Benchmark Results: Power Consumption
As expected, switching the Turbo features on or off doesn’t change idle power.
However, peak power increases under Turbo Boost and Turbo CORE. The differences are small, though.
7
Comments
Read more
Sponsored
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
Nice article, good to see two different approaches almost on par, tho i think in the long run, amd's will be the more flexible with advanced users able to tweak the clocks and cores to specific needs. If intel continues its new trend with sandy bridge (all-in-one base clock) and amd continue with its policy of not cutting features on lower models, then amd's platforms could easily become the undisputed tweakers choice.
In their current form, neither are really exciting.
For starters, a small increase like 133 or 266MHz can easily be achieved by increasing base clock, even without raising core voltage. You don't need to be a skilled overclocker to type a number...
Who really needs such a minor boost? Those in search of more processing power will want more than such an incremental increase (aka serious overclocking), while for most people, like gamers or people using their pc for office apps, overclocking simply isn't needed.
Turbo, both in AMD and Intel version, are a minor feature that really isn't a valuable addition. It's there and doesn't do anything wrong, but it's hardly a useful feature.
So, six has stopped being an even number...
Umm no. The 980 improves by 38 seconds (3.2%) whereas the 1090T improves by 1:13 (4.6%).
The fact that the AMD system's power consumption (without Turbo CORE) is less than the similarly clocked 32nm Intel platform (without Turbo Boost) is quite interesting; perhaps the 12MB L3 cache is to blame.
Interesting indeed.
I however will not be able to benefit from this I expect. I recently bought one of the AMD 6 core chips as a pre-overclocked bundle with board and ram. Mine runs reliably a 4.0 Giga Hz with a monster air only cooling system. I won't name the UK company who supplied it but they specialise in overclocking solutions in the products they offer.
Since cooling is an issue I would expect the setup I now have will never try to use this feature.
On the power front I will of course be using far more than I may need all the time but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make ;-)
What the hell is going on here? Please Tom's, do something about these advertisers or I'll go nuts...
Turbo Core should actually boost four cores instead of three for AMD hexa-core CPU's because a lot of applications are optimized for quad cores.