1 |
Alecks Gates wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> Michael Mol wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
>>>> The point made about producing less heat with the smaller nm sounds |
6 |
>>>> reasonable tho. |
7 |
>>> Less heat with the smaller nm, but only if all other things remain equal! |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> In reality, manufacturers use additional margin within their TDP to |
10 |
>>> improve the product otherwise. Perhaps they increase the clock speed |
11 |
>>> somewhat. Perhaps they increase the amount of on-die cache. Perhaps |
12 |
>>> they reduce the instruction pipeline. |
13 |
>>> |
14 |
>>> AMD, for example, has tended to maintain keep something in the market |
15 |
>>> for a 125W, 95W and 65W TDPs for several years. Each year, the |
16 |
>>> functionality that used to be in a 125W TDP processor shows up in a |
17 |
>>> 95W TDP processor, and the latest 125W TDP processor beats the pants |
18 |
>>> off of last years'. |
19 |
>>> |
20 |
>> |
21 |
>> I found this to be plain weird when I built my new rig. My old rig was |
22 |
>> a AMD 2500+ single core system with 2Gbs of ram. It pulled about 400 |
23 |
>> watts or so for normal desktop use. A little more when compiling and |
24 |
>> such. My new rig, AMD Phenom II 955 with four cores and 16Gbs of ram. |
25 |
>> Heck, just a single core is much faster than my old rig. Thing is, the |
26 |
>> new rig pulls less than half of what the old one pulls, WHILE |
27 |
>> COMPILING. I can't recall the nm part but I think the CPU I got for my |
28 |
>> old rig was supposed to be for laptop use. |
29 |
>> |
30 |
>> AMD sure is getting more efficient as you point out. I still wonder |
31 |
>> where we will be in 10 years. Just how fast can they make them? |
32 |
>> |
33 |
>> Dale |
34 |
>> |
35 |
>> :-) :-) |
36 |
>> |
37 |
>> -- |
38 |
>> I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
39 |
>> |
40 |
>> |
41 |
> Definitely OT but that's surely not because of the CPU, or at least |
42 |
> not only the CPU. Many people highly underestimate the value of a |
43 |
> good and efficient power supply, which can make a huge difference. |
44 |
> This is one of those things that companies such as Dell like to cut |
45 |
> costs on because the average user neither sees the PSU specifications |
46 |
> nor knows enough to ask about it. Of course, efficiency within the |
47 |
> entire computer helps, but a bad power supply can really hurt your |
48 |
> electric bill. |
49 |
> |
50 |
> On topic, AMD is definitely getting more efficient but mostly because |
51 |
> that's where the technology is headed in general -- Intel seems to do |
52 |
> a better job at efficiency per core but they also use hyper threading, |
53 |
> whereas AMD is putting their bets into more physical cores. Yes, I'm |
54 |
> going to say it again, but AMD is what you want for multitasking. |
55 |
> They are switching their goals from high-performance cores to |
56 |
> highly-concurrent CPUs, GPUs, and APUs. |
57 |
> |
58 |
> Concurrency is the future, it's just hard for a lot of people to think |
59 |
> in such a way (and our technology doesn't leverage it to its full |
60 |
> capacity). Just look at the human brain: "a maximum of 1,000 nerve |
61 |
> impulses per second is possible. However, firing rates of 1 per second |
62 |
> to 300-400 per second are more typical."[1] Basically the average |
63 |
> neuron seems to be about only 300Hz, but there are trillions upon |
64 |
> trillions of synapses within the brain. I don't know about you, but I |
65 |
> am, allegedly, a fully-functioning, self-aware, intelligent being. |
66 |
> |
67 |
> [1] http://www.noteaccess.com/APPROACHES/ArtEd/ChildDev/1cNeurons.htm |
68 |
> |
69 |
> |
70 |
|
71 |
|
72 |
It may not be JUST the CPU but the CPU is a big part of it. I might |
73 |
add, I moved one hard drive from the old system to the new one. The |
74 |
ones in my new rig that were new are about the same power wise, same |
75 |
brand too. I actually have the same number of drives in my new rig as |
76 |
was in my old rig. So that balances out. I might also add I have 16Gbs |
77 |
of ram in my new rig but only 2Gbs of ram in the old one so that doesn't |
78 |
fit either. As to the power supply, I build my own rig and I always |
79 |
pick a good power supply that is efficient. The power supply is larger |
80 |
in my new rig. I was thinking that the new rig would pull a bit more |
81 |
power so I actually got a power supply that is really a little bit to |
82 |
big. If anything, that would be a negative on my new rig not a |
83 |
positive. The mobo is the only thing different other than the CPU |
84 |
itself. Oh, let's not forget that my new case has those large 230mm |
85 |
fans. Three of them to be exact. I wouldn't be surprised if they pull |
86 |
about the same power tho. The CPU fan is larger on my new CPU tho. It |
87 |
may pull a small amount more but not enough to really worry about much. |
88 |
My video card is faster in the new rig too. |
89 |
|
90 |
So, all in all, one would expect the new rig to pull more power not |
91 |
less. It is a more powerful machine compared to my old rig. I did some |
92 |
math, my new rig is overall 7 times faster than my old rig. I plan to |
93 |
upgrade to a newer, faster CPU with more cores when prices come down a |
94 |
bit more. |
95 |
|
96 |
Dale |
97 |
|
98 |
:-) :-) |
99 |
|
100 |
P.S. I don't have a store bought system. I build mine from scratch. |
101 |
While I would recommend Dell to someone who can't build their own, I |
102 |
wouldn't buy one myself. |
103 |
|
104 |
-- |
105 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |