Featured Articles

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

Research firm IHS got hold of Samsung’s new flagship smartphone and took it apart to the last bolt to figure out…

More...
Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Samsung’s Galaxy S5 has finally gone on sale and it can be yours for €699, which is quite a lot of…

More...
Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel has added a load of Haswell refresh parts to its official price list and there really aren’t any surprises to…

More...
Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

During his appearance at PAX East panel and confirmed on Twitter, Titanfall developer Respawn confirmed that the first DLC pack for…

More...
KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Monday, 29 October 2007 23:39

Intel QX9650 reviewed [updated] - 9 Power Consumption

Written by Eliot Kucharik

Image Image

Review: Penryn goes up to 4.30GHz with air cooling



Power Consumption:

And now we come to the most interesting part. Intel claimed it had improved the power-saving on the CPU and yes, they did, with impressive results. While our board does not decrease the voltage of the CPU when overclocked in idle-mode, the Penryn does not care. It shuts as much down as possible, a quad-core is using less (!) power than compared to an overclocked dual-core E6700.

Image


Under load the picture doesn't change one bit. The quad-core uses only as much energy as the the dual-core; this is really impressive. The full load graph is only an indication, because it's hard to get all four cores at full load. We used two cores for x264 encoding, while Super-Pi and 3DMark06 were allocated to the other two cores. It's unclear why Intel stated a 130W TDP, as the CPU not overclocked is capable of much less.

Image

(Page 9 of 10)
Last modified on Thursday, 01 November 2007 04:28
blog comments powered by Disqus

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments