Benchmark Results: Power And Efficiency
System Power Consumption
These are impressive results: Intel’s new Core i5-750 has significantly less total system idle power than the power-optimized Core 2 Quad S model. AMD’s Phenom II X4 follows. The Core i7-920 is most power hungry, partly because of its complex three-chip platform (versus Lynnfield's two-chip design).
The peak power results at 2.8 GHz are interesting as well. Core i7 and Phenom II X4 require almost exactly the same power at peak load on our test system, while Core 2 Quad S and Core i5 are very close to each other again. Looking at the fact that the performance differences aren’t as huge as the power gap it is obvious that neither the AMD Phenom II X4 nor the Intel Core i7 on LGA 1366 will be anywhere close to winning the efficiency shootout.
Efficiency
Average power for the processors was more similar than in the peak power test. Core i5 and Core 2 Quad S go head to head, while Core i7 and Phenom II X4 are comparable, as well.
The total power used to complete a full efficiency run also depends on performance, as the fast systems may return to an idle state much quicker and therefore reduce power consumption. This is the case for the Core i7-920, which required much less power for this workload than the AMD Phenom II X4. Core i5 and Core 2 Quad S are even lower on power. Let’s look at runtime and relate power and runtime.
This is the performance ranking: Core i7 is fastest followed by Core i5 and Core 2 Quad S. AMD takes the last place.
Here is what happens if we relate performance to power used. Core i5 delivers the second highest performance at the lowest power consumption, so it takes the lead on overall efficiency. Core 2 Quad S does well here for the same reasons. Unfortunately, AMD fares poorly again. It doesn’t stand a chance against the Core i5/i7 family, requiring more power to tackle given workloads.
- 1 / 3
- Next
-
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 would be interesting to see compared systems at same price (probably would make sense if price included motherboard+processor).
As far as Gaming goes the results dont represent real life at all. At a resolution that someone with a CPU like the ones used there is really very little differance in performance at all. In fact the 965 would win some benchmarks at a sensable resolution.
Mactronix
what was wrong with the resolution shown i dont think to many people play at those res anymore with the current line up of monitors everyone has higher
doesn't the low resolutions push the game to be cpu bound and hence remove any chance of the gpu bottlenecking the result? hence the use of very low resolutions.
THG constantly manage to make AMD cpu's look a lot worse than they are don't they?
HINT : AMD already has a 2.8ghz cpu, USE THAT ONE INSTEAD OF DOWNCLOCKING THE FLAGSHIP YOU TARDS.
How much better a slant would this entire article have on AMD cpu's if they'd simply used a X4 925 instead of the X4 965?
SHEESH is it any wonder THG gets accusations of bias on every bloody article???
http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo/ [...] &Itemid=42
Please read this article before doing any more benchmarks on intel power consumption.
THG constantly manage to make AMD cpu's look a lot worse than they are don't they?HINT : AMD already has a 2.8ghz cpu, USE THAT ONE INSTEAD OF DOWNCLOCKING THE FLAGSHIP YOU TARDS.How much better a slant would this entire article have on AMD cpu's if they'd simply used a X4 925 instead of the X4 965?SHEESH is it any wonder THG gets accusations of bias on every bloody article???
THG and every website which shows the true state of CPU performance(i.e. that AMD are behind Intel) will always cop accusations of bias from AMD fanboys who are addicted to denying reality.
THG and every website which shows the true state of CPU performance(i.e. that AMD are behind Intel) will always cop accusations of bias from AMD fanboys who are addicted to denying reality.
Funny how even a massively underclocked Phenom II can still beat an i7 in most of the gaming benchmarks.
Funny how even a massively underclocked Phenom II can still beat an i7 in most of the gaming benchmarks.
In a GPU limited situation, it appears that the PhII can compete with the i7, but once that bottleneck is removed, then the disparity in performance between each processor becomes apparent.
In a GPU limited situation, it appears that the PhII can compete with the i7, but once that bottleneck is removed, then the disparity in performance between each processor becomes apparent.
A gtx260 gpu limited at 1280x800 on medium settings? I don't think so, no.
The i5 manages ok, it's just further proof of the i7's gaming failings - and this time you can't even use gpu limited as the excuse.
THG and every website which shows the true state of CPU performance(i.e. that AMD are behind Intel) will always cop accusations of bias from AMD fanboys who are addicted to denying reality.
Yes AMD are behind Intel when all around performance is taken into account but the thing Intel is up on is encoding etc. For everyday usage in the real world, that's gaming and the odd bit of encoding where 18 seconds difference doesn't matter to anyone AMD are totally in the race.
Low power consumption is nice but it isnt a reason to buy one over the other. The differance is exactly the same thing as buying a diesel car over a petrol one because the running costs are lower, that differance being nothing. The milage you need to do before the fuel costs start to out way the extra you paid is huge. Same as you would get to the point where you are buying a new PC before the low power consunption of the intel would make a differance over teh extra you paid for the hardware.
In fact im strongly looking at AMD for my next build.
Mactronix
i just find it funny how people consider the GTX 260 a weak GPU, but in terms of performance it's holding its own in the top 10 cards from nVidia(from what i can make out)
Also, the Phenom ii 965 isn't exactly miles behind the i7s, it's clearly slower than the I7s in many benchmarks which involve sheer number crunching muscle, but in gaming benchmarks, AMDs flagship cpu is on par with the I7 regardless of only using a Dual channel memory configuration.
I personally can't go above 1366x768 in resolution(using a 720p HDTV)
so its nice to see benchmarks done using 1280x1024
Exactly if you want to crunch numbers and worry about power usage then get an i5/i7
If you want a general purpose/gaming PC get an AMD CPU. At a decent resolution with a top end card gaming wise the 965 actually beats an i7 in some games.
Mactronix
Imagine what AMD could do with that Triple channel controller...
But more to the point, in the 10 years i've been using AMD CPUs
(From K6-III 400 > Duron 750 > Athlon xp 1800 > Athlon 64 2800(754) > AMD Athlon 64 3700(939) then to Phenom II x4 955) and i've noticed in benchmarking AMD have favoured 3D application performance since the end of the Super 7 Era, intel couldn't keep up with the athlon Slot A.
And as for pricing at the moment, you can't get a more ferocious CPU than the PII x4 965 for £135 (Retail boxed CPU)
A gtx260 gpu limited at 1280x800 on medium settings? I don't think so, no.The i5 manages ok, it's just further proof of the i7's gaming failings - and this time you can't even use gpu limited as the excuse.
The result for the i7 in that particular test seems a bit odd as it doesn't correspond to the results that Tom's got when they tested all four processors previously at 2.8Ghz with 4870x2's as the GPU
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/core [...] 672-9.html
So it does appear that the lack of GPU power distorted the results in AMD's favour for that one result(even though the i5-750 handily beat it), but with plenty of GPU grunt, of course the better CPU shines through.
The result for the i7 in that particular test seems a bit odd as it doesn't correspond to the results that Tom's got when they tested all four processors previously at 2.8Ghz with 4870x2's as the GPU
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/core [...] 672-9.html
So it does appear that the lack of GPU power distorted the results in AMD's favour for that one result(even though the i5-750 handily beat it), but with plenty of GPU grunt, of course the better CPU shines through.
Ye sure...what was it the i5 had over the i7 again? On one hand you claim the better cpu shines through with plenty of gpu grunt, but you can't explain why the i5 is scoring so much higher?
Face it, the i7 is a lemon of a gaming cpu.
Ye sure...what was it the i5 had over the i7 again? On one hand you claim the better cpu shines through with plenty of gpu grunt, but you can't explain why the i5 is scoring so much higher?
Face it, the i7 is a lemon of a gaming cpu.
There appears to be something wrong with that particular benchmark as you don't see those results anywhere else.
Besides the other Tom's link I showed you(which you obviously couldn't understand), you don't see that result on other sites.
Here The Tech Report using a GTX260 shows the i7 at stock speeds beating a 3.4Ghz Ph II in Left for Dead on averagey settings
http://techreport.com/articles.x/17545/7
No actually the lack of GPU power distorts things in Intels favour.
If this test was done with a 5850 the gaming results would be level across the board.
Mactronix
No actually the lack of GPU power distorts things in Intels favour.If this test was done with a 5850 the gaming results would be level across the board. Mactronix
Check out this review with a 4870x2, it does not produce the results you suggest.
No actually the lack of GPU power distorts things in Intels favour.If this test was done with a 5850 the gaming results would be level across the board. Mactronix
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/core [...] 31672.html
Check out this review with a 4870x2, it does not produce the results you suggest.