Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:01 am
Yes, there is. It has been in the works for a long time though ... we have no release date, you'll just have to read it when it comes out.
Discussions about Silent Computing
Also against the slowest Cedar Mills (i.e. ~3.2GHz 65nm Celerons). For most non-gamers the real-world performance difference between a near 3GHz Celeron and a E6300 is most certainly totally negligible, but the quietness and longer lifetime (because of cooler operation) and maybe the lower electricity bill does mater. And the price, of course.flokel wrote:Would be interesting to see Core (2) Duo and AM2 (EE/SFF/65nm) competing against each other.
3 of the 5 Cedar Mill Celerons actually have a higher TDP than the C2D (including the 3.2GHz), so there are no electricity savings. Basically the only reason to get a Celeron D nowadays is price; here in the UK it costs almost 3 times less than the cheapest C2D.the quietness and longer lifetime (because of cooler operation) and maybe the lower electricity bill does mater.
My guess is also that C2D eats considerably less. However I didn't find any concrete tests where you could compare the power consumptions in real-world situations, so I just can't know if how much less. As of the TDP-s, well, there are marketing people there, whose intent is seldom to give you meaningful data.jaganath wrote:3 of the 5 Cedar Mill Celerons actually have a higher TDP than the C2D (including the 3.2GHz)
Well this article compares an E6400 with a P4 631, the E6400 uses less. I realise the P4 has much more L2 cache, but this is just as a comparison. Also later on in the article it says:However I didn't find any concrete tests where you could compare the power consumptions in real-world situations
I don't think the Celeron has this.A new power management method exists in the Core 2 Duo that allows the processor to accurately manage consumption even in load. This is called, Ultra Fine Grained Power Control. It consists of a very precise cutting out of areas that can be placed in sleep. Non solicited units remain in sleep even if the others run at full speed. This often happens, because itÂ´s rare that all processor units are solicited at the same time. This ultra precise management makes it possible for better control of power consumption and thermal dissipation.
So it depends what you will use the CPU to do.However, for the dedicated AMD fans I would like to mention a few facts that may change the attitude to the last chart. The thing is that S&M, just like many other tools creating ultimate processor workloads, use special floating-point operations. And it was fine for CPUs on K8 or NetBurst microarchitecture. However, Core 2 Duo processors do not get loaded to the full extent with these utilities. We had to go through a number of different burn-programs to realize that there are a few old ones that do the job much better than S&M, prime95 and others.
For example, when we resorted to BurnK6 tool that we used to use to heat up AMD K6 processors back in the days, we managed to get much higher power consumption numbers for Core 2 Duo E6300: 55W for the CPU and 229W for the platform. In other words, Intel Core based processors hit the maximum power consumption and heat dissipation in absolutely different type of tasks than their competitors and predecessors.
Yes, that's quite impressive, but it compares the CPU-s under high utilization. For most non-gamer rigs the idle consumption is much more important. And also, idle is where leaking has the most importance.jaganath wrote:Well this article compares an E6400 with a P4 631, the E6400 uses less.
Well it should be obvious that two processors, both with practically the same TDP (which is not made up by the marketing department, like you said, but by the engineering team) the one with Speedstep will use less, because the one without Speedstep will be operating at full voltage all the time, and heat is proportional to the square of the voltage. I don't think leakage will be very different between the two chips, they are made on the same process (65nm).the Celeron doesn't even have basic things like SpeedStep.
Not by the marketing department... my experience regarding hardware specs of other stuff (not on CPU-s TDP-s, as I can't measure that) doesn't support this. The usual method is that if the parameter is something "performance" related then manufacturers do the measurements with some tricks (with the clear intent of deceiving you), or they simply just lie. Respect to the exceptions.jaganath wrote:Well it should be obvious that two processors, both with practically the same TDP (which is not made up by the marketing department, like you said, but by the engineering team)