actual power tested: Core 2 Duo / Netburst vs Athlon

All about them.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Posts: 806
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Germany

Post by jojo4u » Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:41 am

Well the web is short-lived. I updated the first post with figures from the 45 W Athlon X2 Brisbanes. Note the higher power consumption when the CPU is cooled passivly resulting in higher temperatures.

Idle power consumption is higher since the Asus motherboard does not goes back to 1,1 V during CnQ. The VID stays at 1,15 V all the time.

Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:46 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by bean1975 » Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:13 am

I am really interested in Pentium E2160 CPUs, here.

*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:23 pm
Location: California

Post by continuum » Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:43 pm

Wow, nice. Now I wonder how the L2-steppings overclock...

Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: Poland

Post by prodeous » Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:05 am

First of all, impressive comparison.

As with regards to the techreport total system power consumption benchmark. They used a nvidia 590SLI chipset wich is.. quite power hungry. ATI would should the AMD cpu in a better light.

Even though I'm awlays rooting for the little guy, this time Core2 Duo is quite impressive. And like bean1975 stated, the Pentium E2160/E2180 would be nice to see.

now if they did the same type of benchmark for the chipsets/motherboards. It would give us a really nice resource for part selection.

However the 4phase vs 3phase supprised me. A significant increase in power consumpion. So then how do you determine which VRM is the best? That in it self would also be intresting benchmark.

Either way, these guys are impressive in thier commitment.

With regards to "whole system" vs "cpu only" ... actually there isn't much to say, both sides are right. But this also shows you that the efficiency of the motherboard really alters the performance of highly efficent CPU.

And finaly, its cool to know were the power is going. ;)

Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:30 am

Post by Schlotkins » Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:51 pm

Stupid question but... the E6400 is a 2meg CPU that's the same core as the E6600 right (ie. it's got 4 megs of cache but 2 disabled)? and the E6420 is also a 4 meg cache chip, but with all 4 megs available. So it seems, intel managed to cut idel consumption down by 2/3 and full load by 1/3. However, the graph has both labled as a B2 stepping, which doesn't make any sense to me... ?

Post Reply