[weEvil]

I would like to use a nice power efficient CPU for a media centre or another PC. Whatever.

I don't care about the brand. I'll make a choice based on a variety of factors like performance, price and efficiency.


Been looking at the Core 2 Duo Mobile (34 Watts and almost the performance of a regular Core 2). Looks like you can put it in some mobos no problem. Anybody do this? Or have any info?

And what about the AMD counterpart? What do they offer? Is it Turion now?


Note: I am not looking to overclock. So it doesn't matter if Core 2 Duo is better in that respect. I'm looking for low consumption. And I know that there are other heat producing parts. I am starting with CPU and working my way through.

[bonestonne]

AMD computers generally use less power overall compared to Intel. Undervolt it, and you'll use even less power.

if its not going to ever get a really big beating, a single core AMD CPU will do fine while using almost no power, however, you can also look into the different versions of a specific CPU, as there are certain AMD processors that are lower wattage than others, such as a 64W version compared to maybe an 85W or so...that all helps in saving power.

at the same time, if the computers going to take a heavy beating, generally it'll pull more juice, so that will defeat the purpose somewhat, however even still, it would most likely use less power than a regular system.

i would say debate between a mobile or AMD cpu, they'll use less power...its just dependant on how big you want it to be. a mobile core could easily pass mATX with plenty of room for what you'd need, but if you go AMD, you have the choices of onboard DVI, dual LAN [in some cases], HD audio etc.

i haven't seen an Intel based board with onboard DVI, so if thats something you want, that would be something to consider.

what will it be used for, and more specifically, what do you want on the board compared to having to add to the build.

[weEvil]

65W is still too much. Which is why I'd like to go mobile.

And undervolting. How do I do that? I tried it before but the CPU I have didn't even post.

How low can i go?


Also, the reason i need a very efficient CPU is because I will also get a videocard. A HD 2600 or 2400 or even an 8600. So that will add its own heat to the system.

If I can get a nice frosty cool CPU that would be real nice.


Also, Micro-ATX or other. Doesn't matter. And I don't need 7.1 anyway. I'm not using onboard. LAN is nice though.

This post has been edited by brucevangeorge: 01 June 2007 - 07:56 PM

[puntoMX]

Soon you will find AMD Sempron64 CPUs at 9Watts that fit on a S754 or AM2 mobo with a nVidia61X0 or AMD690X chipset (onboard video) with also low power consumption.

How much power do you need any way?

EDIT: Need more power? ADD3800IAT5CU AMD 3800X2 CPU is your friend, 35Watts...

This post has been edited by puntoMX: 01 June 2007 - 08:19 PM

[Zxian]

I tested a system a while ago - built around an AMD X2 4000+ CPU. Plenty fast for most applications, and the whole setup (it had onboard graphics) drew 35W from the wall at idle, and about 90 at load.

The numbers for "65W" or "84W" are all estimates, and will not really be representative of how much power these systems draw at idle and at load.

If you're looking for lower power consumption at load, then Intel is the way to go. If the computer is mostly going to be idle, AMD is better.

[weEvil]

Zxian, on Jun 3 2007, 06:43 AM, said:

I tested a system a while ago - built around an AMD X2 4000+ CPU. Plenty fast for most applications, and the whole setup (it had onboard graphics) drew 35W from the wall at idle, and about 90 at load.

The numbers for "65W" or "84W" are all estimates, and will not really be representative of how much power these systems draw at idle and at load.

If you're looking for lower power consumption at load, then Intel is the way to go. If the computer is mostly going to be idle, AMD is better.

Why would I buy a PC to keep it idling?


Intel looks nice. Would be nice especially for doing some video compression and rendering once in awhile. And I know they are estimates, but its better than nothing.

[DonDamm]

Intel recently lowered their idle wattage on the mobile chips to 12W. Still a bit more than AMD's 9W, but it's in the right direction! :^)

On the Core 2 Duo's there is an automatic multiplier/voltage reduction when idle. I just discovered it when I saw that a 2.13GHz E6420 was running at 1601.2MHz. After fiddling with the BIOS settings to no avail, I tried keeping CPU-Z open while running a large RAR compression. Et voilá! It jumped to 2130MHz. This is separate from SpeedStep or CPU TM.

If you want low power consumption, mobile chips are the way to go. As mentioned AMDs are better for idle and Intels better for load. Your choice.

[weEvil]

DonDamm, on Jun 3 2007, 07:45 AM, said:

Intel recently lowered their idle wattage on the mobile chips to 12W. Still a bit more than AMD's 9W, but it's in the right direction! :^)

On the Core 2 Duo's there is an automatic multiplier/voltage reduction when idle. I just discovered it when I saw that a 2.13GHz E6420 was running at 1601.2MHz. After fiddling with the BIOS settings to no avail, I tried keeping CPU-Z open while running a large RAR compression. Et voilá! It jumped to 2130MHz. This is separate from SpeedStep or CPU TM.

If you want low power consumption, mobile chips are the way to go. As mentioned AMDs are better for idle and Intels better for load. Your choice.

How does the regular Core 2 Duo stack up? As opposed to the mobile?

Seems like a better alternative. The mobile is hard to find, especially with a compatible desktop motherboard. Uses socket P from what I gathered.

Unless I haven't been looking hard enough.

[DonDamm]

You can find the spec sheets at Intel. This is a list of all the different core 2 Duo mobile processors and the packaging. Note they have a lower pin count (478-479) than the desktop versions (775) and a some have different interface packaging from pin grid arrays to ball grid arrays, so if you go this route, make sure you get the correct motherbaord. You are right about that. They also have lower bus speeds either 667 or 800.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/List.aspx...c=&OrdCode=

For me, I'd go with a regular E6600 or E6700, as they are much lower in power consumption than earlier models, but if each watt is important to you, then the mobile processors are your best bet.

[puntoMX]

So again,

35Watts MAX LOAD! for a NORMAL NO MOBILE ADD3800IAT5CU AMD 3800X2
Price in a webshop in the USA: 224 US$
Fan included and fit´s on every AM2 board.

Compared with

34Watts MAX LOAD! mobile 478pin Intel® Core™2 Duo Mobile Processor T5500
Price in a webshop in the USA: 205 US$
NO fan included and doesn´t fit on every S478 board.

Speed should be about the same, depending on your apps..

When using google on the AMD number I found this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/25/gre...hine/index.html


brucevangeorge, when I read your posts above, I see no reason why you would need a low power consumption CPU. Just buy a 6x00 CPU from iNTEL and your done (other people say so ). What is keeping you from it?

[Zxian]

@punto - that's just for the motherboard. If you look at where the power draw for the systems comes in, AMD has lower power CPUs but higher power motherboards, while Intel is the other way around.

That X3800 when put into a full system will still pull 100W from the wall without too much difficulty (and that'd be with onboard graphics).

[weEvil]

puntoMX, on Jun 4 2007, 12:27 PM, said:

I see no reason why you would need a low power consumption CPU.

True...

I guess I'll look more at the regular Core 2 Duo and see how much it can be underclocked. For regular computer use.

For gaming, it can be cranked up to full.

[puntoMX]

Zxian, on Jun 4 2007, 05:00 PM, said:

@punto - that's just for the motherboard. If you look at where the power draw for the systems comes in, AMD has lower power CPUs but higher power motherboards, while Intel is the other way around.

That X3800 when put into a full system will still pull 100W from the wall without too much difficulty (and that'd be with onboard graphics).

It´s true that iNTEL based mobos use like 10Watts less tops, but in a complete system AMD uses still less power.

I use some Sempron64 AM2 here at 35watts with 1GB DDR2 800, 320 WD SATA drive, DVD-ROM, cheap *ss powersupply (400W max. rated) and a ASUS mobo with nVidia 6150LE chipset. The whole system uses idle a bit more then 50VA, while under load with games 85VA, including the 19" HP1907W it uses 120VA under full load , not bad I think.

In Mexico the energy cost are high, about 0.19US$ for each kWh so I need low consumption computers for a reasonable price.

EDIT: Waiting for the new mobos to como in with AMD 690G and 690V chipsets, with this the powerusage will drop an other 10Watts (load) .

http://www.hothardware.com/articles/AMDs_6...esting/?page=15

This post has been edited by puntoMX: 05 June 2007 - 12:43 PM