Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TH] - AMD FX: Energy Efficiency Compared To Eight Other CPUs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[TH] - AMD FX: Energy Efficiency Compared To Eight Other CPUs - Page 2

post #11 of 32
Nope.
My System
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
1090t ASUS Sabertooth 990fx PNY GTX470 2x4g GSkill 1333 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x 500gig WD DVD ±RW Black TRUE Vista Ultimate SP2 
MonitorPowerCase
Gateway FPD2275 Corsair HX1000 Antec 1200 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
1090t ASUS Sabertooth 990fx PNY GTX470 2x4g GSkill 1333 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x 500gig WD DVD ±RW Black TRUE Vista Ultimate SP2 
MonitorPowerCase
Gateway FPD2275 Corsair HX1000 Antec 1200 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 32
BD's only redeeming qualities are in highly multi-threaded scenarios but you can get a 2600K or 2500K, which easily outperforms BD in both single threaded and highly multi-threaded apps.

Can't forget to mention the i7 990X/980X/980/970 and the upcoming Sandy Bridge-E hexa core CPUs which makes BD look like a child's toy in multi-threaded scenarios.

BD is irrelevant (did anyone mention they are slower than PII X4s/X6s?) and anyone who thinks otherwise are probably drinking the AMD Kool-aid or works for their marketing department.
Edited by Clairvoyant129 - 10/27/11 at 1:28pm
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMD2600 View Post
B3 revision is in the works. I would like to bet all of these benchmarks for the AMD CPUs are with the CPU-NB set at 2000mhz. The results are not that conclusive.
I'm wondering how much a drop in power consumption and price will balance out with consumers' outlook on them. Below current Thubans?
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129 View Post
BD's only redeeming qualities are in highly multi-threaded scenarios but you can get a 2600K or 2500K, which easily outperforms BD in both single threaded and highly multi-threaded apps.

Can't forget to mention the i7 980/970 and the upcoming Sandy Bridge-E hexa core CPUs which makes BD look like a child's toy in multi-threaded scenarios.

BD is irrelevant (did anyone mention they are slower than PII X4s/X6s?) and anyone who thinks otherwise are probably drinking the AMD Kool-aid or works for their marketing department.
Yes, the SBE should be tops when it comes out - though the unlocked ones won't be inexpensive from what I gather. IB, of course... Price for the Performance should be of the charts...
post #15 of 32
So, 206 watts for an Intel i7 4 core CPU is good, and 209 watts for an AMD 8 core CPU is "bad"? Let's see, that would mean 51 watts per core for the Intel 975 and 26 watts per core for the FX-8150. Even the 2600 draws 30 watts per core, yet it is considered "great"?? No bias at Tom's at all
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-4170 @ 4.86 Ghz ASUS M5A97 EVO 2 x PowerColor AX6790 Crossfire 16GB (4 x 4GB) SAMSUNG MV-3V4G3D @1890 Mhz 8-9-9 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x Corsair Force 3 120 GB SSD External USB AMD stock cooler Win7 Ultimate 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS 23" DVI Fullsize, solid. OCZ ModXStream Pro 500W CM Praetorian 730 Black 
Mouse
Has red light on bottom 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-4170 @ 4.86 Ghz ASUS M5A97 EVO 2 x PowerColor AX6790 Crossfire 16GB (4 x 4GB) SAMSUNG MV-3V4G3D @1890 Mhz 8-9-9 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x Corsair Force 3 120 GB SSD External USB AMD stock cooler Win7 Ultimate 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS 23" DVI Fullsize, solid. OCZ ModXStream Pro 500W CM Praetorian 730 Black 
Mouse
Has red light on bottom 
  hide details  
Reply
post #16 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagged_Steel View Post
So, 206 watts for an Intel i7 4 core CPU is good, and 209 watts for an AMD 8 core CPU is "bad"? Let's see, that would mean 51 watts per core for the Intel 975 and 26 watts per core for the FX-8150. Even the 2600 draws 30 watts per core, yet it is considered "great"?? No bias at Tom's at all
Clearly you have a selective methodology, choosing to compare BD to a CPU released Q2 2009 @ 45nm.

Is the 975 available for purchase today? Even if it was, who would buy that over the 2600K? Since the 2600K is available for purchase today, that is what you should be comparing it to. Look at the chart again, and make the PROPER comparisons.


Quote:
Intel's fastest mainstream chips cannot be beat here. Predictably, the 2 billion-transistor FX-8150 processor draws the most energy when all eight cores are busy.

Edited by 2010rig - 10/27/11 at 1:49pm
2010rig
(14 items)
 
Galaxy S3
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5660 @ 4.5  ASUS P6X58D-E 980TI? 12GB OCZ Platinum - 7-7-7-21 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1 80GB SSD x25m - 3TB F3 + F4 NH-D14 Windows 7 Ultimate LG 47LH55 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Natural Wireless Keyboard Corsair 750HX CM 690 II Advanced MX 518 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Snapdragon S4 Dual core 1500mhz Adreno 225 Samsung 2GB 16GB Onboard Flash 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Android 4.4.2 - CM11 4.8" AMOLED 1280x720 2100 mAh battery Otterbox Defender 
  hide details  
Reply
2010rig
(14 items)
 
Galaxy S3
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5660 @ 4.5  ASUS P6X58D-E 980TI? 12GB OCZ Platinum - 7-7-7-21 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1 80GB SSD x25m - 3TB F3 + F4 NH-D14 Windows 7 Ultimate LG 47LH55 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Natural Wireless Keyboard Corsair 750HX CM 690 II Advanced MX 518 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Snapdragon S4 Dual core 1500mhz Adreno 225 Samsung 2GB 16GB Onboard Flash 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Android 4.4.2 - CM11 4.8" AMOLED 1280x720 2100 mAh battery Otterbox Defender 
  hide details  
Reply
post #17 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steak House View Post
Yes, the SBE should be tops when it comes out - though the unlocked ones won't be inexpensive from what I gather. IB, of course... Price for the Performance should be of the charts...
Even the locked SB-E can be overclocked to a certain extent via reference clock ratio (1.00x, 1.25x and 1.66x). With RCR, you can take the base locked SB-E CPU i7 3829 to easily over 4.5GHz, so you really don't need an unlocked SB-E CPU unless you're looking for a hexa core.
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagged_Steel View Post
So, 206 watts for an Intel i7 4 core CPU is good, and 209 watts for an AMD 8 core CPU is "bad"? Let's see, that would mean 51 watts per core for the Intel 975 and 26 watts per core for the FX-8150. Even the 2600 draws 30 watts per core, yet it is considered "great"?? No bias at Tom's at all
Too bad that 2B transistor garbage can't even outperform PII X6, which isn't even considered that fast.
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
post #19 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagged_Steel View Post
So, 206 watts for an Intel i7 4 core CPU is good, and 209 watts for an AMD 8 core CPU is "bad"? Let's see, that would mean 51 watts per core for the Intel 975 and 26 watts per core for the FX-8150. Even the 2600 draws 30 watts per core, yet it is considered "great"?? No bias at Tom's at all
Let's look at your logic here. First, why compare against an old processor? No one's buying that, compare it to its competition. Second, your understanding of that graph is terribly wrong. Power output was calculated while running prime95 - NOT a multithreaded application. So what you see there isn't BD using all cores - you certainly cannot glean these "power/core" numbers you are using to compare from this chart.
post #20 of 32
What was AMDs R&D doing the past few years?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TH] - AMD FX: Energy Efficiency Compared To Eight Other CPUs