As fine a piece of work as I've seen in 45 years in computers.
Very kind words, thank you.
While I appreciate the article. I can't help but wonder at some of the CPU choices. It seems like a lot of them were not the best representatives of their kind.
You must think we have big $$$ to spend on gear. Processors cost $, our finances are limited, and we take what we can get from whoever is willing to give/lend us the gear. The CPUs are a sampling of commonly used models. They were deliberately NOT
chosen for min power, but for reasonably wide availability for average buyers.
Was your Sempron a D0 chip?
rev DH8-E6 Venice. Re- your Sempron, I quote from the article:
The power consumption characteristics of processors varies from sample to sample within the same model and stepping. It can vary as much as >10%, according to some sources, although it is probably considerably less than that on average. It is exactly the same variance that makes some individual processor samples easily overclocked (or undervolted) and others not overclockable at all. We have a mix of samples, mostly provided directly by Intel and AMD, mostly only one sample of each model. Our results are probably more or less repeatable but it would be a surprise if anyone obtained identical results with a similar collection of samples. Our results are good general indicators, but please don't assume that because our sample managed to run stable at 1.15V on our particular motherboard that all samples of the same CPU model can do the same. Also, don't base your buying decision between two closely ranked processors on the basis of any single result we report. Price, suitability, availability, peripherals, ease of implementation — these are all important buying considerations.
Pentium 4 630??? Why not the 65nm Pentium 4 631?
Have you tried to buy one? Intel did not have a sample for me & it was not possible to find one in Vancouver in time for the testing. AFAIK it does not have wide distribution at this time.
Core Duo T2600??? Why not the L2400?
Have you tried to buy one? See first comment above
Also it would have been nice if both the S754 and S939 motherboards at least used the same chipset.
Nice doesn't mean it's doable.
The power efficiency diferences between the different integrated chipsets would also be nice to know, but this review could have at least shown the difference single and dual channel DDR make using the same chipset.
That's fodder for another article altogether, and this article was massive enough to complete. Besides, there are too many other factors (components on the boards) to isolate just the chipset alone. VRM efficiency & chipset both affect power readings, for example, as would different audio, graphics, LAN & other chips. This task would require test plaform choices of a different nature.
Looking at the Sempron results seem to show that most of the Turion's advantage over the Athlon 64's is its platform, not the CPU iteself.
Wrong interpretation, imo.
Also was no attempt made to undervolt the processors at the lowest state? It seems like the low state voltages of the A64's were way too high--seeing as my Sempron 2500+ can operate at 1.4GHz @ 0.88V. An E6 A64 should be able to go down to at least 0.85V @ 1.0GHz, if not lower.
Didn't you read the article? Each CPU was carefully undervolted to instability, then raised back up. Your experience differs from ours, but that's hardly proof of anything.
Finally, QuietOC, your comments suggest that you fail to appreciate the natural and unavoidable variances of computer/electronic gear (samples of the same model from the same batch are far from identical!!), the way different combinations of specific samples interact, and the difficulties involved in assembling so much gear altogether at the same time. If we'd detailed every product quirk. combination trouble and testing hurdle we went through to complete the article, it would be three times longer.