• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Desktop : Higher performance or higher efficiency ?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Desktop : Higher performance or higher efficiency ?

  • Higher Performance at a cost of higher TDP/power usage

  • Higher efficiency at a cost of stagnated performance

Results are only viewable after voting.
Idontcare said:
FDSOI would be relevant for AMD's needs if it were on an availability timeline that was also relevant for AMD's needs.

FDSOI is being brought up in production on a timeline that is relevant to VIA's needs.
Click to expand...

How the current development goes, AMD is the new VIA.
 
Like others have said, I chose option #3, same TDP, higher performance. I really do not want another heat furnace in the room. When I had Q9550 and two 24" CCFL monitors it heat up the whole room. That was really unpleasant during the summer months. 3570 and two 27" LEDs run a lot cooler, I love that. If anyone needs more performance, most of the SB/IB, and probably HW will overclock to 4-4.5GHz, that should be plenty of a boost for whoever needs it.
 
fleshconsumed said:
Like others have said, I chose option #3, same TDP, higher performance. I really do not want another heat furnace in the room. When I had Q9550 and two 24" CCFL monitors it heat up the whole room. That was really unpleasant during the summer months. 3570 and two 27" LEDs run a lot cooler, I love that. If anyone needs more performance, most of the SB/IB, and probably HW will overclock to 4-4.5GHz, that should be plenty of a boost for whoever needs it.
Click to expand...

I've already done that overclock, and the free to play game Planetside 2 is still extremely CPU bound. There are tons of games out there, even free to play games, that could and would use all of the CPU if single-core speeds doubled. And I'm only going to get 10% with Haswell. Its disappointing to say the least. I want more raw performance, and I can't get it.
 
I think that maximum TDP in an air cooled desktop is well known, so the more performance poll option obviously means staying beneath that 125-150W barrier.
 
I'm currently running a an overclocked Phenom II with a stock TDP of 125W. No idea what it is at now, probably over 150W. I also had to disable Cool n Quite to enable the overclock which makes efficiency take another blow.

-Temps are fine, both CPU/case temps and the temperature in my room
-My electric bill is not noticeably higher.
-450W PSU is still doing fine after 5 years with 120+W CPUs

It's great for the mainstream and mobile markets that TDP is going down and efficiency is going up... but I don't see why Intel can't release a 150W CPU for the enthusiast market. Of course, when the ~80W Intel CPUs are overclocked from the low 3 GHz range to over 4.5 GHz, they probably use closer to 125-140W anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top