SPCR

Well, at least it's some useful info.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2 ... m3-cpus/12

Somebody posted on NewEgg their triple core 710 uses 10 watts more at idle and 4-5 watts under load than a 4850e, a "35 watt" dual core. Question then is how well does it run SMP?

Here's another power consumption page, worth a compare/contrast.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... html#sect0

These numbers have higher idle consumption, of course it will vary with configuration.

What I would like is some consumption numbers with overclocking, where the power usage rises dramatically.

I'll see if I can chart these issues, but from what I have seen so far the I7 920 is probably the leader, if one can afford the startup costs and the lack of PCI-E slots.

Added - Here's Sharky's numbers:
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/c ... 801711__11

Consumption is on par with an Intel E8500, but how does performance compare? Here Xbit compares the E8600 to quads:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... html#sect0

With Intel 45nm's you don't see a huge increase under load. Nice.

Here's a large list of CPUs, including i7's.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/898/13/

To bad equivalent 65nm processors weren't included to show off the power reduction through 45nm technology.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?optio ... mitstart=5

Phenom IIs still use too much power.

The 4850e is a miser but it can't do much work, so PPW it's not so great either. It could be useful for a quad video board where it's only reason to be there is to keep the video cards folding, but at idle all the processors are fairly low consumption.

I still don't want to rid of a ht 3.4 prescott. This extra core stuff, less mhz, claims of smaller micron (even the prescott ht has 45nm switches mixed in)...the i7 has less l2 cache....there is some evil kind of marketing demand at a dead end with this stuff. why show up as 8 cpus for hyperthreading? that is still an indication of incorrect. I am not pessimist. I have gone for broke on machines over the years to watch them fail like an athlon. I have stopped like the truth of computer engineering at a grounded pata ata100 and a prescott.

Someone fill me in on something I do not know?

My first PC was an all out investment, state of the art in its day, as you stated a total waste of money. Since then I have found myself going for maximum product for the money, which is often 2nd tier.

That said I think hyperthreading is legitimate but overrated. Its worth 5% tops in a highly multitasking environment, but worthless in anything less. This puts the Q8xx processors on a better position price-wise, and running them at a 400Hz FSB reduces the latency of the cache.

Smaller tech like 45nm would be a superior efficiency gain if all else remaind the same, but it doesn't. The P945 chipset is higher tech than the P965, but it does more and has more transistors, so you actually get both, more work and a smaller power consumption drop. The cpus also follow that trend. If you measure PPW the newer stuff is much better, especially compared to 90nm tech.

aristide1 wrote:My first PC was an all out investment, state of the art in its day, as you stated a total waste of money. Since then I have found myself going for maximum product for the money, which is often 2nd tier.

Amen. I won't do that again, especially since my wife will never let me forget that I went way over budget with my first self-built PC.