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.
Tuesday, 08 February 2011 16:16

AMD Phenom X6 1100T and X4 840 tested - Power-Consumption

Written by Eliot Kucharik

phenomIIX6_logo topvalue75px

Review: Speed updates, one Phenom is an Athlon

 

Power-Consumption:

The results with the Phenom II X4 840 are not directly comparable because for our new test rig we upgraded the power-supply to a more efficient one with 80plus Gold certification, which resulted in 1-2% better results for this CPU.

amd_phenom_840_1100T_power_onboard

With a little less VCore on default, it does help the CPU to achieve a better performance per Watt also due to the higher clock. Not all CPUs/chipsets have onboard graphics, so the i5-750 runs with our good old HD 4850.

amd_phenom_840_1100T_power_4850

 

With four or six cores active Cinebench shows us the efficiency of the whole system. Of course without a graphics-card efficiency is better:

amd_phenom_840_1100T_CB_eff

Naturally the more you overclock with voltage increase the worse the efficiency will be.

 

(Page 3 of 5)
Last modified on Wednesday, 09 February 2011 01:55
blog comments powered by Disqus

Comments  

 
+22 #1 milkod2001 2011-02-08 19:17
Conclusion:
don't be fool and better keep your €199,75,Bulldozer is coming very soon.

Those graphs are just awful, why not to put names of CPUs on left instead of that colour scale. It looks very noobish and takes ages to find what color stands for.
 
 
+5 #2 SlickR 2011-02-08 19:23
As always the CPU benchmarks always suck.
You can't recognize one cpu from another because there are 20 tested at one time and all have similar color.

Don't do these reviews fudzilla, because they suck.
 
 
+14 #3 The_Wolf88 2011-02-08 19:54
Crap !

Please change your diagrams design it makes me sick !!
 
 
+6 #4 neo222 2011-02-08 20:16
Seriously Fudo needs to learn ..atleast to use charts in excel..Pathetic Graphs!!
 
 
+8 #5 D31337Antics 2011-02-08 20:45
Why don't I see atleast the lowest end I7 on here?

I kind of wanted to see how it stacked up. :(

I have the 1055t in my system and I am still really happy with it but man... can't wait for the bulldozer! :)
 
 
+8 #6 Nerdmaster 2011-02-08 22:19
Test less cpus. Put names on graphs. Larger grapghs.
 
 
+4 #7 FlOw 2011-02-09 04:25
Yeah, those charts are a little hard to comprehend... would something like this be better?
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4590/benchmarkcharttemp.png

I made it with the "benchmark summary" data(top of page 4), so it should have the same info as that chart...
 
 
+5 #8 TechHog 2011-02-09 21:05
Wait, why are the tests performed on Windows XP? I can't think of a single logical reason for that...
 

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

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments