WIll I be OK with an AMD64 3400+?

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:24:22 GMT, "Emperor's New Widescreen"
wrote:

Still a fair bit though 450 Wis half a small electric fire
a considerble energy cost even if not running at max power.



As already mentioned, you have no relative expectation based
on the "450W" figure. It is primarily to support the high #
of amps on the 12V rail that modern systems use at peak or
full load.

I doubt many CPU's cores run at 12V and that is where most
of the energy is spent.


If you're that concerned about energy usage or energy cost,
don't buy it- simple as that.

I am concerned about energy waste 450 is too much for
a computer.If you buy badly designed wasteful computers
that is what you are encouraging them to produce/

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:24:22 GMT, "Emperor's New Widescreen"
wrote:

Still a fair bit though 450 Wis half a small electric fire
a considerble energy cost even if not running at max power.



As already mentioned, you have no relative expectation based
on the "450W" figure. It is primarily to support the high #
of amps on the 12V rail that modern systems use at peak or
full load.

450 W is what the unit is designed to supply, I don't think it
matters which rail as it is not specified.

If you're that concerned about energy usage or energy cost,
don't buy it- simple as that.

I want to miniimise it, it would be daft to consider it an all or
nithing issue. Excessive power consumption is down to bad design
IMO. If you buy badly designed proessors you are only
ecouraging them to produce more.

Emperor's New Widescreen wrote:
"kony" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:24:22 GMT, "Emperor's New Widescreen"
wrote:

Still a fair bit though 450 Wis half a small electric fire
a considerble energy cost even if not running at max power.



As already mentioned, you have no relative expectation based
on the "450W" figure. It is primarily to support the high #
of amps on the 12V rail that modern systems use at peak or
full load.

I doubt many CPU's cores run at 12V and that is where most
of the energy is spent.

Actually, in the case of power supplies, you're wrong. The motherboard takes
a seperate 12V supply for the CPU and the on-board MOSFETs and voltage
regulators turn it into high-current low voltage. If it tried to use 5V or
3.3V it wouldn't have the amperage needed, hence using the 12V. All modern
CPUs get their power from the 12V rail and have done for a few years now.

If you're that concerned about energy usage or energy cost,
don't buy it- simple as that.

I am concerned about energy waste 450 is too much for
a computer.If you buy badly designed wasteful computers
that is what you are encouraging them to produce/

You don't seem to be getting a handle on this. Having a 450W PSU is just a
case of having spare power capacity available in case you ned it later. If
your system, on purchase, only needs 250W, that's all the PSU will output
and it will use correspondingly less power to do so. There are two good
reasons to do this; A later graphics card upgrade or adding HDDs etc. could
require more power. If you're only using 250 now but have a 300 and then you
add more peripherals that require more than the extra 50W you're in trouble.
Either the PC will fail to boot and blue-screen or you will accelerate the
aging process of the on-board capacitors / MOSFETs etc as they struggle to
supply the power needed from the power available and cause early component
failure. Also, a PSU running close to it's limit is less efficient (Wastes
power) and not likely to last long. It's better to have a non-stressed
component running well within it's range than pushing one past it's limits.
PSUs failing (usually due to being under-specced) have been known to take
the mobo and CPU out with them. I'm sure you don't want that.

Also, personally, if I was buying now, I'd go for a lower-specced
single-core socket 939 board / CPU. As others have said, Socket 754 has
reached end of life. To upgrade you'll need to replace mobo and CPU. If you
have a cheap CPU in a 939, at least in a couple years you'll be able to buy
a dual-core CPU for it fairly cheaply when more apps support dual cores
properly and basically double your CPU power, doubling the life of your PC.
Socket 754 and a low-spec PSU is dead money. You'd be unhappy with it in a
year I think. Maybe you can afford a new PC in a year. Me, I get attached to
my PCs and like to make sure they're as upgradable as possible. It also
saves a lot of money. Don't forget Moore's Law; CPUs will double in power
and halve in price every 18 months. Shame if, in 18 months you need more
power and your socket has been obsoleted. A cheap 939 CPU now and a grunter
in 18 months / 2 years is the way to go. Windows gets more power-hungry with
every little patch and update. It won't be long before your machine will be
struggling to just run Windows and a simple app or two.

Do it once, do it right is my motto. At least as much as it can be applied
to a fast-changing technology like PC hardware.

Just my 5c. I'll shut up now.
--
~misfit~

Emperor's New Widescreen wrote:
"kony" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:24:22 GMT, "Emperor's New Widescreen"
wrote:

Still a fair bit though 450 Wis half a small electric fire
a considerble energy cost even if not running at max power.



As already mentioned, you have no relative expectation based
on the "450W" figure. It is primarily to support the high #
of amps on the 12V rail that modern systems use at peak or
full load.

450 W is what the unit is designed to supply, I don't think it
matters which rail as it is not specified.

Incorrect again I'm afraid. All PSUs (worth their salt) have a label on them
telling you exactly what is available on each rail. Either that and / or a
spec sheet in the packaging. Dual 12V rails are a good idea, one dedicated
to the CPU, the other supplying the 12V needs of the rest of the system.
It's kinder in the CPU power reg. circuitry that way, not having to deal
with fluctuations as drives spin up or graphics cards kick into high gear.

If you're that concerned about energy usage or energy cost,
don't buy it- simple as that.

I want to miniimise it, it would be daft to consider it an all or
nithing issue. Excessive power consumption is down to bad design
IMO.

Excessive power consumption is also a function of a PSU running at the top
of it's power range. They tend to be more efficient running at about 60-80%
and last a lot longer. It seems that you have at least some of the
sensibilities of an environmentally responsible person, these would be best
served by getting a PSU that is running well within it's specifications (and
allowing room for future additions) rather than one that's on the ragged
edge, feeding spikes and dirty power to your on-board voltage regulatory
system, causing it undue stress and risking early failure of both the mobo
and PSU.

If you buy badly designed proessors you are only
ecouraging them to produce more.

Ok, big sideways leap there. Processors now? CPUs for Socket 754 are old
tech and inefficient. The newer Socket 939 CPUs are far more efficient.

Or you can buy something cheap that will do for now and live out it's 12
month warranty, then consign it to a landfill and repeat the process. It
costs a little more that way and the cost to the environment is high but a
lot of people are happy to do that. I (metaphorically) spit on them. I
believe we have a responsibility to reduce waste and buy systems that will
have as long a life-span (by incremental upgrades) as possible. It's also
doing your bit to protest today's unsustainable, throw-away, consumer driven
economy.

An example from my PC collection. I have a machine here that is running an
Athlon T'bred B XP1800+ (Original speed 1533MHz on a 133MHz FSB)
manufactured in week 11 '03 that I've recently put into a second-hand nForce
2 Ultra 400 mobo that allows me to run it at 200MHz FSB and a 10.5
multiplier at stock vcore (1.65V). It's now running rock-stable (and cool,
thanks to my not-very-pretty but very effective case mods) at 2.1GHz instead
of 1.5GHz and the 200MHz FSB effectively amplifies the speed increase over
and above the raw MHz as the CPU gets data more quickly. It's been nearly 2
years since I bought that CPU, as the basis for a sytem that I planned to
last me 4+ years. And it will, easilly. In it's "new" mobo with a gig of RAM
it's (subjectively) twice as fast and responsive than it was before.

Build to last as much as you can. And recycle and re-use as much as is
possible. I have a food-chain of PCs here. I get a new 'thingy' for the best
one and the one it replaces gets put into the next PC and so on down the
order. I donate the slower PCs to older people / people with young families
who wouldn't otherwise have a PC. I try to waste nothing. The latest PCs I
gave away were a PII 450 and a Celeron 500, both with 256MB+ of RAM.
Perfectly fine for email and web browsing which is all certain segments of
the user-base want them for. I hate throwing things away and almost never
do.

Phew, I'll get off this soap-box now.
--
~misfit~

Emperor's New Widescreen wrote:
I am really not keen on a machine that uses about 1/2 kilowatt
of power!
In the UK it costs (I estimate) over 10p per kW/h and rising not much
but over a life time of say 20,000 hours quite a tidy sum.
Then you have the noise of the cooling fans to consider!

I'm sorry to be so rude but are you really that..... Damn, I can't put it
nicely..... thick?

It has been explained several times that just because the PSU is rated *up*
*to* 450W it doesn't mean that it will be using that much. In fact it will
probably be more efficient than your little cheapie. A PSU only supplies as
much power as is required of it. It doesn't constantly use 450W. Also,
higher spec PSUs are more likely to have variable sped fans and run more
quitly under a light load.

Also, just to freak you out more; Did you know that PSUs are rated at power
output, not input as you seem to think? An efficient PSU will have an
efficiency rating of maybe 80+%. A cheap 300 watter is probably more likely
to only be 70% effecient or less. That means that your little 300 could be
drawing 428W anyway under the high loads it's likely to be running at (and
producing 'dirty' power). Also, as they're less efficient they have more
heat to get rid of so usually have fixed-speed noisy, buzzy fans. A 450W PSU
supplying the same 300W would be well within it's capabilities, probably
consuming 375W (Instead of 428) and the power output would be cleaner and
the fan would probably be thermally throttled and running more slowly,
producing less noise than the 300W wonder.

There are people who build up Shuttle barebones computers, and
they are frequently putting the same electronics in the machine
as you. Their supply choices (the supplies that will fit within
the tight confines of the box) might be 250W or 300W. But
those builders will also run into problems more often
while adding stuff to their systems - they will always
be on the edge of overload, both power wise, and thermally.
Their box draws 150W to 200W, like yours, but they will hit
the limits of one of their outputs with a higher probability
than you will. If all of the needs could be calculated in
advance, and all possible power supply output rail configurations
could be manufactured, then perhaps a special 250W supply would
be good enough. But supplies are cheap enough, that using a
sloppy 450W and not bothering to calculate in great detail,
is good enough.

snip

I am hoping it is a 939 but it is really hard to find that info
out. However I guess even the 939 will be redundant before
I need to upgrade so it should not be a real problem, just
maybe a psychological one!

If you go to www.amdcompare.com and click "View All Products",
you will see that all listed 3400+ processors are S754. The
only benefit to buying S939, is the fact that more powerful
processors are available for it. I wouldn't consider the
RAM aspect to be that much of an advantage. There was a review
on one website, where for gaming, several S754 processors did
just as well or better than their S939 counterparts, and that
article convinced me that when someone suggests they will buy
a S754, there is no reason from a performance perspective,
to try to dissuade them. But from an upgradability perspective,
the S939 processors might be around for a little bit longer
than the S754. And that would be the only reason to want that
socket at this point in time. Socket AM2 is coming soon, and
I think that makes S939 the "bottom rung".

I am not sure if there are no S939 ones because they have sold out
or were never made ( although I am sure I have seen then advertised
(actuallly rechecking I can't find any)).
I expect the machine I saw will be 754 though (probably cheaper to
make). Also the cache sizes seem to depend on frequency
2000 256kb
2200 1mb
2400 1/2mb

I am not at all sure how all these models achieve the same PR value
the 2000 256kb model looks a poor buy compared to the other two.
( I expect the machine I saw has this configuration!)

I expect I will go with the 754, there probably is not that much
more upgradability in the 939 and they appear to be pretty hard
to get hold of (ready made) for a reasonable price.

754 is dead *now*. I predict that CPUs will be available for 939 for another
18 months / 2 years or so, by which time a top-of-the-range X2 939 will be a
budget processor, probably touting 4MB L2 cache, and available cheaply (And
probably do twice as much work or more than your 3400+).

Still, your money, your call. AFAICT, socket 939 with one of the slower
single-core CPUs is the sweet-spot right now. Powerful enough (if a *little*
more expensive than your proposed obsolete 754) and having the ability to
double it's power in 18 months / 2 years cheaply by dropping in what will
then be a clearance CPU for bottom dollar by then.

I've been building PCs since the early 486 days and in that time have
learned to see trends and maximise usable life-time of a PC. Now is the time
to buy Socket 939 / nForce4, as, two years ago, it was the time to buy
Socket A / nForce 2 Ultra 400 boards. There really wasn't a time to buy
Socket 754, it was a dead end.

Or you can buy a junker and either have it fail due to dirty power / PSU
failure or just plain throw it out in 18 months as it's no longer capable of
running all the anti-virus, anti-spyware, resident shield stuff needed and
still be responsive enough to use.

IMO only an ill-informed person buys a format that has reached EOL. You came
in here asking a question and, although you've been given some good advice,
you haven't budged from your originally proposed system. Only a fool seeks
advice and then disregards it. Why did you bother asking? Was it just for
the one or two posters who agreed with you, making you feel better about a
bad proposal? I think that must be it. You just wanted at least one person
to agree with you, reasure you. Never mind the others who went out of their
way to advise you to the contrary, told you that it's a bad idea. They don't
fit in with your already-made decision.

In the end you'll get the system you deserve, with all that implies.
--
~misfit~

Good luck, as you seem to be ignoring good advice you'll maybe need it.

"~misfit~" wrote in message
...
Emperor's New Widescreen wrote:
"kony" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:24:22 GMT, "Emperor's New Widescreen"
wrote:

Still a fair bit though 450 Wis half a small electric fire
a considerble energy cost even if not running at max power.



As already mentioned, you have no relative expectation based
on the "450W" figure. It is primarily to support the high #
of amps on the 12V rail that modern systems use at peak or
full load.

I doubt many CPU's cores run at 12V and that is where most
of the energy is spent.

Actually, in the case of power supplies, you're wrong. The motherboard
takes
a seperate 12V supply for the CPU and the on-board MOSFETs and voltage
regulators turn it into high-current low voltage. If it tried to use 5V or
3.3V it wouldn't have the amperage needed, hence using the 12V. All modern
CPUs get their power from the 12V rail and have done for a few years now.



Errrm....I think we are playing with voltage rails here (might be wrong
though)
I was under the impression that most CPU cores run at lower voltages as the
frequencies get higher, I would imagine a CPU clocking at 3MHz on a 12V
circuit could double as a central heating system :O))
I understand the core voltage for an AMD64 is around 1.5 volts.

All you appear too be saying is that the PSU's are badly designed!!



If you're that concerned about energy usage or energy cost,
don't buy it- simple as that.

I am concerned about energy waste 450 is too much for
a computer.If you buy badly designed wasteful computers
that is what you are encouraging them to produce/

You don't seem to be getting a handle on this. Having a 450W PSU is just a
case of having spare power capacity available in case you ned it later. If
your system, on purchase, only needs 250W, that's all the PSU will output
and it will use correspondingly less power to do so. There are two good
reasons to do this; A later graphics card upgrade or adding HDDs etc.
could
require more power. If you're only using 250 now but have a 300 and then
you
add more peripherals that require more than the extra 50W you're in
trouble.
Either the PC will fail to boot and blue-screen or you will accelerate the
aging process of the on-board capacitors / MOSFETs etc as they struggle to
supply the power needed from the power available and cause early component
failure. Also, a PSU running close to it's limit is less efficient (Wastes
power) and not likely to last long. It's better to have a non-stressed
component running well within it's range than pushing one past it's
limits.
PSUs failing (usually due to being under-specced) have been known to take
the mobo and CPU out with them. I'm sure you don't want that.

Also, personally, if I was buying now, I'd go for a lower-specced
single-core socket 939 board / CPU. As others have said, Socket 754 has
reached end of life. To upgrade you'll need to replace mobo and CPU. If
you
have a cheap CPU in a 939, at least in a couple years you'll be able to
buy
a dual-core CPU for it fairly cheaply when more apps support dual cores
properly and basically double your CPU power, doubling the life of your
PC.
Socket 754 and a low-spec PSU is dead money. You'd be unhappy with it in a
year I think. Maybe you can afford a new PC in a year. Me, I get attached
to
my PCs and like to make sure they're as upgradable as possible. It also
saves a lot of money. Don't forget Moore's Law; CPUs will double in power
and halve in price every 18 months. Shame if, in 18 months you need more
power and your socket has been obsoleted. A cheap 939 CPU now and a
grunter
in 18 months / 2 years is the way to go. Windows gets more power-hungry
with
every little patch and update. It won't be long before your machine will
be
struggling to just run Windows and a simple app or two.


Some good points but it depends on your circumatances/requirements yes I
would like a 939 but they are pretty difficult to get hold of for a
reasonable
price. I don't expect (hopefully) to have to upgrade my CPU in 5 years at
least
(I won't embarass myself by saying how old my current CPU is) however a
clue is I am expecting a 30 fold increase in power!!
According to Moores law in 5 years time I would need about a 10 fold
increase in CPU power and a 939 will be obselete in that respect I expect.
Yes a 939 wold be 'sexier' but in reality I would not get benefit form it
You can buy a 939 mobo for about £50 now anyway so it is a little
annoying I can't find the system for a similar price to the 754 system I
am considerinig, yes if I wait the right system will be available but then
there will be something else better just around the corner (it's called
marketing I believe).
I am in the UK and I don't want to buy over the psychological price
barrier of £500 for PC+ (LCD/TFT) monitor.
Mind you this looks tempting but it only has a 80gig drive rather than
the 200gig I would be getting.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/64Bit-AMD-3200...cmdZ ViewItem

If only I could hold out for another 6 months..........




Do it once, do it right is my motto. At least as much as it can be applied
to a fast-changing technology like PC hardware.

Just my 5c. I'll shut up now.
--
~misfit~

"~misfit~" wrote in message
...
Emperor's New Widescreen wrote:
I am really not keen on a machine that uses about 1/2 kilowatt
of power!
In the UK it costs (I estimate) over 10p per kW/h and rising not much
but over a life time of say 20,000 hours quite a tidy sum.
Then you have the noise of the cooling fans to consider!

I'm sorry to be so rude but are you really that..... Damn, I can't put it
nicely..... thick?

It has been explained several times that just because the PSU is rated
*up*
*to* 450W it doesn't mean that it will be using that much. In fact it will
probably be more efficient than your little cheapie. A PSU only supplies
as
much power as is required of it. It doesn't constantly use 450W. Also,
higher spec PSUs are more likely to have variable sped fans and run more
quitly under a light load.


I do realise this but it is an indication of how much power the system used
in total,
my current PSU is rated at......wait for it....drum roll..... a massive 90
watts :O)
Those big number frighten me!
If I get 4 times the fan noise I will need earplugs!



Also, just to freak you out more; Did you know that PSUs are rated at
power
output, not input as you seem to think? An efficient PSU will have an
efficiency rating of maybe 80+%. A cheap 300 watter is probably more
likely
to only be 70% effecient or less. That means that your little 300 could be
drawing 428W anyway under the high loads it's likely to be running at (and
producing 'dirty' power). Also, as they're less efficient they have more
heat to get rid of so usually have fixed-speed noisy, buzzy fans. A 450W
PSU
supplying the same 300W would be well within it's capabilities, probably
consuming 375W (Instead of 428) and the power output would be cleaner and
the fan would probably be thermally throttled and running more slowly,
producing less noise than the 300W wonder.

There are people who build up Shuttle barebones computers, and
they are frequently putting the same electronics in the machine
as you. Their supply choices (the supplies that will fit within
the tight confines of the box) might be 250W or 300W. But
those builders will also run into problems more often
while adding stuff to their systems - they will always
be on the edge of overload, both power wise, and thermally.
Their box draws 150W to 200W, like yours, but they will hit
the limits of one of their outputs with a higher probability
than you will. If all of the needs could be calculated in
advance, and all possible power supply output rail configurations
could be manufactured, then perhaps a special 250W supply would
be good enough. But supplies are cheap enough, that using a
sloppy 450W and not bothering to calculate in great detail,
is good enough.

snip

I am hoping it is a 939 but it is really hard to find that info
out. However I guess even the 939 will be redundant before
I need to upgrade so it should not be a real problem, just
maybe a psychological one!

If you go to www.amdcompare.com and click "View All Products",
you will see that all listed 3400+ processors are S754. The
only benefit to buying S939, is the fact that more powerful
processors are available for it. I wouldn't consider the
RAM aspect to be that much of an advantage. There was a review
on one website, where for gaming, several S754 processors did
just as well or better than their S939 counterparts, and that
article convinced me that when someone suggests they will buy
a S754, there is no reason from a performance perspective,
to try to dissuade them. But from an upgradability perspective,
the S939 processors might be around for a little bit longer
than the S754. And that would be the only reason to want that
socket at this point in time. Socket AM2 is coming soon, and
I think that makes S939 the "bottom rung".

I am not sure if there are no S939 ones because they have sold out
or were never made ( although I am sure I have seen then advertised
(actuallly rechecking I can't find any)).
I expect the machine I saw will be 754 though (probably cheaper to
make). Also the cache sizes seem to depend on frequency
2000 256kb
2200 1mb
2400 1/2mb

I am not at all sure how all these models achieve the same PR value
the 2000 256kb model looks a poor buy compared to the other two.
( I expect the machine I saw has this configuration!)

I expect I will go with the 754, there probably is not that much
more upgradability in the 939 and they appear to be pretty hard
to get hold of (ready made) for a reasonable price.

754 is dead *now*. I predict that CPUs will be available for 939 for
another
18 months / 2 years or so, by which time a top-of-the-range X2 939 will be
a
budget processor, probably touting 4MB L2 cache, and available cheaply
(And
probably do twice as much work or more than your 3400+).


But As I have no plans to upgrade within 5 years that is largely irelevenat
the 939 will be obsolete by then anyway.
(there are already sockets with more pins I believe!!)


Still, your money, your call. AFAICT, socket 939 with one of the slower
single-core CPUs is the sweet-spot right now. Powerful enough (if a
*little*
more expensive than your proposed obsolete 754) and having the ability to
double it's power in 18 months / 2 years cheaply by dropping in what will
then be a clearance CPU for bottom dollar by then.

Yea I know but I am going to be paying and extra 25% or so for the
system for power I won't really need (but would like).


I've been building PCs since the early 486 days and in that time have
learned to see trends and maximise usable life-time of a PC. Now is the
time
to buy Socket 939 / nForce4, as, two years ago, it was the time to buy
Socket A / nForce 2 Ultra 400 boards. There really wasn't a time to buy
Socket 754, it was a dead end.

Or you can buy a junker and either have it fail due to dirty power / PSU
failure or just plain throw it out in 18 months as it's no longer capable
of
running all the anti-virus, anti-spyware, resident shield stuff needed and
still be responsive enough to use.

IMO only an ill-informed person buys a format that has reached EOL. You
came
in here asking a question and, although you've been given some good
advice,
you haven't budged from your originally proposed system. Only a fool seeks
advice and then disregards it. Why did you bother asking? Was it just for
the one or two posters who agreed with you, making you feel better about a
bad proposal? I think that must be it. You just wanted at least one person
to agree with you, reasure you. Never mind the others who went out of
their
way to advise you to the contrary, told you that it's a bad idea. They
don't
fit in with your already-made decision.

In the end you'll get the system you deserve, with all that implies.
--
~misfit~

Good luck, as you seem to be ignoring good advice you'll maybe need it.

Maybe, I am tempted, I am in two minds really, I could easilly afford it
but.....it seems I woul have to spent an extra £200 for a 939 system.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:13:36 GMT, "Emperor's New Widescreen"
wrote:


"kony" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:24:22 GMT, "Emperor's New Widescreen"
wrote:

Still a fair bit though 450 Wis half a small electric fire
a considerble energy cost even if not running at max power.



As already mentioned, you have no relative expectation based
on the "450W" figure. It is primarily to support the high #
of amps on the 12V rail that modern systems use at peak or
full load.

I doubt many CPU's cores run at 12V and that is where most
of the energy is spent.


What you mean is "you don't know".
They do run off the PSU 12V rail. If you had bothered to
check, this would have been obvious. Not ALL CPUs derive
power from the 12V rail as older motherboards in particular
used 5V rail instead but today, most do use 12V which is
stepped down on the motherboard. Didn't it seem a wee bit
odd that no ATX supply outputs anywhere near 1.5V that CPUs
use? Ever wonder why? Too high a current.




If you're that concerned about energy usage or energy cost,
don't buy it- simple as that.

I am concerned about energy waste 450 is too much for
a computer.If you buy badly designed wasteful computers
that is what you are encouraging them to produce/


Then don't buy it, and don't pretend you know more than you
do, since they aren't using 450W from a 450W PSU. Since
you're just clueless, you are unfit to judge whether we are
buying badly designed computers or not.

You would do well to just STFU until you know a bit more
than you do.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:39:14 GMT, "Emperor's New Widescreen"
wrote:



Errrm....I think we are playing with voltage rails here (might be wrong
though)
I was under the impression that most CPU cores run at lower voltages as the
frequencies get higher, I would imagine a CPU clocking at 3MHz on a 12V
circuit could double as a central heating system :O))
I understand the core voltage for an AMD64 is around 1.5 volts.

All you appear too be saying is that the PSU's are badly designed!!

No we're saying you lack a basic understanding of computer
power and are unfit to judge the situation.

If you go on like this without bothering to check your
facts, it will be akin to trollism.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:13:36 GMT, "Emperor's New Widescreen"
wrote:

As already mentioned, you have no relative expectation based
on the "450W" figure. It is primarily to support the high #
of amps on the 12V rail that modern systems use at peak or
full load.

450 W is what the unit is designed to supply, I don't think it
matters which rail as it is not specified.

You don't think so because you dont' know much about the PSU
market nor how a computer uses power yet. If you'd stop
guessing and accumulate a few facts first, you'd be getting
closer to understanding.




If you're that concerned about energy usage or energy cost,
don't buy it- simple as that.

I want to miniimise it, it would be daft to consider it an all or
nithing issue. Excessive power consumption is down to bad design
IMO. If you buy badly designed proessors you are only
ecouraging them to produce more.

Then minimize it. Who's stopping you? Surely you know how?
We do. If you think the design is bad, buy something else-
surely if you feel you can claim the design is "bad", you
MUST then have an alternative in mind that is better else no
contrast could be made.

Buy what you want, but right now you're just wasting time.