JustAnEngineer wrote:Since I'm certain that Kougar hasn't done the math...
(135 watts difference ÷ 0.92 PSU efficiency) x 24 hrs/day x 365 days/year x 12¢/kilowatt-hour = $154/year. I might accept that as ridiculous, if your usage case is 24/7 full-tilt operation.
(135 watts difference ÷ 0.92 PSU efficiency) x 17 hours/week x 50 weeks/year x 12¢/kWhr = $15/year for a heavy gamer. That's not ridiculous at all.
Well you did the math for me so thanks! I'd have screwed it up anyway. My computers do in fact run 24/7 365 days a year. Whether serving files, downloading or whatever they run around the clock with Folding@home or VMs running in the background.
Therefore a $154 "penalty" per year is ridiculous for a worse-performing chip. Then consider that 84 vs 219TDP also is going to appreciably increase the house cooling bill per month, so the cost is in reality much higher for 24/7 users that live in hot climates and already rely on a lot of AC usage. Then factor that over the lifetime of the system, say 5 years.
I don't understand why people defend this chip. It has way higher power draw, a higher price tag, and worse performance. The only plus going for it is that it isn't the Intel name is on the box. If people decide that the brand name is more important than power, price, and performance combined then that is fine as it's their choice to make. But that aside, regardless of how much or how little a gamer uses the system they're still better off by building a cheap Intel rig instead. That's what the recommendation needs to be to people looking to build new rigs.
Heck, since you mentioned gamers specifically they could just buy that new $70 unlocked Pentium and OC it. They will still receive better FPS performance at a lower power draw and it will save $280 off the CPU cost to do so.
The FX line is no better than the Pentium D 800 family back in 2005, it's just history repeating itself with a twist.