If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Tony Hill wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT wrote: George Macdonald wrote: Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail....cNumber=205107 Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts of power used by each processor. Ok.. how's this? http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020605/ Quoting from the "Conclusions" page of that article: "Looking at performance and power output in terms of a ratio, the C3 blows away its competitors." I'm no big fan of Tom's, but the fact of the matter is that the VIA C3 at 1.0GHz really struggles to match the performance of an ancient Celeron 667MHz processor. Now figure that the Celeron-M at 900MHz offers a greatly improved core, 4 times as much cache, 6 times the bus bandwidth and 3 times the memory bandwidth. It all adds up to the C3 just not being at all competitive. Even at 2.0GHz I suspect that the yet-to-ship C7 processor will have difficulty competing with a 900MHz Celeron-M, and it will do so with 4 times the power consumption (20W for the VIA chip vs. 5W for Intel). Ohh, here's another set of slightly dated numbers comparing the C3 at 800MHz to a PIII at 500MHz: http://www.dansdata.com/c3.htm ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
CJT wrote:
Tony Hill wrote: On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT wrote: George Macdonald wrote: Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail....cNumber=205107 Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts of power used by each processor. Ok.. how's this? http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020605/ Quoting from the "Conclusions" page of that article: "Looking at performance and power output in terms of a ratio, the C3 blows away its competitors." quote As expected, the C3 processor is not able to compete with other processors at similar clock speeds. Depending on the particular benchmark, an old Celeron 667 is either considerably faster or considerably slower, making it difficult to specify a recommendation for VIA's C3. The C3 has definitely won the power and temperature race: no other desktop processor consumes as little energy and wastes as little power as the C3. Looking at performance and power output in terms of a ratio, the C3 blows away its competitors. /quote The "Old Celeron 667" that is used to support this comparison being one that was never designed for low power operation. At 17W, it's not particularly power-hungry and isn't exactly "blown away" by the 12W Via. Celeron power consumption from http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm As long as Tom's was going to dig into old proecessors to compare for conclusions about power, he should have been using the PIII-667, but that's a nit. Any of the ULV processors that Intel has brought out, whethere branded Celeron or Pentium, would blow away Via. A 1GHz Pentium-M ULV draws 5 Watts. As to comparison of "ratio" with desktop chips, the only exercise that makes any sense is to compare power consumption at equal performance or performance at equal power consumption. RM |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Myers wrote:
CJT wrote: Tony Hill wrote: On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT wrote: George Macdonald wrote: Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail....cNumber=205107 Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts of power used by each processor. Ok.. how's this? http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020605/ Quoting from the "Conclusions" page of that article: "Looking at performance and power output in terms of a ratio, the C3 blows away its competitors." quote As expected, the C3 processor is not able to compete with other processors at similar clock speeds. Depending on the particular benchmark, an old Celeron 667 is either considerably faster or considerably slower, making it difficult to specify a recommendation for VIA's C3. The C3 has definitely won the power and temperature race: no other desktop processor consumes as little energy and wastes as little power as the C3. Looking at performance and power output in terms of a ratio, the C3 blows away its competitors. /quote The "Old Celeron 667" that is used to support this comparison being one that was never designed for low power operation. At 17W, it's not particularly power-hungry and isn't exactly "blown away" by the 12W Via. Celeron power consumption from http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm As long as Tom's was going to dig into old proecessors to compare for conclusions about power, he should have been using the PIII-667, but that's a nit. Any of the ULV processors that Intel has brought out, whethere branded Celeron or Pentium, would blow away Via. A 1GHz Pentium-M ULV draws 5 Watts. As to comparison of "ratio" with desktop chips, the only exercise that makes any sense is to compare power consumption at equal performance or performance at equal power consumption. RM Here's something current and on point: http://www.computerworld.com/hardwar..._PM&nid=104017 -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
CJT wrote:
Here's something current and on point: http://www.computerworld.com/hardwar..._PM&nid=104017 What's this got to do with Via? Green Destiny is very old news: LANL scientists playing in the sandbox. With any luck, we won't be seeing more of that kind of nonsense. LANL p'd away a ton of taxpayer money wiring together everything they could lay their hands on, even paid Cray to custom-build them their sandbox dreams, and the bottom line is that we're going to be using piles of generic server boxes for the forseeable future. The real breakthrough in performance/watt came from IBM's Blue Gene. As to Transmeta, I haven't seen head-to-heads, but I'll be really surprised if *they* do better on a performance per watt than Pentium-M ULV. RM |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Del Cecchi wrote:
Well, if the processor is an extra 100 watts (large number) and electricity is 15 cents/kwH (on the high side) and the processor draws the extra 100 watts even when nobody is using it, it comes to 36 cents/day, or about 10 dollars/month. So the extra electricity to assure optimim game play over 6 months equals the cost of a game. On the other hand the high speed internet connection costs 40 dollars per month. QED Power consumption in gaming PC is not a significant economic factor. Nobody would argue about the importance of power consumption for servers, for HPC, or for mobile applications. The question is: why worry for stationary machines, such as those used for gaming? As far as I can tell, because there is no other way to get more performance into an acceptable power and cooling envelope, and I'm assuming that machines used for gaming will continue to have an insatiable demand for greater performance. The only way to get it, as I currently understand the situation, is more cores operating at a point that is less than optimal from the POV of single-thread performance. It will be interesting to see how long power-no-consideration single-thread workhorses will survive. I expect them to become an endangered species for all but the the most specialized applications (very high-end HPC, for example). RM |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Myers wrote:
Del Cecchi wrote: Well, if the processor is an extra 100 watts (large number) and electricity is 15 cents/kwH (on the high side) and the processor draws the extra 100 watts even when nobody is using it, it comes to 36 cents/day, or about 10 dollars/month. So the extra electricity to assure optimim game play over 6 months equals the cost of a game. On the other hand the high speed internet connection costs 40 dollars per month. QED Power consumption in gaming PC is not a significant economic factor. Nobody would argue about the importance of power consumption for servers, for HPC, or for mobile applications. The question is: why worry for stationary machines, such as those used for gaming? Because while the additional power consumption might be insignificant or irrelevant on a personal basis, it is *very* significant on a national or global basis. If 100 million home computers in North America are replaced with machines that need an additional 100 Watts each, then an additional 10 GW of generating capacity is needed. More likely double that when you consider the fact that in most parts of North America still more power is going to be wasted by air conditioners working just a little harder to remove that additional 100 Watts from the house/apartment/office. I often wonder if power rationing is the only way to keep in check the rising power demands caused by obsessions with increasingly power-hungry toys. Increasingly power-hungry TVs and home computers are not fully to blame for North America's growing energy crisis, but they are a significant and highly symbolic factor. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 00:11:23 GMT, CJT wrote:
George Macdonald wrote: On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT wrote: George Macdonald wrote: Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail....cNumber=205107 Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts of power used by each processor. C'mon this was not even a competition - the Celeron was in a different class and did not fail any tests. Who's to say whether, if VIA were the sponsor, a test could be found that the Celeron failed. I'm no Intel fan but I know which way I'd bet. There are plenty of "consultant" companies ready to offer to do the job for VIA. -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 02:54:59 GMT, CJT wrote:
wrote: On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:24:57 GMT, CJT wrote: ...snip... A focus on watts could drive Itanium even deeper in the hole. Focus on watts in laptops and SFF boxes? Paramount. In blade servers - ditto. Even at the expence of raw speed. But in desktops there is always a place for a fan or two, and there is always need for speed, be you a gamer, software developer, or heavy graphics user. Much more so in 4U+ servers. The top $ are paid for top notch performance of "mission-critical" databases and like. The heat produced by a high-performing chip is a problem that can be and usually is reasonably solved. That is, unless you deal with Prescott core that doubles as a space heater. If people calculated how much per month it's costing to power their "gaming" machines, it might quickly become an issue. "Power user" is closer to true than one might imagine. When you pay someone hourly, or, alternatively, when you are paid for end result, the energy cost is negligible comparing to the cost of time it takes to (compile the code, render the frame, etc. - pick what suits you best). When your life in virtual universe is more important for you than real life (that's the case for many gamers) who cares about the energy bill? But wait, with the rates of energy cost increases everyone will start taking it into account quite soon ;-( |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel found to be abusing market power in Japan | chrisv | General | 152 | March 26th 05 06:57 AM |
Gigabyte GA-8IDML with Mobile CPU? | Cuzman | General | 0 | December 8th 04 02:39 PM |
HELP: P4C800-E Deluxe, Intel RAID and Windows detection problems | Michail Pappas | Asus Motherboards | 2 | November 20th 04 03:18 AM |
Intel Is Aiming at Living Rooms in Marketing Its Latest Chip | Vince McGowan | Dell Computers | 0 | June 18th 04 03:10 PM |
New PC with W2K? | Rob | UK Computer Vendors | 5 | August 29th 03 12:32 PM |