Viewing page 4 of 7 pages.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
TEST RESULTS
Power
Before we start, a quick note about our power consumption numbers.
The Core i7 test results were generated with a NesteQ
power supply, to which we no longer have access. We tested the Phenom
II system with an Antec Signature
power supply instead. To make power consumption comparisons more accurate,
we converted our results to what they would've been if the original NesteQ
power supply was used. The efficiency tables generated in our power supply
reviews were used to make the conversion.
|
System Power Consumption (AC)
|
|
CPU
|
QX9650 (3.00GHz)
|
i7 920 (2.66GHz*)
|
X4 940 (3.00GHz)
|
|
Off
|
2W
|
2W
|
3W
|
|
Sleep
|
3W
|
5W
|
3W
|
|
Idle
|
103W
|
102W
|
103W
|
|
VC-1
|
~140W
|
~143W
|
~150W
|
|
CPU Load
(2 cores)
|
159W
|
162W
|
167W
|
|
CPU Load
(4 cores)
|
177W
|
216W
|
207W
|
|
CPU (4 cores) + GPU Load
|
302W
|
341W
|
330W
|
|
CPU loaded with Prime95 for Intel systems and CPUBurn
K7 for the AMD system. GPU loaded with FurMark.
*i7 920 overclocked to 2.80GHz due to Turbo Boost Technology.
|
At first glance it appears Phenom II's power consumption is
very close to that of i7. Both idled at just above 100W. The X4 940 used more
power during video playback and when 2 cores were stressed, but consumed about
10W less when all 4 cores were put on load. Neither "next-gen" system
was as power efficient as the older Intel Core 2 Quad QX9650 though.
Temperature
We initially set up the system with a Xigmatek
HDT-SD964 heatsink equipped with a Nexus 92mm fan. It was very quiet,
but we noticed the heatsink got very warm during load so we swapped it with
the larger ZEROtherm cooler.
During load, it was only slightly warm — a huge improvement. According
to SpeedFan
there was only a 15°C differential in CPU temperature between idle and
full load.
As our X4 940 is not a retail sample, we did not receive a stock
heatsink. We hope the stock unit turns out to be a hefty one. A quality heatsink
with a quiet 92mm doesn't seem quite enough to cool this processor comfortably
by our standards.
Performance
|
Benchmark Results
|
|
Test
|
QX9650
(3.00GHz)
|
i7 920
(2.66GHz*)
|
X4 940
(3.00GHz)
|
|
Result
|
System Power
|
Result
|
System Power
|
Result
|
System Power
|
|
NOD32
|
197s
|
N/A
|
210s
|
N/A
|
206s
|
137W
|
|
WinRAR
|
177s
|
135W
|
153s
|
133W
|
196s
|
140W
|
|
iTunes
|
189s
|
128W
|
209s
|
136W
|
291s
|
147W
|
|
TMPGEnc
|
189s
|
170W
|
177s
|
188W
|
184s
|
190W
|
|
3DMark06
|
14077
|
N/A
|
15187
|
N/A
|
14427
|
N/A
|
|
PCMark05
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
15147
|
N/A
|
|
*i7 920 overclocked to 2.80GHz due to Turbo Boost
Technology.
|
Depending on the benchmark, the X4 940 falls behind the i7 920
in varying degrees. It was slightly faster during our anti-virus scanning
test and slightly slower during video encoding. File archiving was significantly
slower (28%), and audio encoding was well behind the i7 system (39%). However
the i7 920 has Turbo Boost Technology enabled by default, overclocking the
processor slightly to 2.8GHz, so it is a bit closer than it looks. The X4
940 system took longer to complete our test suite, and also used more power,
drawing a few watts more from the wall during each test.
The Intel Core 2 Quad QX9650 system results are included to
give you a sense of how the two platforms compete against a high-end "last-gen"
setup. Neither system produces revolutionary performance. The QX9650 traded
wins with the i7 920 system depending on the test and also did so with more
power efficiency.
Power Efficiency
Timed benchmarks give us an opportunity to analyze power efficiency
while keeping performance in mind. Once a task is completed, the system sits
idle, and in our case, the three test setups idle using approximately the
same amount of power. So how fast the program takes to finish its task and
how much power it draws while doing so ultimately determines power efficiency.
With that in mind we calculated the watt-hours for each benchmark by multipling
the time with the average power consumption during the task.
|
Benchmark Energy Usage
|
|
Test
|
QX9650
(3.00GHz)
|
i7 920
(2.66GHz*)
|
X4 940
(3.00GHz)
|
|
WinRAR
|
6.64 Whr
100%
|
5.65 Whr
-15%
|
8.01 Whr
+21%
|
|
iTunes
|
6.72 Whr
100%
|
7.90 Whr
+17%
|
11.88 Whr
+77%
|
|
TMPGEnc
|
8.93 Whr
100%
|
9.24 Whr
+4%
|
9.73 Whr
+9%
|
|
*i7 920 overclocked to 2.80GHz due to Turbo Boost
Technology.
|
The QX9650 system at stock 3GHz clock speed was
used as the reference point for each benchmark. The energy
consumption of the other systems were scored as needing more
(plus %) or less (minus %) energy compared to that used by the
stock-clock QX9650 system. The lowest energy consumption is in
bold green.
The X4 940 system came very close to the competition but ended
using 9% more watt-hours to complete the TMPGEnc video encoding test. The
WinRAR file archiving test was less efficient — 21% off the mark established
by the QX9650. iTunes audio encoding was dramatically inefficient. It is interesting
to note that the X4 excelled both in terms of performance and power efficiency
with TMPGEnc, the most demanding, threaded application in our test suite.
