Recent content by dess

My main concern here was your claim that AMD typically under-rates their CPU's TDP. It's clear already it's not the case, the consumption at high loads is certainly between the value of the given TDP and the TDP on class below. Now, on Intel's side, look at the i3-2100, its real high-loaded...

You have to add some 20W to the consumption of Nehalem and most probably Sandy Bridge, because the memory controller is not powered from the separate "ATX12V" lead. link (Also note that the memory controller and much of the IO is off-chip in case of the Core 2 CPU's.) For two simple reasons...

Yes, it does. We gave you several references already. No, I didn't say such a thing. It's all relative to their own TDP. Yes, lately Intel over rates many of their chips' TDP, but it wasn't this way all the time (certainly in the P4 era, f.ex.) and there are still cases when the official TDP...

@Albuquerque: Your calculations are wrong. Consumption at full load not equals full system load - idle system (it's only the excess upon idle [+ loaded system overhead]), but full system load - idle system + idle CPU - a few watts (chipset, ram, etc. at load). The idle CPU consumption is not...

@ToTTenTranz: Thanks! :) I've also edited in some bits about it in my last post. (In some cases there can be a huge difference! Thus, AMD intoduced the ACP measure, as being comparble to Intel's TDP. They don't use it on the desktop/mobile, though.)

@french toast: I don't think that was me. I don't even know what is "hm1". @Albuquerque: Regarding AMD TDP vs. Intel TDP (/Max power/Sustained power): http://www.semiaccurate.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7949&postcount=86 ----- Well, there is an official slide from AMD:

Yes, that would be silly, but I didn't even say that! Please, read more carefully! The 35W was a TDP class number, but the 17W wasn't (I assume). But, even if it was so, as well, it's still possible that its actual averaged-maximal-consumption-at-normal-circumstances is more than half of that of...

NO, it's absolutly not true, it's indeed the other way around! Intel base its classification on weighted average consumpion, so you will find Intel CPU's with f.ex. 130W TDP and consuming really 150W at high loads. AMD, in the other hand, base its classification on absolute maximal [averaged on...

There is an apparent flaw in your argument. TDP is not actual power consumption, it's a classification. It indicates a part's power consumption is somewhere between the top of the given TDP class (35W in this case) and the top of the class one level below (18W?). So, the "almost half" of the...

Then what else do you account for the 25W decrease at gaming?

Well, the right wording would be EE+GS powered vs. GS + emulated EE powered.

Could anybody find a higher resolution photo of the motherboard, or especially the cooler, of the CECHGxx model?

Right, they didn't say it's only because of the GS - it's me who can't see any other mayor change in components that could explain such a significant reduction of power consumption. Or could the removal of the card reader and a pair of USB connection, as well, and perhaps a change of the PSU...

Sony denied jumping to 65nm for now - claims it will come a bit later. (Autotranslated.) (Not that I really believe. >60W less just because of the missing GS?)

Well, George Ou at first suggested that those results were just made up by the marketing at AMD after they had to admit the low launch clocks. Not true. These numbers were advertised in April, when they were correct ones, as 1. Intel introduced the 3GHz Xeon 5365 later, 2. the better benchmark...