Good power comparison for new P4 600 CPU's + AMD's

TomMM · Post by **TomMM** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:37 am

From AnandTech
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... i=2353&p=4

From the Tech Report
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q ... ex.x?pg=16

These reports don't change my opinion that the AMD64 socket 939 cpu's are currently the best cpu's for desktop systems.

Some conclusions from the articles:

The new 600 series cpu's are a fair bit better than the old 500's, but still draw a lot more power than the AMD64's.
For AMD64's, the 90nm (ie. socket 939) chips are a fair bit better than the equivelent socket 754 ones.
The Pentium M cpu's are the best for heat/power (but are also quite a bit more expensive than the others).

sngoda · Post by **sngoda** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:06 pm

xbitlabs has posted actual power consumption of the new P4 6xx CPUS (instead of total system power draw). From previous articles, they have also measured power consumption of the Athlon 64 processors (both the newer Winchester core as well as the older NewCastle core).

Their conclusions are the same: while the P4 6xx processors are better than previous P4s, the Athlon 64 CPUs still consume a lot less power.

bsoft · Post by **bsoft** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:19 am

At idle:

P4 6xx 3.6GHz: 35.6W
P4 5xx 3.8Ghz: 42.3W

A64 90nm 2.4GHz: 13.7W

Under load:

P4 6xx 3.6GHz: 140.7W
P4 5xx 3.8Ghz: 156.6W

A64 90nm 2.4GHz: 50.8W

Conclusion

Compared to the P4 6xx series at 3.6GHz, the Athlon 64 4000+ (Winchester 90nm) consumes 21.9W less at idle and 98.4W less under load.

For a system on 24/7 at idle, using an A64 processor saves $15.34 per year in energy costs, assuming $.08 per KWh. The actual value may be greater if AMD's Cool n' Quiet technology is used.

For a system on 24/7 at load (e.g. Folding@Home), using an A64 processor saves $68.96 per year in energy costs, assuming $.08 per KWh.

scotty6435 · Post by **scotty6435** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:12 pm

Looks like winchesters are the new SPCR user's friend then.... oh, wait. It already is

Bitter Jitter · Post by **Bitter Jitter** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:10 pm

The thing that confuses me, why is the P4EE 3.73 idleing at nearly twice that of the other pentium 4's?
At load it uses THREE times more power than an Athlon 64 90nm @ 2.4Ghz!

Tibors · Post by **Tibors** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:18 pm

Don't just look at the pictures, read the text too

techreport wrote:Either way, though, the 600-series and 500J-series CPUs both consume quite a bit less power at idle than the Prescott chips that don't support C1E or SpeedStep, like the P4 560 or the new Extreme Edition 3.73GHz.

Bitter Jitter · Post by **Bitter Jitter** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:40 pm

Sorry i was referring to xbitlabs tests not Techreport.

Load Pentium 3.73Ghz EE = 155w
Load Athlon 64 2.4Ghz 90nm = 56w

Idle test
Xbitlabs
Idle (Just CPU)
Pentium 3.73 GHz EE = 75.3w
Pentium 560 3.6 Ghz = 42.2w
Difference = 33.1w

Anandtech
Idle (Whole system)
Pentium 3.73 GHz EE = 146w
Pentium 560 3.6 Ghz = 124w
Difference = 22w

Techreport
Idle (Whole system)
Pentium 3.73 GHz EE = 161w
Pentium 560 3.6 Ghz = 159w
Difference = 2w