Test Setup For Power Consumption Testing
| Platform | |
|---|---|
| CPU I | Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 (45 nm; 3000 MHz, 6 MB L2 Cache) |
| CPU II | Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (45 nm; 3000 MHz, 12 MB L2 Cache) |
| CPU III | Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 (65 nm; 3000 MHz, 4 MB L2 Cache) |
| CPU IV | Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (65 nm; 3000 MHz, 8 MB L2 Cache) |
| CPU V | Intel Pentium D 830 (90 nm; 3000 MHz, 2 MB L2 Cache) |
| CPU VI | Intel Pentium 4 630 (90 nm; 3000 MHz, 2 MB L2 Cache) |
| Motherboard I | Asus P5E3 Deluxe, Rev: 1.03
Chipset: Intel X38, BIOS 0402 (2007-09-19) |
| RAM | Crucial BL12864BA1608.8SFB
2x 1024 MB DDR3-1066 (CL 7-7-7-20 2T) |
| Hard Disk Drive | Western Digital WD5000AAKS
500 GB, 7,200 RPM, 16 MB cache, SATA/300 |
| DVD-ROM | Samsung SH-S183 |
| Graphics Card | Gigabyte GV-RX385512H
GPU: Radeon HD 3850 (670 MHz) RAM: 512 MB GDDR3 (830 MHz) |
| Sound Card | Integrated |
| Power Supply | Coolermaster RS850-EMBA
ATX 12V 2.2, 850 W |
| System Software & Drivers | |
| OS | Windows XP Professional 5.10.2600, Service Pack 2 |
| DirectX Version | 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904) |
| Platform Drivers Intel | Version 8.3.1.1009 |
| Graphics Drivers ATI | Catalyst 7.11 |
| Benchmarks and Settings | |
| Sysmark 2007 Preview | Version 1.02
Official Run |
Power Consumption Test Results
All power-consumption tests involved different CPUs running at 3.0 GHz.
Idle And Maximum System Power Requirements
This difference is significant; using Core 2 Duo E8500 (3.0 GHz) instead of Core 2 Duo E6850 (3.0 GHz) results in a 5.2% decrease in the idle-system power draw (73 W instead of 77 W) and an amazing 18.2 decrease in the system-power requirement under maximum load. Keep in mind that all other system components including the power supply, the motherboard, the graphics card, the hard drive and the memory stay the same! As you could see in the overclocking benchmarks and in our first part of the Core 2 Duo Wolfdale review, the E8000 series provides even better performance while saving a lot of energy.
Average Power Requirement During SYSmark 2007
Clearly, the 45-nm Wolfdale makes a huge difference; if you use it to replace a Core 2 Duo E6850 (65 nm), it will decrease the average power requirement of our test system from 90.3 to 80.8 W for the duration of an entire SYSmark 2007 Preview run. This results in a total decrease of 10.5% for the entire system. Again, keep in mind that we only changed the processor from 65 nm to 45 nm.
- Previous page SYSmark 2007 Preview Results
- Next page Power (Wh) Consumed During An Entire...
- Wolfdale Shrinks Transistors, Grows Core 2
- Intel Skulltrail II - Overclocking and Power Consumption
- Intel Skulltrail I - Feeling the Power of 8 Cores
- Intel Skulltrail III - Eight against Four Performance Comparison
- Comparing AMD CPU Efficiency
- AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition – A New Hope?
- Phenom vs. Athlon Core Scaling Compared
- Intel Power Consumption Then and Now
- The Phenom vs. Athlon Core Shootout
- Ultimate Budget Overclocking Box - A 3.5 GHz Core 2 System with a...
I will admit to not really being a regular overclocker but isnt the whole point about getting the best out of your hardware and in essance getting something for nothing.
from that view point i would have thought it would have made sence to at least include the 8200 for comparison, If not have done the whole article on it instead of the 8500. Or am i missing the point?
Intel has no dedicated inter-connect, no onboard MMU. All inter-core communication for both dual and quad-core CPU's has to go via the FSB. Intel is late catching up because it got complacent.
Also, AMD CPU's at the bottom end still overclock well and are very cheap. I don't think everything is in Intel's favour
Socket 939 90nm Athlon64 3200+ (2.0GHz) can hit 2.7GHz or more on air. Same for Socket AM2 65nm Athlon64x2 4000+ (2.1GHz).
..not bad considering it's a generation before C2D.
Is it me or doesn't there appear ot be much of a difference between the 266 and newer 333MHz FSB speed?
Intel has no dedicated inter-connect, no onboard MMU. All inter-core communication for both dual and quad-core CPU's has to go via the FSB. Intel is late catching up because it got complacent.Also, AMD CPU's at the bottom end still overclock well and are very cheap. I don't think everything is in Intel's favour
Am I wrong in thinking the intel dual core does have inter core communication on chip. It is the quad core that communicates via the fsb for but only between the two core 2 duo dies.