Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
just brew it! wrote:AFAIK pretty much the only features that are currently Opteron-only are support for registered DIMMs and multiple CPU sockets.
Airmantharp wrote:just brew it! wrote:AFAIK pretty much the only features that are currently Opteron-only are support for registered DIMMs and multiple CPU sockets.
Access to the higher-core-count parts would be cool, but I don't think that AMD could do that with margins that would result in acceptable end-user pricing.
jihadjoe wrote:People who need the cores can just build a socket G34 workstation. The CPUs and motherboards aren't too expensive, so aside from the RAM it should be about the price of an X79 rig.
ronch wrote:How is this a new CPU? It's just an FX-9590 with AMD-approved water-cooling thrown in and a fancier box.
Kougar wrote:Please show your math.The cost of power alone makes it ridiculous.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Kougar wrote:The cost of power alone makes it ridiculous.
Please show your math.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Let's not forget cooling all that extra power, and the fatigue/annoyance that the added noise brings with it. My personal rule of thumb is to double power differences when doing such calculations.the math...
JustAnEngineer wrote:(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.
travbrad wrote:It's not even cheaper than the Intel competition (4770k and 4670k), which is usually AMD's selling point these days.
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.
Geonerd wrote:No one is claiming that this kit is a screaming value, but for people to hysterically carry on about the _maximum_ power draw is silly.
airmantharp wrote:Not silly at all; as shown, it's not about the power bill as much as it is about noise and heat vented into the room. Performance aside, most people would likely not want another 100+ watts of heat being vented into their computer room, especially if that room isn't well ventilated (I keep the door closed on mine during gaming sessions).
Arclight wrote:You're all kidding yourselves if you think that a 220W TDP CPU wouldn't sell well if it was uncontested in terms of performance
Airmantharp wrote:Some have shown that AMD's 'hardware hyper-threading' is actually superior to Intel's implementation when it comes to desktop responsiveness while actually heavily multitasking- Bensam123 explained it as thus for his video broadcasting while gaming.
So yeah, no reason to hate on AMD's architecture- hate on their apparent inability to give it the attention it deserves to properly compete on performance, if not efficiency .
ronch wrote:Aside from power consumption, I'm actually very happy I chose the FX-8350.
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.
Arclight wrote:You're all kidding yourselves if you think that a 220W TDP CPU wouldn't sell well if it was uncontested in terms of performance.