LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Broadwell and Skylake on track but more costly than expected.
Read more.Broadwell and Skylake on track but more costly than expected.
the price worth to buy an AMD!
Gosh, and I was just thinking that after 17 years I would finally buy myself an Intel again.I really want a PC that is energy efficient and powerful at the same time, this time around. My first PC was Pentium 166, then Pentium 200 just a few months after its release [that I overclocked to 233MHz], then all AMDs until the last one Phenom II 965 BE. I just cannot justify having a 125W CPU any more. Sorry AMD, truly sorry. I do not care about performance/$ and I love AMD, but I cannot justify buying another >100W even >60W CPU.
When did this even become a consideration? It seems like a completely pointless distinction. Particularly as tdp and power usage are only tenuously related in any event.Originally Posted by SineWave
Gosh, and I was just thinking that after 17 years I would finally buy myself an Intel again.
As an example I've recently moved from a heavily ocd 6300 to a 4790 with a net increase in power draw.
Comparing apples and apples I. E. A high performance 125w part with the equivalent i5 88w and making the (false) assumption that tdp == power draw you'd have to peg both cpus at 100% for a total of 9700 hours (about 13 months) assuming you're absolutely addicted to wow and game 6 hours a day 350 days a year that's 4.6 years. If you do a more realistic comparison (8370e) that goes up to 51000 hours or 25.5 years of gaming addiction.
By all means buy Intel for performance /willy waving /blues your favourite colour reasons. But please don't do it to save electricity.
Personally intel need to slow down. They release chips far too often either with little gain or bizarre decisions such as cheaper paste beneath the cap. I still don't need to upgrade from an i7 980. Whacked in a GTX 980 recently and working peachy fine even on PCIe 2.0 8x
The i7 980 is using 9-12w on web browsing and idling. These are 130w TDP. So just shows that you're never getting close to the TDP day to day. And*gaming seems gpu centric these days cpu rarely go above 40% usage. With the exception of ubisoft games
TDP is THERMAL Design power (the amount of heat the CPU can generate) NOT electrical power needed to run it!
The 2500k and the 3930k are the last relevant Intel desktop CPU's. Since then, crickets.
Also, Intel bitching about production costs when AMD is giving them a licence to print money each year is borderline foo.
Of course, but where do you think that heat comes from?
Wonder how many more socket changes there will be over the next couple of years????
Same as usual I expect. They've got DDR4 and hopefully some more PCI-E connectivity in the pipeline.
I expect they have *less* PCIe connectivity in the pipeline. Those lanes really suck power and all the world is an Ultrabook to Intel, so what could you possibly want lots of lanes for? (Rhetorical question warning).
TDP and power draw are *directly* related; thermal energy emitted by a processor is almost exactly equal to electrical power consumed (minus small amounts converted to other forms of energy e.g. sound and EM for the pedantic, but they're pretty much insignificant). Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
OTOH, TDP is still a guideline for the most part, and just because a CPU says x Watts, doesn't mean it will always consume exactly that under max load. Some CPUs may never reach the TDP printed on the box, some may exceed it, and it also depends on the type of load.
Hehe.
It's the way they survive. The issue being is if they do ever hit a process brick wall, which is becoming more likely with every shrink, they lose almost all value of their product. Hence, profits, hence, no more intel.
Please don't link anything by "analyst" Ashraf Eassa, the guy is just a joke and forum troll who was predicting we'd see Broadwell in June this year.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote