SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)
AMD 210.78-4.8%Dec 12 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: dougSF30 who wrote (200176)6/2/2006 6:42:00 PM
From: TimFRead Replies (2) of 275872
 
Actually, Conroe XE @ 2.93 apparently uses less than 80W, 65W has been reported:

Many chips typically use less than there rated capacity. I doubt that you will find many FX-62's using 125 watts.

The test might have used relatively demanding software but probably not the most demanding that could possibly be found. The fact that the chip uses less than TDP while running relatively demanding software isn't really a surprise, and it could be used as an argument for the TDP figure being reasonable, but it isn't an argument that the Conroe XE should be rated lower, and it doesn't' change the fact that AMD's watt rating scheme is designed to be more conservative (giving a higher rating figure) than Intel's. It also doesn't change the fact that Intel's memory controller is likely using an additional 5 or 10 watts that in AMD's case get counted as part of the chip rating (the mem controller is on the chip) but in Intel's case do not.

OTOH I imagine that even if the Conroe XE was rated by the AMD watt rating method and than you added the watts the memory controller uses, it would still likely be below 125 watts. But it would be above 85 watts, quite likely above 100 watts.

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext