Anandtech Power Consumption test - 780G v GF8200 v G35
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 1809
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
- Location: At Home
Anandtech Power Consumption test - 780G v GF8200 v G35
There’s a nice review of power consumption for the 3 chipsets at idle and whilst playing HD video formats at Anandtech.
50W at idle may not initially sound that low but when you consider that GF 8200 system is idling 25W lower than the G35 system it looks stunning. I’ve managed 50W at idle with a good spec G35 system which suggests the GF 8200 would achieve very low idle power figures with a PicoPSU.
50W at idle may not initially sound that low but when you consider that GF 8200 system is idling 25W lower than the G35 system it looks stunning. I’ve managed 50W at idle with a good spec G35 system which suggests the GF 8200 would achieve very low idle power figures with a PicoPSU.
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 1809
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
- Location: At Home
According to the SPCR review you are wrong; it’s showing idle as low as 49W without BIOS under-volting which is very good for a G35 board.yuu wrote:We'll see g45 65nm performance soon. p35 is 90nm chipset, it's not to be compared with 8200, even more with asus board, these are 20+ W hotter lately, or i'm wrong.
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 1809
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
- Location: At Home
The Intel platform really needs a low power chipset that supports HybridPower otherwise it’ll be at a distinct disadvantage at idle versus AM2+.ntavlas wrote:I would like to see how the intel version of the 8200 compares when it comes out. I would imagine it would need a little more power since than it`s amd counterpart due to the separate memory controller.
Have Nvidia released drivers for HybridPower support yet? Hardly any cards support it currently, not even the 9600 GT, but I suppose their next range will.
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:51 am
- Location: Ontario, Canada
This looks good for the 8200 vs. 780G, but it's not quite as apples-to-apples as I'd like: one board is biostar, one gigabyte; one atx, one matx; different audio, but same LAN chips; different numbers of usb headers apparently. Wish I knew how much difference that could make. 7-10W seems like a lot though.
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 1809
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
- Location: At Home
Would you please give a link to data backing up your analysis for people that haven’t seen this comparison.PASware wrote:Why did Anandtech used the Gigabyte 780G motherboard? Gigabyte motherboards aren't so power efficiënt like Asrock and Biostar. If Anandtech used the Asrock 780G then the powerconsumption would have been lower then the 8200.
Anandtech weren’t trying to compare every board on the market just giving a quick snapshot of the GF8200.
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 1809
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
- Location: At Home
I emailed the author about the G35 power data as it seemed disproportionately high and was skewing the results; he didn’t reply but the G35/E2200 at idle data has now been reduced from 84 to 74W. Below is an extract from my email outlining why I thought the G35 data seemed wrong:
“There does seem to me to be a glaring anomaly in the power data for the G35 which doesn’t match data recorded by SPCR, myself and a previous review by yourself.
SPCR were measuring 56W for the Asus P5E-VM HDMI at idle albeit it with a lower spec setup:
I have measured 53W at idle for a Gigabyte GA-G33M-S2H with an E2140 (M0), 2GB (2x1) DDR2-800, Samsung 500GB SATA, Samsung SATA DVD+-RW.
This is the older G33 chipset but I can’t see that the G35 at idle is going to consume much more power than the G33 and SPCR seem to confirm that.
In a previous article of yours you looked at the same Asus G35 & Gigabyte 780G boards but compared them against an Asus GF8200 board and made the following comment:
“As far as power consumption goes during H.264 playback, the AMD platform averaged 106W, NVIDIA platform at 102W, and the Intel platform averaged 104W - too close to really declare a true winner.â€
“There does seem to me to be a glaring anomaly in the power data for the G35 which doesn’t match data recorded by SPCR, myself and a previous review by yourself.
SPCR were measuring 56W for the Asus P5E-VM HDMI at idle albeit it with a lower spec setup:
I have measured 53W at idle for a Gigabyte GA-G33M-S2H with an E2140 (M0), 2GB (2x1) DDR2-800, Samsung 500GB SATA, Samsung SATA DVD+-RW.
This is the older G33 chipset but I can’t see that the G35 at idle is going to consume much more power than the G33 and SPCR seem to confirm that.
In a previous article of yours you looked at the same Asus G35 & Gigabyte 780G boards but compared them against an Asus GF8200 board and made the following comment:
“As far as power consumption goes during H.264 playback, the AMD platform averaged 106W, NVIDIA platform at 102W, and the Intel platform averaged 104W - too close to really declare a true winner.â€
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 1809
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
- Location: At Home
I agree. I wonder if the inclusion of two HD optical drives pushed the power draw up a lot?oberbimbo wrote:These idle values seem ridiculous.
I have a Asus M3M78-EMH (GF8200) with a BE-2400, 1GB Kingston, Etasis EFN-300 and a 500GB Samsung SATA disk. The system idles at about 35W. And the EFN300 is a rather old design.
4 sticks of RAM with the voltage bumped also adds a bit but it still seems very high.
The power supply is not quite so efficient by today's standards but it's in no way a dog.
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 1809
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
- Location: At Home
I was referring to the two optical drives that were installed that support Blu-ray burning and HD-DVD reading. The lasers are supposed to be fairly high power but at idle I imagine they should be okay. Just a thought.oberbimbo wrote:I forgot to say, I also have a Benq DVD Writer in there. So that can't be it.
Maybe I'm reading the graph out of context, the caption says:yuu wrote:http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1400/ ... index.html
how did they do that, looks horrific
Power Usage - Watts
(Higher is Better)
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 1809
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
- Location: At Home
The site might be called tweaktown for a reason; they’re all tweaked out of theirs heads judging by that review.yuu wrote:http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1400/ ... index.html
how did they do that, looks horrific
“The other thing to remember is that our test system is bare minimum – only a 7,200RPM SATA-II single hard drive is used without CD-ROM or many cooling fans.â€
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 1809
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
- Location: At Home