On 30/07/12 07:28, Michael Mol wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <rea...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/07/12 06:08, Michael Mol wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <rea...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 30/07/12 05:23, Philip Webb wrote:
i5-2550K & FX-4100 both use 95 W
(some of the more costly AMDs use 125 W ).
Note that power savings are not important if you're not using a laptop.
CPU
power savings on a desktop don't translate to any relevant amount of
money
on your electricity bills. This is because neither of those CPUs really
use
95W. That's just the thermal upper limit.
To be fair, power savings are relevant if you're concerned about your
electric bill, or if you're concerned about heat management in your
system.
Consider my dual E5345...leaving that on 24x7 appears to cost me about
90USD/mo.
CPU power savings will transform that into a 89.9USD/mo ;-) That's what I
mean. It's not worth much. It helps quite a bit with laptop battery life.
But for desktops, it doesn't do anything too useful.
If you really want the hard numbers, check out some place like Tom's
Hardware or Phoronix. I forget which does the power consumption
measurements. At some of the hardware review blogs, you can get
numbers on idle vs full-load power consumption, as measured at the
wall. The difference truly is striking.
When you have full load, the CPU won't clock down. So nothing saved
there. If you don't have full load, the clock-down doesn't save much
compared to max clocks while idle.
I hope you're getting the logic here :-)
