Power Consumption and The Test

When we went to go measure power consumption on our Pentium EE 955 platform, we were met with some extremely troubling results.  Not only did we not see the power consumption figures that we originally saw with Presler and Cedar Mill a couple of months back, but power consumption was actually higher at 65nm than it was at 90nm.  We contacted Intel and were assured that the problem had to do with an issue with our motherboard and a new motherboard is en-route to us now.  When we do receive the new motherboard, we will take a look at power consumption once more to get an idea of the final state of Intel's 65nm power consumption, but until then, we don't want to draw any conclusions based on what we've seen. 

The Test

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2.4GHz/1MBx2)
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (2.0GHz/512KBx2)
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 (2.8GHz/1MB)
Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 955 (3.46GHz/2MBx2)
Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 840 (3.2GHz/1MBx2)
Intel Pentium D 820 (2.8GHz/1MBx2)
Motherboard: ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe
Intel BadAxe 975X
Motherboard BIOS: ASUS: Version 1013 Dated 08/10/2005
Chipset: NVIDIA nForce4 SLI
Intel 975X
Chipset Drivers: nForce4 6.70
Intel 7.0.0.1020
Memory: OCZ PC3500 DDR 2-2-2-7
DDR2-667 5-5-5-15
Video Card: ATI Radeon X1800 XT
Video Drivers: ATI Catalyst 5.13
Desktop Resolution: 1280 x 1024 - 32-bit @ 60Hz
OS: Windows XP Professional SP2

Index Literally Dual Core
Comments Locked

84 Comments

View All Comments

  • Aenslead - Saturday, December 31, 2005 - link

    As J.J., from Spider-Man would say:

    "Ceap, crap, mega-crap!" and then toss it away.
  • ElJefe - Saturday, December 31, 2005 - link

    well it does move very fast in games. that is nice to see finally.

    it would be great if the overall power draw numbers were shown as on tomshardware. even there they showed a 90 watt difference between 4800 and the new 65nm. and that wasnt on the oc'd one. The oc'd one showed 150 more watts draw.
  • Viditor - Saturday, December 31, 2005 - link

    quote:

    well it does move very fast in games. that is nice to see finally

    Agreed...if it weren't for the X2, this would be an excellent chip by comparison!
  • Betwon - Friday, December 30, 2005 - link

    Now, anandtech begin to learn the truth. There are still many knowledge about CPU that anandtech need to learn.
    quote:

    . Through some extremely clever and effective engineering, Prescott actually wasn't any slower than its predecessors, despite the increase in pipeline stages.


    The resluts of tests are simple and clear, but the reasons are complex.

    In past years, anandtech took many mistakes about the correct reasons.
  • bldckstark - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link

    You do realize that none of this stuff is very important, right? Both chips work well. Nobody should be criticized for buying either one of them.
    I love my FIVE computers but making sure my wife and kids are healthy and happy is way more important than any electronic device, especially just one piece of it.
    Your damaging and hostile statements are making it appear as if you have forgotten this and the most important thing in the world is that you make all of us geeks think Anandtech is not perfect. News update - WE ALL KNOW THAT! We still like it.
  • bob4432 - Friday, December 30, 2005 - link

    why don't you do the gaming benchmark with bf2 fps unlocked? it appears that it is just hitting its built in lock with both the fx-57 and also P955 EE 3.46 cpus.
  • Spacecomber - Friday, December 30, 2005 - link

    I believe that they are using the timedemo feature of the game and that the frame rate max doesn't affect this. It would be nice to see more than just average frame rates reported for games, though. At least a range should be mentioned and maybe a standard deviation.

    Space
  • Betwon - Friday, December 30, 2005 - link

    We see a test, where the average fps of PD is less than (about 1% - 2%) the fps of AMD's. But PD's fps is more stable than AMD's.

    In the case that the average fps of netburst is better than the average fps of K8, the test shows that netburst is more stable than K8.
  • Betwon - Friday, December 30, 2005 - link

    The test isn't bf2.
  • bob4432 - Friday, December 30, 2005 - link

    any link you could give me on how to do the time demo from within bf2? is this new with the 1.12 patch?

    thanks

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now