Performance per Watt, best?

[VirtualLarry]

I'm thinking, an IB dual-core chip with HyperThreading, may be my best performance/watt option. That is, if next-gen 28nm Brazos fusion chips don't deliver. I do like my e-350 rig, but Xbitlabs article on G540/G440 CPUs showed that a single-core SB can practically equal two Zacate cores when it comes to CPU power. As far as 3D graphics go, the Zacate exceeds the SB IGP, but not enough to make that much of a difference.

Edit: While I have your attention - would a dual-core like the G530 be fast enough for modern games, or would that require something like the i3-2100, or slightly faster? Are the dual-core SB with HT fast enough for games that would otherwise require a quad-core, or are they still not fast enough for quad-core gaming?

 

[LoneNinja]

I don't know about the performance per watt, but despite only being a dual core the I3 2100 out performs Phenom II X4 and I would assume that means Core2Quad as well for gaming.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-core-i3-2100-phenom-ii-x6-1075t,2859.html

You'll see similar results on anandtechs bench utility too.

 

[Concillian]

If you're considering a 2100, you should probably consider an i3-530/540. They are slower per clock, but can be OC'ed to 4GHz without much voltage increase and I kept all my power saving features enabled. My i3 / $60 mobo / 5770 system idles around 80w according to the kill-a-watt, and am using ~130-150W in most gaming situations.

It's not the new and exciting thing, but locking the low end SBs killed the low end options. A 2100 is probably adequate, but an OC'ed 530 / 540 is faster. This, of course, assumes you are talking about using a discrete card, since you're talking about games that would use quad core CPUs.

That has been fast enough for my gaming needs, but I'm not playing games that "need quads". When I purchased, if I factored in power consumption for 1 year, the i3-530 / 540 was cheaper than the Athlon x3s due to the higher power consumption. x4s and Phenoms were nowhere even close on value.

 

[sangyup81]

The Core i3 with 4 threads beats the Phenom II which has 4 actual cores in almost every gaming benchmark.

Threading tests have typically shown that the 4th core hardly helps while the 3rd core helps somewhat. Most games handle 2 cores well though.

 

[Concillian]

That too. most games that use 4 cores will still heavily weight the first two.

100& / 80% / 30% / 30% is not uncommon even for a game that "takes advantage" of 4 cores. The superior single thread performance trumps. If SB i3s could be OCed they'd be a fine choice for gaming, as they are not neutered in the way that the S1156 i3s were.

This is probably why Intel locked them. They've forced many who would have been happy with a $120 CPU into spending $200+. And others (like me) who would have bought another $120 CPU are just sitting on the sidelines, not buying for now as a result.

 

[sm625]

I really wish anandtech bench had i3-530 running at 4GHz. But if you compare the 530 to the 540, you can approximate the performance at 4GHz and compare it to i3-2100.

For example an i3-530@4GHz would score about 262 on Sysmark 2007 overall
and it would score 13,300 on Cinebench multithreaded. It would totally blow away an i3-2100. And would even beat an i7-2600 in single threaded tasks. I wonder how many years it is going to take before intel offers a faster cpu/motherboard solution for less than $200 now that they have nearly everyone worshipping their gouging ways.

 

[Concillian]

. I wonder how many years it is going to take before intel offers a faster cpu/motherboard solution for less than $200 now that they have nearly everyone worshipping their gouging ways.

Why would they ever?
I mean the number of people who just moved up $150 (combined CPU + mobo) has to more than offset the number of people who are now skipping generations they otherwise wouldn't have.

 

[BladeVenom]

A 2500k idles about the same as the I3 2100. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=288 And it can get some things done twice as fast. So 2500k for everything.

 

[Cogman]

What is the application? Most consumer CPUs spend 99% of their time idling, so the best performance per watt is going to be pretty much dependent on the amount of the idle wattage of your CPU.

If you are looking to save power, pick up the cheapest current gen CPU that can do the tasks you want. If all the CPUs on the market are faster than you need, underclock and undervolt the suckers until you either bottom out or they hit the "good enough" mark.

 

[aigomorla]

What is the application? Most consumer CPUs spend 99% of their time idling, so the best performance per watt is going to be pretty much dependent on the amount of the idle wattage of your CPU.

+1...

if its a file server.. u dont require uber cpu process and u can get away with a uber low voltage cpu... which would rank up king in the performance per watt.

If its a VM Server... or a Real server... well... atoms wont cut it for you on that end will they?