Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
clone wrote:given the thermals of the FX line.... how would that be a good thing?If there was a single AM3+ mini-itx board available. Looks like you have to go Trinity/Richland if you want mini-ITX with AMD.
small mobo, small case, FX 8350 running at 5ghz ='s melted mobo.
cynan wrote:clone wrote:given the thermals of the FX line.... how would that be a good thing?If there was a single AM3+ mini-itx board available. Looks like you have to go Trinity/Richland if you want mini-ITX with AMD.
small mobo, small case, FX 8350 running at 5ghz ='s melted mobo.
Because there are plenty of 95W TDP FX CPUs out there which should be fine in such an enclosure as long as one pays proper attention to cooling? The FX-6300 is a good example. A $120 6 core ~4GHz CPU that would make for a great budget desktop with a ~$100 graphics card. But this is only possible in micro ATX or ATX. Kind of a shame not to have the option. Ivy Bridge I5s have a TDP of about 80 watts. Not so far off. Do you think those recent enthusiast oriented Z77 mini itx boards are intended for i3s only? I think the real reason is probably something to do with the lack of on-die graphics on the FX chips. Seems like that is an industry requirement for mini-itx form factor...
My Johnson wrote:Actual power consumption is vastly different from the TDP's. See here.
matdem1 wrote:
Chrispy_ wrote:matdem1 wrote:
I can't take TECHSPOT seriously: They max out the graphical settings on the gaming tests and then comment that there's not much difference between processors in the results. /facepalm.
As much as I want AMD to do well, reviews like this always highlight one glaring issue: Their older "stars" architecture used in the PhenomII is just waaaaaaaaaay better at most things compared against Bulldozer/Piledriver. Look at clockspeeds and core count and the Phenom II X4 is typically ahead of the FX-4xxx. Likewise, the Phenom II X6 frequently beats the FX-6xxx in tests.
Chrispy_ wrote:I can't take TECHSPOT seriously: They max out the graphical settings on the gaming tests and then comment that there's not much difference between processors in the results. /facepalm.
As much as I want AMD to do well, reviews like this always highlight one glaring issue: Their older "stars" architecture used in the PhenomII is just waaaaaaaaaay better at most things compared against Bulldozer/Piledriver. Look at clockspeeds and core count and the Phenom II X4 is typically ahead of the FX-4xxx. Likewise, the Phenom II X6 frequently beats the FX-6xxx in tests.
jihadjoe wrote:My Johnson wrote:Actual power consumption is vastly different from the TDP's. See here.
This.
95W for the FX6300 suggests it would use 11W more than the 84W i7-4770k, but it actually uses a LOT more. I know because I just helped a friend build an FX6300 rig.
Also, lol @ the "65W" A10-6700 pulling over 120W under load.
We used a Yokogawa WT210 digital power meter to capture power use over a span of time. The meter reads power use at the wall socket, so it incorporates power use from the entire system—the CPU, motherboard, memory, graphics solution, hard drives, and anything else plugged into the power supply unit. (The monitor was plugged into a separate outlet.) We measured how each of our test systems used power across a set time period, during which time we encoded a video with x264.
Bensam123 wrote:Mr Jihad those numbers include the rest of the systems power consumption.
Despite having a TDP rating of 65W, the A10-6700 system draws 48W more power while executing our test workload than our 55W Core i3-3225 system. In fact, it pulls more juice than a whole collection of configs based on Intel desktop CPUs with TDP ratings of 77W and 84W. At least the 6700 is a bit of an advance over AMD's own A10-5800K.
chuckula wrote:5. As soon as you start raising the idle power of the CPU, the delta starts to get even harder to explain than what we have above. Question: How many systems other than the 6700 and 6800K have power deltas that are actually larger than the TDP of the corresponding chip in those graphs?