Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 11,976
- Location
- Derby
-
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.
Ivy Bridge Preview on Anandtech.
- Thread starter AStaley
- Start date
Look at my last post. It seems its Anandtech who fudged the launch numbers for SB regarding power consumption.
Now,I am happy again!!
I think you just fudged your reading of it. Its total system power consumption.
Sandy bridge launch used this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/14
Ivy bridge preview used this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5626/ivy-bridge-preview-core-i7-3770k/4
Which accounts for the difference in power consumption.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,184
- Location
- Billericay, UK
I don't know what your worrying about. At load this early Ivy Bridge draw 27 watts less and idles at the same wattage, surely even a SFF can handle 75 watts can't it (how small is small BTW? ITX, M-ATX?)? If you want lower then 75 watts then you need to look at getting an SSD an external optical drive and maybe lower voltage ram (grasping at straws here).
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,724
- Location
- Planet Earth
No,I was commenting on the relative differences for the Core i5 2500K and Core i7 2600K. Just changing a common motherboard does not mean a Core i7 2600K all of a sudden consumes 22W under load when compared to a Core i5 2500K and Core i5 2400. Both the Core i5 CPUs consume the same amount of power in the preview.
A 5% variance either way is expected but not 10% to 15% with common parts.
First pass uses only a few threads so basically both a Core i5 2500K and Core i7 2600K will have similar power consumption,not 22W.
The second pass uses ALL available threads so is a greater load difference due to HT being fully used.
My view is supported by the Phenom II X4 and X6 results. In the SB article the Phenom II X4 and Phenom II X6 consume more or less the same power and yet in the preview,the Phenom II X6 consumes MORE power under load.
Look at Anandtech bench:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=287
The figures are around the same for both CPUs which looks right(CPU variance).
It says first pass X264 load power consumption and later reviews say second pass X264 load power consumption.
So they used a light load test in the SB review to determine load power consumption which is useless. The later reviews used the multi-threaded second pass which fully loads the CPU.
This explains the difference in relative positions of the CPUs.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,724
- Location
- Planet Earth
Its fine now. IB will probably be my next CPU upgrade now!!
The rig is a mini-ITX one and which will fit a Core i5 stock cooler(just about). I looked back at the original SB review and both the Core i5 2500K and Core i7 2600K had the same power consumption under load. Anandtech generally uses X264 video encoding results for load tests.
Fast forward to the preview and all of a sudden the Core i7 2600K is now consuming much more power(22W) when compared to a Core i5 2500K and Core i5 2400. Both Core i5 CPUs consume the same amount of power.
Changing a common motherboard and RAM will not cause this change otherwise the Core i5 2500K and Core i5 2400 power consumption should also rise in a similar manner.
The Core i5 2500K more or less seems to be consuming the same amount of power as a Core i7 3770K anyway which made the the Core i7 2600K results look weird.
Its only when I looked at the Anandtecg bench results,then I realised it said first pass video encoding results not second pass. The SB review had no mention of what was tested.
The preview uses second pass results and so does the FX8150 review which more or less shows the same figures(after I checked it).
Hence the preview power consumption results make sense now.
Last edited:
I hope this is launched soon - I'm really looking forward to getting a new machine and having such a small increase in CPU performance is making me question my desire to wait until Ivy Bridge is released. Then again having a more power efficient system with an extra 5% - 15% CPU performance is always welcome.
Grrr, decisions decisions.
Grrr, decisions decisions
.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,724
- Location
- Planet Earth
In HandBrake 0.9.5, a Xeon E3-1270 running at 3.4GHZ is around 40% faster than a pair of Xeon E5410 quad cores running at 2.33GHZ, when using the Normal preset!
i reckon they will just get replaced
I have a stupid question - will the GPU performance increase make any difference if you are not using integrated graphics? What I mean is if you have a stand alone GPU installed when you are gaming will you just be using that stand alone GPU or the stand alone GPU + the integrated graphics to run the game?
In those circumstances the integrated GPU will make no difference as you won't be using it.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 403
Looks boring and no better than SB.
Vanilla products suck!
Vanilla products suck!
That's what I suspected, thanks
You need to invest in the enthusiast platform if you want 6 or 8 cores. Ivybridge/Haswell will be 4 cores where the power draw is steadily reduced & the integrated GPU is steadily improved.
If you want CPU performance go SB-E -to IB-E & if you want better integrated graphics go Ivybridge - Haswell.
Last edited:
Was thinking of waiting, but want a 6 core so it will be a 3930K SB-E -to IB-E for me.