Petz: Read and weep: ... "Athlon64 processors 3000+, 3200+ and 3500+ were amazing: they only consume 3.2 Watts in idle mode (running Cool & Quiet). An Athlon64 3500+ never required more than 31 Watts even under full load."
source: www4.tomshardware.com
I found that statement shocking and incredibly profound, if true. I therefore decided to dig up some "cleaner" numbers from a source I trust more than Tom's (I'm not a big fan of the doctor, as in M.D., not Ph.D.).
From techreport's recent Intel 600 series review, in particular the page showing total system (excl. monitor) power consumption:
techreport.com
Under load, the 3500+ system consumes 155W. The best-performing, closest matching Intel system weighs in at 222W (660, 3.6GHz). The 650 (3.4GHz) is 6W less.
That's close to a 70 Watt differential!
At idle, the systems consume virtually the same amount of power.
Intel's 500 series is even more of a power-hog, consuming something like 20W more than an equivalently clocked 600 series.
The comparison above isn't *entirely* fair, though, because the benchmark in question (Cinebench 2003) benefits greatly from HyperThreading. This increases the 660's performance from near-identical to the 3500+ by 20%. In terms of performance/watt (for this particular benchmark), using the 640 (3.4GHz) would be more fair. It consumes 10W less, making the differential more like 60W.
Still a shocking difference, IMHO, and something AMD marketing has completely failed to capitalize on.
-fyo |
