Power Consumption Results
Idle power is relevant for all users who keep their systems up and running for many hours every day. As you can see, going from 3.33 to 3.9 GHz doesn’t introduce any significant increase in power consumption, and even 4.26 GHz seems acceptable. The 28% clock speed difference (3.33 to 4.26 GHz) results in 23% more idle power.
The differences in peak power are more significant, and the results make obvious that 4.26 GHz at increased voltage comes at a price: 200 W vs. 134 W at stock speed is almost a 50% increase.
Average power consumption during a full PCMark Vantage run was almost comparable for the 3.33, 3.60 and 3.90 GHz settings, while the 4.26 GHz overclock at increased voltage levels led to almost excessive average power requirements.
Increased performance meets increased power consumption. As you can see, the total power used to complete a full PCMark Vantage run was almost the same for the 3.33, 3.6 and 3.9 GHz setting, as performance and power consumption seem to increase in a healthy proportion. However, the highly overclocked system clearly required more power to finish this workload.
Latest CPU News
- 24/05 – Nvidia to Push Tablet Prices to $199 With Kai Platform
- 23/05 – AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel
- 22/05 – AMD Hitting The Casino Floor With Embedded R-Series
- 22/05 – Does Your AMD FX Platform BSOD with Steam? Read This.
- 20/05 – Intel To Support Cheap Ultrabooks With Low-Cost Celerons
Latest CPU reviews
- 24/05 – Overclocking Core i7-3770K: Learning To Live With Compromise
- 22/05 – Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency
- 15/05 – AMD A10-4600M Review: Mobile Trinity Gets Tested
- 14/05 – Core i7-3720QM: Ivy Bridge Makes Its Mark On Mobility
- 23/04 – Intel Core i7-3770K Review: A Small Step Up From Sandy Bridge
It's obvious Intel is underclocking these chips to make them look as if they have humongous overclocking headroom. these chips should have been released at least 4ghz.
Yes the e8600 is a nice chip (for gamers more than photo/video rendering users) but I don't get why it's still over $260 when you can get quad cores for less that does more as far as CPU power.
It may be a marketing ploy, but its definitely one that we can benefit from! 28% overclock with a smalll voltage bump is amazing. Looks like thay are just rubbing salt in AMD's wounds right now. Good article.
I've had mine running on air with a big cooler at 4GHz for a while now with a small voltage increase. I chose the dual core over the quad as it was quite a bit cheaper, and the applications I run it for (gaming) tend to see little improvement with a quad (although that's changing). If I was doing a lot of encoding I would have gone for the quad. I'm happy for a year or so until I get an i7, but this is great for now :-)
I lol'd at the covered sata ports
All you need to do now, is one of these experiments for every CPU on the market!
Yeah, overclock a socket 478 3.2GHz P4 Prescott on a Gigabyte 8KNXP!
Then tell me the settings so I can get more than 75MHz out of mine :|
This is really old news.
Can you repeat this for other Core2Duo models like the E6600 please!!!!!
Sweet DIP Switches! I'm really looking forward to the Next Gen boards that come covered with poorly labled jumpers..
Its the Next Next Gen that has me really excited, I hear you'll need to manually de-solder the xtal on the board and attach a new one you buy from maplin!
Sweet!
(I thought the early 2000's progression to everything controlled through BIOS was a huge step forward? Which genius has decided hardware switches on the board were a good idea. Ideal for beginners? What about the 'auto overclock' option every bios in the world has these days?)
I thought looking on the charts on here, the 8600 dual core seems alot better than the quad cores avialable, because of a couple of reasons. The 8600 i imagine is alot cheaper than the i7 processors and core 2 extremes. I looked at the results for crysis and the 8600 comes near the top, surely for gamers dual cores must be still be in the top for demand, but i suppose since quad cores are slightly better for the same ghz, but is it really worth the money? Intel might as well just make higher ghz rated cored 2 duo processors. What do you reckon