Of S/T Variants and Kilowatt Hours

[Sp12]

So, past Intel low power options haven't been all that interesting -- they've typically been 50-100$ more than the regular option, and often come with lower performance to boot. For example, the i7-870s have been slower but only marginally more power-conscious (82 watts compared to 95 for the regular version). There was no way the power savings would be worth the 50$ up front expense and worse performance except for AIWs/Imacs :awe:.

With Sandy Bridge the S and T variants actually look interesting, by the last leaked pricing roadmap, only 11$ more than the regular versions.

So, with a 30 watt reduction in power for the S models, and a 50-60 less for the lower-clocked T models, is there any reason not to get them if you're not interested in a 'K' variant? Approximately how much power, and by extension, money can I expect to save with a S/T variant.

Additionally, how do you feel about the T variants? They're slower and more expensive, but they also have drastically lower TDP to boot. They obviously seem ideal for HTPC/Server operations, but does anyone think they'll actually run one in their main system?

 

[Zap]

I'll let someone else do the math, but if it is only $11 more, I'd hit it.

It isn't just power savings. Heat output can affect the overall packaging of small systems due to cooling requirements.

 

[sxr7171]

I'm not sure if TDP is the whole story. It definitely helps to get a CPU with a lower TDP if offered, but I remember that Tom's did an article comparing Core i5 with Atom power draw in light computing loads and the i5 did very well. In fact after reading that article I went with an i5 instead of an Atom for my storage server. The basic point was that the i5 idles with very low power and when CPU use is needed it ramps up and completes the task much faster and goes back into idle.

However like Zap alluded to I think the lower TDP versions are binned to use less power and throw less heat. I would suspect that there will be advantages even in O/Cing.

 

[IntelUser2000]

I'm not sure if TDP is the whole story. It definitely helps to get a CPU with a lower TDP if offered, but I remember that Tom's did an article comparing Core i5 with Atom power draw in light computing loads and the i5 did very well. In fact after reading that article I went with an i5 instead of an Atom for my storage server.

If you actually DO something with the system rather than watching for it to go to idle all the time, TDP is very important in power consumption. Plus when they designate a TDP category the chip with lower TDP is better binned(meaning better in idle/load and c-states).