Sunday, April 20, 2008

Intel Quad Core CPU consumes 120 watts

Lost circuit measure CPU power consumption (not system power) under load. They found a Phenom 9600 consumes 73.6 watts, while a Core 2 QX 6700 consumes 114.8 watts. It seems that all Intel overclocks its CPUs to achieve higher clocks.

6 Comments:

Blogger Bubba said...

Hey, look at that!

Phailnom 9900 - 115 watts
Core 2 Quad 9650 - 65 Watts

AMD is power sucking crap.

4:01 PM, April 22, 2008  
Blogger Atle said...

QX9650 : 64.8
Phenom 9600 : 73.6

So I really don't see your point. Unless you went cherry picking and are referring to the QX6850.

8:09 AM, April 24, 2008  
Blogger Hornet331 said...

ha, to bad its an old QX6700 wich is B3 stepping, try comparing it with the Q6700 G0.

Also who in there right mind spends 700€ on a 1 1/2 year old processor when you get far better performance from a cheaper Q9450...

3:56 PM, April 25, 2008  
Blogger Scientia from AMDZone said...

Have you looked at the links lately?

Dr. Max Fomitchev - No new blog articles at Tech Search since November 2006.

Anti Pervasive64 - No new articles since December 2007.

Tracking AMD - Gone since some time last year.

Inside Intel - No new articles since January 2008.

Also:

Rob Enderle - No new articles since February 2008.

I used to link to the self proclaimed but he stopped posting in January 2008.

If you want to link to a Pro-Intel blog I would suggest
.

You might also link to
. The current article is interesting:

Our goal with using ATI on some of these review machines was to show the overall flexibility of the Blackbird platform, and while our competitors choose to limit choices we wanted to keep our customers' options open.

ATI is doing great things on the graphics side right now. Frame rates are NOT the most important thing --- the most important factor in gaming is stability and visual quality. If you can buy an PC with optimized graphics for the display resolution that you are running (in my case 2560x1600) then you’ll be a much happier person, believe me.


You could link to
Pat Moorhead's Blog if you want an inside AMD perspective.

You might like the Mid-Range Workstation GPU Shootout : FireGL V5600 vs. QuadroFX 1700 vs. FireGL V3600 at Hot Hardware:

In our last workstation-class graphics card shootout, we compared two high-end cards to eachother and concluded that Nvidia had the performance edge at the high-end. In the mid-range workstation market, however, the tables are turned 180 degrees. In this space, ATI currently has a better performing product across the board with the FireGL V5600 512 MB card. While Nvidia has a few wins here and there, overall the FireGL V5600 is simply a stronger product.

If Nvidia wants to better compete in the mid-range market, they’re going to have to release a new model and push those speeds up to get performance levels in line or higher than the V5600.


At NewEgg, the nVidia Quad FX 1700 goes for $450 while the FireGL V5600 goes for $480.

11:42 AM, April 26, 2008  
Blogger Scientia from AMDZone said...

You might also look at Abinstein's Blog. He has a recent article where he tested the L1 cache bandwidth after I complained that the Anandtech test numbers were wrong.

So without any special treatment, on the C-source level, I could already get 30% better L1D read bandwidth and 60% better L1D write bandwidths than AnandTech's "test" results

1:13 PM, April 26, 2008  
Blogger Alex said...

Scientia from AMDZone .. or shall I say RatZone ... how nice to you to pay visit here ... why dont you go back to where you come from .. that is ... Chris_Toms bed .. you Douche.
Your comments are as worthless as my dogs fart.

12:59 PM, May 06, 2008  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home