What was concluded was the T series is poor value, just undervolt a regular CPU. But if the T series are from the golden bins, you should do a comparison of max stable undervolt of the T series vs a normal part. Maybe there is a difference in which case the conclusion would need to be changed IMO.
I just don't see that as so. But I would be pleased if someone would correct my logic.
1. The 2100, 2100t and even the 2600K all idle at about the same 4 watts. Even with undervolting it how much better can you do? 10%? 20%? lower. You are already darn close to 0 watts.
2. If you are trying to reduce power consumption at load, can't you do that with Windows power management?
Why all the fancy footwork? Why bother.
The trouble is that determining the max stable undervolt is not trivial and highly time-consuming.
3. In fact why is everyone automatically reaching for a 2100 if a 2400 is available for not much more. Apparently they even downvolt themselves if they get too hot. If you aren't running benchmarks and doing overclocking.... the 2400 isn't going to use much, if any, more power than the 2100T almost all of the time.
...so I did some investigating. It turns out that there's a feature on these chips where if the cpu detects that it's getting to hot, it throttles the speed down until temperatures come back down. I think in my case, I'm probably exceeding the amount of heat the cooler can pull off, and that leads to the processor getting throttled, which means I'm not really running at 4.8GHz. I suspect that a lot of what you hear about in terms of amazing speeds people are seeing overclocking these is probably due to that. The bios will gladly take the new value, but if you load the cpu too much, the speed drops automatically and you are none the wiser.... But what I'm really saying is, have a healthy dose of skepticism about numbers you see.