Is there any CPU/Motherboard combo that can beat ...

rouble · Post by **rouble** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:39 am

this combo ...

MB:
ASUS M2A-VM Socket AM2 AMD 690G Micro ATX AMD Motherboard
(http://www.newegg.com/product/product.a ... 6813131172)

CPU:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ Brisbane 1.9GHz Socket AM2 Processor
(http://www.newegg.com/product/product.a ... 6819103036)

in performance per watt?

tia,
rouble

angelkiller · Post by **angelkiller** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:41 am

Well, since money was not a factor, wouldn't a Core 2 Duo have the best performance per watt? Like the X2 3600, the lower-end C2D's have a TDP of 65W, but are faster than the X2 3600.

But I think for the money, you've picked the best deal. (unless you want a cheaper mobo)

EDIT:
I did some reading, and AMD's successor the the X2 64, is the X2. (Without the 64) and the TDP of these new CPU's is 45W. (But still on the Brisbane core)

Max Slowik · Post by **Max Slowik** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:23 am

Well, not the chipset per se, but I don't like the heatsink placement on the Asus 690 board. Gigabyte and Biostar have better board layouts.

If you like the chipset but want Core 2 performance, aBit makes a 690 for socket 775.

prodeous · Post by **prodeous** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:41 am

Techreport.com had a nice article showing that price/performance the x2 3600 was the clear winner.

Watt wise its hard to say, there aren't that many reviews showing that.

Generally, AMD690 is decently power efficient compared to equivalent intel platform. CPU wise some sites show about the same, others show that Intel during load is better, but idle is bad.

There was a post here on SPCR showing power measurements of the CPU alone. (some German site).

If you undervolt it (which the BE 23xx series are) then the x3600 will be king.

What is your main goal of this system.

frank2003 · Post by **frank2003** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:46 am

Focusing on the processor, if $$ and overclockability is not a factor, these will give you better performance per watt numbers, at least on paper:

- Any 65W ADOxxxxyyBOX part number where xxxx is higher than your 3600,
- Any of the following, if you can find them:
ADD3800CUBOX 3800+ 2000Mhz 35W
ADH2300DDBOX BE-2300 1900Mhz 45W
ADH2350DDBOX BE-2350 2100Mhz 45W

For apples to apples comparison I did not include Intel.

rouble · Post by **rouble** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:23 am

angelkiller wrote:Well, since money was not a factor, wouldn't a Core 2 Duo have the best performance per watt? Like the X2 3600, the lower-end C2D's have a TDP of 65W, but are faster than the X2 3600.

But I think for the money, you've picked the best deal. (unless you want a cheaper mobo)

Is there a cheaper AM2 mobo that is more efficient than the one I picked?

angelkiller wrote: EDIT:
I did some reading, and AMD's successor the the X2 64, is the X2. (Without the 64) and the TDP of these new CPU's is 45W. (But still on the Brisbane core)

Do you have some links on these new CPUs?

rouble · Post by **rouble** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:25 am

prodeous wrote: What is your main goal of this system.

24/7/365 File/Web Server. I also use this box for my experimentations with various linux releases...

Mr Evil · Post by **Mr Evil** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:04 pm

prodeous wrote:Techreport.com had a nice article showing that price/performance the x2 3600 was the clear winner.

Watt wise its hard to say, there aren't that many reviews showing that...

Actually, on page 10 of that TechReport article is a power consumption test. The first graph on that page shows the total energy consumed to complete the test, i.e. the inverse of performance per watt. It shows the Q6600 and QX6800 winning comfortably. It's only one test though; it might be a different story for other types of computation.

smilingcrow · Post by **smilingcrow** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:29 am

If you arenâ€™t tied to the AM2 platform then the best performance per watt should be an Intel S479 system (mobile Core 2 Duo for desktop) in conjunction with a PicoPSU. Undervolt the CPU using RMClock to further reduce the power draw.

jojo4u · Post by **jojo4u** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:58 am

smilingcrow wrote:the best performance per watt should be an Intel S479 system (mobile Core 2 Duo for desktop) in conjunction with a PicoPSU.

Boards with a PEG slot tend to draw a bit more. Smilingcrow, do you still recommend the ABIT iL-90MV?

smilingcrow · Post by **smilingcrow** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:22 am

jojo4u wrote:Boards with a PEG slot tend to draw a bit more. Smilingcrow, do you still recommend the ABIT iL-90MV?

Iâ€™m not sure that I ever recommenced the Abit board in particular although I did test it along with the Asus and Gigabyte S479 boards.

BTW, whatâ€™s a PEG slot?

jojo4u · Post by **jojo4u** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:51 am

smilingcrow wrote: BTW, whatâ€™s a PEG slot?

PCI Express Graphics. The acronym is not too popular, though.

angelkiller · Post by **angelkiller** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:40 pm

rouble wrote:Is there a cheaper AM2 mobo that is more efficient than the one I picked?

Not one that's more efficient. What I was saying was that there are cheaper 690G motherboards out there. But I think the Asus is a good choice. Sorry if that was/is confusing.

rouble wrote:Do you have some links on these new CPUs?

No. I was reading this and found out about it.

Lawrence Lee · Post by **Lawrence Lee** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:19 am

Get a Geforce 7025/7050 board instead. I don't know whether it uses less power or not, but it's less quirky and has better driver support (for example the lastest batches of Catalyst drivers will inexplicably turn the screen black). I'm testing a Biostar TF7025-M2 right now, and it's leaps and bounds better than the Biostar TA690G in every regard except layout.

Early power consumption figures (as measured from the wall):
285Mhz x 4.5 = 1.28Ghz @ 0.850V
Idle: 48W
Orthos: 57W

285Mhz x 7.0 = 2.00Ghz @ 1.025V
Idle: 53W
Orthos: 72W

285Mhz x 9.5 = 2.71Ghz @ 1.275V
Idle: 63W
Orthos: 112W

Test setup: X2 3600+, Freezer, 1GB DDR2-667, 250GB SATA2, 16x DVD-ROM PATA, Allied 320W PSU