most important factor regarding power consumption. If you are the sort who just leaves their rig on 24/7 without doing anything,that should be your concern not a few watts here and there.
Nothing can beat a tablet for power consumption.
You want to save energy. Don't use a desktop.
Your monitor alone consumes 25+ watts. That will double your idle power draw of the entire desktop system.
That is more than netbooks and tablets under full load if you include the monitor.
PS:I live in Western Europe too and electricity is not cheap as the US.
I suggest you take a look at the following graphs:
I guess you are completely right about the idle power usage. But you could further decrease this by using T models. Now the Core i3-4130T (35W TDP) only runs 5 more here in Germany (105). And still the difference is fairly big in my eyes. Also note that the Core i3 - in most cases - idles much faster whenever you do something, since it's simply faster:
Make bars really short, yet make the scale start at 0 FPS. Showing your APU bottlenecking at least half of the games.
Even people rooting for AMD are going to be rubbed the wrong way by stuff like this. Or it may just go unnoticed just like 50ms frame delays.
I can only post 10 pictures so here is more:
HD 4600 on Compubench
image
It at least equals Trinity/Richland and comes close to Kaveri on Raytracing. Also don't forget that Kaveri is the newer chip. Broadwell with redone HD graphics is ready to go. And if the Iris Pro 5200 is any indication their OpenCL performance will be on equal footing
image
Oh Iris Pro 5200 is a 47 W TDP chip...Kaveri A10-7850K OC draws how much? Just saying...
My point exactly,at idle and low load situations there is virtually no difference,and even you are probably spending more time during such tasks anyway,like now on a forum. Plus I did not know Linx 0.6.4 AVX is indicative of normal power consumption. Also no 65W TDP A10 models either. So what is your point again??
Another Core i5 user waxing lyrical about a CPU they will probably never own. I give you a heads up,I have used Core i3 and A10 CPUs myself!
I use a Xeon E3 in my current main rig BTW.
Aren't Iris Pro powered parts pretty pricey?
My point in bringing this up is that if the i3 system and the Kaveri system are similarly priced, without a iGPU, well then if you can add the dGPU to one you'll be adding it to the other as well, at the same price point.
Hence why my A10-7850K versus i3 comparison becomes relevant. As I noted above, the Cyberpower PC i3-4340 system comes in at $531, with only the integrated GPU, versus the A10-7850K system, at $528. At that point, it comes down to how well the HD4600 integrated graphics fare against the R7 integrated graphics of the A10-7850.
Oh Iris Pro 5200 is a 47 W TDP chip...Kaveri A10-7850K OC draws how much? Just saying...
I have what seems like a stupid question, but I'm having a hard time figuring it out.
If I'm about to build an entirely new rig and plan to splurge on some significant discrete GPU hardware, do I have any reason to be excited about Kaveri? So far, it seems that the big draw is for its graphical performance, but what if I want my CPU to be a CPU? Is Kaveri a good option I should be considering?
Make bars really short, yet make the scale start at 0 FPS. Showing your APU bottlenecking at least half of the games.
I really have no idea what you are talking about... You must be looking at some different graph?Make bars really short, yet make the scale start at 0 FPS. Showing your APU bottlenecking at least half of the games.
Even people rooting for AMD are going to be rubbed the wrong way by stuff like this. Or it may just go unnoticed just like 50ms frame delays.
Yes wasn't arguing your point about idling :thumbsup:
The only remark I made was that this could be further reduces by using the T versions.
I can't change the fact that they didn't test the 65W version. Again I repeat what I said earlier: I think there is a lack of a through and fair comparison between mostly equal chips which would be a 65W A10-6xxx and a Core i3-4xxx.
But keep in mind that most benchmarks thrown around here about Kaveri show both the A10-6800K /OC and the A10-7850K /OC, which is far from a 65W chip...apples and apples when it comes to performance per watt.
While I know the Lynx test is probably not normal usage scenario, the single threaded test should still give a rough estimate about power usage. Of course we could neglect the entire power draw, because we are almost always idling, but what's the point? Intel is simply better in this regard and why should I factor that into my purchasing decision? It's nice to know that for the same price I can get a more efficient chip even if I never run such demanding task on it.
Also if you would have red more carefully I'm planning on buying components for a new Office built and I actually deliberately waited for Kaveri to come out. From the leaked benchmarks it simply underwhelms compared to an i3 in an Office surrounding. But let's wait until real benchmarks are out.
They are...my point was that we can take those as an indication of things to come with Broadwell. And let's be realistic. The Iris Pro parts have already fallen in price significantly.
snip
I suggest you take a look at the following graphs:
I guess you are completely right about the idle power usage. But you could further decrease this by using T models. Now the Core i3-4130T (35W TDP) only runs 5 more here in Germany (105). And still the difference is fairly big in my eyes. Also note that the Core i3 - in most cases - idles much faster whenever you do something, since it's simply faster:
snip
And look at it the other way: taking all the Benchmarks into account not even the most expensive AMD APU can beat the cheapest Intel Core i3...
The problem is that again most of the time office machines are running at low load,so it does not matter. Load power consumption will hardly ever factor into the equation.
Why do you think office desktops and people's laptops are being replaced at a slower and slower rate?? Its because performance has been good enough for years now. People are supplanting their laptops and old desktops with tablets,and these are eating into desktop and traditional laptop sales.
The problem I have with things like Furmark and LinX is that they are rarely near to maximum power consumption for any GPU or CPU for the things most people run. I just wish reviews shifted to power consumption during different usage scenarios. Games. Photoshop. Some video encoding. Audio conversion(although those benchmarks are a con as they are using wav rips from a RAM drive or SSD). I think TH does something like that,but its not individually presented,even then it is not made clear in many reviews what they are testing. Some of the Excel benchmarks are totally artificial scenarios and the audio encoding ones are the same.
Moreover,for office usage,any £30 CPU is more than enough especially with more stuff being moved to cloud services. You are better off making sure you have enough RAM,and spending the money on an SSD or SSHD,as most systems are I/O bottlenecked at the HDD level.
I have known even non-techies to notice an SSD upgrade - they can rarely tell one CPU from another,unless its some ancient CPU they had before.
Anyway I will have to agree to disagree with you on this,otherwise we will go around in circles and any new info will be buried in us arguing.
The problem is I cannot still buy any socket R series parts,let alone motherboards with the soldiered parts. Outside Apple,the Iris Pro parts are not common in many laptops available in the UK,and the UK is one of the biggest markets in the whole EU.
The Iris Pro parts launched SIX months ago.
Only now are we are seeing info over here about the Brix models launching with Iris Pro parts.
The only ones that pop out as bottlenecks are Crysis Warhead and Saints Row IV. We looking at the same graph?
am I missing anything?
It is about as fast as an i3 in cinebench multi and the i3+7750 is about ~10-30% faster in games.
Using Newegg prices are a comparison for pre-built desktops:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...el%20Core%20i3 (Core i3 starts @ $399)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...8-Series%20APU (A8-6500 APU starts @ $479)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...0-Series%20APU (A10-6700 APU starts @ $499)
Using the Current Fry's sale for Pre-builts here is what I am coming up with:
http://www.frys-electronics-ads.com...-PC-with-4th-Gen-Intel-Core-i3-4130-Processor (Core i3 for $348)
http://www.frys-electronics-ads.com...80-UR22-Desktop-PC-with-AMD-A8-6500-Processor (A8-6500 for $448)
Now granted the Core i3 systems come with 4GB RAM vs. 8GB for the AMD systems, but that still a pretty big disparity in pricing IMO.
I like how you compare the i3 to an apu [among others] but dont take into account the dgpu power draw.
also AMD does have an under-utilized VCE video encoding engine which it is slower than quicksync from the limited benchmarks I have seen but much faster than on the cpu.
Huh? They are comparing just the chips!
yeah but why? kaveri is more than just a cpu...
Again: huh? I've shown several benchmarks with OpenCL that Haswell is at least as good as AMDs APUs, while using less energy.
If you are talking about gaming performance: sure their 90W desktop APUs take the performance crown but I highly doubt it's doing so by using less energy with just a comparable dGPU.
Mobile is a different question. Intel uses both less energy and mostly comes close in performance (HD5000/Iris 5100) or surpasses it (Iris 5200 Pro)
Again: huh? I've shown several benchmarks with OpenCL that Haswell is at least as good as AMDs APUs, while using less energy.
If you are talking about gaming performance: sure their 90W desktop APUs take the performance crown but I highly doubt it's doing so by using less energy with just a comparable dGPU.
Mobile is a different question. Intel uses both less energy and mostly comes close in performance (HD5000/Iris 5100) or surpasses it (Iris 5200 Pro)