Intel C2 E8200, below 30 W!

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:01 am

I just saw this review. It looks like the new CPU's uses very little power, but the very high power consumption of the 6000+ in idle makes me wonder if it's true. What do you say?

smilingcrow · Post by **smilingcrow** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:09 pm

Mats wrote:I just saw this review. It looks like the new CPU's uses very little power, but the very high power consumption of the 6000+ in idle makes me wonder if it's true. What do you say?

I doubt the idle consumption is that high but the load consumption rings true. It would be painful to see a performance per watt graph.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:37 pm

It's crazy, a desktop computer based on the 45 nm E8200 would draw less power than a 90 nm 6000+ CPU alone, and yet the former is faster.

Reminds me of the old PD versus X2 days in 2005, except that it was the opposite situation.

Lawrence Lee · Post by **Lawrence Lee** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:44 pm

The CPU listed in the power consumption tests is the 6000+. I think that's a typo since throughout the review they use the 6400+ for comparison, which has a TDP of 125W!

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:01 pm

Yeah it's probably a typo but it doesn't make any difference. Both models are rated for 125 W and are made in 90 nm process, and AMD still look inefficient no matter how you look at it.
What's even worse is that the new PX2 doesn't seem to be much faster than the AX2. In fact, very little have changed with the IPC of AMD's CPU's since the original Opteron back in april 2003.
Two die shrinks, SSE3, DDR2, raised latency for the on chip cache, and dual core for the K8. The K10 is improved but still looks a bit too much like the old K8 in real world tests.

aaa · Post by **aaa** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:01 pm

Pretty sure the Athlon idle number is incorrect.

Phido · Post by **Phido** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:06 pm

Are these 8 series cpu's power reading right?

Quad core @ 2.4ghz at less than 35w PEAK?
Dual core @ 3.16ghz less than 35w peak?

Both with crazy idle, less than half what intel's previous was. And thats at stock settings. Undervolting should net even more improvements.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:49 pm

The heatsink is very small, check it out.

No sign of them here in Sweden, but they're listed here, not in stock though.

sea2stars · Post by **sea2stars** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:18 pm

Wow.. that's easily half of what came with the 6400 sitting on my desk next to me. A beautiful thing.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:21 pm

Phido wrote:Quad core @ 2.4ghz at less than 35w PEAK?

I have no idea where you've got that number from, but Xbitlabs says 90 W for the 3 GHz, 4 core model QX9650.

I'm a bit surprised that Intel doesn't advertise the E8200 as a 45 W CPU, or even lower. It's nothing new with a series of CPU's having the same TDP, but a low TDP is more interesting for the consumers now than ever before.

28 W is just fantastic, I'd really like to see how much it can be undervolted.

dragmor · Post by **dragmor** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:12 pm

Mats wrote:
Phido wrote:Quad core @ 2.4ghz at less than 35w PEAK?
I'm a bit surprised that Intel doesn't advertise the E8200 as a 45 W CPU, or even lower. It's nothing new with a series of CPU's having the same TDP, but a low TDP is more interesting for the consumers now than ever before.

I think Intel is backing off and letting AMD get back on their feet before kicking them in the nuts again.

=assassin= · Post by **=assassin=** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:43 pm

I'm watching these new CPU's closely; I'm tempted to upgrade both to get a power boost, and also because those power consumption figures are amazing - could it even be possible to make it run on a "fanless" stock cooler (to save money)?

andreasl · Post by **andreasl** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:50 am

Yes, this completely changes my plans for a AMD HTPC. But what motherboard to get for these CPUs?

I can't seem to find any m-ATX motherboards with the P35 chipset. There are some with the G35, but none with the newer P35 or X38.

Fenix · Post by **Fenix** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:18 am

andreasl wrote:Yes, this completely changes my plans for a AMD HTPC. But what motherboard to get for these CPUs?

I can't seem to find any m-ATX motherboards with the P35 chipset. There are some with the G35, but none with the newer P35 or X38.

The G35 is more or less a P35 with onboard GPU. I don't where you got the idÃ©a that the P35 is newer? As far as I know the G35 is newer than the P35.

I have an ASUS P5E-VM HDMI, G35 chipset, in a HTPC myself. I'm very pleased with that board and can really recommend it.

andreasl · Post by **andreasl** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:32 am

Fenix wrote: The G35 is more or less a P35 with onboard GPU. I don't where you got the idÃ©a that the P35 is newer? As far as I know the G35 is newer than the P35.

I have an ASUS P5E-VM HDMI, G35 chipset, in a HTPC myself. I'm very pleased with that board and can really recommend it.

Ahh, yes. I had the intel chipset confused. It is annoying that when I finally have a clear understanding of the AMD chipset options, Intel decides to release these cpus...

The ASUS P5E-VM HDMI does indeed look very nice, but perhaps a bit pricey compared to other m-ATX boards.

Das_Saunamies · Post by **Das_Saunamies** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:44 am

I'm saying I'll upgrade the moment this range becomes financially viable. This is just perfect.

MrQuiet · Post by **MrQuiet** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:13 am

The test seems a bit strange to me.

Why use a disappearing 90 nm AMD CPU in January 2008? Windsor-core is at the end of its lifecycle. 65 nm CPU:s have been around for ages.

They claimed activation of Cool'n Quiet 2.0 on an AM2 motherboard. But Cool'n Quiet 2.0 requires an AM2+ chipset (RS7xx) and a K10 based CPU. They pick also a motherboard with a very old chipset (580X was released 2006).

Intels new Core 2 Quad CPU:s are delayed because they are not ready for mass production. Intel updated the errata-list for them several times last month. It has nothing to do with lack of competition. They're cheaper to produce and is released as soon as they are ready.

They claimed: "we measured the current going though the processor voltage regulator circuitry". I doubt that because it requires resoldering of components on the motherboard. Even so, they will miss the fact that in Intels case the power consumption of the built-in memory controller is moved to the North-bridge. For example for Phenom it's 16 or 23 procent of the power used by the CPU.

The soon coming AMD RS780 chipset (65 nm) with a very low power consumption and built-in graphic (support also hybrid-crossfire) and a Phenom 3x, 2x (or why not an AMD64 BE-2xxx; TDP 45W) is very interesting as HTPC. Alternatively an AMD690G-chipset based motherboard with AMD64 CPU; it's very cheap and fast enough as HTPC.

AMD:s K10 has a separate load-control for each core. Core 2 Quad is controled by the hardest stressed half. K10-core draws ~25% of max in idle (1 GHz on 1.1 V). A total saving of separate frequency- and voltage-planes has been approximated to 25% in normal computer use.

The design of the motherboard can also have a noticeable impact on the power consumption even if chipsets are equal; especially in idle state. The most realible way is by measuring the power consumption of an entire platform when only the motherboard and CPU are different.

The coming 45 nm CPU:s from Intel are of course very interesting, but making a comparison like xbitlabs did is "suspicious". If I didn't know better, I would think that they've got paid to mislead consumers. But, lets hope they are just incompetent.

=assassin= · Post by **=assassin=** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:19 am

MrQuiet wrote: Why use a disappearing 90 nm AMD CPU in January 2008? Windsor-core is at the end of its lifecycle. 65 nm CPU:s have been around for ages.

Because it's AMD's fastest processor.... and their review is performance based, rather than just power consumption based.

(edit: second fastest, the 6400+ being the highest).

MrQuiet · Post by **MrQuiet** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:23 am

I'l bye that argument.

Strid · Post by **Strid** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:13 pm

Fenix wrote:
andreasl wrote:Yes, this completely changes my plans for a AMD HTPC. But what motherboard to get for these CPUs?

I can't seem to find any m-ATX motherboards with the P35 chipset. There are some with the G35, but none with the newer P35 or X38.
The G35 is more or less a P35 with onboard GPU. I don't where you got the idÃ©a that the P35 is newer? As far as I know the G35 is newer than the P35.

I have an ASUS P5E-VM HDMI, G35 chipset, in a HTPC myself. I'm very pleased with that board and can really recommend it.

Sorry, not trying to thread-hijack here, but ... I'm looking at a new Motherboard, and been looking at the P35 series, but also at the G35 series, and I wonder about the graphic adapter on the G35. With your motherboard, could you play Counter Strike at a decent frame rater at 1280x1024?
That's the only game I ever play, and only like once every two months or so, and I don't need a power consuming, heater of a graphics card in my PC, really ... so I'm just looking at my options for cool graphics here.

Luminair · Post by **Luminair** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:06 pm

Holy cow that stock heatsink change is incredible. I expected them to continue using the old one. But they chopped the heatsink in half! Now they are saving metal and getting two heatsinks for the price of one!

andreasl · Post by **andreasl** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:29 am

Strid wrote:Sorry, not trying to thread-hijack here, but ... I'm looking at a new Motherboard, and been looking at the P35 series, but also at the G35 series, and I wonder about the graphic adapter on the G35. With your motherboard, could you play Counter Strike at a decent frame rater at 1280x1024?
That's the only game I ever play, and only like once every two months or so, and I don't need a power consuming, heater of a graphics card in my PC, really ... so I'm just looking at my options for cool graphics here.

I'm actually a bit interested in this as well (gaming performance I mean). I hardly game myself (well except maybe an old NES game once in a while), but my girlfriend does play quite a lot of World of Warcraft on her laptop and I think she could get used to playing that on a 40" screen...

EDIT: Clarified a bit

ryboto · Post by **ryboto** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:21 pm

Das_Saunamies wrote:I'm saying I'll upgrade the moment this range becomes financially viable. This is just perfect.

I'm in the same boat. If I had the money for one+intel motherboard, I'd be all over this. Instead, I'll envy those who can afford them.

Ketan · Post by **Ketan** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:34 am

Fenix, would you by any chance have any power draw figures for your HTPC system? Thanks very much.

djkest · Post by **djkest** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:36 am

Strid wrote: Sorry, not trying to thread-hijack here, but ... I'm looking at a new Motherboard, and been looking at the P35 series, but also at the G35 series, and I wonder about the graphic adapter on the G35. With your motherboard, could you play Counter Strike at a decent frame rater at 1280x1024?
That's the only game I ever play, and only like once every two months or so, and I don't need a power consuming, heater of a graphics card in my PC, really ... so I'm just looking at my options for cool graphics here.

You really don't want onboard graphics for any type of gaming, but especially not world of warcraft, and not on a 40" TV. Is it 1080p? If so, you'll want something with quite a bit of horsepower. To the counterstrike guy, if that is the only game you ever want to play, you could get by with an 8600GT. If you want to try other games, though, I'd recommend you go with something else. To the 40" TV guy, I'd recommend the ATI 3850 video card. Onboard just isn't gonna cut it, especially in world of warcraft.

Fenix · Post by **Fenix** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:11 am

Ketan wrote:Fenix, would you by any chance have any power draw figures for your HTPC system? Thanks very much.

I did some measuring when I built it with a very cheap wattage meter so I don't know how accurate it is.

Idle: ~60W
Max: 101W

Since then I have changed HDD to a WD Caviar GP so the numbers should be lower now.

david25 · Post by **david25** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:31 am

Fenix wrote:
Ketan wrote:Fenix, would you by any chance have any power draw figures for your HTPC system? Thanks very much.
I did some measuring when I built it with a very cheap wattage meter so I don't know how accurate it is.

Idle: ~60W
Max: 101W

Since then I have changed HDD to a WD Caviar GP so the numbers should be lower now.

This is very good, my T2600 MOTD system (with 8600gts) also idles at 60w,
again using a cheap meter.

Ketan · Post by **Ketan** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:54 am

Thanks for that Fenix. I'm looking to build a Mythtv backend and combined file server. This box will also run Vista as a virtualised guest on a Linux host so I'm looking for the lowest power, fastest setup possible (!) as the machine will alway be on.

I'm aiming for idle power consumption of less that 40W which I think may be possible with a decent G35 board and an E8200.

meU · Post by **meU** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:03 am

Strid wrote:
Sorry, not trying to thread-hijack here, but ... I'm looking at a new Motherboard, and been looking at the P35 series, but also at the G35 series, and I wonder about the graphic adapter on the G35. With your motherboard, could you play Counter Strike at a decent frame rater at 1280x1024?
That's the only game I ever play, and only like once every two months or so, and I don't need a power consuming, heater of a graphics card in my PC, really ... so I'm just looking at my options for cool graphics here.

Hello there. I got me here a pc with intelG35 chipset. Tried to play CS:S on it, but no go. Framerates around 20 fps with sometimes serious dips.
Playing at res 1680*1050 but lowering details/resolution doesn't help much. Goin after a hd3850 soon

. Rest of setup: windows vista, 1GB ram and I guess a Q9300 or something (not sure, but quadcore @2.3Ghz & 12Mb cache)

Strid · Post by **Strid** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:55 am

Hey, thanks for the heads up! I'll stay away from G35 and get a real videocard. Just to not completely tread-hijack here, I cannot wait myself to get my dirty paws on a E8500. Hopefully, it's gonna up a good quiet and eco-friendly computer for me!

Intel C2 E8200, below 30 W!

Intel C2 E8200, below 30 W!

Re: Intel C2 E8200, below 30 W!