Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Power Consumption

How To: Get A 4 GHz Dual-Core For $120
By

The system idle power requirement is measured at the plug with the operating system running, after two minutes of user inactivity. Using the Core 2 Duo E7200 resulted in 91 W idle power; the E8500 required only 1 W more on the same system. Once again we used several components of the 2008 Tom’s Hardware Reference System.

We measured peak power during all benchmarks and used the highest result. Our only concern: while idle power requirements increase less than 15 percent, peak power increases 40 percent. This is in line with the performance gains—per-Watt performance scales linearly—but processor efficiency decreases with increasing clock speed and operating voltage, as you can see when comparing power consumption and performance levels reached by the Core 2 Duo E8500 with 6 MB L2 cache.

Display all 5 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 17 November 2008 23:13
    Why didnt you bench the processor at the same speed as the 8500 to make things nice and easy?...
  • 0 Hide
    graphicequaliser , 21 November 2008 02:00
    I have an E8500 overclocked to 3.8GHz using the 400MHz FSB and DDR2-800 Nanya dual channel memory running 1:1. It is the fastest ever and it barely gets warm. It is my home PC. I also have an office PC running an E7200 at stock speeds and that is nice and fast (quiet too). I must say Intel's new 45nm chips are really excellent vfm, fast and ecologically-friendly. Well done Intel! You can find my configs and benchmarks under the picture at http://www.jacobsm.com/index.htm#rngimg
  • 0 Hide
    Solitaire , 25 November 2008 01:33
    You moan about how lame the E5200 is then fail to even bench it to prove your point. You also forgot to say that quite a few people can't afford the extra ~€50 to buy a E7200 over a E5200, or that they'd probably have to spend a similar additional amount on an even better performance mobo to eke out the higher FSB needed to effectively OC a E7200.

    Yes, more FSB is good, but it costs money as the combination of a FSB1066 CPU and a low multiplier means you need a performance mobo that can run stable at FSB1600 to get the E7200 to a speed the high-mult, low-FSB E5200 can achieve at a measly 302MHz FSB (FSB1208 quad-pumped) - something even many cheapie boards can achieve (with FSB1333 compliance being considered the entry level more and more now).

    And I'm surprised that you need 1.40v+ to keep the E7200 stable at 3.8GHz - my E5200 is stable up to 3.75GHz at just 1.30v, and I'm nowhere near finished OCing it. The E5200 is based on low-binned silicon dies and thus is on average more power-hungry (and hot/wasteful), requiring relatively higher voltages to achieve the same speeds as the middle-binned E7XXX (which is in turn inferior to the high-bin E8XXX). Just as a comparison the Intel safety spec says voltages over 1.3625v are not at all good for a 45nm chip's health (although extreme cooling mitigates this somewhat)...
  • 0 Hide
    bobalazs , 25 April 2010 22:29
    The only thing that sucks about this processor is that it does not have virtualization.Otherwise, it's cheap, and easily overclockable.
  • 0 Hide
    bobalazs , 25 April 2010 22:32
    For proper overclock you would have to reduce the 9.5 multiplier to 9 or 8 as most motherboards have trouble with the half multi.