AMD has introduced low-voltage versions of several of its Athlon 64 models, promising decreased power consumption and heat output for smaller systems. We compare these to standard parts to put this power savings in perspective.
It's good article though and shows AMD is now looking to decrease their already excellent 90nm power specs. I'm sure 65nm will set power efficiency records.
It's good article though and shows AMD is now looking to decrease their already excellent 90nm power specs. I'm sure 65nm will set power efficiency records.
They have a long way to go to catch Yonah and Merom.
Were Athlon 64 X2 Energy Efficient processors to reduce average power use by 10 W, the average 10 hour per day office system would cost only few dollars less per year to operate.
This would certainly be a very viable option for alot of schools who are either looking to upgrade from the energy consuming Netburst P4's or from older model PC's or Macs that they seem to be plagued with.
One of the biggest factors for school is price so if this saves money in operating costs, then districts would probably think of changing over.
Then again, Intel or whoever the schools buy their boxes from could be giving them a bigger discount than AMD ever could.
AMD: Since we can't beat Intel with performance per clock, lets change tactics and say we're better performance per watt. But lets not mention enthusiasts could care less about power consumption, most desktop users don't give a darn, mobile wise Intel still kicks our ass, and not say how Opterons do compared to Woodcrest.
To be truthful, I don't care if my PC uses 58W or 1KW or even if it needs
or
.
Why? Cause the stove uses more power than the PC does.
But for schools that have boards that pinch pennies down to the erasers and the markers, if any of these schools have even heard of AMD, it might look good.
I think the article paints a picture of savings not only in the monetary sense, but in noise. If you are a HTPC freak, you might give these processors a serious look, especially when AMD transistions to 65nm.
Am I the only one thinking that the guys who wrote this article don't know what efficiency means?
Don't get me wrong: EE Athlons are a great idea. They probably go a long way in enabling fanless systems. But if you want to measure efficiency, or performance-per-watt - which by the way are the same - you should also have compared performance.
Anyone who concludes that the energy efficient-athlons are more efficient because of this article has been mislead: power efficiency was never measured here. The only conclusion that can be drawn here is that EE Athlons consume less power, that's all.
That was the entire point of the article. . . to show how energy efficent the processors were. Not how powerful they were at any specific application. School systems, or whomever chooses to buy this may not be looking for how well it can encode DVD's or how well it can keep up with todays latest games. They just need an energy efficent processor at a decent price. AMD seems to have thier number on this one.
I have to agree with DaSickNinja, my highschool is always trying to save money from electricity I can see where these would be useful processors
Where's the savings? The price hike for this processor outstrips any gain in energy savings.
hball
Actually, it depends on what the cost of electricity is. In NYC the electricity is about $0.19 per KWH, which I believe is significantly higher than the national average.
At idle, the difference between the Core 2 Duo E6400 and the Athlon X2 3800+ EE is about 26w. Assuming the PC is on 24 hours a day for 365 days that works out to a total of 227.8KW extra per year (26 x 24 x 365 /1000).
Under full load, the difference between the Core 2 Duo E6400 and the Athlon X2 3800+ EE is about 35w. Assuming the PC is on 24 hours a day for 365 days that works out to a total of 306.6KW extra per year (35 x 24 x 365 /1000).
Since electricity is $0.19/KWH in NYC that works out to an addtional cost of between $43.27 (227.8KW x $0.19) at idle 100% of the time, and $58.25 (306.6KW x $0.19) at full load. Therefore, the additional cost of the Athlon X2 3800+ EE can be fully recouped in 1 year.
For people living in areas where the cost of electricity is only $0.07 per KWH that would be a little different. In this case having the "more power hungry" Core 2 Duo E6400 will only cost between $15.94 (100% idle) and $21.46 (100% load) of additional electricity per year. In this case it can take up to 3 years to recoup the extra cost of the Athlon X2 3800+ EE.
From these two examples one can argue that paying more money for an "EE" version of the Athlon X2 3800+ (say $50 more) only makes sense for those people or businesses in areas where the cost of electricty is high. In areas where the cost of electricity is relatively low it only makes sense if the PC will be kept for at least a few years.
Thanks for this useful article. I enjoyed it immenesely. Just a couple of questions, though. Where in the hell did you get the ADD3800IAT5CU? You must be a lot closer to Henri than the rest of us. And, buy the way, if you're so close to him, why didn't you get the retail one. The ADD3800CUBOX. After all, what end user would ever buy an OEM CPU, with its one year warranty. Oh, I see, it was all that was available. Dell must be eating'em like crazy? No - wait, they're all going to Apple for the new MAC mini X2? That must be it.
This is the second time I've seen one of these AMD 35 Watt CPUs pop up. The other time was over in Russia, I think. Maybe I'm a little hazy on that.
I noticed that you didn't show any BIOS settings for the ADD3800IAT5CU. In case you took down the data, but just didn't report it, I'd be interested to know if Vcore was 1.025 Volts. That's the Vcore I've read about before. Makes this Athlon X2 look a lot like a Turion X2 - incognito, doesn't it? But, who'd give a damn about that. Perfect for the MAC mini X2. Something, though. Why don't we see any of these in the US retail market? It's been over three months now. The only thing I've seen is advertisments for $400 figment units. I wish AMD would shove some of the retail ones out the door. I'd sure as hell buy one for $150. Maybe a lot of other people would to?
By the way, I noticed that you went with DDR2-533 memory in your tests. Why not DDR2-800?
I have to agree with DaSickNinja, my highschool is always trying to save money from electricity I can see where these would be useful processors
Where's the savings? The price hike for this processor outstrips any gain in energy savings.
hball
Actually, it depends on what the cost of electricity is. In NYC the electricity is about $0.19 per KWH, which I believe is significantly higher than the national average.
At idle, the difference between the Core 2 Duo E6400 and the Athlon X2 3800+ EE is about 26w. Assuming the PC is on 24 hours a day for 365 days that works out to a total of 227.8KW extra per year (26 x 24 x 365 /1000).
Under full load, the difference between the Core 2 Duo E6400 and the Athlon X2 3800+ EE is about 35w. Assuming the PC is on 24 hours a day for 365 days that works out to a total of 306.6KW extra per year (35 x 24 x 365 /1000).
Since electricity is $0.19/KWH in NYC that works out to an addtional cost of between $43.27 (227.8KW x $0.19) at idle 100% of the time, and $58.25 (306.6KW x $0.19) at full load. Therefore, the additional cost of the Athlon X2 3800+ EE can be fully recouped in 1 year.
For people living in areas where the cost of electricity is only $0.07 per KWH that would be a little different. In this case having the "more power hungry" Core 2 Duo E6400 will only cost between $15.94 (100% idle) and $21.46 (100% load) of additional electricity per year. In this case it can take up to 3 years to recoup the extra cost of the Athlon X2 3800+ EE.
From these two examples one can argue that paying more money for an "EE" version of the Athlon X2 3800+ (say $50 more) only makes sense for those people or businesses in areas where the cost of electricty is high. In areas where the cost of electricity is relatively low it only makes sense if the PC will be kept for at least a few years.
Very good point there, although schools may not be looking for the best cpu around i think the longevity the better cpu (the e6400) would out due the price one would have to pay to upgrade more often combined with the premium you have to pay for the EE version
Am I the only one thinking that the guys who wrote this article don't know what efficiency means?
Don't get me wrong: EE Athlons are a great idea. They probably go a long way in enabling fanless systems. But if you want to measure efficiency, or performance-per-watt - which by the way are the same - you should also have compared performance.
Anyone who concludes that the energy efficient-athlons are more efficient because of this article has been mislead: power efficiency was never measured here. The only conclusion that can be drawn here is that EE Athlons consume less power, that's all.
It's easy, it's simple math.
Sorry for the rant.
know what a word means before you criticize its use. heres a link for dictionary.com's definitions, since use it next time: efficiency
ef‧fi‧cien‧cy /ɪˈfɪʃənsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-fish-uhn-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies.
3. the ratio of the work done or energy developed by a machine, engine, etc., to the energy supplied to it, usually expressed as a percentage.
Its nice to see that you bring nothing to the discussion except negativity. For all your two posts thats all you've done, troll the author. Thank you for showing yourself.
who gives a damn about how much power it uses up. How fast is it compared to the 6800? Only 1 benchmark chart for power only? come on, talk about lame!
Doughbuy: Maybe you should have read a little closer... Athlon isn't saying that, as the author mentioned, AMD isn't even marketing this feature much at all.
Jaguarskx: Yes, and no... In the summer, ever spend a week with your computer on, then turn it off for a week? What about 2-3 computers? The difference in HEAT output is also quite stunning. I am not a PC gamer any more, and down here in Texas, anything that lets me keep things in my house cooler is a VERY welcome addition to my house. So, if these systems take less power, and give off less heat, then I will not only save on the lower power consumption, but I will save from my AC using less electricity too.
Since I pay my electric bills I am concerned about the cost of using the PCs at home. I bought a electric meter device called "Kill-A-Watt" which measures the amps and watts per device. I was surprised to see how much power my PC uses daily so I swapped out the power supply with a higher efficency rating such as the Antec H.E. 550 watt power supply. Turns out this new power supply actually use HALF the electricity over the old unit of the same rating! To explain this, my old power supply burns about 300 watts which translate into heat. The new one now uses 150 watts and runs much cooler. Granted, the unit is capable of producing 550 watts but the PC only needs 150 watts at idle and about 245 watts at full load.
So I have to wonder how accurate are the power requirements in PCs these days? And do we really need 1000 watt power supplies? Probably not.
I was very impressed with my friend brought over his XPC Shuttle running AMD 4400+ dual core to see how much power it uses. At idle it uses total of 65 watts and about 110 watts full load. This will make a good media center with MythTV.
.
