Viewing page 4 of 5 pages. Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
On light load, the FX-8350's power draw was essentially the same as its predecessor. On heavy load, the higher base clock speed resulted in a noticeable increase. When stressed, it eclipsed even the Sandy Bridge Extreme i7-3960X equipped with quad channel memory.
For users with balanced workloads, we've determined what we call the "average power consumption" which assumes the system is used half the time for light load activities (an average of idle and H.264 playback) and the remaining half for heavy load (an average of the power consumption used running our five benchmarks). We believe this is a very common usage pattern for an average PC they are often left on for long periods of time, doing little to no work.
In this scenario, the difference between the FX-8150 and FX-8350 is marginal with both chips flirting with the 100W mark.
For users with heavy workloads, the total power consumed while running our benchmark suite is of pertinent interest. The total power takes into account the energy efficiency of each CPU while running our benchmark tests as well as how quickly they complete each task. This simulates the power draw of a machine that is purely for doing work and shuts down when its job is finished.
As the FX-8350's uses a similar amount of power as the FX-8150 but touts stronger performance, it held a power advantage of 4.2 Watt-hours. It's a significant amount, at least compared to AMD's previous offerings. As usual, Intel's lineup was still well ahead.
|Help support this site, buy from one of our affiliate retailers!|