Power (Wh) Consumed During An Entire SYSmark 2007 Run
The total power (in watt-hours) required to perform an entire SYSmark 2007 run decreases by 5.2% from 106 to 100.5 Wh. While this doesn’t look like much we should not forget that Penryn does not only require less total power to finish the workload, but it also delivers better performance.
SYSmark 2007 Score Per Watt-hour
This is probably one of the most interesting results, as it relates to performance and power requirements. The chart shows the SYSmark 2007 Preview score divided by the total amount of power (in Wh) required to run the workload. We expected the 45-nm E8400 to be considerably better than the 65-nm E6750, but we did not quite expect it to outperform the Core 2 Extreme QC9650 quad-core processor, which is based on two Wolfdale dies inside the physical processor (Intel calls this Yorkfield). In other words, while the quad core does provide more performance for thread-optimized workloads, the power requirements increase more than the performance benefits.
- Previous page Test Setup For Power Consumption Testing
- Next page Performance Per Watt Normalized To...
- 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.