Download the Tom's Hardware App from the App Store
The reference for current tech news
Yes No

Power Usage Benchmark

by

AMD has claimed great power savings with the 785G chipset and its Powerplay feature. Let's see how the platforms compare:

Now this test isn't an ideal way to compare the 785G to the 780G, as we only have a 790GX board on hand and underclocked it to simulate the 780G specifications for this test. However, the power draw difference is so slight between the 785G and simulated 780G that we doubt there'd be much of a difference with an actual 780G board.

Comparing platforms, it looks like the E7200 CPU on the Intel LGA 775-based boards uses less power than the Phenom II X2 550, which is no surprise, as the Phenom II X2 is a much faster CPU with a lot more cache. The Athlon II X2 250, however, sips even less load power than the Core 2 Duo E7200.

Analysis

Now, I'm all for environmental friendliness, but all too often I think the bottom line cost for an end-user is overlooked. So let's examine the power savings of the E7200 over the Phenom II X2 550.

At idle, the Phenom II X2 is drawing the highest load: 92 W on the 790GX motherboard. In contrast, the E7200 is drawing 68 W on the most efficient platform, Intel's G45. It looks big on the chart, but it's a difference of 14 W.

In the most populated coastal cities of the United States, electricity costs are the highest in the country at about 15 cents per kilowatt/hour. With this information, we can calculate the cost to use the Phenom II X2 550 compared to the Core 2 Duo E7200.

Let's compare the worst-case scenario, a PC with a Phenom II X2 550 and a 790GX motherboard, to the best-case scenario, a machine with a Core 2 Duo E7200 paired with a G45 motherboard. If you left a Phenom II X2 550/790GX-equipped PC in active idle state for 24 hours a day, you would be billed $18.40 more compared to the E7200/G45 in electricity costs every calendar year, and that's assuming you leave your computer on in an active state and don't turn it off or let it enter sleep mode.

This equates to big numbers for massive corporations deploying thousands of PCs, but for the home user it shouldn't be as much of a concern. In a home environment, I'd recommend the faster processor so that the performance is there when you need it. As for environmental concerns, Mother Earth is far better served by simply turning your PC off when it isn't being used.

There are two lessons to be learned here: first, if you really care about the environment, turn your PC off (or at least configure it to enter sleep mode) when you're not using it, and second, don't be afraid of purchasing a better processor for fear that it will cost you big money in power consumption.

Share:
6
Comments
Read more
X
Submit

Comments
Read the comments on the forums
Anonymous 04/08/2009 22:29
Hide
-1+

just want to give you guys a heads up, meybe you wanna look into it:
AMD 785G Update - Multi-Channel LPCM is not Available
or at least thats what AMD says accordign to anandtech:

http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=629

wild9 05/08/2009 04:59
Hide
-0+

Great article..thanks for including the GPGPU benchmarks :) Be nice to see those vs. the fastest i7 and it's respective power draw.

Fair do's to AMD. They've bounced back, and given the market some products that can compete with both Intel (CPU's) and nVidia (GPU's). Seems like it's only nVidia that has kept Intel's head above water in the GPU market..the G45 couldn't even play Blue-Ray properly, let alone produce decent frame rates even in slightly older games.

If I was in AMD's shoes right now I'd push the advantage of GPGPU processing, in addition to low-cost Athlon II/Phenom II processors. Only thing that doesn't appeal to me is the naming conventions, which confuse the user into thinking higher numbers mean more performance..that really turned me off nVidia. The 785G is alright because it suggests a slightly modified design rather than a brand new one (nice to see them squeezing everything out of it and developing even better drivers), but the integrated HD4200 being slower than HD3300? Hmm, c'mon guys..that might cheese off a few people.

Finally, the article does lead me to ask: is nVidia doing the 9400 for AM3? If not, is it down to some competition law or something? The 8200 game results look very weak..they're even on par with the Intel G45 on occasion. An nVidia 9 series IGP for the AMD platform would obviously be better.

p.s.

Quote :As for environmental concerns, Mother Earth is far better served by simply turning your PC off when it isn't being used.


I think Mother Earth is far better served by the US population, which is predicted to mushroom in a relatively short space of time..I'll settle for the lesser evil I think, and get that shiny new CPU.

LePhuronn 06/08/2009 01:23
Hide
-1+

wild9 :
I think Mother Earth is far better served by the US population, which is predicted to mushroom in a relatively short space of time..I'll settle for the lesser evil I think, and get that shiny new CPU.



I think you've missed out the words "not" and "cloud" from your quote

shawkie 06/08/2009 22:28
Hide
-2+

Anandtech is reporting that retail 785G motherboards typically won't actually support multi-channel LPCM. Any truth to this?

Anonymous 12/08/2009 07:47
Hide
-0+

AMD chips still can't run standard windows Apps properly without cashing, so as far as I am concerned, Intel is a solid winner.

(every AMD I have been on has had an issue with some very basic program, ranging from Nero Burning Rom to something as simple as Microsoft Word (03/07))

Anonymous 19/10/2009 13:31
Hide
-0+

Hey, this review is giving me ideas....

and now i'm slightly confused...

I was going to assemble an intel 5200+ Biostar g41 for a simple home use PC, but now I am seriously considering 785G. I am not really into gaming. All I want is a graphic good enough to play bluray with good onboard sound card.

Anyway, keep up the good work. This is the kind of review which a novice like me am looking at and depending upon when trying to buy a new PC. Thanks!!

Best offers

Newsletters


OK