125W Phenom in my 780G mobo? It's more likely than you think.

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
25,478
14,434
136
very interesting.... I will still stay with Intel for now though.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,554
2
76
For HTCP AMD/ATI just makes all the sense in the world, no matter what. Intel just doesn't have anything to match it.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
221
101
How so? A downclocked 45 nm Intel CPU should consume fewer watts than anything AMD has released and also do more work per watt. HD playback can be offloaded to a low-power PCI-e GPU.
 

Sylvanas

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2004
3,752
0
0
Originally posted by: superstition
How so? A downclocked 45 nm Intel CPU should consume fewer watts than anything AMD has released and also do more work per watt. HD playback can be offloaded to a low-power PCI-e GPU.

An X2/X4+780G is a much better option than any Intel offering. The 740/780G are built on 55nm, have HD decoding, Blu-Ray, consumes considerably less power Hybrid Crossfire with the ability to power down a discrete video card, cheaper than Intel cpu+mobo+discrete graphics card....no competition.
 

Cookie Monster

Diamond Member
May 7, 2005
5,161
32
86
Originally posted by: superstition
How so? A downclocked 45 nm Intel CPU should consume fewer watts than anything AMD has released and also do more work per watt. HD playback can be offloaded to a low-power PCI-e GPU.

Whats the point of buying an IGP if you need to get HD playback/game etc to actually work by buying a lower end video card. Compared to the MCP78 and 780G which doesn't require you to spend any $$ since they provide more than enough on the video front.

Not to mention both of them consume less power than its intel equivalent.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
For HTCP AMD/ATI just makes all the sense in the world, no matter what. Intel just doesn't have anything to match it.

G31 mobo with a HD3450 is less than 100 I think, that seems pretty comparable if you want an HTPC :p
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
221
101
to handle the 125W TDP processors and in the future, the upcoming 140W TDP Phenoms.
IGP power consumption, rah rah.

We did experience thermal related shutdowns with OCCT around the 40-minute mark on both boards with just the retail heatsink and standard case configuration
How unfortunate.


By the way, a Radeon 3450 card is $22.50 at Newegg after rebate.

Did NetBurst manage to get up to 140W?
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
58
91
Originally posted by: superstition
Did NetBurst manage to get up to 140W?

Pentium D with the B1 stepping topped out at 130W TDP per Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...pation#Intel_Pentium_D

Don't forget that Intel TDP != AMD TDP. Intel's is intended to refer to the "reasonable maximum" TDP a chip can be expected to hit when running stuff that is pretty intensive (Prime95 small FFT for example); whereas AMD's new and improved TDP is intended to reflect more of the "typical" power consumption when running fully loaded but perhaps not entirely intensive applications (Prime95 Large FFT for example).

At least this is my current perception of the TDP landscape, would love to hear from the experts whether this is mostly true or mostly false.
 

hokahknow

Senior member
Apr 23, 2001
308
0
0
Originally posted by: Sylvanas
Originally posted by: superstition
How so? A downclocked 45 nm Intel CPU should consume fewer watts than anything AMD has released and also do more work per watt. HD playback can be offloaded to a low-power PCI-e GPU.

An X2/X4+780G is a much better option than any Intel offering. The 740/780G are built on 55nm, have HD decoding, Blu-Ray, consumes considerably less power Hybrid Crossfire with the ability to power down a discrete video card, cheaper than Intel cpu+mobo+discrete graphics card....no competition.

Correct. I have been researching HTPC and it appears from a couple of sources that Intel is having issues with Blu-ray. They probably won't have a solution until 2008 Q3. So for now they are not an option if you build HTPC with Blu-ray.
 

bradley

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2000
3,671
2
81
The only true way to gauge cpu power consumption is just before the voltage regulators. When tested this way the results are often surprising.

Lost Circuits has the P4 840EE 3.2MHz (Smithfield) consuming 147W at load, while having an actual rated TDP of 130W. I only observed power consumption becoming a major purchasing point after it also became a concern of Intel. Or perhaps AMD isn't as good at marketing their assets, and will only ever be known for their shortcomings. For instance, I would often go looking for power consumption numbers, as little as 2 years ago, only to find speed benchmarks instead.

BTW, the Phenom 9850 tested 101.2W at load, with an rated TDP of 125W. And yet AMD is beaten up for their latest "more realistic" thermal scheme. Now to be fair here we must also ascertain power consumption of the 780G Radeon HD 3200 IGP, and factor this into the power equation, or deny the laws of physics and thermodynamics. And a micro ATX is also going to have 25 percent less real estate for traces, meaning lower voltage threshold. Cheaper mosfets, as found in any budget or value boards, will have a higher rds(on) and therefore have more waste heat to dissapate. Guess I'm just looking for a little more parity and fairness in any criticisms and reviews.

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_phenom9850/5.shtml

idle - load - stated TDP
=========================================
24W - 73.6W - 95W ---------- Phenom 9600 (2.3 GHz)
30W - 101.1W - 125W ------- Phenom 9850 (2.5 GHz)
34.8 - 115.6W - 140W ------- Phenom 9900 (2.6 GHz)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
8.0W - 30.4W - 45W -----------Athlon X2 BE-2350 Brisbane (2.1 GHz)
8.4W - 30.8W - 89W ---------- Athlon 64 3800+ Venice (2.4 GHz)
????? - 60.4W - 104W --------- Athlon 64 FX-57 San Diego (2.8 GHz)
35.2W - 99.8W - 125W -------- Athlon 64 FX-62 Windsor (2.8 GHz)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
48.4W - 115.2W - 130W ---------- P4 820 D Smithfield (2.8 GHz)
57.2W - 121.2W - 130W ---------- P4 670 Prescott
54.0W - 147.2W - 130W ---------- P4 840EE Smithfield
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
20.4W - 53.6W - 65W ------------- C2D E6700 Conroe (2.7GHz)
21.2W - 64.8W - 130W------------ C2 QX9650 Yorkfield (3.0 GHz)
?????? - 114.4W - 136W ---------- C2 QX9700 Yorkfield (3.2 GHz)
24.8W - 114.8W - 130W ---------- C2 QX6700 Kentsfield (2.7 GHz)
67.2W - 118.4W - 130W ---------- C2 QX6850 Kentsfield (3.0GHz)
 

bradley

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2000
3,671
2
81
Originally posted by: superstition
Doesn't the $22.50 Radeon 3450 make this IGP stuff fairly unimportant?

That would defeat the need and purpose for boards like 780G. There's a huge market for a smaller form factor that doesn't consume lots of power. That's the point many aren't getting here. These are average consumers and not enthusiasts by any means. Otherwise you get a full ATX 790F/X and the fastest videocard you can afford. There are plenty of these type boards that fully support 125W and beyond.

 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
221
101
I'm talking about a cheap low power PCI-e graphics card instead of integrated RAM-sucking video. not "the fastest video card you can afford". It just seems like people are making a big deal lately over integrated video to try to make AMD's lackluster CPUs seem more viable.

On the low end, things have shifted slightly in AMD's favor, though, as the price of OEM e2140s is up, and the price of them with coolers also is rather high. I guess the introduction of the e1200 caused Intel and resellers to raise the price of the 2140. A few weeks ago it was super cheap and a much better deal than any of those low end AMD chips.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
221
101
And yet AMD is beaten up for their latest "more realistic" thermal scheme. Guess I'm just looking for a little more parity and fairness in any criticisms and reviews.
But, the thing is... NetBurst is over. Some of us happened to be highly critical of it. I totally pushed AMD in the past. Now AMD is moving in that direction, which is hardly ideal. Why get behind a 140 watt CPU when the competition is offering better work per watt and lower power consumption?
 

Sylvanas

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2004
3,752
0
0
Originally posted by: superstition
I'm talking about a cheap low power PCI-e graphics card instead of integrated RAM-sucking video. not "the fastest video card you can afford". It just seems like people are making a big deal lately over integrated video to try to make AMD's lackluster CPUs seem more viable.

On the low end, things have shifted slightly in AMD's favor, though, as the price of OEM e2140s is up, and the price of them with coolers also is rather high. I guess the introduction of the e1200 caused Intel and resellers to raise the price of the 2140. A few weeks ago it was super cheap and a much better deal than any of those low end AMD chips.

Cookie Monster already answered this:
Whats the point of buying an IGP if you need to get HD playback/game etc to actually work by buying a lower end video card. Compared to the MCP78 and 780G which doesn't require you to spend any $$ since they provide more than enough on the video front.

Not to mention both of them consume less power than its intel equivalent.

The 780G IGP has all the features a discrete card can do and it comes in a cheaper form factor....theres no need to even consider a discrete card....

Once again for a LOW COST HTPC buying This for $68this for $57then this for $22 AR is stupid for $147. When you could get this for $36 and this for $70 which will before better for HD playback and H.264 playback .....More?

But, the thing is... NetBurst is over. Some of us happened to be highly critical of it. I totally pushed AMD in the past. Now AMD is moving in that direction, which is hardly ideal. Why get behind a 140 watt CPU when the competition is offering better work per watt and lower power consumption?

There are no 140w Phenoms yet. If you are referring to 45nm CPU's the cheapest you can get is $184...we are talking about lower end CPU's for use in an HTPC platform we not concerned about individual components.....much more efficient than the Intel integrated offering. even the Phenoms draw less power than a G35+Q9300
 

NokiaDude

Diamond Member
Oct 13, 2002
3,966
0
0
I'm running an Athlon64 X2 6400+ on an ECS A780GM-A motherboard and it's fine. I have plenty of airflow around the mosfets due to the rear 120mm casefan and 120mm PSU fan. I won't say it's rock solid. I've have some random reboots here and there but nothing I worry about. I'm holding out for the 45nm Phenoms.
 

nyker96

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
5,630
2
81
I think the 780G probably consume less energy for istelf but the X4 gonna be a real energy hogger, so to make this HTPC setup not too economical. Nevertheless, the 780G seems to be in a class by itself, nice board.
 

Dravic

Senior member
May 18, 2000
892
0
76
Originally posted by: nyker96
I think the 780G probably consume less energy for istelf but the X4 gonna be a real energy hogger, so to make this HTPC setup not too economical. Nevertheless, the 780G seems to be in a class by itself, nice board.



That is incorrect.. a common misconception


The AMD chips use more power, but intels IGP eat enough to make the platform as a whole more power hunger.

Anand IGP power consumption by chipset article

 

bradley

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2000
3,671
2
81
Speaking of misconceptions, take a look again at the Lost Circuits data. They are the only site truly isolating cpu power consumption. This breaks the myth about Phenom's TDP being unrealistic. Otherwise it's easy to continue feeding into the speculation without facts. I say present the overall facts to your best abilities and let the people decide.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Phenom 9600 (2.3 GHz) 21.4W TDP headroom
Phenom 9850 (2.5 GHz) 23.9W TDP headroom
Phenom 9900 (2.6 GHz) 24.4W TDP headroom
Athlon X2 BE-2350 Brisbane (2.1 GHz) 14.6W headroom
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
C2D E6700 Conroe (2.7GHz) 11.4W TDP headroom
C2 QX9650 Yorkfield (3.0 GHz) 64.2W TDP headroom
C2 QX9700 Yorkfield (3.2 GHz) 21.6W TDP headroom
C2 QX6700 Kentsfield (2.7 GHz) 15.2W TDP headroom
C2 QX6850 Kentsfield (3.0GHz) 11.6W TDP headroom
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


The 45W BE-2350 at 2.1GHz also only consumes 8W at idle and 30W at load, plenty of horsepower for an HTPC even if not overclocked. For $69 that's a hell of a lot of chip for the money, with a super small footprint. The average 780G user will also spend a greatest majority far closer to idle. And with the proper configuration of software like RMClock and AOD (deliberating between the cores) will realize even greater power savings, at both load and idle.

 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Originally posted by: superstition
Doesn't the $22.50 Radeon 3450 make this IGP stuff fairly unimportant?

That was kind of my point, you can get a mATX intel board and a 3450 and it's less than 100 bucks, then with the low price of e2180's how could you not pass that up? CPU uses less power, makes less heat, is faster clock for clock, and the 3450 is more powerful than the 780G IGP so? I don't understand why AMD is the end all be all to HTPC useage. Now if I was to build mine again, I'd probably of gone with AMD because when I got my E2140 it was still like 70 bucks and I picked it up for 60, but I still would of used a discreate card for HD decoding.

Sylvanas did you just compare the 780G to the 3450 and say it was better? That's a load of bullshit dude, fix your statement. The 3450 is faster than the 780G IGP and puts less load on the CPU.
 

bradley

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2000
3,671
2
81
Americans have many more choices and a greater disposable income. Yet, check out how well the 780G is selling in places like China, and you'll see the vast potential of the IGP market. Certainly the downturn in the US economy could also make this chipset a success in the US too. And home theatre enthusiasts are certainly doing their part.

As for corporations, one integrated package makes support much easier with far less downtime. Either you have enough foresight to get it or don't. This could be the first quarter that AMD comes close to turning a profit. Good for them.

I'm actually also holding out for the 45nm Phenoms myself. Although, I recently built a HTPC/general use computer for my mom based on the 780G Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H paired with the 5000+ BE at 3.3GHz with a small voltage bump. With a few extra sinks and a well placed fan it runs completely cool with an uptime running into two months now. The quickest easiest build in all my years with computers. I'm even thinking of swapping with a friend's 9850 for a few days and giving it a whirl. I really would like to test the compatibility issue myself.
 

Cookie Monster

Diamond Member
May 7, 2005
5,161
32
86
Originally posted by: bfdd
Originally posted by: superstition
Doesn't the $22.50 Radeon 3450 make this IGP stuff fairly unimportant?

That was kind of my point, you can get a mATX intel board and a 3450 and it's less than 100 bucks, then with the low price of e2180's how could you not pass that up? CPU uses less power, makes less heat, is faster clock for clock, and the 3450 is more powerful than the 780G IGP so? I don't understand why AMD is the end all be all to HTPC useage. Now if I was to build mine again, I'd probably of gone with AMD because when I got my E2140 it was still like 70 bucks and I picked it up for 60, but I still would of used a discreate card for HD decoding.

Sylvanas did you just compare the 780G to the 3450 and say it was better? That's a load of bullshit dude, fix your statement. The 3450 is faster than the 780G IGP and puts less load on the CPU.

Lets see. What mATX board have you in mind? hopefully not one of those ECS boards with 2 phase power, almost no OCing capability and that has the bare minimum feature set (using an outdated SB/NB). Im sure we've pointed out that its upgrade path is pretty limited depending on its NB.

Compare that to most 780G motherboards that are miles ahead in almost all compartments (they come in both mATX and ATX flavors). Sure the HD3450 provides more graphics horsepower, but everything else lacks.

Then comes the power consumption. HD3450 will definately consume more power than the graphics core found in the 780G (HD3200). Then add in the power consumption of the intel mATX board. Reviews already point out that Athlon X2s are neck to neck if not faster overall compared to the E2xx0 series. Especially those EE X2s that cost dirt cheap. I could be extra picky and due to the discrete card, it could add extra noise (if using active cooling) or extra heat output if passive.

So taking all this, AMD is clearly superior when it comes to HTPCs, or even low end PCs. Not to mention that these platforms support any X2, phenom X3s, and X4s. A phenom X4 9150/9100e or even an X3 with an 780G will be a hard platform to beat for the price you pay.

And last time ive checked, the UVD found in 780G and HD3450 is exactly the same (i.e provide the same features) and run at the same speed.