Read more.If a chip gave you the choice to run faster or more efficient, which would you choose?
Read more.If a chip gave you the choice to run faster or more efficient, which would you choose?
If folks were worried about power consumption they wouldn't be selling dual GPU cards needing 800W+ PSU's.
Give us more power.......
I would like both. Quiet and Thrifty when I'm surfing and typing...ALL OUT GODLIKE POWER and quiet when I want to take on the world...all this for a reasonable £67.28.
Last edited by Attila the Bun; 17-01-2014 at 06:22 PM.
Of course I'm perfect you just need to lower your expectations.
It depends on usage. I game a lot so my usage requires more power than average and I enjoy building + tweaking my computer so getting the latest technology to improve performance has always been a priority for me. Hence the high spec gaming rig in my profile.
I now have a second computer of old bits that weren't sold on which I used for watching youtube video's and word processing. I am interested in a low power, small form factor PC for that use because power is not as important. Cooling the higher power processor is problematic in a smaller case with less optimal airflow and you typically don't want a system that makes too much noise when you are working.
So for a simple answer to the question, both but for different machines.
For me, efficiency always comes first even when considering high performance gear. Nowadays I do not play games, so I use a low power laptop for checking emails, streaming videos and wasting money on eBay.
While I am hypocritical about this myself, in todays age we are all aware of the environmental impact of our lifestyles and with home computing the 2 green issues that come to mind are the manufacturing process and the power consumption. While it isn't so easy to figure out the environmental impact of manufacturing process, higher power consumption means more electricity which means more green house gasses being emitted by power plants.
I understand that sometimes there isn't a substitute for raw power, but manufacturers are also realising the importance of low idle power consumption and having various power states to avoid waste.
Genetically modified crops - answer to starvation in Africa?
Efficient as it has to be silent (as in no fans or spinny things).
Power !! My 4770k @ 4.5 Ghz is not fast enough and AMD can't reach that level.
I'm not sure efficiency is relevant or appropriate. All the energy that goes into the CPU ends up as heat, so it is 100% efficient at converting electrical energy into heat. however, if running it at lower power consumption results in lower performance, the efficiency might be the same if the task at lower performance takes longer to do, it will still use more power.
So unless the processor offers the same performance for lower power consumption (when it is arguably, more efficient, it comes down to the age old question of power or performance - and if it takes longer to to something at lower performance, the power consumption may ultimately be the same, for some inconvenience. But how much actual performance is needed depends on the application - there is no simple answer. Gaming at a high frame rate needs a higher performance processor than on simply serving files in a home server.
So to answer the last question, if it was a gaming machine or one doing a lot of calculations, I'd be running it at max performance - if I was using it in a home server, I'd run it at minimum power - better still, I'd use a processor in a mode that idles in low power mode when demand is low, but speeds up as required when the load is high.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
A balance, to be honest.
Up to a point, I require power. After that, efficiency .... though I take that to imply a cost-effective purchase, lower running costs, cooler, less noise, etc.
The question is .... where's the tipping point in the balance?
That, in my view, entirely depends on what you do with the machine. If you write letters and the occasional report, browse the web a bit, do your email, run your accounts and not much more demanding that that, then frankly, any processor in about the last 15 years, maybe more, is enough.
If you're a fanatical gamer, you'll probsbly want processing grunt, but mostly, on graphics cards.
I'm in-between, but close to the first than the fanatical gamer. As long as it'll do the above type general tasks, and do a decent job of photo editing and sound editing, then it's got enough power for me, So a CPU of the Q6600 era, and performance, is enough for me. Beyond that, it's overkill, and is merely power for power's sake.
So, if buying today, I'd take a little care to ensure I matched that, but I susoect it'd be quite hard to get under that. So, mainly, I'd look at what the next step up would cost, and of nominal enough I'd do it, but if I felt the increase in price was more than nomibal, I'd stick at that point.
The same logic applies to how much storage I need, how much memory, what geaphics card, and so on. Oh, and whether to add an SSD would be decided the same way, but view being that, for me, it's nice, but not by any means necessary. I don't expect to get many agree with me, especially on that latter point. But it's how I see it.
So .... a balance, but I'd need convincing that power over efficiency was justified.
The problem(as I have sadly realised) people suck at maths,so end up spending pounds to save pennies. This has been exacerbated by the use of stupid things like LinX and Furmark to measure power consumption,and use of unrealistic usage habits to indicate normal power consumption and the utter obsession on CPU and GPU power consumption over everything else. Moreover,scant attention is given to other parts of a computer(like the monitor,motherboard or PSU) or the fact usage habits are the most important factor. You can have a rig with 100W idle power and use it only 20 hours a week,but someone might keep their rig with 25W idle power on 24/7,meaning they are spending more money for nothing.
However,they "think" since they have an "efficient" rig they don't need care so much.
Moreover,another aspect is people spending MORE on more efficient parts,thinking they will save money,when it will take years to get the initial expenditure back. At times using that old rig(if it does the job),might cost you less money overall as the costs are sunk already.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 17-01-2014 at 06:23 PM.
watercooled (17-01-2014)
This is a tough question to answer..
Power = performance, as many have stated before most of us are power hungry demanding extreme performance from every part of our systems. I can't dismiss efficency as a bad thing though..
If i had the A8 mentioned above, i would choose the 65w version only because i game casually from time to time.
I like AMD's thinking about reducing the TDP on the new A Series yet give us even better mid range gaming perfomance. If things keep on progressing the way they are i can see hardware geting more efficient while keeping clock speeds high.
I've done both.
At the moment i'm running my PC as fast as i can get it to go, but at the height of the summer i under-clocked and disabled 4 cores of my 8 core CPU to make it run cooler...
I've always favored performance since I've always built powerful systems.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)