Is there any reason to use FX CPUs right now?

[frozentundra123456]

CIV BE got mantle from GE, but the games is still the same old civ5 that was bought by nvidia. So your 15% have nothing to do with CPU, but with GPUs. Come back when thread title finally goes through your skull.

In your very own chart, post 405, with an R9 290X under mantle, 4690K gets 146 fps while stock 8350 gets 128, ergo, 14% increase with the i5 *with the same gpu*.

Matter of fact, the stock 4690k is faster than even the power guzzling 9590 overclocked to 5ghz *under mantle with the same gpu*.

 

[Abwx]

The real reason being it tries to hide the AM3 platform inefficiency. Eg, with 1 thread Intel uses 30w (12v) but 63w (240v) a 110% difference. AMD however, uses 35w (12v) but 96w (240v) a 174% difference. Under full load, the FX "appears" to draw only 13% more (12v only), yet in actual reality, draws 37% more (240v). The fake "12v" figures also "appear" to show the FX idling at only half that of the i5 Haswell. In practice (240v), it idles at 41% more (which is where 95% of computers spend 95% of their time). Hence the endless stream of "12v only hardware.fr" (and other power consumption) cherry-picking... :sneaky:

My utility company certainly doesn't "subtract 10-20%" off my electricity bill for my appliances PSU losses either. Shame because I'd love an energy supplier like Abwx who appears to get a 47-63% discount from being able to run his 96-137w FX chip at a mere 35-72w without requiring a PSU or motherboard...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37186890&postcount=447

Of course you re ignoring what doesnt suit you.

I ve nothing to hide, or only in your imagination, learn to read, i pointed that the i5 has better efficency in ST, so you re still relying to lies, as is usual with you.

And of course you are ignoring that they use a Sabertooth, the most power consuming AM3+ MB, while the Asus 1150 board is the most efficient of all 1150 MB, i guess that only when comparing worst worst case of AMD against exceptionaly better Intel case the usual badfaither will, hardly, make a quarter point but i guess that it s what you call a fair comparison, same as your stance with Fritz untill i proved you taht it was favourable to Intel.

A 970 board, the one most likely to be used with a 8370E, would get you 10W less at 127W while using an average 1150 board will get you 10W more, at least, than HFR numbers.

You want a review of said Asus 1150 MB compaired to 10 other 1150 boards.?.

Anyway it would be delightfull to see you no more "biased" toward AMD than i am in respect of Intel, you really think that you have a better credibility than me on this register.?.

 

[jhu]

At the main and with averagely priced MBs it will be 105-110W with a 4670K and 125-130W with a FX8370E, if not less for the latter since using a Sabertooth get you 137W.

Anyway the power comsumption argument is moot, as said the tiny saving is more than cashed by Intel thanks to inflated pricings.



I provided numbers for the main, so your post is just what it is, ad hominem, i guess that you re transposing the disagreement we got when you claimed that the FX couldnt possibly be better or at least as good than Haswells in encoding and rendering, wich i proved you to be wrong.

Hmmm… could have sworn galego was banned.

 

[Abwx]

Hmmm… could have sworn galego was banned.

Because your post was on point.?

Here it is so you can see that it s totaly out of context and an ad hominem since you didnt even wait for my answer to Enigmoid before posting what is pure deffamation.

Not sure why people care about ATX12 power usage when its the wall socket usage that determine the total power of the computer.

Just one person.

Bring numbers if you want to make a point, not pathetic threats once you feel that you re technicaly hard pressed.

 

[Yuriman]

At the main and with averagely priced MBs it will be 105-110W with a 4670K and 125-130W with a FX8370E, if not less for the latter since using a Sabertooth get you 137W.

Anyway the power comsumption argument is moot, as said the tiny saving is more than cashed by Intel thanks to inflated pricings.



I provided numbers for the main, so your post is just what it is, ad hominem, i guess that you re transposing the disagreement we got when you claimed that the FX couldnt possibly be better or at least as good than Haswells in encoding and rendering, wich i proved you to be wrong.

My 3570K system under Prime (AVX) load draws 99w at the wall, and 82.5w in Cinebench 15 (CPU). Idle is ~32w.

I'd be curious how much an FX-8320E draws in a similar ITX board with the same 380w PSU.

 

[mrmt]

I believe you are right, Abwx. In those tests the FX 8370E is faster than an i5 by a healthy margin. The FX 8370E uses more power, but I bet the FX 8370E does have better performance per watt in those multi-threaded tests. If nothing else they are probably quite close, which isn't bad for the FX built on an older process and being an older design.

Hardware.fr themselves are saying in their review that i5 is more efficient than FX 8370E, so I can't think why this is being discussed anymore. As for their choice of benchmarks, I can't think why Fritz is the ultimate benchmark for CPU processors. Prime is much more representative I think.

 

[Abwx]

My 3570K system under Prime (AVX) load draws 99w at the wall, and 82.5w in Cinebench 15 (CPU). Idle is ~32w.

I'd be curious how much an FX-8320E draws in a similar ITX board with the same 380w PSU.

3570K is more efficient than 4670K, at the CPU 12V rail level it s 45.6W for the former and 60W for the latter, at the main it s 91W and 105W respectively on hardware.fr previous set up.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/913-9/cpu-consommation-overclocking.html

The 8320E shouldnt consume that less than the 8370E, this latter seems better binned, at least on average, eventualy you can somewhat undervolt it to save about 15% CPU power comsumption at stock frequency, but given that the base number is not that high this would yield only 12W less at the main if we are to duplicate what Hardware.fr got when testing at lower voltages a 8370E.

Besides it seems to me that there s no AM3+ ITX boards, uATX is the smaller format apparently.

I can't think why Fritz is the ultimate benchmark for CPU processors. Prime is much more representative I think.

LOL, do you often Prime 95.?..

To be relevant the test must yield a score so perf/Watt can be computed accurately, now since you did state what are some HFR testbeds get there again and read why they re using preferably Fritz....

 

[BSim500]

A 970 board, the one most likely to be used with a 8370E, would get you 10W less at 127W while using an average 1150 board will get you 10W more, at least, than HFR numbers.

See what I mean about making numbers up? The i5-4670K in that test idles at 44w. According to you it "should" be nearer 54w for no other reason than you want to arbitrarily add 10w "because it's an Asus". Meanwhile, here's a 37x Haswell motherboard roundup idle power test. The "spread" of Asus vs MSI vs Gigabyte vs Asrock from low-function vs low-function to high-end vs high-end boards is fairly even, with overall idle figures ranging from 25-49w with the average being 30-35w. Enough said about the quality of your "guesstimates".

As for the rest, I'll have to get back to you later. I'm too busy gaming on my "29w" i5 and "41w" GTX 960! :biggrin:

 

[Abwx]

See what I mean about making numbers up? The i5-4670K in that test idles at 44w. According to you it "should" be nearer 54w for no other reason than you want to arbitrarily add 10w "because it's an Asus". Meanwhile, here's a 37x Haswell motherboard roundup idle power test. The "spread" of Asus vs MSI vs Gigabyte vs Asrock from low-function vs low-function to high-end vs high-end boards is fairly even, with overall idle figures ranging from 25-49w with the average being 30-35w. Enough said about the quality of your "guesstimates".

As for the rest, I'll have to get back to you later. I'm too busy gaming on my "29w" i5 and "41w" GTX 960! :biggrin:

One more time you make conclusions out of clulessness.

What you did miss is that the GTX780 used in HFR set up increase idle power by 13W when measured at the main according to their own words, so it would idle at 31W if there was only the IGPU used, and even lower since this render a PCIe link inactive, indeed if you were really interested by technology you would had checked in the very link that you posted that the Asus Z97A board used by HFR idle at 28.8W.

Hope that you re better on games that when checking reviews, and power numbers, if you want to make some scores...

 

[SlowSpyder]

Hardware.fr themselves are saying in their review that i5 is more efficient than FX 8370E, so I can't think why this is being discussed anymore. As for their choice of benchmarks, I can't think why Fritz is the ultimate benchmark for CPU processors. Prime is much more representative I think.

In general and most use cases, that's absolutely correct. I was just commenting on the specific use Abwx mentioned.

 

[mrmt]

In general and most use cases, that's absolutely correct. I was just commenting on the specific use Abwx mentioned.

Oh, sorry, I thought that you were being serious.

 

[Stuka87]

The real reason being it tries to hide the AM3 platform inefficiency. Eg, with 1 thread Intel uses 30w (12v) but 63w (240v) a 110% difference. AMD however, uses 35w (12v) but 96w (240v) a 174% difference. Under full load, the FX "appears" to draw only 13% more (12v only), yet in actual reality, draws 37% more (240v). The fake "12v" figures also "appear" to show the FX idling at only half that of the i5 Haswell. In practice (240v), it idles at 41% more (which is where 95% of computers spend 95% of their time). Hence the endless stream of "12v only hardware.fr" (and other power consumption) cherry-picking... :sneaky:

My utility company certainly doesn't "subtract 10-20%" off my electricity bill for my appliances PSU losses either. Shame because I'd love an energy supplier like Abwx who appears to get a 47-63% discount from being able to run his 96-137w FX chip at a mere 35-72w without requiring a PSU or motherboard...

There is no way thats how much current they draw at 240V. 110V, those numbers appear correct. But no way they are correct for 240V.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Oh, sorry, I thought that you were being serious.

I am being serious. The FX can be quite close, maybe even surpasses the i5 in perforamnce/watt in a handful of multi-threaded benches it appears, depending on the model CPU. Of course when you average out everything, gaming, single-threaded performance, etc. the i5 is going to be the more efficient CPU.

Power use, the FX 8370E uses 37% more power than an i5 4670 when fully loaded going by this graph that was posted.. The FX 8370E has a base clock of 3.3GHz. An FX 8320E has a base clock of 3.2GHz, so the multi-threaded performance difference between the two shouldn't be very different.

But look at the power use difference between the FX 8370E and FX 8320E. That's 41 watts according to AT. (I'm not seeing too many reviews with them both head to head, the FX 8320E and FX 8370E).

If those numbers are correct, and the FX 8320E can save a good deal of power over the FX 8370E, there is no reason to expect the FX 8320E to not surpass the efficiency of the i5 in that handful of benches.

If you think I'm wrong, please post why. If you are just going to make a snarky comment, keep it to yourself.

 

[BSim500]

One more time you make conclusions out of clulessness.

Speak for yourself. The board idles at 31w (no dGPU). Add 13w dGPU and it = 44w (as hardware.fr shows). An extra 10-12w for a dGPU is not the issue though. You claimed : "the Asus [Z97-A] 1150 board is the most efficient of all 1150 MB / an average 1150 board will get you 10W more" (meaning you want to add another 10w to take it up to 54w out of a mistaken belief the Z97-A was deliberately cherry picked as a "high efficiency board" to make the FX look bad). Here's an updated Z97 test. The Asus Z97-A is down in 11th place vs other Z97's sucking up to 8w more power than 3x MSI's, 4x Gigabyte's and an Asrock. So your claim "the test is biased for using a Z97-A because every other skt 1150 board must draw at least 10w more" is blatantly false and Hardware.fr do not need to "add another 10w to compensate" (as you claimed in post #451). :thumbsdown:

Personally I have an i5-3570 which is less efficient at idle than Haswell (due to 1.6Ghz vs 800MHz idle). Even OC'd to 4GHz, it sucks 37w idle with dGPU and 27w without (both measured at the wall). I really don't need "lectures" from people with ongoing anger issues who pull random made-up "brand compensation" numbers out of their behinds to try and skew AMD power consumption gap figures in the cheesiest possible way, when I can quite happily measure what an i5 draws myself, thanks...

There is no way thats how much current they draw at 240V. 110V, those numbers appear correct. But no way they are correct for 240V.

A lot of things don't add up on that site. That's why most sensible people will pull up a dozen reviews from a dozen different sites and average them out rather than try and extrapolate the truth from meaningless "12v only" readings. I posted 7 links earlier in post #431. The "problem" with them is they didn't say what some wanted them to say...

 

[Abwx]

Speak for yourself. The board idles at 31w (no dGPU). Add 13w dGPU and it = 44w (as hardware.fr shows).

lol, talk of being of bad faith, it s me that gave the 31W figure while your claim was that the board was idling at 41W since you didnt even knew that there was a dgpu :

See what I mean about making numbers up? The i5-4670K in that test idles at 44w.

Meanwhile, here's a 37x Haswell motherboard roundup idle power test. The "spread" of Asus vs MSI vs Gigabyte vs Asrock from low-function vs low-function to high-end vs high-end boards is fairly even, with overall idle figures ranging from 25-49w with the average being 30-35w. Enough said about the quality of your "guesstimates".

What you did miss is that the GTX780 used in HFR set up increase idle power by 13W when measured at the main according to their own words, so it would idle at 31W if there was only the IGPU used, and even lower since this render a PCIe link inactive, indeed if you were really interested by technology you would had checked in the very link that you posted that the Asus Z97A board used by HFR idle at 28.8W.

and my point was that they used a very efficient board and it holds because if activating the PCIe link use 3.2W then all other MBs at the site you linked will get thoses 3.2W with a dGPU, so the 28.8W figure is the good one to compare this board to all other MBs.

Now let s use an average board on the list at 33.6W with the Asus Expert that fall right on the meddle of the bunch, add the Pcie 3.2W and we are at 36.8W , add the 780ti and now we are at 49.8W idling, to compare to the FX8370E 62W with said Sabertooth, that is 12.2W difference at idle, here your vast difference and extremely better efficency at idle, a poor 12W, and that s assuming that you were lucky or insightfull enough to pick a correct MB...

The load power comsumption i already adressed, and you can check that the Asus Z97A is also quite over average for this, overall the 4670K has modest better efficency, it takes all the exagerations of some fanatics to transform what is negligible, 12W, to huge amount, an advice, if 12W is a lot for you then sell your PC since you cant afford one from the start.

 

[BSim500]

and my point was that they used a very efficient board

And your point has been soundly debunked in no less than two motherboard roundup tests. Dry your eyes and deal with it.

PS: Enabling / disabling PCI-Link power savings on mine barely registers 1w difference. Again I'm measuring - you're just guessing and scribbling in figures you found on the net and falsely extrapolating for every system on the planet. And you're double counting it anyway since dGPU vs iGPU already accommodates that. Example : GTX 7xx cards idle power = 7-10w.

 

[BSim500]

If those numbers are correct, and the FX 8320E can save a good deal of power over the FX 8370E, there is no reason to expect the FX 8320E to not surpass the efficiency of the i5 in that handful of benches.

If you think I'm wrong, please post why. If you are just going to make a snarky comment, keep it to yourself.

Personally I think AMD "E" chips are a step in the right direction. A lot of people aren't "snarky" at you (or even the FX chips), it's the absurd childish fanboy behavior by certain other people endlessly "massaging numbers" that goes on to try & exaggerate minor improvements out of all proportion, that virtually attracts sarcastic comments.

In a very small subset of tests (namely file compression), the FX is about 22-25% faster. It's still drawing up to 30-40% more power though. So even with charts like this, the perf-per-watt isn't necessarily better. As for 3.2GHz FX 8320E, ultimately there's still 32nm vs 22nm which is significant, ie, 32nm Sandy Bridge dropped from 95w to 77w 22nm Ivy Bridge. It's only gone back up to 84w for Haswell due to AVX (which hardly any apps use outside of Prime "power viruses" which give the chips abnormally lower perf-per-watt in benchmarks vs real-world usage) and larger iGPU (which gets disabled with a dGPU). That's a 20% difference in perf-per-watt even on the same architecture. Simply lowering the clock & voltage on a 32nm chip won't magically give it 22nm efficiency to overpower a process disadvantage.

It also depends on what you compare it with - the slower you go with FX clock speeds, the more the i5 "S" chips become a more appropriate comparison (if they already aren't). An i5-4690S has clock speeds of 3.5 4T / 3.6 3T / 3.8 2T / 3.9 1T at 65w, which is only 0-200MHz away from a 4690K (ie, 0-6% speed reduction with typical 17-20% reduction in power consumption). And for lower end general net / office box requirements, the Intel i3-4360T is a chilly 35w at same 3.2Ghz clock if perf-per-watt is the ultimate key metric.

Edit : Differences i5-4690 vs i5-4690S : Sysmark = only 2.5% / 3DSMax = 6.2% / Photoshop = 3.5% / IE11 = 1.9% / WinRAR = 3.1% / x264 = 5.8%

X264 runs 5.8% slower but draws 20.5% less power. The gap simply widens again if you compare respective energy efficient optimized chips for each brand (rather than the coolest AMD vs the hottest Intel).

 

[Abwx]

And your point has been soundly debunked in no less than two motherboard roundup tests. Dry your eyes and deal with it.

ROFL, the length of your answer, comparatively to your other usual wall of texts, and its tone sound like you are hardly accepting realities..

For the record here another one of your wonderfull myths :

32nm Sandy Bridge dropped from 95w to 77w 22nm Ivy Bridge. It's only gone back up to 84w for Haswell due to AVX

Lol, official TDP to claim a perf/watt improvement, but since you know HFR let s check the perf/Watt of Haswell comparatively to Sandy Bridge :


http://www.hardware.fr/articles/913-9/cpu-consommation-overclocking.html

Oh, but the 2500K is at the level of the 4670K, and that s thanks to the plateform because at the CPU level the old SB is slightly better, and both are well below the 3570K wich has 20% better perf/watt, to calm down your eventual anger and eventual accusations of bias i ll add that it s only 10% in Cinebench...

 

[mrmt]

If those numbers are correct, and the FX 8320E can save a good deal of power over the FX 8370E, there is no reason to expect the FX 8320E to not surpass the efficiency of the i5 in that handful of benches.

If you think I'm wrong, please post why. If you are just going to make a snarky comment, keep it to yourself.

Yes, I think you are wrong. 41 watts would be enough for another TDP bracket. But of course you might go down into the abwx's rabbit hole and start to cherry pick benchmarks in order to make AMD processors look good.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/78689-amd-fx-8320e-95w-32nm-vishera/?page=8

Handbrake reveals another slight jump in power-draw over the FX-8370E, this time 10-watts instead of 15. We can infer from this two E-series parts offer very similar power consumption, when accounting for the additional power consumption of the different motherboard.

 

[Abwx]

And your point has been soundly debunked in no less than two motherboard roundup tests. Dry your eyes and deal with it.

PS: Enabling / disabling PCI-Link power savings on mine barely registers 1w difference. Again I'm measuring - you're just guessing and scribbling in figures you found on the net and falsely extrapolating for every system on the planet. And you're double counting it anyway since dGPU vs iGPU already accommodates that. Example : GTX 7xx cards idle power = 7-10w.

The GTX number is just a prove that you dont read reviews, TPU measure GPU power at the 12V rail level while HFR do the same but they also measure the PCIe 12V and 3.3V since they noticed that Nvidia pull some watts from this connector to supply part of the card, that s why they state 13W at the main level for the GPU.

Now keep on spreading your usual irrelevancies, it makes no doubt that it annoy you that AMD are very competitive, of course not a single time in your power numbers you aknowledged that 8370E buyers will use mainly 970 and even older chipsets that have lower power consumption than the Sabertooth 990, keep on trying to downplay Intel s plateform power numbers while using the extreme cases for AMD, it suit perfectly your methodolgy that is certainly perfect for eventual viral marketers but that is completely ridiculous for whom is interested in accuracy.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Personally I think AMD "E" chips are a step in the right direction. A lot of people aren't "snarky" at you (or even the FX chips), it's the absurd childish fanboy behavior by certain other people endlessly "massaging numbers" that goes on to try & exaggerate minor improvements out of all proportion, that virtually attracts sarcastic comments.

In a very small subset of tests (namely file compression), the FX is about 22-25% faster. It's still drawing up to 30-40% more power though. So even with charts like this, the perf-per-watt isn't necessarily better. As for 3.2GHz FX 8320E, ultimately there's still 32nm vs 22nm which is significant, ie, 32nm Sandy Bridge dropped from 95w to 77w 22nm Ivy Bridge. It's only gone back up to 84w for Haswell due to AVX (which hardly any apps use outside of Prime "power viruses" which give the chips abnormally lower perf-per-watt in benchmarks vs real-world usage) and larger iGPU (which gets disabled with a dGPU). That's a 20% difference in perf-per-watt even on the same architecture. Simply lowering the clock & voltage on a 32nm chip won't magically give it 22nm efficiency to overpower a process disadvantage.

It also depends on what you compare it with - the slower you go with FX clock speeds, the more the i5 "S" chips become a more appropriate comparison (if they already aren't). An i5-4690S has clock speeds of 3.5 4T / 3.6 3T / 3.8 2T / 3.9 1T at 65w, which is only 0-200MHz away from a 4690K (ie, 0-6% speed reduction with typical 17-20% reduction in power consumption). And for lower end general net / office box requirements, the Intel i3-4360T is a chilly 35w at same 3.2Ghz clock if perf-per-watt is the ultimate key metric.

Edit : Differences i5-4690 vs i5-4690S : Sysmark = only 2.5% / 3DSMax = 6.2% / Photoshop = 3.5% / IE11 = 1.9% / WinRAR = 3.1% / x264 = 5.8%

X264 runs 5.8% slower but draws 20.5% less power. The gap simply widens again if you compare respective energy efficient optimized chips for each brand (rather than the coolest AMD vs the hottest Intel).

I was commenting on mrmt's post about 'being serious'. I'm not suggesting that it is likely that an FX 'E' CPU will provide better performance per watt than an i5. But the numbers made it look possible in some situations.

 

[Abwx]

Yes, I think you are wrong. 41 watts would be enough for another TDP bracket. But of course you might go down into the abwx's rabbit hole and start to cherry pick benchmarks in order to make AMD processors look good.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/78689-amd-fx-8320e-95w-32nm-vishera/?page=8

Handbrake reveals another slight jump in power-draw over the FX-8370E, this time 10-watts instead of 15. We can infer from this two E-series parts offer very similar power consumption, when accounting for the additional power consumption of the different motherboard.

The one living in a rabbit hole is the one that use such reviews as exemples :

Since it s impossible that the 8320E idle comsumption would be about 18W then we can only assume that this 14W delta is due to the chipset, but then the 970 plus SB950 are 19W together, that imply that at idle the chipset is almost at 100% duty for all its ports and other capability, that is, the chipset is supposed to be at 100% when idling.

If i was the one doing this review i would had checked with another same 970 MB before daring to post any number, but seems that it s not the case at Hexus, they dont even have some doubt about their methodology.

Indeed one has to really dig in the worst and most incompetent review to find such numbers, it makes no doubt that Hardware.fr are miles beyond this kind of amateurish sites, but hey, Hexus numbers are pleasing for some people whose agenda is certainly not accuracy, quite the contrary.

Edit : More on Hexus "review" and particularly this statement and weird bench result :

Cryptography is an area where Haswell excels and not even the fastest FX part can touch on the slowest Core i5.

Of course no information about this very bench in the testbed page :

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/78689-amd-fx-8320e-95w-32nm-vishera/?page=2

Really a cryptic bench, let s check elsewhere with and without AES instruction enabled :

 

[SlowSpyder]

Yes, I think you are wrong. 41 watts would be enough for another TDP bracket. But of course you might go down into the abwx's rabbit hole and start to cherry pick benchmarks in order to make AMD processors look good.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/78689-amd-fx-8320e-95w-32nm-vishera/?page=8

Handbrake reveals another slight jump in power-draw over the FX-8370E, this time 10-watts instead of 15. We can infer from this two E-series parts offer very similar power consumption, when accounting for the additional power consumption of the different motherboard.

Well, both the FX 8350 and FX 6350 are 125 watt TDP parts, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a big difference in consumption between the two in some tests. The AT test shows load numbers that are both for 95watt TDP parts. I saw that Hexus review, but they are testing the FX 8320E and FX 8370E on different motherboards and different chipsets. Look at the FX 8320 idle power consumption, way out of line with what we'd otherwise expect.

I'm not going to argue if it is or isn't true, that in some niche cases the FX can match or even exceed some i5 models in efficiency. Because I don't know. But I am being serious when I say it looks like it is a possibility. Even it it cannot, it looks like it can get close which is pretty impressive given the R&D and process advantage Intel has. But obviously that isn't the general rule regardless of what happens in a couple best case for AMD situations.

 

[BSim500]

Oh, but the 2500K is at the level of the 4670K

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7003/55330.png
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/6
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i7-3770k-i5-3570k/power-2.png
http://www.hardwareluxx.de/images/s.../2013/haswell-launch/diagramme/strom-last.jpg
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/443...est-energy-consumption-igpu-cinebench-115-max

The move from 32nm to 22nm lowered load power consumption, lowered operating voltages and noticeably improved mobile battery life. My quad core i5-3570 is actually drawing less power under load than my old dual-core i3-530 with 300mv lower voltage at 4GHz. 32nm is not the magic panacea of CPU efficiency and hasn't been for 3 years. Now go find someone else to troll your chronic attention seeking & childish "viral marketing" paranoid conspiracy theories on, kid...

 

[2is]

I blame the OP for this. The title of this thread should have been:

Is there any GOOD reason to use FX CPUs right now?

And the answer would have been a simple "no" /thread