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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Athlon64 Spanks P4 in 90nm Power Consumption tests
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |