Comprehensive new CPU wattage tests at Toms.....

[Herb W.]

Today Tomshardware put up an impressive set of tables showing empirical measurements of power consumption at both idle and full load for a wide range of current Intel and AMD processors:
Tom's tests
The results are pretty discouraging for the new Prescotts - their wattages at rest aren't bad, thanks to the new power-throttling-at-idle technology that has been added to the E0 stepping of the chips, but the full load ratings are scary - 104.5 watts for the 3.8G 570.

For the noise purist willing to sacrifice some CPU speed there is some great news: the performance of the new 90 nanometer process AMD Winchester 64's is incredible - only about 30 watts consumed at load for the 3500+, and a stunning 3 watts at idle! And even the gamer gets a break with AMD, as the top of the line FX55 burns a relatively modest 76 watts at load (besting even significantly slower Intel Prescotts and the older, slower Athlon Barton processors). Intel could lose market share if buyers become aware of the racket standard coolers produce trying to cool those Prescotts at load....

[Jojo540]

Your link gives an error 404 page

[Herb W.]

Sorry - link fixed!

[sthayashi]

This page was the part of the subject of discussion here. The Winchester A64s looked very promising. A little too promising on Tom's, IMHO, but still promising nonetheless.

[Herb W.]

Yup, my information was wrong, I thought Tom's had put these tables up today but they are a week old. Had I known that I would have done a search of the forum before writing, found that thread you mention and saved myself the time....

[aidanjm2004]

For the noise purist willing to sacrifice some CPU speed there is some great news: the performance of the new 90 nanometer process AMD Winchester 64's is incredible - only about 30 watts consumed at load for the 3500+, and a stunning 3 watts at idle!

Yes, those Winchester results are very heartening.

But why do you say, "willing to sacrifice performance"? I thought the 64-bit amds were more than competetive with intel's current p4s..?

[DanceMan]

But why do you say, "willing to sacrifice performance"? I thought the 64-bit amds were more than competetive with intel's current p4s..?

`They're completely competitive in everything but heat and MHz. By MHZ I mean the number only. Both the A64 and the Intel P-M's are competitive at lower MHz.

[mathias]

Yes, those Winchester results are very heartening.

But why do you say, "willing to sacrifice performance"? I thought the 64-bit amds were more than competetive with intel's current p4s..?

I think they mean willing to sacrafice performance by not getting a top of the line CPU. Braindead MHz junkies.