Recommend Energy Efficient Desktop CPU

wacki

Senior member
Oct 30, 2001
878
0
76
#1
Looking for a computer that is snappy enough to handle video editing but not an energy hog. Just balancing power with electrical bills as I leave my computer on 24/7.

Currently using this cpu that was released Feb 2009 and it's a bit underpowered:
Got any recommendations? Are AMD's power ratings comparable to Intel? This article says they are very different apples to oranges.

Anandtech's Best CPUs of August 2017 recommends these:

Ryzen 3 1300X vs Core i3-7100
The AMD uses less power and single core is almost twice as fast as what I already have. Pretty much same with intel. So I'm happy with that performance range.
 

kjboughton

Senior member
Dec 19, 2007
330
7
116
#2
"Workstation" CPU or Workstation CPU? In the case of the latter, there is the Xeon lineup. I understand you can also run ECC memory with Threadrippper.
 

wacki

Senior member
Oct 30, 2001
878
0
76
#3
I edited the title, home desktop. I'm looking at $100 desktop cpus not $1,000 workstation cpus.
 
Aug 25, 2001
43,807
595
126
#4
Video Editing? Get the Ryzen R5 1600. You'll thank me later for the extra two cores.

Or get the Coffee Lake i3-8100, for $120 MSRP, it's a true quad-core. The KBL i3-7100 is only a dual-core with HT.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
4,854
458
136
#5
Video Editing? Get the Ryzen R5 1600. You'll thank me later for the extra two cores.
Or even a 1700, I know it gets a little bit more into the "expensive" range. But we are talking about video editing. That i3 is going to be worthless and in terms of power usage between a 1300x, 1600, or 1700. You are talking about the same power usage. a very low 65w for 8c worth of encoding is very efficient.

So yeah personally I would recommend a 1600/1700 or i5 8400.
 

Bouowmx

Senior member
Nov 13, 2016
853
20
116
#6
Efficiency: more cores (with AMD SMT or Intel HT) at low frequency.

Note that Intel supports AVX2 at nominal rate (32 FLOP/cycle), an instruction set extension that can speed up video encoding. For example: https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11859/91888.png

Intel TDP is the maximum power the processor can use, if the motherboard enforces power limit, not necessarily the power consumption in practice.
 
Apr 27, 2000
11,877
1,059
126
#7
I dunno, compared that old x3 even an R3 will be a huge power jump. Not sure an R5 or R7 is necessary here.

I will say that the R7 will probably be most efficient due to quicker race to idle.
 
Aug 25, 2001
43,807
595
126
#8
I dunno, compared that old x3 even an R3 will be a huge power jump. Not sure an R5 or R7 is necessary here.
12 threads versus 4, for maybe 50% more $$$, seems like a no-brainer to me.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,457
67
126
#9
Well it depends on what you mean by "handle" video editing. If you want max speed at rendering then you need more cores. If you just do occasional editing/encoding and can run it in the background when the computer is otherwise not being used, any modern quad core (Intel or Ryzen, not FX) or better will be a huge upgrade and perfectly adequate. (I do light encoding on an ancient i5 2350. Not a problem really, the jobs are small and I set the encode to start just before leaving the comp and it is finished when I get back.) Personally, if you can find one at MSRP, I would go for the i5 8400, which has six cores and better lightly threaded performance than Ryzen. Intel cpus are being called power hogs by some on these forums, but unless you push the clockspeed to well over 4ghz, they are actually very efficient, as is Ryzen.
 
Last edited:

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
3,562
113
126
#10
Video Editing? Get the Ryzen R5 1600. You'll thank me later for the extra two cores.

Or get the Coffee Lake i3-8100, for $120 MSRP, it's a true quad-core. The KBL i3-7100 is only a dual-core with HT.
Pretty much this. I'd go so far as to suggest a 1700, if in any way you can fit it into your budget.

If you can't, at the very least step up to the 1400, the Zen architecture benefits tremendously from SMT. In the Intel corner, there are the 8100 or 8400 to consider. I'm with Larry here, don't cheap out on a dual core with HT in 2017.
 

prtskg

Senior member
Oct 26, 2015
222
20
71
#11
Since you're comparing Ryzen 3 1300X vs Core i3-7100, I think you should go a little higher and go for R5 1600. It has very good perf/watt and perf/$ and you can also upgrade it later with better zen chips. No need to go for X version.
 

IRobot23

Senior member
Jul 3, 2017
601
18
76
#12
Depends on budget :
R5 1400, R5 1600 or R7 1700. No brainer here is R5 1600, with some DDR4 2666MHz it will be very power efficient and very fast.

You could go with Intel if you prefer, but i5 8400 is actually 6C/6T 65W TDP does have AVX2, but overall AMD is better choice for you kind of work. Since you are on budget and you won't OC and R5 1600 is 65W TDP you can simply buy really cheap B350 board.
 

Glo.

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2015
2,907
182
136
#13
May 19, 2011
12,466
469
126
#14
I dunno, compared that old x3 even an R3 will be a huge power jump. Not sure an R5 or R7 is necessary here.

I will say that the R7 will probably be most efficient due to quicker race to idle.
There are two things to consider here however:

1 - At the time, the Ph2X3 was not "low end". Athlon 64 X2s were still available, and it wouldn't surprise me if C2Ds and C2Qs also were, along with the IIRC first-gen Core i3/i5/i7 (ignoring Celerons and Pentiums at the time of course). IIRC the X3 710 was the first I bought of the AM3 generation direct from the 64 X2s. So the OP at the made a choice to go a little further up the range. At that time, dual-core would have been considered mainstream and more cores than that would have been leaning towards the high end.

2 - The OP has had this CPU since 2009. It's evident that the OP builds for the long term, and he uses the computer for a task that eats CPUs for breakfast (and will continue to for the foreseeable future).

Unless the OP's circumstances have changed somewhat, I'd say an R5 or i5 would make a relatively equal choice to the one he made in 2009.
 
May 19, 2011
12,466
469
126
#16
I assume that you mean 6-core CPUs?
Probably. I was just being explicit in my recommendation, and while I'm not aware of any joke-of-a-processor 6-core CPUs, there are plenty of quad cores around that are barely worthy of the title (at least in how quad-cores are considered in general performance terms), e.g. Pentium / Celeron "N", or AMD's not Zen-gen APUs (ok, so AMD's APUs aren't as bad as an Intel "N" but they certainly wouldn't make any of my shortlists for respectably decent performing CPUs).
 

Ratman6161

Senior member
Mar 21, 2008
607
0
91
#17
Here is a counterpoint: Don't worry about energy efficiency much if at all if what you are worried about is your electric bill. Why?

1. The CPU is only one component of a system. For power usage you have to look at the whole picture, not just the CPU. GPU's depending on what you get can easily draw more juice under load than a CPU.

2. Even though you leave your PC running 24x7, you are not video editing 24x7 and there are many hours of the day when its just sitting there idling. During those idle periods its using a lot less. Do it seems to me you would be most interested in idle power not power drawn under full load.

3. Why do you leave it on 24x7? Is there some specific reason? Can't you just let it go to sleep when not in use? Or if there are processes where you want to kick them off and then walk away for a while, you can still manually put it to sleep a lot of the time.
 
Feb 23, 2011
102
0
81
#18
Seems to me at any given price range there just isn't that much difference in wattage. What, 30 watts difference? Get a 30w lightbulb and ask yourself if you think that dim thing is really adding anything meaningful to your electricity bill.

And when it comes down to it, I bet you don't decide between cpus with that big of diff in max wattage, ti will probably be much closer like the first example of the 1300X and 7100. So focus elsewhere for efficiency, the prime one to me is power supply. Not only the higher Plus certification ones, but look for ones that still have decent efficiency even at low load, where all power supplies drop like a rock.

And turn of the silly RGBs...
 
Nov 6, 2017
31
0
11
#19
I am also looking for energy effecient cpu. I am doing heavy cpu intensive application work that needs lots of cores/threads. How about a 8700k downclocked? Yes stock is high tdp but if i downclock/undervolt it cant i get power efficient low tdp with advantage of 6cores/12 threads?
 
Apr 27, 2000
11,877
1,059
126
#20
If you are underclocking, there is no reason to get the 8700k. Just get an 8700 or maybe 8400.

As for the OP, he will have to make the choice between cost and efficiency. I am aware that his system will be mostly idle, so race to idle may be as big a consideration as anything else. Also if he's building for the long term, he will actually want an R7 for encoding work. But if that's out of the budget then he may have to go with something cheaper.
 
Nov 6, 2017
31
0
11
#21
If you are underclocking, there is no reason to get the 8700k. Just get an 8700 or maybe 8400.
But if i want to run even cooler than a 8700 than wont i not be able to due to the locked multipier? I can get 8700k for same price as 8700 from someone so considering it, as long as i can get to be as or more power efficient and cool as the 8700 which im not sure of. 8400 id loose threads
Thanks
 
Apr 27, 2000
11,877
1,059
126
#22
Unless Intel changed something, all multipliers should be unlocked downwards on the non-K parts, assuming you get a board that supports clockspeed adjustment at all.

So you should be able to downclock anything.

That being said, if the 8700 isn't cheaper then don't bother with it.
 

UsandThem

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
10,809
553
136
#23
I'm curious what people are pulling from the wall on their PCs? The system in my signature, along with my 25" LED (and four case fans) pull right around 60-70w at desktop using a balanced profile. I understand that lower power CPUs can pull less, but I don't think it will really amount to much savings, right? I mean, my CPU down-clocks itself to 800 MHz while doing this. I'd think having a very energy efficient (platinum or titanium) would save more power than a lower performance CPU?

I mean, I know Intel has 35w CPUs, but you give up performance for energy savings, but I guess I just want to understand what the energy difference really will be?
 

OTG

Member
Aug 12, 2016
92
161
76
#24
But if i want to run even cooler than a 8700 than wont i not be able to due to the locked multipier? I can get 8700k for same price as 8700 from someone so considering it, as long as i can get to be as or more power efficient and cool as the 8700 which im not sure of. 8400 id loose threads
Thanks
Just curious, what makes you want/need less power draw than a r5 1600 or i5 8400? They both use so little power that even cutting it in half would never be noticeable on your power bill.
My 1600 hastily OC'd at 3850mhz/1.4v, is sitting at 45 C with a decent cooler, can't even hear the fan, and that's under load!
 
Feb 23, 2011
102
0
81
#25
Change a single incandescent bulb in your home to an LED and save as much energy as any of these cpu options discussed. And only costs $8.
 

Similar threads



ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS