Intel Core 2 Chipset Power Consumption Shootout
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 12, 2006 12:53 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Application Performance & Power Usage with Winstone 2004
Business Winstone 2004 is the first time we actually see a real performance difference, with the nForce 570 SLI ending up on top, outperforming Intel's P965 by a full 10%. With an actual performance difference, this could make the performance per watt comparison quite interesting.
Power consumption is following the same pattern we've already seen: P965 at the top, followed by 975X and then in last place, the nForce 570 SLI. The margins are a lot closer here, with the NVIDIA platform drawing only 6.5% more power than the P965 on average, but it's still measurable.
Looking at performance per watt, the high performance of the nForce 570 SLI balances out its high power consumption to equal the Intel 975X and slightly outpace the P965.
Things go back to normal though in the Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 test, with all three platforms basically performing the same.
Given that MMCC Winstone 2004 is a more CPU bound test than Business, it's not a surprise to see a narrower gap in power consumption, with the NVIDIA platform only drawing 4.4% more power than the Intel solution.
With equal performers, the lowest power consumer ends up having the best performance per watt.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
Magendanz - Thursday, October 12, 2006 - link
The days of ATI building chipsets for Intel CPUs may be numbered, but I'd be interested in seeing how their current offerings compare to nVidia and Intel.Also, how does integrated graphics change the power equation?
Questar - Thursday, October 12, 2006 - link
I would never consider power consumption in choosing a chipset. Two or three watts of pwer consumption isn't even worth spending any time considering imho.
falc0ne - Saturday, October 14, 2006 - link
yeah the same to me, I think for the average user power consumption of a chipset will never be a primary criteria when buying a new MB/platform. For the enterprise/business customers..that's another matter. These mbs here in the test were for the average user though.. I don't see what's with all the fuzz on performance per watt(power consumption) issue lately, at least when the differences are so minor..I'm looking forward to a thoroughly investigation on core 2 duo platforms..till then, keep up with the good work Anand..you are still my best:)
smilingcrow - Saturday, October 14, 2006 - link
For those wanting power consumption data on older chipsets that support C2D, which also includes consumption at idle, http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewtopic.php?t=3...">See herehubajube - Thursday, October 12, 2006 - link
Yep, don't care about power consumption of the chipset. Also, if you're looking at business machines for 10,000+ users, you aren't going the custom build route as the costs to build aren't worth the savings on parts. You're going to go with a canned solution and most of those machines have low power draws anyways (no fans, low wattage power supplies, bare bones components).phusg - Friday, October 13, 2006 - link
Guys if you don't care about chipset power draw then why bother reading the article (assuming you even did) and why even bother replying to the forum?!? Sheesh.Madellga - Friday, October 13, 2006 - link
Dells and HPs (canned solutions) also use those chipsets. There are "canned" workstations also, for CAD work for example. They are not barebones, although cheap components could be used.Low wattage PSUs do not translate in lower consumption. A 500W rated 80% at 100W consumes the same as a 300W rated 80% at 100W. Most likely the canned PSU will be a cheaper one and consume more.
Corporate purchases are Global Sourced and they go for the cheapest. No corporate buyer will pay a cent more on every computer to have an Enermax PSU, for example.
Madellga - Thursday, October 12, 2006 - link
Wrong. Can you imagine in a office?In a large corporation, or gov. office, that has more than 10000 computers.
That's a lot of money.
If you think worldwide, that's a lot of energy. You don't pay this out of your pocket, nevertheless it is money wasted that could go somewhere else.
In the long run, it's also contributing to Global Warming and other pesky effects.
yyrkoon - Friday, October 13, 2006 - link
Except that a large corporation wouldnt be using this type of otherboard most likely to begin with.I have to agree with the OP, in that a few WATTS is no big deal here, however, CPU / GPU power usage can be, and often is.
I know that one thing is for sure, IF I ever use SLI, its going to be a mid ranged card that uses much less power, as I dont feel that 1 KW is nessisary for hight end PC (which is how much future PCs are going to be needing at this rate).
peternelson - Friday, October 13, 2006 - link
In a COLD country making little use of air conditioning, the excess power consumption from pcs would actually warm up the office and SAVE MONEY AND ENERGY in building heating costs. Also the electricity might be nuclear or green, whereas the building heating is more likely oil or gas (fossil fuels being depleted making green house gases and co2).
If you live in say Texas or the Sahara desert, it would of course increase your aircon costs.
Anyway I was interested in how the 590 chipset performed against 570 in power consumption.