1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Power consumption of Pentium 4 570J (3.8Ghz)

Discussion in 'Intel' started by ykhan, Nov 16, 2004.

  1. ykhan

    ykhan Guest

    Intel quietly introduced the latest Prescott, a 3.8 Ghz chip with the
    NX-bit support available (that's why it's got the "J" designation).
    They seem to have introduced a new, improved halt state to keep things
    cooler.

    Intel's Pentium 4 570J 3.8GHz processor - The Tech Report - Page 15
    http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/pentium4-570j/index.x?pg=15

    Yousuf Khan
     
    ykhan, Nov 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. ykhan

    Rob Stow Guest

    I had a long chat with someone who works for a review
    site. A lot of what he wanted to see added to that
    site's review was omitted because his boss didn't want
    to piss off Intel.

    The differences between idle and loaded power consumption
    as reported by Tech Report are in the same ballpark as what
    my friend and his co-workers saw. Unfortunately, the
    "loaded" power consumption comes into play even when you
    are doing something so trivial as playing Solitaire or
    using a simple text editor. They spent a lot of time
    unsuccessfully trying to find *anything* an XP user could
    do without kicking the power consumption up to the same level
    you would see when running something like Prime95.

    "Loaded" also apparently comes into play for something as
    trivial as the Windows XP log-on screen saver. I found it
    quite amusing to hear that you could stop typing, mousing,
    etc and immediately see the power consumption drop by about
    90 watts, and then watch the power consumption jump all the
    way back up to the "loaded" level - and stay there - when the
    screen saver eventually kicked in. And no, they weren't
    running Folding or anything like that. The only screen saver
    that did not cause this behaviour was the simple screen blanker.

    I /expect/ to eventually hear that they found they set up
    something wrong in the BIOS options or in the XP options,
    but until then I intend to take claim by Intel and the
    review sites with a big grain of salt.
     
    Rob Stow, Nov 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. ykhan

    Buck Rogers Guest

    Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know the power consumption of
    a 2.2 Ghz Celeron? Is there a processor power consumption table somewhere
    out there in cyberspace?

    Buck
     
    Buck Rogers, Nov 17, 2004
    #3
  4. ykhan

    Tony Hill Guest

    Intel lists a TDP (Thermal Design Power) for their Celeron 2.2GHz of
    57.1W. It's tough to accurately compare this to the P4 3.8J GHz
    processor mentioned above though, since Intel uses a somewhat
    different definition of "TDP" for their newer chips, however that chip
    is listed at 115W.

    AMD, meanwhile, specs their latest and greatest chips for 95W TDP,
    though again they are using a different definition of the term. As a
    rough guesstimate, I would say that the 2.2GHz Celeron probably is in
    the same ballpark as a Athlon64 3000+ or 3200+ (running at 2.0GHz,
    built on a 130nm fab process, much like that Celeron 2.2GHz).
     
    Tony Hill, Nov 17, 2004
    #4
  5. ykhan

    Rob Stow Guest

    Rob Stow, Nov 17, 2004
    #5
  6. I think the actual CPU consumption is probably lower than that by
    maybe 50%? He's measuring at the wall plug after all and that would
    include the PSU inefficiency (measured at 80% 250W, 76% 150W by some
    website before), the extra stuff like motherboard, hard disk, graphic
    card, RAM as well as the motherboard voltage regulator's inefficiency
    (say 85%), so that's 242*0.8*0.85 = 164W at most for load and 130 *
    0.76 * 0.85 = 84W.

    Comparing that against a Prescott we're playing with overclocked to
    3.8 with much higher than default vcore. The processor's idling power
    draw is pretty much in the 4~5A 12V range, which puts it at 60W x 85%
    motherboard regulator efficiency to 51W. The 3.3V and 5V used mainly
    by the motherboard and RAM takes a consistent 25W, while the
    connectors going to the hard disk, graphic card takes around 20W or
    so. That would put us at around 96W.

    But our vcore is like set to about 12.6% higher than the default
    around 1.39V so that makes dynamic power 27% and static power 43% (did
    I get that right from the previous power discussion?) higher than a
    default processor from Intel. Assuming static is 40% and dynamic is
    60% of power consumption, this makes a difference 33% or 13W from 51W
    (51/1.33). So we should be seeing some 83W on idle, viola, same
    ballpark figure

    For load, we've got almost the same figures for non-CPU items, just a
    bit higher on the 3.3V since the RAM are active. Make that 50W for
    these stuff. The processor is drawing around 14~15A so that's 180W x
    85% = 153W and adjusting for vcore, the default processor should be
    seeing some 115W, which is way off from techreport's. But incidentally
    is also Intel's TDP for a 3.8G processor

    Comments anybody? Why is there such a huge difference in the load
    power even though the idle is pretty close? Or is my speculative maths
    just really bad?



    --
    L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
    If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
    Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
    If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
    But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
     
    The little lost angel, Nov 20, 2004
    #6
  7. ykhan

    JW Guest

    I've yet to see a PC power supply that could come anywhere near 80% under
    any load whatsoever. They're typically in the 60-70% range.
     
    JW, Nov 22, 2004
    #7
  8. Your head is so far up your ass one might postulate that you are
    trying to clone your brain.
     
    Lady Chatterly, Nov 26, 2004
    #8
  9. ykhan

    JW Guest

    This bot really gets around...
     
    JW, Nov 29, 2004
    #9
  10. ykhan

    keith Guest

    The original was quite a whore too!
     
    keith, Nov 30, 2004
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.