BE-2350/GF7050 vs E4300/G33

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:52 pm

Core 2 Duo E4300 + Intel G33

vs

Athlon X2 BE-2350 + NVIDIA 7050

AMD is cheaper, Intel is faster, but which one would offer a lower power consumption overall? I think AMD but I'm not sure. Would the Intel option have an almost as low power consumption?

I have plenty of data and figures from user feedback from all around the forum (AMD configs) but nothing to compare it at :/ So I'm asking for your opinion.

fresh · Post by **fresh** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:01 pm

They way I see it is that if you have an e4300 M0 revision it consumes less power. However, the motherboards that supports intel procesor consumes more electricity, because of the NB aditional memory controler.

If you want to have low power consumption computer that won't run games or power hungry programs, youn should take cheaper AMD, but for everything else InTel is a better choice.

I have E4500 M0 revision on gigabyte g33m-ds2r, where without a graphic card it consumes around 54w, but after november I'll just buy penryn 45nm core, that will consumes far less anything that amd is capable at the moment. Not to mention the overclocking potential it will offer.

Like I said, the forecomming 45nm cores that will have power edibility reduced is a another good reason why you should go for intel.

quest_for_silence · Post by **quest_for_silence** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:29 am

I mean there should be at least another option: the Intel CPU along with an AMD IGP chipset, aka the "infamous" Abit Fatal1ty (somewhat equivalent to AMD 690G-based AM2 motherboards).

Anyway, about power consumption of current IGP offerings, you could find some (according to me, interesting) thoughts reading the following article at the Tech Report:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/12872

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:27 am

penryn 45nm core, that will consumes far less anything that amd is capable at the moment

I thought TDP was unchanged for Penryn?

quest_for_silence · Post by **quest_for_silence** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:05 am

jaganath wrote:I thought TDP was unchanged for Penryn?

For 45nm Penryn TDP shoud effectively be unchanged, but I mean that actual power consumption should also be slashed down, just as we've already seen with C2D G0 and M0 steppings (Intel has reduced their power consumption at idle by an handful of watts).

Steve Teixera · Post by **Steve Teixera** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 4:03 am

I had to go through the same ...

I bought an Athlon X2 BE-2350 + NVIDIA 7050

because of the 7050 onbard DVI and DualHead vs single analog G33
better under clocking and lower power consumption (i estimated)
linux support (over 690G)

I am now at 42w idle CnQ (with sata 3,5 hd, 5,25 dvd, 4gb RAM, 300w PSU, 120 FAN 5v)

Do you want to use the IGP or ad a PCI-E?

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 4:24 am

quest_for_silence wrote:I mean there should be at least another option: the Intel CPU along with an AMD IGP chipset, aka the "infamous" Abit Fatal1ty (somewhat equivalent to AMD 690G-based AM2 motherboards).

There's a thread here with the results from a review and that board was a bit more power hungry than the other G33 boards.

Steve Teixera wrote:Do you want to use the IGP or ad a PCI-E?

I'll be using a PCI-E graphics card. I'm only chosing between IGP solutions (mATX) because they seem to consume less power than their full ATX equivalents.

Kreed · Post by **Kreed** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:07 pm

I am in the same boat and currently leaning towards an Abit AN-M2HD and AMD BE-2350 combo. The Biostar T-Force MF7050 isn't available in Australia. Like one of the posters above, I am picking an Nvidia based board because it has better Linux support. However, this may change in the near future with AMD releasing their specs.

Unless there are stability or compatibility issues with the Abit board, I am will most likely be getting it.

smilingcrow · Post by **smilingcrow** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:33 am

AMD definitely have the edge at idle power consumption and I estimate it to be roughly 5 â€“ 7W. It can vary a lot depending on which board you get and which stepping C2D you use, so itâ€™s hard to compare across tests. Iâ€™ve yet to see a comprehensive analysis using the lowest power mobos and steppings which would be nice to see. The AM2 Biostar that impresses doesnâ€™t seem to be available in the UK otherwise I would test it against a C2D system.
AMD also has the advantage in that there are more boards with DVI and/or HDMI which is a significant advantage over the Intel boards. Unless you need the extra performance of an over-clocked C2D or are running the system at load continuously where C2D is more efficient Iâ€™d say AMD looks more appealing.

Penryn is significantly more efficient under load but with the G0/M0 65nm chips already showing a reduced idle power draw Iâ€™m not sure if they can lower the bar much at idle. Itâ€™s unlikely that weâ€™ll see low end Penryn derived CPUs for about 6 to 9 months anyway. The first batch due January will be 1333 FSB duos and quads and the low end Penryns with a smaller cache will be at 1066 FSB apparently. This is Intelâ€™s usual approach anyway but weâ€™ll have to wait and see.

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:03 am

I've been looking hard at some reviews and... it seems that the difference (performance wise) between the BE-2350 and E4300 isn't all that great, ~7fps more overall. Not worth the extra â‚¬ IMO (see below):

BE-2350 85 â‚¬ / GF7050 60 â‚¬
E4300 112 â‚¬ / G33 105 â‚¬

I guess I've made my mind!

Thanks all.

smilingcrow · Post by **smilingcrow** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:54 am

rpsgc wrote:I've been looking hard at some reviews and... it seems that the difference (performance wise) between the BE-2350 and E4300 isn't all that great, ~7fps more overall.

At stock speeds the performance difference isnâ€™t an issue, itâ€™s only really relevant if you want to over-clock when C2D has a large advantage and is more power efficient also.

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:55 am

smilingcrow wrote:At stock speeds the performance difference isnâ€™t an issue, itâ€™s only really relevant if you want to over-clock when C2D has a large advantage and is more power efficient also.

I won't overclock. I don't think the picoPSU would cope well with it

smilingcrow · Post by **smilingcrow** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 5:07 am

rpsgc wrote:I won't overclock. I don't think the picoPSU would cope well with it

It depends which Pico you use.
I have a G33/E4400 at 2.7GHz which consumes 97.5W running Prime95â€™s at the heaviest power draw setting. That equates to less than 80W DC so a PicoPSU 120W has a lot of headroom to run that. This is with 2x1GB DDR2-1000, 500GB Samsung SATA, DVD and IGP.

Added. I have an L2 stepping so the M0 will improve on this figure.

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:13 am

smilingcrow wrote:It depends which Pico you use.
I have a G33/E4400 at 2.7GHz which consumes 97.5W running Prime95â€™s at the heaviest power draw setting. That equates to less than 80W DC so a PicoPSU 120W has a lot of headroom to run that. This is with 2x1GB DDR2-1000, 500GB Samsung SATA, DVD and IGP.

Added. I have an L2 stepping so the M0 will improve on this figure.

Like I said...

rpsgc wrote:I'll be using a PCI-E graphics card.

So it really wouldn't be possible (7900GT ~ 49W).

smilingcrow · Post by **smilingcrow** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:36 am

rpsgc wrote:Like I said...
rpsgc wrote:I'll be using a PCI-E graphics card.
So it really wouldn't be possible (7900GT ~ 49W).

Now that youâ€™ve specified a specific PCIe card I can see what you mean.

I forget that the PicoPSU 120W 12V is only rated for a continuous output of 84W on the 12V rail which changes things completely.

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:06 pm

I just noticed I could buy a Antec Phantom 500 for less than the cost of picoPSU + 150W power adapter. That would also mean no customs and no long shipping time... Dunno... it has a fan and it isn't as efficient as the pico

[EDIT] Scratch that! I just found a cheap Fortron Zen. 87 â‚¬ ain't such a bad deal

quest_for_silence · Post by **quest_for_silence** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:44 am

rpsgc wrote:There's a thread here with the results from a review and that board was a bit more power hungry than the other G33 boards.

I' not aware of this thread (even if I'm a bit dubious about how many watts a G33 would spare against the R600/RX1250).

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:57 am

quest_for_silence wrote:I' not aware of this thread (even if I'm a bit dubious about how many watts a G33 would spare against the R600/RX1250).

viewtopic.php?p=364447#364447

quest_for_silence · Post by **quest_for_silence** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:27 am

rpsgc wrote:viewtopic.php?p=364447#364447

Thanks a lot for the above link: very, very interesting, these data.

According to me (but anyway this is a bit OT, sorry) maybe the most interesting thought is that there isn't right now any solution which is definitely better than any other players (I mean, in the quoted C't chart).