Viewing page 4 of 6 pages.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
TEST RESULTS
Both our Intel and AMD systems consist of a moderately priced motherboard with
DDR3 memory support, 2x2GB of DDR3 memory in dual channel set to the 1333 MHz
with timings of 9-9-9-24. A GeForce 9400GT graphics card, WD VelociRaptor and
OEM 400W 80 Plus Seasonic power supply round out the test configuration.
|
Test Results: General System Power Consumption
|
|
Test State
|
X4 955 BE
|
QX9650
|
Q9550
|
Q9550S
|
|
Idle
|
73W
|
68W
|
64W
|
62W
|
|
VC-1
Playback
|
99W
|
86W
|
75W
|
73W
|
|
CPU Load
(2 cores)
|
157W
|
122W
|
120W
|
105W
|
|
CPU Load
(4 cores)
|
201W
|
142W
|
140W
|
125W
|
The Q9550S used slightly less power than the Q9550 during general power
consumption testing. System power was 2W less when idle and during VC-1 video
playback. Placing a load on the CPU increased its lead by 15W. It is undoubtedly
more energy efficient, but the difference is hardly what one would expect considering
the 65W rating. Our Core 2 Extreme QX9650 used only slightly more power than
the Q9550, which suggests its 130W TDP is quite conservative.
|
Benchmark Comparison
|
|
Test
|
X4 955 BE
|
QX9650
|
Q9550
|
Q9550S
|
|
NOD32
|
2:27
|
2:23
|
2:31
|
2:31
|
|
WinRAR
|
3:05
|
2:51
|
2:59
|
2:57
|
|
iTunes
|
4:34
|
3:20
|
3:33
|
3:33
|
|
TMPGEnc
|
2:52
|
3:07
|
3:14
|
3:15
|
|
PCMark2005
|
9004
|
9061
|
8760
|
8766
|
As expected, the Q9550 and Q9550S performed almost identically in our
benchmarks, with the subtle differences well within margins of error. Both chips
are only slightly behind AMD's fastest, the Phenom
II X4 955 Black Edition.
|
Average Benchmark Power Consumption
|
|
Test
|
X4 955 BE
|
QX9650
|
Q9550
|
Q9550S
|
|
NOD32
|
128W
|
88W
|
84W
|
78W
|
|
WinRAR
|
128W
|
98W
|
96W
|
87W
|
|
iTunes
|
137W
|
92W
|
89W
|
81W
|
|
TMPGEnc
|
167W
|
118W
|
113W
|
102W
|
|
Est. Total Benchmark Power Consumption (Watt-hours)
|
|
NOD32
|
5.23
|
3.50
|
3.52
|
3.27
|
|
WinRAR
|
6.58
|
4.66
|
4.77
|
4.28
|
|
iTunes
|
10.43
|
5.11
|
5.27
|
4.79
|
|
TMPGEnc
|
7.98
|
6.13
|
6.09
|
5.53
|
The Q9550S also used less power during the time it took to run each
timed benchmark, between 6W and 11W less depending on the test. The total difference
for all the benchmarks combined was 9%. If we operated the Q9550 system continuously
for a year running just TMPGEnc, it would draw 78.84 kWh more than the same
system with a Q9550S. According to the EIA
the average cost of electricity in the United States in March of 2009 was 11.38
cents per kilowatt-hour. Average savings for one year: $8.97. Average time to
recoup a $115 price difference: 12.8 years.
| Help support this site, buy the Intel Core 2 Q9550 Quad Core Processor from one of our affiliate retailers! |
|
