intel E3300 vs AMD Athlon 64 x2 240 power conumption

barefootzero · Post by **barefootzero** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:41 am

I am building a low power HTPC. I am targeting an idle power of less the 35W. I don't really care as much about non idle power consumption.

The competition for CPU seems to be between the intel E3300 or AMD 240. Both are about the same price, both are 45nm, and both have about the same performance. The question is which system will consume less power.

I don't know what the AMD system would look like but the intel system would be the following

CPU: Intel e3300
MB: either ASUS P5N7A-VM (9300 chipset)
or GIGABYTE GA-E7AUM-DS2H (9400 chipset)
PSU: Pico PSU

I didn't see much benefit to going with a lower end cpu. The Zotac Ion was an option but I would like to have some overhead incase they "upgrade" adobe flash or something.

I would like good integrated graphics (at least as good as the 9300) but I would consider a discrete GPU if it could fit in the power envelope and not raise the price of the system. I don't think that is possible for the intel system.

electrodacus · Post by **electrodacus** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:19 am

If you can wait a better solution for low power will be core i3 or i5 with integrated memory and video (x4500) the lowest part will have a max TDP of 73W and the motherboard will only have one chip similar to a south bridge I expect tis type o system to have a very low power requirement.
I get under 35W idle with my quad core see the link in my signature.

barefootzero · Post by **barefootzero** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:52 am

I have been thiking about that but so far it seams that the new parts will be to pricy. Also I dont really want an intel igp. I have had problems with them before and I have been unimpressed by the 4500 in my laptop. I dont want to wait to long as my desktop is currently being held captive by my home theater.

I am still very much interested to get info from others about these chips or similar.

electrodacus · Post by **electrodacus** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 10:38 am

See a benchmark comparing the x4500 , i3-540 integrated graphic and Nvidia 9400

barefootzero · Post by **barefootzero** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:23 pm

Where did those benchmarks come from?

Also when is the i3 coming out?

Also I am still hoping someone can answer my first question.

So that chart basically says that for games a 9400 with a lower end cpu is twice as fast as a intel 4500 igp.

If they can cut off maybe 10W with the i3 it might be something I am interested in but otherwise I think I would rather have just the litte extra gpu power.

electrodacus · Post by **electrodacus** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:01 pm

barefootzero wrote:Where did those benchmarks come from?

Also when is the i3 coming out?

Also I am still hoping someone can answer my first question.

So that chart basically says that for games a 9400 with a lower end cpu is twice as fast as a intel 4500 igp.

If they can cut off maybe 10W with the i3 it might be something I am interested in but otherwise I think I would rather have just the litte extra gpu power.

Link to benchmark
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-Co ... 9858.shtml
I guess i3 will come in 2010 but maybe they will release in December this year the i5 will be available this week.
Intel IGP is not great but you will probably see some power reduction because they move to 45nm for IGP and 32nm for CPU. If you want games then Intel is not for you but if you want low power then I guess is better to have a core i3.

barefootzero · Post by **barefootzero** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:58 pm

Well I definetly dont want to wait until 2010 and I am guessing the i3 chips wont be that cheap. At least not until AMD puts a more competitive chip on the market.

So far it seams like intel is just happy to match AMD chip for chip in the low end and a cheap low power i3 chip could canibolize their sales of Atom.

I am guessing the i3 chips will be about $100 when they git the market and quality motherboards will be $150 for the first 6 months at least.

electrodacus · Post by **electrodacus** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:44 pm

barefootzero wrote:Well I definetly dont want to wait until 2010 and I am guessing the i3 chips wont be that cheap. At least not until AMD puts a more competitive chip on the market.

So far it seams like intel is just happy to match AMD chip for chip in the low end and a cheap low power i3 chip could canibolize their sales of Atom.

I am guessing the i3 chips will be about $100 when they git the market and quality motherboards will be $150 for the first 6 months at least.

core i3 price about 120$ the motherboard I will expect to be cheaper because is not to much on the board since almost all important parts are in CPU so I will guess 70$ or less.
And Atom (2W to 8W) is far from i3 (73W).
2010 is not so close maybe you can get the AMD 45W Propus quad core they will be available this month.
PS: I see that the 95W version 620 is already selling for 125$ http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819103706 i will be curios on the price for 600e 45W version

barefootzero · Post by **barefootzero** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 10:41 pm

Regaurding the TDP I think you are getting idle power consumption and TDP mixed up. The fact is that ION 330 based system which is what is closest to competing with these boards consumes 25W with a laptop HD and no disk drive ( http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3562&p=12 ). I would guess with a 3.5" HD and DD it would be around 30W.

If the i3 really does operate signifigantly more effeciently then current systems then it will be pushing into that range.

I dont worry about load power because you just draw more power for a shorter period of time to complete the same task and things reoughly balance out. Also the system will spend most of its time at or near idle

I disagree with you about the MB pricing but we will just have to wait and see. IMO Intel will just pick whatever price they feel like and if the chipset is cheaper it will just be more profit for them.

I also dont think AMD is going to canibalize their regor chips by setting the initial price of the new 45W quad core chips to low. Additionaly I am not convinced there will be much of a decrease in idle power and I dont really nead the extra cpu power. My guess is they will be somewhere between 90 and 110

electrodacus · Post by **electrodacus** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:01 pm

barefootzero wrote:Regaurding the TDP I think you are getting idle power consumption and TDP mixed up. The fact is that ION 330 based system which is what is closest to competing with these boards consumes 25W with a laptop HD and no disk drive ( http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3562&p=12 ). I would guess with a 3.5" HD and DD it would be around 30W.

I know wath TDP and idle power is Atom 330 is 8W TDP and this is only the CPU and TDP for i3 will be 73W but this includes the memory controller and video that are on the same chip.
Atom sales are on netbook market where they use the single core Nxxx and Zxxx that are 2.5W and 2W TDP.
My Q8400S 45nm 65W TDP will take 8W at idle and about 63W at load
but the memory controller and video are on the northbridge outside the CPU.

barefootzero wrote:

If the i3 really does operate signifigantly more effeciently then current systems then it will be pushing into that range.

i3 will not be much more efficient because is based on the same architecture as core i7 less efficient and the 32nm will not help to much is not the same as it was from 65nm to 45nm they do not change the materials just do a shrink and the memory controller and video included on i3 will be on 45nm.

barefootzero wrote:
I dont worry about load power because you just draw more power for a shorter period of time to complete the same task and things reoughly balance out. Also the system will spend most of its time at or near idle

A lower TDP system will most of the time also have a lower idle power depending on how much time you spend at idle it may be a better option to have an mobile atom system than a core system.

barefootzero wrote:
I disagree with you about the MB pricing but we will just have to wait and see. IMO Intel will just pick whatever price they feel like and if the chipset is cheaper it will just be more profit for them.

Yes I just can guess the price based on less expensive components we will see.

barefootzero wrote:
I also dont think AMD is going to canibalize their regor chips by setting the initial price of the new 45W quad core chips to low. Additionaly I am not convinced there will be much of a decrease in idle power and I dont really nead the extra cpu power. My guess is they will be somewhere between 90 and 110

If the price will be 90 to 110 it will be a great price for a 45W quad core the QxxxxS 65W from Intel are 200+