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 256.12+0.5%Oct 31 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: wbmw who wrote (243226)11/3/2007 11:45:49 AM
From: economaniackRead Replies (2) of 275872
 
wbmw re "By the way, the part about power provides answers to the previous debate, which was about Intel and AMD idle power. As it turns out, Intel has equal to lower idle power compared to AMD in mobile, along with much lower power under load."

No, it doesn't mean that at all. Comparing two quite different configurations, Anand concluded that the Intel is much more efficient under load but the two systems are comparable in power consumption at idle.

My claim was that AMD had intentionally tuned their process to trade off improved idle efficiency at the cost of full load performance, and this confirms that this system shows that relative to the Intel system.

No conclusions at all are possible about the idle power consumption of AMD's processor in this comparison - and the authors specifically say as much. The idle power draw of the processors is quite small relative to the system. The AMD box has an nVidia chipset and gaming oriented graphics, while the Intel box has a highly tuned (for efficiency) Intel platform.

So this is just a really terrible choice of review for evaluating my claim that AMD tuned for low load efficiency. Your choice, by the way. And even so it makes my point,

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