Power Consumption

Idle Power Consumption

Idle power consumption is a strong point of the Phenom II architecture, only the i7s manage to draw less power. Under load, the 965 draws the most power of anything on the chart - there's its 140W TDP hard at work.

Load Power Consumption - x264 HD Bench Pass 2

Gaming Performance Overclocking
POST A COMMENT

56 Comments

View All Comments

  • TheHolyLancer - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    uncore? isnt this HTT?

    Reply
  • medi01 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    "The problem with the $245 price point that AMD’s flagship sells at is one of positioning. It is dangerously close to the $284 price of a Core i7 920, which is generally a faster chip."

    Sorry, but shouldn't you also include motherboard price into calculation?
    Reply
  • C'DaleRider - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Well, really depends upon where you buy your parts from, doesn't it?

    Given that I have a MicroCenter and Fry's handy, the price for Intel's Core i7 cpu is $200. Combine that with an inexpensive X58 motherboard, like the MSI X58M, that has gotten quite good reviews for what it is, retails for $170.

    That gives a $370 price for mb and cpu to move to i7....cost of DDR3 memory is a wash due to both platforms requiring it.

    Of course, for those that depend upon Newegg's pricing for cpus, I feel for you....getting ripped off and all. Horrible how the 'Egg gouges on cpu prices these days.
    Reply
  • mohindar - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    How you can fit this processor onto socket LGA775, as mentioned in the final page... Reply
  • mohindar - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Sorry, wrong comment. Reply
  • Ben90 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    the SYS Mark 2007 Chart has the i7 920 @ 2.8 ghz... dont know if its on purpose or a typo Reply
  • MODEL3 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Well if it's true that Core i5 750 is going to launch at 6th of September at 196$,
    then the only option for AMD is to drop the price around what you suggested! (199$)
    Traditionally AMD official pricing translates around 5% lower (in actual street price) than Intel equivalent price
    (although in the recent years Intel had various questionable tactics like direct rebates to Retailers & to System Builders without a specific sales target - in the Europe region)

    I just hope that AMD is clever to understand, that in no way has to release a higher clocked model (975 3,6GHz, & 985 3,8GHz)
    before Intel release in Q1 2010 & in Q3 2010 the higher clocked models of i5 7XX (i5 760 2,8GHz & i5 770 2,93GHz) (if this is indeed the Intel future roadmap at 196$)

    Already some sites, that are with Intel side can easily fix the testing method, in order the Core i5 750 to appear more powerful than even a future 975 3,6GHz!

    The performance difference between Phenom II architecture & Nehalem architecture can have wide variation depending on the testing method!

    So if Intel wants, it can influence some sites to use specific methods to declare a Core i5 750 better than even a future 975 3,6GHz!

    What good will do to AMD to release a 975 at a 245$ in Q4 2009?

    Of cource AMD can price it at at 219$ (20$ difference with 965) but the whole situation is becoming depressing (they are fighting for +20$ for only a quarter until Q1 2010)

    Well, i guess they must make everything, in order to survive!
    Reply
  • GeorgeH - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    "AMD ought to get rid of the Xn suffix and just use simple model numbers at this point."

    I understand what you're saying, but I think it's the most straightforward processor naming scheme in a long time. You get the architecture, cores, relative speed, and locked/unlocked instantly. Unless AMD is going to stop selling 2 and 3 core chips and never offer more than 4 cores in the consumer space, I say keep the "Xn".

    Intel could really learn from AMD here; from your writeup on ix branding, I fully expect to be needing a decoder ring to figure out what a particular i3/i5/i7 really is.
    Reply
  • Drazick - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    It seems Intel advantage is more about optimization than much better processor, is this assumption true?

    Why isn't AMD put efforts into that?

    Thanks.
    Reply
  • Drazick - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    It should be easy to create some test scenarios and measure time.

    Many High End users use those kind of software.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now