C430 vs E1400 vs E5200 - power consumption?

All about them.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Post Reply
tehcrazybob
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:56 pm
Location: Council Bluffs, Iowa
Contact:

C430 vs E1400 vs E5200 - power consumption?

Post by tehcrazybob » Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:11 pm

I'm looking at getting a Shuttle KPC (now that they've bundled it with their custom heatpipe cooler) for a fileserver. As such, I need a dirt-cheap processor with the lowest power requirements possible. I've narrowed it down to three processors, but I've been unable to find any power consumption figures for comparison. The three choices are:

Celeron 430 Conroe-L; 1.8 GHz and 35w TDP
Celeron E1400; 2 GHz and 65w TDP
Pentium E5200; 2.5 GHz and 65w TDP

If you look at these, you can see that the TDP numbers are, to be polite, a load of crap. The E1400 is rated at the same TDP as chips with nearly double the clock speed and eight times as much cache, so that rating is obviously false, and the Celeron 430 is just the single-core version of the same thing, so its TDP is also unrealistic. Then there's the E5200, and while it's got more cache and a higher clock speed, it's also a 45nm chip, while the others are older 65nm models.

I'm sure the 430 is the most efficient chip in the list, but what about the other two? Is the newer process used in the E5200 enough to make up for its extra performance? If anyone can give me some concrete numbers, I'd really appreciate it.

I could just take the easy way out and get the 430, but if there's not much power penalty, I wouldn't mind having that extra core for expandability.

Trav1s
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:33 pm
Location: CR, IA

Post by Trav1s » Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:50 pm

I have a 430 and an e2200. At idle, the e2200 with speed stepping appears to use less than the 430 (sorry I don't have numbers). I would go with the 5200 for $70 at www.newegg.com and go with an underclock which would give you a faster 45nm processor.


If you are interested in a 430 this would give me an excuse to upgrade to the e5200 and sell you the old one for $25 to your door. I still have the original box and paperwork. :wink:

maf718
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:25 am
Location: England

Post by maf718 » Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:32 am

Yeah I'd go dual core too, the power savings of EIST at idle would I think make up for the consuption by the extra core. As you say it'd be nice to have the extra core, and to be honest most of the system power consumption at idle/low load will be from the chipset rather than the processor itself.

As for which to choose between the E5200 and E1400, I don't think there will be much between them in terms of power consumption, especially at idle. This article at Xbit compares the power consumption of the E5200 and the E2220 which should give you some idea. This other comparison includes the E2200 and the E1200 but uses a different mobo so is not directly comparable.

Trav1s
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:33 pm
Location: CR, IA

Post by Trav1s » Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:06 am

With what those articles show, the e5200 looks to be a great balance of performance and price. (must resist the temptation to order one to replace the 430...)

QuietOC
Posts: 1407
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:08 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: C430 vs E1400 vs E5200 - power consumption?

Post by QuietOC » Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:25 am

tehcrazybob wrote:I'm sure the 430 is the most efficient chip in the list, but what about the other two? Is the newer process used in the E5200 enough to make up for its extra performance? If anyone can give me some concrete numbers, I'd really appreciate it.

I could just take the easy way out and get the 430, but if there's not much power penalty, I wouldn't mind having that extra core for expandability.
The 430 is the least efficient chip from a performanc/power basis. Yes, the TDPs are meaningless as a comparison. The E5200 is more like a 25W TDP chip. All these chips have to run on some power inefficient chipset.

The E5200 is a decent deal. It was as cheap as $53 a few months ago. I just ordered another one with a Gigabyte GA-G31M-ES2L as a combo. I am more looking at overclocking it to 4GHz though. My last one topped out around 3.8GHz, but the chips are probably getting better.

I really can't recommend any LGA775 motherboard. This Gigabyte definitely has issues, but at least it is fairly cheap. If you want ultimate low power cheapness go for one of the 2 phase VRM Foxconn G31 motherboards: the Foxconn G31MV-K or the TuL TG31-M2.

smilingcrow
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1809
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
Location: At Home

Post by smilingcrow » Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:17 am

I've just put together a desktop with an E8400 (E0) on a Gigabyte EP45-UD3LR and am suprised by how low the power consumption is at stock settings. I'm getting 49.5W at idle which is good for an Intel system with a discrete VGA card. Specs:

Gigabyte EP45-UD3LR
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 (E0) 3GHz
4GB (2x2) OCZ DDR2-800
Hitachi 7K1000.B 1TB
MSI Radeon HD 2350 64MB
Seasonic S12 II 500W
2x 120mm fans; 340 & 550 rpm
1x 80mm fan; 600 rpm

According to CPU-Z it idles at 0.864V which may be due to the board supporting the latest VRM and the BIOS gives the option for C4/C4E. I haven't played around with under-volting or DES yet so it may go lower.

There's an article at Tomshardware which shows an E7200/G45 combo consuming 36W at idle which was a big suprise for an Intel rig. The 220W 80plus power supply distorts the figure as that is a very atypical power supply but the Intel system did well against the AMD system at idle which is rare. I imagine that with a different board/chipset that the AMD system might well have done better again but it's good to see Intel are in the game at last.

Image

The Gigabyte board supports fan speed change using voltage control of 3 pin fans which is a feature that I thought they'd dropped ages ago.
Sorry to jump the thread.

tehcrazybob
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:56 pm
Location: Council Bluffs, Iowa
Contact:

Post by tehcrazybob » Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:01 am

Thanks for all the replies! Looking at those XBit articles, the E5200 seems like the way to go for sure.

My motherboard choice is already done; as I said originally, this is in the case of buying a Shuttle system. Normally if I were looking for low-power parts, I'd start with AMD, but I really like the Shuttle system. I have to decide if I like it enough to accept a proprietary motherboard, though.

Trav1s
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:33 pm
Location: CR, IA

Post by Trav1s » Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:11 am

Are you talking the KPC k45? If so I have two of them without the Ice. Nice little machines for what we do.

The one at home happens to be a Hackintosh...
Image

Inglix
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 6:04 am

Post by Inglix » Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:21 pm

I posted the following testing with a
Supermicro C2SBA+II on the unRAID forums.

'Idle load power consumption testing in Windows on a 20gb 2.5" sata hd. Seasonic S12 430w (not 80+), 1x 1gb 800 dimm, no fans, gig-e connected, and a usb keyboard + mouse.

Celeron 440 2.0ghz, 1MB L2, 800 FSB, 65nm Conroe.
1.10 VID @ min 6x multi (1.2ghz). 1.2625 VID @ max 10 (2.0ghz).
38w idle
58w prime95 load

e5200 2.5ghz, 2MB L2, 800mhz FSB, 45nm Wolfdale.
1.15 VID @ min 6x multi (1.2ghz). 1.25 VID @ max 12.5 (2.5ghz). Poor idle vid sample.
36w idle with one core disabled in bios
50w prime95 load with one core disabled in bios
36w idle with both cores enabled
64w prime95 load with both cores enabled

e7300* 2.66ghz, 3MB L2, 1066 FSB, 45nm Wolfdale.
1.10 VID @ min 6x multi (1.6ghz). 1.25 VID @ max 10 (2.66ghz).
36w idle with both cores enabled
69w prime95 load with both cores enabled
*The older bios is running my e7400 with the e7300 10x max multiplier.

e6300 1.86ghz, 2MB L2, 1066 FSB, 65nm Conroe.
1.15 VID @ min 6x multi (1.6ghz). 1.325 VID @ max 7 (1.86ghz).
49w idle
80w prime95 load"

On another board (DQ45EK) my e8400 c0 idled 1w higher than the e5200.

speedboxx
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:13 am
Location: Canada

Post by speedboxx » Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:19 am

Bumping an old thread, but I was just wondering what you guys think would be the lowest power consumption Intel 775 board.

I currently run a WHS using a Celeron 430 + Foxconn G31MV-K + 640GB WD Blue + 1TB WD Green and I idle at about 45W, load 60W. Im thinking of moving this motherboard to another system so I was curious as to what you guys think would be a low power board to replace the Foxconn. I was hoping to stick with a G31 chipset based board since I wont have to reinstall WHS, but other chipsets will be considered if the power savings are worth it.

Does anyone know anything about Gigabyte's Dynamic Energy Saver feature they have on their boards? I was interested in the GA-EG31M-S2 (with DES), and Im wondering if the power savings will be noticeable compared to my current G31MV-K. I dont even know if DES is compatible with WHS. The Foxconn board doesnt have much undervolt/underclock options, so that is also something to consider for power savings.

Or perhaps a G41 based board would yield lower power due to the smaller nm chip?

JamieG
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by JamieG » Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:11 pm

I'm running a Gigabyte G31M-ES2L mobo for my general use PC. With an SSD and an E5200 at 2Ghz/1.0V, it idles at around 35W and load is about 50W. YMMV however.
My PCs:
Main PC (E5200, G31, Lian Li Q07) | Gaming PC (E6850, X38, 5870 Vapor-X, P182) | HTPC (4850e, 780G, 3450, NSK2480B)

Trav1s
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:33 pm
Location: CR, IA

Post by Trav1s » Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:44 pm

I would guess the 430 is the resource hog of the entire set-up. I think an upgrade to a e3200 might be just the ticket. Built two systems (one for church secretary and one for local non-profit museum) with the e3200 and GIGABYTE GA-G31M-ES2L mobo and I am quite impressed with the performance for the money. Both running 2 gigs of ddr2-667. One with W7 and one XPHome. Both are cool and quiet compared to the previous mobo/processor combos (one p4 3.0 and one 939 3500).

speedboxx
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:13 am
Location: Canada

Post by speedboxx » Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:27 am

How come you said the Celeron 430 is the power hog of the system compared to maybe a e5200 or e3200? The e5200 and e3200 are both 65w processors, whereas the 430 is a 35w. I initially picked up the 430 because it was the lowest power 775 cpu (correct me if Im wrong).

tehcrazybob
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:56 pm
Location: Council Bluffs, Iowa
Contact:

Post by tehcrazybob » Thu Dec 31, 2009 9:44 am

speedboxx wrote:How come you said the Celeron 430 is the power hog of the system compared to maybe a e5200 or e3200? The e5200 and e3200 are both 65w processors, whereas the 430 is a 35w. I initially picked up the 430 because it was the lowest power 775 cpu (correct me if Im wrong).
Because the numbers you're quoting are manufacturer guidelines for cooling an entire range of processors and have absolutely no relationship to the specific chips you're looking at. In truth, due to different technologies in each processor, the 430 will use more power than either the 3200 or the 5200, even though those are both faster, more complex chips with a higher power rating (and all three will use less than 35 watts). Of the three, the 3200 should use the least power - it has basically the same design and features as the 5200, but with less cache and a slightly lower speed, both of which have an impact on power usage.

ilovejedd
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: in the depths of hell

Post by ilovejedd » Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:44 am

speedboxx wrote:How come you said the Celeron 430 is the power hog of the system compared to maybe a e5200 or e3200? The e5200 and e3200 are both 65w processors, whereas the 430 is a 35w. I initially picked up the 430 because it was the lowest power 775 cpu (correct me if Im wrong).
I second tehcrazybob. At idle, the Celeron E3200 will probably consume the least power when idle. I've used both a Celeron 430 and an Intel Pentium E5200 on the exact same computer and I was surprised to find that the E5200 actually uses less or the same power at idle (can't remember the exact figures now). It might be a different case at load but I haven't really tested for that. Also, TDP is more a guideline for heatsinks rather than power consumption. It's a worst case scenario and not really something you'd see during normal operation.

The shrink to 45nm saved quite a bit of power. Aside from that, both the Celeron E3200 and Pentium E5200 have more aggressive power save states than the Celeron 430. On the Intel side, the Celeron E3200 is probably the lowest power chip you'll find and it's actually pretty amazing how much performance it packs for the price and power consumption.

speedboxx
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:13 am
Location: Canada

Post by speedboxx » Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:58 am

Cool, nice to know. But Im assuming that under load, the Celeron will have the least power consumption?

One thing to consider though is that you get can the Celeron 430 for almost half the price of the other chips, so the marginal increase in power consumption may require years and years to pay itself out.

ilovejedd
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: in the depths of hell

Post by ilovejedd » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:33 pm

speedboxx wrote:Cool, nice to know. But Im assuming that under load, the Celeron will have the least power consumption?

One thing to consider though is that you get can the Celeron 430 for almost half the price of the other chips, so the marginal increase in power consumption may require years and years to pay itself out.
Since I've never actually tested power consumption under load, I couldn't say for sure. However, it's quite possible that the E3200 could consume less or around the same power as the 430 even under load. Another thing to note, purely on single-core clockspeed, the Celeron E3200 (2.4GHz) will be able to finish tasks faster than a Celeron 430 (1.8GHz) so it'll be working at 100% load for a shorter amount of time.

The Pentium E5200, I've seen on sale for $55. When I bought mine, it was $59.99. The Celeron E3200 is $47 after coupon code right now from Newegg which is just $7 more than the Celeron 430. A significant difference in terms of percentage but far from being twice the cost. Another thing, the 45nm chips run cooler while having a higher thermal spec (E3200/E5200 74.1C vs 430 60.4C).

speedboxx
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:13 am
Location: Canada

Post by speedboxx » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:55 pm

If I recall correctly, the e3200 probably has more room for underclocking as well compared to the 430. With my Foxconn G31MV-K board + 430, there is no room for underclocking at all. All I was able to do was to decrease the CPU voltage a bit, which saved me 1W. Underclocking the ram saved about 3W.

On the subject of low power consumption, the motherboard/chipset plays an important role too. What do you guys think is the lowest power 775 board/chipset to date? Perhaps the G31 or the newer G41? Ive been searching the net, but havent really found much conclusive answers to this. Interestingly, Gigabyte has a "Dynamic Energy Saver" technology in their new boards but the reviews only suggest about a 10% savings in energy (Gigabyte claims 70%).

yuu
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 5:03 pm
Location: eu

Post by yuu » Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:54 pm

There is something if enabled the new C4E state supported by the new E5200 saves 5W compared to the 1.2Ghz 1.1VID, and 7W compared to the 3.6Ghz 1.25VID, it lowers to 0.9VID and probably disables the L2 in idle with E8400. this causes degrading performance and loss of responsiveness in some software. lately i prefer not to save the bloody 7W.

Gigabyte Saver, does work resulting 2W difference under load with E2140 dualcore.

Image

2 or 6 phases at 15W idle
3, 4 or 6 at 30W load*,
4, 5 or 6 at 46W load
5 or 6 at 67W load

*adjusted some VID to find the exact 30W cross line that triggers the 3 to 4 phases transition effect and by adjusting the cpu freq with +-10Mhz to result a constant load for 3 and 4 phases with the intel's TAT software so that result is taken for 2000Mhz 3 phases and 2010 4phases for example. those 10Mhz have no effect on Watts, but enough to trigger the change on phases. This proves nothing, but a cunning way to see DES for what it really is, useless.

E5200 produces 25watts maximum, runs on 3 or 6 phases, yes, 2W difference that is and you get to install some useless software to enable it.

With E2140 idle was around 100W, but with E5200 could go down to 80watts.

Trav1s
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:33 pm
Location: CR, IA

Post by Trav1s » Fri Jan 01, 2010 7:50 am

Another thing to add to the discussion....

The 430 produces more heat than the e5200/e5300/e3200...

I have used a 430 and e5200 in the same system (Upgraded from 430 to e5200 in Shuttle K45 that are notoriously hot and noisy) and the temps inside that small case drop 5-7 degrees C without tweaking. Add in the energy saving features and there is a big difference. Even when the processor is throttled back the dual core e5200 will run circles around the 430.


As others have said, there is more to this discussion than simply the power usage numbers. Good discussion everyone!

Post Reply