Power Consumption (not TDP) of S and T-series Core CPUs?

[Azuma Hazuki]

Is there any reliable information on idle and peak power consumption of Intel's 65W S and 35/45W T series of Core processors?

TDP is simply a measure of maximum allowed/anticipated heat dissipation, not power usage. I would guess all the chips are very close in idle but am wondering about where the load peaks sit.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Is there any reliable information on idle and peak power consumption of Intel's 65W S and 35/45W T series of Core processors?

TDP is simply a measure of maximum allowed/anticipated heat dissipation, not power usage. I would guess all the chips are very close in idle but am wondering about where the load peaks sit.

" . . . anticipated. . . ." It is the thermal wattage which might be almost synonymous with the power-consumption under stock voltage, speed and current conditions. I still feel confident about this memory growing vague: that I show 95W for package power in HWMonitor at stock settings when I run a serious toaster-oven load test. By overclocking my system tuned for just the right voltages, speeds, timings etc., it costs me an extra 40W of power at fully-drooped load.

So I could only guess about 4W to 10W @ idle, and 65W under load for, as example -- the S processor you mentioned. But I think I'd be more accurate for the load value. If those are mobile chips or an S revision to a desktop CPU, the idle could be lower. I'm only now getting familiar with laptop technology, and the one I'm using is 8 years old.

 

[coercitiv]

Is there any reliable information on idle and peak power consumption of Intel's 65W S and 35/45W T series of Core processors?

TDP is simply a measure of maximum allowed/anticipated heat dissipation, not power usage. I would guess all the chips are very close in idle but am wondering about where the load peaks sit.

From an "average" power usage perspective they have 2 power limits:

• long term (P1) , which is equal to chip TDP
• short term (P0), which is roughly 1.2-1.3 x TDP (30-60 seconds max)

Actual maximum instantaneous power is dictated by maximum current limit, and is a bit higher than short term max power.

Even if somewhat outdated by more advanced technologies inside Haswell, this Sandy Bridge presentation is still very useful in understanding how it works.

 

[Burpo]

I recently acquired an i3-2130 65 watt 3.4ghz cpu (thanks LTC8K6), and installed it in a Gigabyte mATX board. Interestingly enough, when I ran some benchmarks and speed tests, it rarely exceeded 35 watts, even at 100% usage..

 

[Burpo]

Thanks again LTC8K6

 

[BSim500]

Is there any reliable information on idle and peak power consumption of Intel's 65W S and 35/45W T series of Core processors?

As with all Haswell's the real world peak power is typically stuff like x264 under load, not synthetic AVX "power viruses" like LinX which auto-overvolt the CPU. From below linked article:-

i5-4670T (45w TDP) = 24w idle / 65w load (x264). Delta = 41w.
i5-4670S (65w TDP) = 24w idle / 73w load (x264). Delta = 49w.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i5-4670s-4670t_7.html#sect0

 

[LTC8K6]

I recently acquired an i3-2130 65 watt 3.4ghz cpu (thanks LTC8K6), and installed it in a Gigabyte mATX board. Interestingly enough, when I ran some benchmarks and speed tests, it rarely exceeded 35 watts, even at 100% usage..

She was a good little chip.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Wow, excellent information! Thanks for posting the XBitLabs review; it's one of the most thorough and well-researched bits of tech writing I've ever seen!

I'm planning on building something for a friend who does dev work, and is very, very, very monetarily constrained, so power usage was an issue. It sounds like there's not much difference, but since I also plan to build in a Habey 600-type case, the T-series chip may be worth it for its low heat. This is heartening though, because it means if I *do* go mATX or ATX, the "standard" chips won't use all that much more power.

A big, big thank you to everyone who replied

 

[Qwertilot]

Definitely nice to see those figures for Haswell, because I think the often quoted tests were for Sandy or something.

It seems far from impossible that the S/T speed deficit vs the K ones will be a little lower than seen in those tests for Skylake. They're continuing to heavily optimise for notebook use after all.

 

[know of fence]

I'm planning on building something for a friend who does dev work, and is very, very, very monetarily constrained, so power usage was an issue. It sounds like there's not much difference, but since I also plan to build in a Habey 600-type case, the T-series chip may be worth it for its low heat. This is heartening though, because it means if I *do* go mATX or ATX, the "standard" chips won't use all that much more power.

If you care about your friend at all, then buy a proper tower with a proper tower cooler. In fact any metal box from the last 15 years will do (better).
Small enclosures are straight up stupid and they exist only for people to make that mistake once, with few exceptions. Inadequate (passive or stock fan) cooling also drives up power consumption.

 

[Yuriman]

My PC is currently in a small enclosure, and I very much appreciate how much less space it takes up. ITX motherboards use less power as well.

You should have no problems using a small case, OP, if you get a nice aftermarket cooler for it, such as the Noctua NH-L9i. It keeps my Ivy i5 nearly 20c cooler than the stock cooler, while being half the height and quieter.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Actually, SFF builds are my specialty, and I've had numerous successes with the Habey 600/800 series, starting with an i3-2120T build back in 2012. The latest is now being used as a ZoneMinder (Linux security camera) passthrough for an industrial warehouse complex

Mostly I want to make this as small, rugged, and sturdy as possible because it's going to be shipped a good 1,000 miles, from the upper Midwest to Pennsylvania. And the lady in question does dev work but needs to cut her expenses any way possible, hence trying to get something powerful but low-consuming.