It's a $40 chip... how much electricity can you buy with the money saved =P.
Sure, not good on the environment... should be okay on the bill, though.
It's a $40 chip... how much electricity can you buy with the money saved =P.
Sure, not good on the environment... should be okay on the bill, though.
I'm all interested in the operating costs, not the cost of the chip itself...
Originally Posted by Adak
I thank you on behalf of environmentalists, since there is no other reason you would think of it that way.
How much energy is saved by SpeedStep anyways? How expensive is electricity? What's the life expectancy of the chip? (before you replace it with another)
I don't have exact figures, but as the cpu use lowers, SpeedStep clocks down and lowers the voltage.
How expensive is electricity? You must know yourself, since it's you who should hold the electrical bill. It's different varying from country, naturally, but it isn't cheap.
Life expectancy... well, depends on you. The new core i7 or whatever it's called is coming out soon, and it's probably better than Celeron. A new chip comes out every year or so, doesn't it? I don't really have much look into that.
But, processors do not generally need to be phased out so quickly. A dual core is good for most things, unless you really need the speed for things such as video encoding. I don't even think games really require quad cores yet.
But I suppose that sometime into the future, now, you will be switching it out. I can't say more than that.
I'll try to get holds of some charts about how much energy the processors use in what states with SpeedStep.
The Core i7 has been out for almost a month in most countries, at this point. The Celerons we're talking about already have a reduced power consumption compared to the Core 2 Duo line (35W vs 65W), so in the cases of people that use their computer 24/7 for analysis or something productive like Folding@Home, then the Celeron would consume nearly half the power of a Core 2 Duo (For reference, the Core 2 Quad and Phenom processors consume 95W or occasionally 125W in the extreme versions of both. Core i7s consume 130W). Also, as of now, about 80% of game titles see the benefits of a quad core processor vs its dual-core equivalent.
Sent from my iPadŽ
Holy crap! 130W! Intel, what are you thinking!?
And there are 65W Phenoms.
But I wonder if it's possible to undervolt the Celerons, too. I see now why SpeedStep was left out.
haha highest from Intel to lowest from AMD, fair comparison eh.Holy crap! 130W! Intel, what are you thinking!?
And there are 65W Phenoms.
From the Wikipedia page on Phenom, under the Phenom X4 section (all i7's are quads),
Power consumption (TDP): 65, 95, 125 and 140 Watt
I was not comparing Phenom to i7. I was merely responding to that Phenom's consumed 95W.
And you are right - I do not agree with using 140 watts. It's ridiculous. It's stupid.
Anything about 65W is too much. 65W itself is a little high.
Ah I see. I thought they are meant to be a comparison.
I don't know what defines too much, though. For me it's about performance/cost (cost of chip + electricity).
The P4 and PD's consumed crazy amount of power, and Core 2 was a huge improvement in terms of power consumption. With Core i7 they are getting back to the power consumption level of the PD's, but offering 4 cores and many times the performance, so I think it's fair.
It is not. The TDP is far, far too high.
They can lower that consumption and bet you they will. Soon.
130W is unacceptable.
Why?
Higher performance always comes with higher power consumption.
According to wikipedia, the 75mhz Pentium 1's consumed 8W. Are we going to all rush out to get them on ebay while supplies last?
Of course it comes with higher energy consumption at first. But does that explain why there are 35W TDP of Athlon 64? Only two cores, still, doubling that makes it 70W for 4 cores.
No, the energy consumption can be decreased. It takes some extra work, which is usually why the energy efficient ones comes later.
What I meant is, it's a general relation on a large scale (for example, CPUs 5 years ago vs CPUs now) that higher performance = higher power consumption.
I agree it will probably be improved later, but it would just be "micro-improvement", while the overall trend still goes up.
No, sir, that is not quite right.
All the processors up to P4 went up, up, up.
They broke that with the Core 2 Duo.
Don't expect to pay more (for the electricity bill) for better processors. Today's technology won't allow for that, and indeed, it can prevent that.
Why should people buy those when they can buy this?
VIA Eden ULV - 500MHz - 1W - idle 0.1W.
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
