Intel 5x faster per watt.

[RichUK]

OMG .. ive just read this whole thread all i can say is WTF .. what a waste of my time ..

Intelia .. DOTHAN = TEH SH!tNESS

**wonders what Intelia comes back with now **

 

[Viditor]

I just couldn't read this thread....

Intelia, you really must learn some of this stuff...

I suggest you go to Intel's own website and learn the difference between what a TDP is and what real power usage is. You seem to want to confuse the two quite a bit!

From Intel's Spec sheets:
?Analysis indicates that real applications are unlikely to cause the processor to consume maximum power dissipation for sustained periods of time. Intel recommends that complete thermal solution designs target the Thermal Design Power (TDP) indicated in Table 26 instead of the maximum processor power consumption. The Thermal Monitor feature is intended to help protect the processor in the unlikely event that an application exceeds the TDP recommendation for a sustained period of time.?

Also this:
?Thermal Design Power (TDP) should be used for processor thermal solution design targets. The TDP is not the maximum power that the processor can dissipate.?

Note that the "power numbers" you keep quoting are THERMAL GUIDELINES and not actual power!!!
In addition, Intel?s TDP is actually lower than the maximum power dissipation of the processor (often significantly lower). This is in stark contrast to AMD?s TDP numbers, which are higher than the respective processor?s maximum power dissipation.

In other words, an Intel processor that has a TDP of 65w will dissipate 65w of heat on average under load, while an AMD processor that has a TDP of 89w will dissipate less than 60w of heat on average under load...sometimes less than 30w under load depending on the processor!

This is evident in AMD's published definition of TDP:

?Thermal Design Power (TDP) is measured under the conditions of TCASE Max, IDD Max, and VDD=VID_VDD, and include all power dissipated on-die from VDD, VDDIO, VLDT, VTT, and VDDA.?

Now here's the most important point...
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ACTUAL POWER USAGE!

The ONLY way to determine the real and actual power usage is to directly measure it!

If the Dothan reported TDP the same way as AMD does, then a 2.13 GHz 770 Dothan would have a TDP of 34.164w under Full Speed Mode, and 11.79008w under Battery Mode

cpuheat link

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: RichUK
OMG .. ive just read this whole thread all i can say is WTF .. what a waste of my time ..

Intelia .. DOTHAN = TEH SH!tNESS

**wonders what Intelia comes back with now **

I can't beleive you read this RichUK!

 

[Pabster]

Don't bother feeding the troll.

 

[Aquila76]

Originally posted by: Intelia
LOL I won't be the one in the end caring the big stick . 2006 2H will bring a multidude of people here saying ya right see what you AMD DODO birds knew .Nothing it will be Zinn2b and hundreds more slashing and banting about AMD'S poor performance. I am doing the job I was ass. And I have done it well . I really did misup on H/T though darn. Oh well . So it well be us laughing in the end and it will be a relentless attack.

... blah blah Intel r0xx0rs blah blah pwns j00 blah blah 3G P-m blah ...

That said thats enough from me on this thread. Until tomorrow when we here about Titanic being folded up and repackaged.

Ms. Intelia, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul!

 

[Avalon]

What's wrong, Intelia? Can't respond to my posts of reason?

 

[Hacp]

Maybe intelia is at work or something...

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Intelia

Originally posted by: Vegitto

Originally posted by: Intelia
Paul said to day that the new Conroe chips will be 5x per watt faster. conroe will be 65 watts .I am not sure what smithfield is . will say 130 watts. that means Conroe will be 2 1/2 faster than smithfield. Now thats fast

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25619

It just means that:

-If a Smithfield at 3.0 GHz uses 100 Watts, a Conroe at 3.0 GHz will use 20 Watts
OR
-If a Smithfield at 100 Watts can run (at the speed of) 3.0 GHz, a Conroe at 100 Watts could run (at the speed of) 15.0 GHz.

But I think it's the first one.

NO clearly states performance perwatt. 5x faster per watt . Thats what it says nothing .Like how your tring to spin it.
Conroe uses 65 watts. not 20 not 100.

But its 5x faster PER WATT, THEY WONT USE THE SAME AMOUNT OF POWER.

I AM TYPING IN ALL CAPS SO YOU CAN HOPEFULLY READ AND COMPREHEND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO TELL YOU.

if its 5x faster per watt than a 100w chip, but its only running at 20w, then performance is equal, not 5x higher.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Intelia
LOL I won't be the one in the end caring the big stick . 2006 2H will bring a multidude of people here saying ya right see what you AMD DODO birds knew .Nothing it will be Zinn2b and hundreds more slashing and banting about AMD'S poor performance. I am doing the job I was ass. And I have done it well . I really did misup on H/T though darn. Oh well . So it well be us laughing in the end and it will be a relentless attack.
We have made every attempt to bring you the information needed to make conscientious open clean remarks and discusions about whats coming down the pipeline. But your closed mindness and constant attacks on every intel subject at these forums no matter who the poster is has shown you for what you are.

I do feel sorry for you and I won't go away until my job is done .Which is when Zinn2b's job starts and all the people who have been helping us.

Its going to be ugly but not as ugly as the people who constantly jump into an intel discussion and ruin it.

There are some really good people here . Very smart people indeed but there are way to many of the people who jump into a thread just to trash the conversations . I don't need to name names you know who you are and what you are.

That said thats enough from me on this thread. Until tomorrow when we here about Titanic being folded up and repackaged.

I honestly think a football team or somthing else for you to support other than Intel would be healthy.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Intelia

Originally posted by: CheesePoofs

Originally posted by: Intelia
Go away cheesey

You go away. I have helped out people here getting their systems in order. All you do is yell about how good your Intel setup is, and then bash those who proove you wrong. I wouldnt' care if your Intel system actually was better, but until it is all you're doing is trolling.

Originally posted by: Intelia
So who's using an adapter He wanted the slower PCI-E board

Could someone translate this into English for me?

You have not once proved me wrong . only in your minds eye .

You dont even know what youre talking about... slower PCI-E board? WTF is that? Adapter?

Mod PM for ban incoming...

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Intelia

Originally posted by: Vegitto

Originally posted by: Intelia
Paul said to day that the new Conroe chips will be 5x per watt faster. conroe will be 65 watts .I am not sure what smithfield is . will say 130 watts. that means Conroe will be 2 1/2 faster than smithfield. Now thats fast

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25619

It just means that:

-If a Smithfield at 3.0 GHz uses 100 Watts, a Conroe at 3.0 GHz will use 20 Watts
OR
-If a Smithfield at 100 Watts can run (at the speed of) 3.0 GHz, a Conroe at 100 Watts could run (at the speed of) 15.0 GHz.

But I think it's the first one.

NO clearly states performance perwatt. 5x faster per watt . Thats what it says nothing .Like how your tring to spin it.
Conroe uses 65 watts. not 20 not 100.

But its 5x faster PER WATT, THEY WONT USE THE SAME AMOUNT OF POWER.

I AM TYPING IN ALL CAPS SO YOU CAN HOPEFULLY READ AND COMPREHEND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO TELL YOU.

if its 5x faster per watt than a 100w chip, but its only running at 20w, then performance is equal, not 5x higher.

Many have already tried to get this point through. It just dosent go in though

 

[Matt2]

JUst thought I'd check in.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Matt2
JUst thought I'd check in.

Too late..

 

[Aquila76]

Originally posted by: Avalon
What's wrong, Intelia? Can't respond to my posts of reason?

I don't think she understands reason, only marketspeak. Put it into a marketing brochure, slap an Intel logo on it, and maybe then she'll get it.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

I do feel sorry for you and I won't go away until my job is done .Which is when Zinn2b's job starts and all the people who have been helping us.

OK, this is trolling..... motion to ban. I am so sick of this crap If in a year, Intel has good stuff, fine, but this is crap, and we are all sick of it. And the "all of the people who have been helping us " ? sounds like you and ziin2b who was banned are working to create the greatest trolling threads ever created by asking others to troll with you.

This is a self admission that I am going to bring to a mods attention.

Unless my PM to a mod regarding this above reference got her banned. It could even be Zinn2B with another username !

 

[Acanthus]

Theres already a "ban unintelia" thread going in forum issues.

I strongly believe its just Zinn2b on a new account, trolling as always.

 

[Markfw]

I can;t find that thread. Am I blind ? Could you link if for a blind person ?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
I can;t find that thread. Am I blind ? Could you link if for a blind person ?

PMed

Edit: you couldnt find it because i was typing it and gathering links while i posted that

 

[Soccerman06]

omg Intelia isnt here, maybe Intelia finally learned shes (he?) is in a losing battle.

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Theres already a "ban unintelia" thread going in forum issues.

I strongly believe its just Zinn2b on a new account, trolling as always.

She's actually already stated that Zinn is her husband, I believe (so many different things, it's hard to follow with her). Either way, the presention of 'facts' is poor at best, and the fanboism is a joke.

 

[Intelia]

Bump

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Intelia
Bump

...... :Q

 

[Buck Naked]

Originally posted by: Intelia
I will take that bet try to set it up so anand will do the test on both PC'S I just talked to david he's on the west coast he will be home thi weekend . He has to reinstall his present parts into his old case but he well take that bet . so lets get it straight His PM @3ghz with his G70 at the manufactors set clock rate against your FX55@3ghz with what ever video catd you have set at manufactors clock is that sound good. NO sli

Are you guys going to do this?
I am intrested in the results...

 

[Matt2]

LOL...

She's baaaack....

So, did Intel release their 800 teraflop/s CPU that uses 2 AAA batteries today?

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Soviet

SNIP!

Many have already tried to get this point through. It just dosent go in though

What are you guys arguing about anyways? You're both saying the same thing with the only exception that people have invented this concept of a 20W Conroe chip which doesn't exist. If Intelia is right, it's 65W processor... bottom line.

And Vegitto... hasn't this forum made it clear enough that you clock frequency doesn't equate to performance in different families?