We need a new quad showdown

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I really think the power draw is made into way too big of a deal at times. You'd have to have your CPU's at 100% useage for hours a day to probably see any significant differences I would imagine. It becomes an important point for businesses that may have lots of machines, especially servers. But for the average home user who may not use their PC for more then a few hours a week, I doubt it matters at all.

What in gods name is someone doing if they buy a quadcore system just to let it sit idle or completely turned off excepting for a few hours a week?

You are right, for the average home user who uses their computer for 4 hours/week they should not be concerned about the power consumption...nor should they be worried about getting a quadcore in general.

Do you honestly believe the average person who goes to Best Buy and gets that shiney new Gateway quad core is going to run seti or folding constantly?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Here is a review thats gross. Injustice to intel . Take note of the power consumption numbers were X3 uses less energy that Q6600. Out of the 10 reviews I read this was the only one that showed X3 beating Q6600 in efficiency. I seen more problems with this review but this one really got me . LOL I am for sale. I will say whatever you pay me to say. LOL @ tweaktown

http://www.tweaktown.com/artic...le_core_cpu/index.html

There is something markedly wrong about those performance numbers, all of them as far as I can tell.

http://images.tweaktown.com/imagebank/ap8750_test13.gif

For starters the "loaded" numbers come from 3DMark...which is nowhere near as power hungry of an application as Prime95 small FFT.

Then look at the idle and load power numbers for the Q6600 at stock (2.4GHz)...249W at idle!? I can't get my Q6600 systems to consume >220W even when overclocked to 3.3GHz and fully loaded with small FFT prime95 (let alone idle power numbers).

Second look at how close the idle and load power numbers are for the X3 8750 (2.4GHz) and X4 9750 (2.4GHz)...they are nearly identical. Uh...something ain't right there and they've got to be clueless idiots to not have seen that when they assembled the pretty graph in the first place.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I really think the power draw is made into way too big of a deal at times. You'd have to have your CPU's at 100% useage for hours a day to probably see any significant differences I would imagine. It becomes an important point for businesses that may have lots of machines, especially servers. But for the average home user who may not use their PC for more then a few hours a week, I doubt it matters at all.

What in gods name is someone doing if they buy a quadcore system just to let it sit idle or completely turned off excepting for a few hours a week?

You are right, for the average home user who uses their computer for 4 hours/week they should not be concerned about the power consumption...nor should they be worried about getting a quadcore in general.

Do you honestly believe the average person who goes to Best Buy and gets that shiney new Gateway quad core is going to run seti or folding constantly?

yes. in fact they are MORE likely to do so. Most people are convinced by that "donate your spare cycles for science, it costs you nothing", unaware of the electricity costs involved.
And those are the kind of people who wouldn't even think there is a different in power consumption, or know how to assemble a PC.
Ofcourse there are those that are VERY aware of the costs and decide to do it anyways. But that is a different story.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I really think the power draw is made into way too big of a deal at times. You'd have to have your CPU's at 100% useage for hours a day to probably see any significant differences I would imagine. It becomes an important point for businesses that may have lots of machines, especially servers. But for the average home user who may not use their PC for more then a few hours a week, I doubt it matters at all.

What in gods name is someone doing if they buy a quadcore system just to let it sit idle or completely turned off excepting for a few hours a week?

You are right, for the average home user who uses their computer for 4 hours/week they should not be concerned about the power consumption...nor should they be worried about getting a quadcore in general.

Do you honestly believe the average person who goes to Best Buy and gets that shiney new Gateway quad core is going to run seti or folding constantly?

yes. in fact they are MORE likely to do so. Most people are convinced by that "donate your spare cycles for science, it costs you nothing", unaware of the electricity costs involved.
And those are the kind of people who wouldn't even think there is a different in power consumption, or know how to assemble a PC.
Ofcourse there are those that are VERY aware of the costs and decide to do it anyways. But that is a different story.

I doubt it... I think they are more the type to have two instances of IE and a Word document open and comment to their wife on how fast their PC can multitask with all three of those running.

 

[WTurner]

I can't see spending the money for any quad core CPU right now (AMD or Intel). I guess I'm just cheap.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
For starters the "loaded" numbers come from 3DMark...which is nowhere near as power hungry of an application as Prime95 small FFT.

Then look at the idle and load power numbers for the Q6600 at stock (2.4GHz)...249W at idle!? I can't get my Q6600 systems to consume >220W even when overclocked to 3.3GHz and fully loaded with small FFT prime95 (let alone idle power numbers).

XBitLabs has shown the power consumption for a fully-loaded Q6600 rig overclocked to 3.6 at 400Watts. 249W at 2.4Ghz doesn't seem out of the ballpark.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Idontcare
For starters the "loaded" numbers come from 3DMark...which is nowhere near as power hungry of an application as Prime95 small FFT.

Then look at the idle and load power numbers for the Q6600 at stock (2.4GHz)...249W at idle!? I can't get my Q6600 systems to consume >220W even when overclocked to 3.3GHz and fully loaded with small FFT prime95 (let alone idle power numbers).

XBitLabs has shown the power consumption for a fully-loaded Q6600 rig overclocked to 3.6 at 400Watts. 249W at 2.4Ghz doesn't seem out of the ballpark.

Except for the fact I have five (5) Q6600 systems sitting right here next to me and I tested all of them for power consumption at the wall and you simply cannot get a Q6600 to eat that much power.

Just think about it...ever heard of a CPU that can be air-cooled but has a 300W TDP? There is a reason nothing is ever sold (even the niche CPU's from IBM, etc) with a TDP >150W if it is going to be air-cooled.

Now my B3 QX6700 at 1.6V and 4GHz which I ran on vapoLS...that system pulls 700W from the wall (350W for the vapoLS and 350W for the CPU + system components).

But that is the kicker...because vapoLS unit has its own plug I can connect it to the wall directly and ignore it's power consumption (just like I do with the LCD's) and just measure system consumption (which includes 100% of the CPU power usage) and that means a B3 kentsfield (what is more hungry than that?) using 1.6Vcore and clocked to 4GHz and the system only slugs 350W from the wall.

So how on earth (or any other planet of your choosing) could a G0 stepping clocked to lower GHz and using less Vcore be pulling 50W more power out of the wall?