AMD Athlon II X2 240e Review @PCStats

Greg F. · Post by **Greg F.** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:56 pm

it's a 45 watter!

http://admin.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=2459

Klusu · Post by **Klusu** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:37 pm

Really?
They do not measure that.

audiojunk · Post by **audiojunk** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:23 am

I think a Athlon II X2 250 undervolting would be a better and cheaper choice.

barefootzero · Post by **barefootzero** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:43 am

Any review that tests a low power part like a 240e and gets a system idle power over 100W is doing something wrong.

My Athlon II 240 based system runs at 32W @ idle.

Also you have to be careful when making power consumption comparisons across platforms as different chipsets and even different boards with the same chipset may use very different amounts of power.

It's not a very fare comparison unless you are using the best low power MB (with a reasonable price tag) for both systems. I don't think they even list the systems specs they used for testing power consumption.

Would be nice to see someone do a direct comparison of the 240e vs 240. I bet the difference when undervolted is not very big.

Klusu · Post by **Klusu** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:22 am

I saw diff 0.7W idle, 4.2W load (AC). At stock voltage.

hans007 · Post by **hans007** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:20 pm

the voltage is only .75 lower than a normal 240 1.35 vs 1.425.

I have a 240 here, undervolted to 1.175 and almost all the athlon II line can do this, so its probably better to not spend the extra on the 45W ones, though they are barely more expensve.

there is a guy on ebay selling 235e right now fo r$60 with free shipping, so its maybe only a little more than a 240.

Vicotnik · Post by **Vicotnik** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:33 pm

hans007 wrote:I have a 240 here, undervolted to 1.175 and almost all the athlon II line can do this, so its probably better to not spend the extra on the 45W ones, though they are barely more expensve.

But setting a manual voltage in the BIOS settings can mess up CnQ functionality. So a lower default voltage can be very useful.

BillyBuerger · Post by **BillyBuerger** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:42 am

hans007 wrote:the voltage is only .75 lower than a normal 240 1.35 vs 1.425.

My 245 runs from 1.0V-1.35V stock. No "e". I couldn't find any info on AMDs website about what the voltages are suppose to be. But 1.425 sounds high for the AIIs on 45nm.

Vicotnik wrote:But setting a manual voltage in the BIOS settings can mess up CnQ functionality. So a lower default voltage can be very useful.

Depends on your motherboard. The GIGABYTE GA-MA785GMT-UD2H uses relative voltage settings in the BIOS. I have it set to -0.2V to get a 0.8V-1.15V undervolt with C'n'Q. Although when buying, I would still go with the 45W version unless the price difference is unreasonable. In case undervolting is acting up or if at a later time, it ends up in a motherboard that doesn't have the same options.

Vicotnik · Post by **Vicotnik** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:07 am

BillyBuerger wrote:Depends on your motherboard. The GIGABYTE GA-MA785GMT-UD2H uses relative voltage settings in the BIOS. I have it set to -0.2V to get a 0.8V-1.15V undervolt with C'n'Q.

My GA-MA78GM-S2H does not work like that. Very good to know that the GA-MA785GMT-UD2H do.

Olle P · Post by **Olle P** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:55 am

barefootzero wrote:Any review that ... gets a system idle power over 100W is doing something wrong.

Like using an inefficient PSU, perhaps?

I get the general impression that the entire review is pretty sloppy.

Cheers
Olle

BillyBuerger · Post by **BillyBuerger** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:30 am

Olle P wrote:Like using an inefficient PSU, perhaps?

That would be a supper inefficient PSU to get 100W idle power. Although they neglected to mention the rest of the system specs, it's probably safe to say there's a GPU of some sorts in there and probably not an efficient one.

I've commented at I think TweakTown before about their idle power measurements. Although it could have been a different site. But for instance, they measured a basic 4850e system at way higher than it should be possible. 50W would have been high for that system and they had at least 80 or 90W idle. I think it's safe to say that many of these review sites have errors in their measurements. Again, good thing we have SPCR.

jeekub · Post by **jeekub** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:22 am

Speaking of which, I'd love to see that CPU SPCR-reviewed! I'm seriously considering buying one of these new Athlons some time before Christmas and 'e' are strong contenders : )

Does any of you by any chance know of any upcoming price cuts? I can hold off this upgrade until late January.

wickchucker · Post by **wickchucker** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:39 am

jeekub wrote: Does any of you by any chance know of any upcoming price cuts? I can hold off this upgrade until late January.

I just noticed that Tiger Direct here in the US has all the new "e" line of AMD's up for sale. The 240e from the review in the OP is $85 for the retail version.

I can't wait to see more reviews and benchmarks on these cpu's. I am considering opting for the 240e for my upcoming whs build.

SleepyBum · Post by **SleepyBum** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:46 am

wickchucker wrote:I just noticed that Tiger Direct here in the US has all the new "e" line of AMD's up for sale. The 240e from the review in the OP is $85 for the retail version.

I can't wait to see more reviews and benchmarks on these cpu's. I am considering opting for the 240e for my upcoming whs build.

Ouch! I was interested in this CPU, but that's quite a price premium. I was expecting maybe like $10 extra. They have the regular 240 @ $60. That's a $25 mark-up (41.6%). I would like to see if this CPU can justify that price difference, if it can be undervolted lower than a regular 240.

Undervolting regular AMD CPUs seems to be pretty simple with k10stat. I'm using that with a Sempron 140 PC I recently built. It doesn't have voltage control in BIOS. The downside is that it's a Windows application. Don't know if there's an equivalent for other OSes.

hans007 · Post by **hans007** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 1:56 am

wickchucker wrote:
jeekub wrote: Does any of you by any chance know of any upcoming price cuts? I can hold off this upgrade until late January.
I just noticed that Tiger Direct here in the US has all the new "e" line of AMD's up for sale. The 240e from the review in the OP is $85 for the retail version.

I can't wait to see more reviews and benchmarks on these cpu's. I am considering opting for the 240e for my upcoming whs build.

i did end up picking up a 235e on ebay for $60 - 8% bing i believe.

that said, the tiger direct price isn tbad given its retail with a fan. tigerdirect has 8% bing cashback as well, so a 235e there is $75-8% - any other deals you can find (like ebates).

Too bad the 600e is so expensive... $135 is a bit much when a 620 costs like $85-90 if you look around..