It is currently Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:04 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Amazing power characteristics for A64 "Venice"!
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 10:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:12 am
Posts: 206
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Look at this very comprehensive test done by Lost Circuits:

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_venice/

They measure the 2.4GHz "Venice" to 30W power consumption during load (without taking into account motherboard power circuitry efficiency)! That's bloody amazing! The test also shows the 2.4GHz Venice to consume the same amount of power as a 2.2GHz Winchester. In other words, Venice is actually even more efficient than Winchester!

Looking at these tests, one can draw the conclusion that a 2.2GHz Venice core A64 undervolted to about 1.2V probably doesn't output more than approximately 20W. Now, that's just great! :D

Anyway, let's hear your opinions on this!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 10:51 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:41 am
Posts: 477
Location: Nashville, TN
You just missed it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 10:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:13 pm
Posts: 968
Location: Bristol, UK
You were beaten to it - though whether this forum is more appropriate or not, I'm not sure.

Edit: looks like I was too! :O

_________________
It's coming back


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 11:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:12 am
Posts: 206
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Ohh, well, might as well have one in the right forum. :) As a "CPU guy" I would probably have missed that other thread. Well, apparently I did. Duh! :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 3:28 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Posts: 7369
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Hello:

I linked my thread over here -- it is in a better place...

The Venice is looking mighty tempting -- especially if they address some of the memory controller issues.

BTW, I tend to trust Lost Circuits more than I do XBit, FWIW. Since all the CPU's were tested in the same way, then their relative power consumption would seem to be accurate, at least.

_________________
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 3:32 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:41 am
Posts: 477
Location: Nashville, TN
NeilBlanchard wrote:
BTW, I tend to trust Lost Circuits more than I do XBit, FWIW.


Judging from the response your post on this got, you might be the only one who does. They did mention their outdated equipment in the article, though, so I'm not sure why anyone is acting like that's news.

Not that it matters to me. I'm building at the end of the month and it's gonna be a San Diego all the way :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 6:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:57 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Minnesota
Quote:
Windows XP has power savings features built in, similar to the CPU-IDLE and CPU-COOL features known from the Windows 9X environment as part of the ACPI feature set. Cool'N Quiet was disabled in the BIOS to disallow change in core frequency.

I wasn't quite sure what power-saving features of XP they're referring to. Do they mean it's just running at 0% CPU usage? They're claiming the Venice and Winchester are 8-10W on idle, without using Cool & Quiet, so at stock voltage and clock? :|

_________________
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R, Intel C2D E4500, Ultra-120A, 4 x 1GB Corsair XMS DDR2 800 C4, HD501LJ + SP1614N, Samsung DVDRW, XFX 7900GTX 512MB, Corsair 520W, Antec SOLO


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 11:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:54 pm
Posts: 292
well cool'n'quiet consists of powernow transitions to lower multipliers/voltages, whereas typical operating system idle loops consist of issuing the hlt instruction to instruct the cpu that nothing important is happening. cool'n'quiet transitions and hlt instructions do different things, and while both will reduce power consumption by some degree, using both in concert will provide the best power savings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 12:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:00 am
Posts: 806
Location: Germany
lostcircuits wrote:
Windows XP has power savings features built in, similar to the CPU-IDLE and CPU-COOL features known from the Windows 9X environment as part of the ACPI feature set. Cool'N Quiet was disabled in the BIOS to disallow change in core frequency.


A quote from my "software cooling" thread:
jojo4u wrote:
When there is nothing to to, the operating system has the possibility to send three different signals to the CPU:
no operation, HLT, STPGNT.
Windows 9x versions without ACPI installed use "no operation".
Windows 2000 and XP without ACPI installed use HLT.
All Windows' with ACPI installed use ether STPGNT or HLT.
Linux without ACPI kernel support use HLT, with ACPI kernel support they use STPGNT.
There is a Linux-Howto available.

Once the chipset recieves a HLT or STPGNT is disconnects the FSB from the CPU. The CPU now uses a divider (8...512) to clock itself down significantly.

There is no powersaving difference between the HLT and the STPGNT command on an Athlon (XP) platform.
Enabling this feature doesn't bring any performance hit, as xbitlabs.com showed in this arcticle under "Heat Dissipation".


And from my Cool'n'Quiet thread

jojo4u wrote:
The Athlon 64 puts itself to sleep when the HLT/STPGNT instruction is sent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2005 7:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 39
Location: Chicago, IL
I was wondering how well the rev E's will undervolt, underclock. I'm building a video file server that I want to have great transfer speeds (gbit ethernet) but use as little power as I can. This server will be on 24/7, and I'm looking for ways to lower the electric usage. Sounds like the rev E's were made for my server. :D


BTW, the reason for a socket 939, is I also wanted some future expantions if I decide to use it for more than just files. (I can slap a full 4000+ in if I need it)


Also, anyone know if you can shut down a RAID array, then spin it back up? (???) :?: I know, wrong area.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group