Xbit fails at 'every watt counts' review

[Kaotik]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2100t.html

Note how well the i3 does in all the power consumption tests compared to E-350?
This stirred some confusion at least on some other boards, and shortly someone noticed that Xbit had earlier reviewed MSI's E-350 board, which gave far, far superior numbers compared to the MSI one, which seems really, really power inefficient

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-e-350.html

The test platforms are the same, and when using MSI's instead of Gigabytes board, E-350 would have beaten the i3 in every power consumption category by far.

 

[DarthShader]

They do mention that in this review. That Gigabyte board is one of the most feature-loaded Zacate boards too, all that eats power.

 

[Kaotik]

They do mention that in this review. That Gigabyte board is one of the most feature-loaded Zacate boards too, all that eats power.

Didn't spot that
But still, when you're doing "every watt counts" you shouldn't use such mobo, or at least give the mobo with decent power consumption as reference in same graphs

 

[Mize]

On the surface it's misleading at best because a quick skim reader would conclude AMD is slower and uses more power. Poor review IMHO.

 

[GZ007]

On the surface it's misleading at best because a quick skim reader would conclude AMD is slower and uses more power. Poor review IMHO.

Even if bobcat would use less power its still almost 3-4 times slower CPU wise than the intel . And in that regard, power consumption of the intel cpu is phenomenal. The tiny and slow cpu cores are no match for sandy bridge. The fact is that those cores are actualy just match for atom (which was for me personaly quite a dissapointment).


The weak cpu cores are also holding back the radeon 6250 greatly in games. Lets hope Lliano cpu-s will be better match for the gpu.

 

[eastmen]

It costs alot less also.

The core i3 21-- is $135 on newegg for the cpu alone and the mobo tested is $150 . So your almost at $300 for that set up.

The gigabyte board with the e-350 is only $150 and you can go as low as $100 for if u don't need all the features

They are in two totaly diffrent price brackets

 

[poopypoo]

I read that review too, and was disappointed. Partly in bobcat, which is not too impressive, and partly in xbit, who did sort of thebbare minimum in mentioning whoops all our power nunbers are wrong. They still left it to the readers to determine how off their calcs were, and their conclusion... anyway, neither of these series excites me yet. But at least they're finally happening. Was getting so sick of previews which were full of garbage details (for years).

 

[Mize]

I read that review too, and was disappointed. Partly in bobcat, which is not too impressive, and partly in xbit, who did sort of thebbare minimum in mentioning whoops all our power nunbers are wrong. They still left it to the readers to determine how off their calcs were, and their conclusion... anyway, neither of these series excites me yet. But at least they're finally happening. Was getting so sick of previews which were full of garbage details (for years).

They could have saved themselves with a perf/watt analysis like Hexus does...and included data from their earlier review...but they didn't.

 

[Blazkowicz]

On the surface it's misleading at best because a quick skim reader would conclude AMD is slower and uses more power. Poor review IMHO.

it's reader's fault for failing at reading, I believe the article is clear enough with its "What a surprise!" and "however", and explaining all the issue with text.

this is nice to actually hear about the issue, so we can know it may happen on the cheaper E-350 boards, which have room for coming down in price. in fact they're quite more expensive than an Atom with Intel GPU - another missing board.

I dare say that raw CPU burn figure can be misleading, even. In most usages bobcat will spend more time at CPU burn while intel will spend way more time at idle.

nothing wrong as the Intel solution is about twice the price. of interest is the gaming performance much superior on Intel's "fusion" than on AMD's fusion. looking forward to a low TDP variant of llano as well

 

[itsmydamnation]

Even if bobcat would use less power its still almost 3-4 times slower CPU wise than the intel . And in that regard, power consumption of the intel cpu is phenomenal. The tiny and slow cpu cores are no match for sandy bridge. The fact is that those cores are actualy just match for atom (which was for me personaly quite a dissapointment).


The weak cpu cores are also holding back the radeon 6250 greatly in games. Lets hope Lliano cpu-s will be better match for the gpu.

each thread has like 2X the performance of an ATOM thread. ATOM requires HT to get to the same throughput but ATOMs problem is that its single thread performance is so bad that even just windows feels slow and bad, bobcat has enough single threaded performance to not have this issue.

But 28nm "enhanced" quad core bobcats will be very interesting, i can see myself buying a win 8 tablet