A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » Overclocking AMD Processors
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Athlon64 Spanks P4 in 90nm Power Consumption tests



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 4th 04, 04:39 PM
rms
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Athlon64 Spanks P4 in 90nm Power Consumption tests

http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417

rms


  #2  
Old October 5th 04, 11:00 AM
Adam Webb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

hence the reason why Intel are going to go back to the old P3 design
soon.......

--
From Adam Webb, Overlag

"rms" wrote in message
m...
http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417

rms




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 01/10/2004


  #3  
Old October 5th 04, 11:38 PM
George Macdonald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:00:50 +0100, "Adam Webb"
wrote:

hence the reason why Intel are going to go back to the old P3 design
soon.......


Which they're going to have to do an AMD64 for... all over again. The
troubles with Dothan would perhaps indicate that they also have some more
work to do on their process.

From Adam Webb, Overlag

"rms" wrote in message
om...
http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417


Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  #4  
Old October 6th 04, 05:41 PM
Ed Light
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

They've amended the results. Not as good as thought. Gets hotter this time.

http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=610

--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.


  #5  
Old October 7th 04, 04:55 AM
Tony Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:41:44 -0700, "Ed Light"
wrote:

They've amended the results. Not as good as thought. Gets hotter this time.

http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=610


Hmm.. an overclocked processor runs hotter than one that is not
overclocked...

And they are surprised by the results?!?!

The wonders will never cease..

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca
  #6  
Old October 7th 04, 06:28 AM
Michael Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Nadeem wrote:
rms wrote:

http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417

rms



The results sound awful. I wonder what they actually used to measure
the wattage?


Presumably one of the many household-appliance-power-meter things. There's a
difference between running hot and being power hungry. The Prescott is both
(ie: runs hotter and uses more power than the Northwood), but judging from
these results the 90nm A64's are less power-hungry than the 130nm parts. The
jury appears to still be out on whether it runs hotter or not.

What really needs to be done is for someone (TectReport would be good, since
they already have a 90nm 3500+) to test the chips at a large range of
frequencies and plot the results. If the results look like (view with fixed
width font):

Power
usage
^
| **
| **
| ***
| ****
| **** +
| **** +
| 130nm **** ++
| ***** ++
|***** +++
| +++
| ++++
| +++++
|+++++
| 90nm
|
|
|
+--------------------------------------
Speed

Then clearly AMD is going to be having the same problem as Intel scaling the
CPUs to higher speeds. Intel's additional problem was that the Prescott
started out being more power hungy even at the far left hand side of the
graph. AMD doesn't have this problem, so may be able to ramp better than
Intel has with the Prescott. The key thing to look at is if the power usage
for 90nm parts ever gets above that of 130nm parts. We now know that at
lower speeds, 90nm parts consume less power. So, if they ever get to the
point of crossing the 130nm part line (as shown in the ascii graph), then
it's fairly likely that they're going to hit the wall quicker than the
130's.

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open


  #7  
Old October 7th 04, 02:42 PM
Nadeem
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

rms wrote:

http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417

rms



The results sound awful. I wonder what they actually used to measure the
wattage?
  #8  
Old October 8th 04, 03:19 AM
I R T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tony Hill writes:

And they are surprised by the results?!?!


And the second article is only about CPU temperature, not
power consumption.

Usual braindead journalist stuff...
  #9  
Old October 10th 04, 08:13 PM
alexi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Michael Brown" wrote in message
...
Nadeem wrote:
rms wrote:

http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417

rms



The results sound awful. I wonder what they actually used to measure
the wattage?


Presumably one of the many household-appliance-power-meter things. There's

a
difference between running hot and being power hungry. The Prescott is

both
(ie: runs hotter and uses more power than the Northwood), but judging from
these results the 90nm A64's are less power-hungry than the 130nm parts.

The
jury appears to still be out on whether it runs hotter or not.

What really needs to be done is for someone (TectReport would be good,

since
they already have a 90nm 3500+) to test the chips at a large range of
frequencies and plot the results. If the results look like (view with

fixed
width font):

Power
usage
^
| **
| **
| ***
| ****
| **** +
| **** +
| 130nm **** ++
| ***** ++
|***** +++
| +++
| ++++
| +++++
|+++++
| 90nm
|
|
|
+--------------------------------------
Speed


Power consumption of CMOS is _proportional_ to core frequency.
Therefore the chart is likely to be something like this:


Power
^
| **
| ** ++
| **++
| **+
| **
| 90nm +**
| ++**
| ++ **
| ++ **
| ++ **
|++ **
| **
|**
| 130nm
|
|
|
|
|
+------------------------------------------
0 Speed

Regards
- aap




  #10  
Old October 11th 04, 01:40 AM
keith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:13:46 +0000, alexi wrote:


"Michael Brown" wrote in message
...
Nadeem wrote:
rms wrote:

http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417

rms



The results sound awful. I wonder what they actually used to measure
the wattage?


Presumably one of the many household-appliance-power-meter things. There's

a
difference between running hot and being power hungry. The Prescott is

both
(ie: runs hotter and uses more power than the Northwood), but judging from
these results the 90nm A64's are less power-hungry than the 130nm parts.

The
jury appears to still be out on whether it runs hotter or not.

What really needs to be done is for someone (TectReport would be good,

since
they already have a 90nm 3500+) to test the chips at a large range of
frequencies and plot the results. If the results look like (view with

fixed
width font):


graph snipped


Power consumption of CMOS is _proportional_ to core frequency.
Therefore the chart is likely to be something like this:


Not at *all* true. Active power consumption is proportional to frequency
times voltage *squared*. You assume voltage is a constant; it's not. You
also ignore leakage, which is an even higher-order issue, WRT voltage.
We're not in the 20th century, Toto.

Power
^
| **
| ** ++
| **++
| **+
| **
| 90nm +**
| ++**
| ++ **
| ++ **
| ++ **
|++ **
| **
|**
| 130nm
|
|
|
|
|
+------------------------------------------ 0
Speed


Would it be nice if life were simple again. ...and June had the meal on
the table when the Ward came home...

--
Keith
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Athlon64 Spanks P4 in 90nm Power Consumption tests rms Overclocking 22 October 13th 04 06:22 AM
my new mobo o/c's great rockerrock Overclocking AMD Processors 9 June 30th 04 08:17 PM
Happy Birthday America SST Overclocking 333 November 27th 03 07:54 PM
Happy Birthday America SST Overclocking AMD Processors 326 November 27th 03 07:54 PM
How can I make motherboard to restart after power loss automatically? Amiran General 1 September 24th 03 11:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.