-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Conroe is 65w, how much were....
- Thread starter Neken
- Start date
From the CPU Database, the TDP values are...
), but together with a smaller Process (e.g. 90nm or 65nm like the Conroe's) makes it even better for overclocking 
- Athlon XP-M 2500+ = 45Ws
- Athlon XP 3200+ = 77w
), but together with a smaller Process (e.g. 90nm or 65nm like the Conroe's) makes it even better for overclocking
Last edited:
Don't forget AMD measure TDP differently to intel.
AMD measure the theoretical maximum, where intel decide on their maximum which is about 80% of the theoretical maximum.
Also - it is worth baring in mind that with the A64 range, generally the TDP is given for a range of chips. The reality is that where something like the 3000+ venice may be listed as 67W, most of the chips are 32W or 37W parts. It varys from batch to batch.
Marc
AMD measure the theoretical maximum, where intel decide on their maximum which is about 80% of the theoretical maximum.
Also - it is worth baring in mind that with the A64 range, generally the TDP is given for a range of chips. The reality is that where something like the 3000+ venice may be listed as 67W, most of the chips are 32W or 37W parts. It varys from batch to batch.
Marc
Sure AMD 'Claim' that intel only use a typical TDP to measure power use, but several tech sites have uses a 'plug in power meter' to measure the total power of AMD64, Pentium 4, and Conroe systems, and the Conroe's are doing great for their power draw. TDP is really a measurement that is used for heatsink designers, and isnt quite the same as how many watts of electic used by the chip.
No matter how they spin it, the Core 2 systems, with similar amounts of ram, and GPU's seem to be a good 35W less power draw than AMD64's, and dont even mention the heavy power draw of AMD FX62 systems. That chip is the new Prescott
125W TDP!!!, thats almost up to the 130W of the top dual core P4's.
AMD's '65W Energy Efficient' x2 3800 seems to be less performance/watt than the Core 2's, and is bearly more power efficent than a Core 2 X6800 system.
No matter how they spin it, the Core 2 systems, with similar amounts of ram, and GPU's seem to be a good 35W less power draw than AMD64's, and dont even mention the heavy power draw of AMD FX62 systems. That chip is the new Prescott
125W TDP!!!, thats almost up to the 130W of the top dual core P4's.AMD's '65W Energy Efficient' x2 3800 seems to be less performance/watt than the Core 2's, and is bearly more power efficent than a Core 2 X6800 system.
as everyone gets more and more into overclocking and cooling thier cpus the excess heat that is given off can be felt everywhere. i mean its really hot here in the uk. this is the best time for overclocking since if your machine is stable in this heat it will be proper stable.
Corasik said:Sure AMD 'Claim' that intel only use a typical TDP to measure power use, but several tech sites have uses a 'plug in power meter' to measure the total power of AMD64, Pentium 4, and Conroe systems, and the Conroe's are doing great for their power draw. TDP is really a measurement that is used for heatsink designers, and isnt quite the same as how many watts of electic used by the chip.
No matter how they spin it, the Core 2 systems, with similar amounts of ram, and GPU's seem to be a good 35W less power draw than AMD64's, and dont even mention the heavy power draw of AMD FX62 systems. That chip is the new Prescott
AMD's '65W Energy Efficient' x2 3800 seems to be less performance/watt than the Core 2's, and is bearly more power efficent than a Core 2 X6800 system.
It's not AMD that claim this - its all there in Intels white papers (Sadly I have read these inside out as I designed a passive PC cooling system for my dissertation). I'm not saying that the conroe's power draw is bad at all .... I just like to point out that comparing AMD and Intels TDP ratings is more like comparing Apples to Oranges than Apples to Apples.
I have to admit I haven't seen these total power draw figures that you quote - I was only refering to the chip. However - since for example my HTPC (X2 3800+, NF4 chipset ) draws just 55W idle and less than 100W full load (measured at the wall so it includes the 30%+ loses in the power supply) I'd be extremely impressed if the conroe system drew 35W less!
Any chance you could dig out the links to the review?
When it comes to the FX62 processor, 125W again is the maximum for that range, mainly to cover themselves for worst case scenario. I don't know what the actual figures for the FX are, but I imagine they are somewhere between 50-70% of the rated, the same as the rest of the A64 range. Maybe if someone here has an FX62 they could post the true TDP that Tcasemax reports?
If the conroe is less power hungry than the AMD chips then fantastic. However, I will reserve judgement til I see some numbers from the likes of silentpcreveiew
Marc
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
remember intel is already onto 65nm process, when amd switch to that process obvioulsy numbers drop. as the guy said, intel themselves say their numbers are "average use", amd's are theoretical numbers that pretty much every engineer says is essentially impossible to reach(as amd base on it on every single part of the chip, every transistor working at its maximum all the time which is basically impossible). now amd's numbers are also based on the worst possible silicon that would get used for that chip, the number should barring a miricule be the max ever. if they run higher grade silicon through and simple make a bunch of them x3800 x2's because they are just short on them and need some quickly then the numbers can be even lower and a maximum, though in that sense same can happen to intel cpu's.
conroe's aren't quite as energy efficient as people make out, but they are obviously leagues ahead of the prescotts of the world
also, please remember, amd = on die mem controller, wattage included in cpu figures, intel = off die mem controller, wattage not included in cpu numbers, ddr2 mem controller takes some juice, seen how hot a intel northy can get, and how cooling a intel northy makes a huge difference to max fsb.
conroe's aren't quite as energy efficient as people make out, but they are obviously leagues ahead of the prescotts of the world
also, please remember, amd = on die mem controller, wattage included in cpu figures, intel = off die mem controller, wattage not included in cpu numbers, ddr2 mem controller takes some juice, seen how hot a intel northy can get, and how cooling a intel northy makes a huge difference to max fsb.
Last edited: