I did notice the counters were not reset, but can you post information proving the second statement true or is this another one of your opinions? I would also like to know the technological aspect of why the frame rates signify a greater or mutually exclusive importance compared to the loop count. Otherwise, I would be forced to conclude you are not speaking from experience/knowledge and that you are stating your opinion again.
Now that I have completed dinner, I suppose I should enter into the promised discussion about power and efficiency about both setups. To begin, I would like to point out the discrepancy between the average rates of both fans. It is abundantly clear that the average for the Intel fan is skewed to favor lower rates. There is nothing special behind the reason except the fan prior to the current one was significantly lower than the current one. Upon this recognition we can immediately toss out that data and compare the later portion to the AMD processor and we discover that there is a small, almost insignificant difference between the RPM's between the two fans. This is appropriate because we would like to see direct comparisons between the two processors under similar circumstances. However, now you must compare the average temperatures of both setups and compare the results. Here the discovery can be made that the AMD processor is significantly cooler than the Intel processor. Speculation can be drawn that the Intel processor is spouting more heat than the comparative AMD chip. The statement of why can be determined possibly comparing the two speeds and the conclusion can be made that part of the reason behind the heat is the higher clock frequency. This would help explain why Intel had to start out the dual cores at a slower clock rate. Could you imagine attempting to cool a 3.8GHz Intel processor under similar circumstances? Energy drawn into the computer and as you have so amply put it, "the electric bill," really is a function of all the combined units in the case, from PSU to motherboard, RAM, etc. Being a test of comparisons, I would assume that THG attempted to make all things equal, except the processors and the chipsets. Taking that into account all other numbers can be excluded because they are designed to be similar. There may be an insignificant variation, but it all boils down, again, to the processor and the chipset. This is where the companies numbers can be used, but with a grain of salt. Traditionally the numbers given by Intel and AMD offer different bits of information, either intentionally or not, but the numbers are as given. AMD has stated and can be found in online text to give wattage for the chip at the peak or maximum level, Intel usually gives the average. Once you compare the reported numbers you can see there is a difference, however, again this needs to be taken with a grain of salt unless verified by outside sources. There are several websites that give numbers on the draw of electricity by each of the processors and all of them point to the fact that AMD using not only less, but a lot less compared to Intel. The addition of any chipset numbers to the AMD score would still equate to a significantly smaller number. If you give me enough time I could find the numbers for you, but I won't do what you are quite capable of doing yourself. If you really are that worried about your electric bill at the end of the month you might consider turning off your air conditioner, refrigerator, and install fluorescent bulbs throughout your house.
I failed to mention also the similarity between two the tests and the large difference between the winrar and divx. Could it be possible that the two similar tasks are on one processor and for the other two one of tasks is taking advantage of HT while the other not? When taking this into consideration it sheds light on the fact that scheduling is playing a significant role in this test and because of this the performance numbers have almost entirely no sway. I'm done for the night and homework is calling my name.
Facebook
Twitter