power consumption: geforce 7050 vs 690G

jojo4u · Post by **jojo4u** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:45 am

The germany website Au-ja.de tested the
Biostar TF7050M2 (Geforce 7050PV)
Biostar TA690G AM2 (690G)
Foxconn MCP61SM2MA (single chip 6100 aka MCP61S)

system:
89W X2 4300+
be quiet! BQT P6 520 Watt
2 GiB RAM
1 SATA 3.5" HDD

results idle/load in W, whole system power, load is Prime 95 + 3DMark 2001
MCP61: 49/117
690G: 49/114
7050: 46/107

Conclusion: Mainboards equipped with the 7050 chipset seem to be more power efficient than 690G ones.

link: http://www.au-ja.de/review-am2mainboardsVII-18.phtml

fresh · Post by **fresh** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:11 am

Glad to see reports about actual power consumption. Whenever buying new equipment I take power consumption as a priority, since I try to keep my sistem as quiet as posible, but finding true measurments of P. C. seems futile, sicne there are only few tested. If I was to buy a new graphic card now, I would choose ati HD2600 xt over 8600gt, since it has 4 watts lower power consumption in idle, though higher in load.

The dream is to actually see true power consumptions on product labels, before you decide to buy them. It's so easy to acomplish, but I doubt I will ever see the day...

It's just like food. If the manufacturers of that segment can inprint whole ingredient substances, than how come one factory cannot measure and imprint how much watts one component actually sucks dry.

loimlo · Post by **loimlo** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:08 am

Interesting. I guess we need more inputs to verify the verdicts. Whether the 7W differences come from PWM efficiency of mainboard or chipset drawing?

GnatGoSplat · Post by **GnatGoSplat** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:09 am

The two Biostar boards appear to have very similar design, almost identical power regulation circuitry.

It does seem like the 7050PV is a bit more efficient. However, the 690G has a very slightly faster IGP (potentially even more so if the rumored BIOS update is true). I wonder how the two chipsets would compare with the IGP disabled and a video card installed?

jojo4u · Post by **jojo4u** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:37 am

Follow up from C't (german printed magazine) issue 18/07.
Xpress 1250: Abit F-I90HD
Geforce 7050+630a: Asrock ALiveNF7G-HDready
690G: MSI K9AG Neo2 Digital
690G: Gigabyte MA69G-S3H
G33: Asus P5K-VM
G33: Intel DG33TL
G965: Foxconn G9657MA-8EKRS2H

power consumption idle/load CPU of whole system
Gigabyte 690G: 53/130 W
Intel G33: 56/99 W
Abit 1250: 57/103 W
Asrock 7050: 60/119 W
Asus G33: 60/100 W
Foxconn G965: 62/112 W
MSI 690G: 72 Vista (CnQ not working) and 59 XP/132 W

C2D E4400 and X2 4800+.

EDIT: corrected Gigabyte G33 -> 690G

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:13 am

jojo4u wrote:Follow up from C't (german printed magazine) issue 18/07.
Xpress 1250: Abit F-I90HD
Geforce 7050+630a: Asrock ALiveNF7G-HDready
690G: MSI K9AG Neo2 Digital
690G: Gigabyte MA69G-S3H
G33: Asus P5K-VM
G33: Intel DG33TL
G965: Foxconn G9657MA-8EKRS2H

power consumption idle/load CPU of whole system
Gigabyte G33: 53/130 W
Intel G33: 56/99 W
Abit 1250: 57/103 W
Asrock 7050: 60/119 W
Asus G33: 60/100 W
Foxconn G965: 62/112 W
MSI 690G: 72 Vista (CnQ not working) and 59 XP/132 W

C2D E4400 and X2 4800+.

That was a rather poor (sad) CPU choice... The E4400 has like, half the power consumption of the X2 4800+

(unless it was the 65nm one but still...)

One clear conclusion though, Intel's G33 consumes less than the G965

"Gigabyte G33: 53/130 W", don't you mean 690G?

loimlo · Post by **loimlo** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:58 am

Out of curiosity, did these results come with CnQ/Speedstep or without it? It's a little higher than my experience.

jojo4u · Post by **jojo4u** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:48 pm

loimlo wrote:Out of curiosity, did these results come with CnQ/Speedstep or without it? It's a little higher than my experience.

It's enabled. They test with 3,5" hdd and a ~400 W ATX PSU. 53 W for a Intel desktop system is quite well!

loimlo · Post by **loimlo** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:11 pm

Some watts hit 60W is a little higher than my results. I guess it had something to do with motherboard PWM.