Originally posted by: Noubourne
Seems to me (after just glancing at the benchies there) that an Opty 165 at stock volts and 2.4-2.5Ghz - which afaik, is not an uncommon feat - would kick the pants out of the 4.0Ghz 805 at somewhere around 70% of the power consumption.
Does it really pay to buy a $130 CPU if you're gonna shell out the other $200 in electric bills in the time you own it? If you owned it for more than 2 years, it could quite easily cost you MORE than a $500 CPU.
On top of that, they used a watercooling rig. That's what, minimum of $150 expense? Seems to me that makes it more like a $300 CPU - which is Opteron 165 territory.
This article is one of the dumbest I have read in some time. I guess that's because I don't visit Tom's much anymore. It sounds like it was written by a 14 year old whose mommy pays the electric bills. No comparison of an air-cooled Opty (hell, my air cooled 2.6Ghz Athlon 64 3000 is probably not too far below in performance at about 1.45v) or Athlon 64 SINGLE CORE (FX-55 is on there, but not OC'd at all!!). Anyway, this should be compared to a price-comparable Venice on water and a price comparable Denmark on air to show who REALLY has the leg up on OC potential. I'd be willing to bet AMD still walks away with the win, bang for buck.
Of course, that won't be true after Conroe, but we AMD fans still got a few weeks to preen, eh?