Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 59

Thread: Intel vs. AMD Performance-Per-Watt On Ubuntu 14.04 Linux

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,130

    Default Intel vs. AMD Performance-Per-Watt On Ubuntu 14.04 Linux

    Phoronix: Intel vs. AMD Performance-Per-Watt On Ubuntu 14.04 Linux

    To complement the many Intel vs. AMD CPU/APU Linux benchmarks published earlier this week as part of our AMD A10-7850K "Kaveri" APU coverage, here's some results mostly examining the performance-per-Watt and overall system power consumption of the many different Intel and AMD processors running Ubuntu Linux.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19685

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    344

    Default

    Yikes! I know there is a 65W version of the chip (7800k) that's 100mhz less. I would like to see if there's any difference there.

    As it stands that's really surprising....

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    These results are all wrong again.

    Let's take the case of the Timed Kernel Compilation with the i3-4130 and the A10-7850. They both take about the same time to finish the test, but the i3 uses 40W less power on average to do so! That's about 34% less used by the i3 to do the same job in the same amount of time, which means the i3 is more power efficient than the A10. However on the bogus "performance-per-watt" chart the A10 appears with a much better score.

    The C-Ray test is also clearly wrong. The i5-3470 and the i7-3770K have a very small difference in performance, but it's also accompanied by a similar difference in power usage, where the i7 uses a bit more power, so their performance-per-watt is very similar (as would be expected from two very similar CPUs using the same architecture), however on the obviously wrong "performance-per-watt" chart the i7 appears to be a lot more power efficient than the i5...

    TL;DR

    Everybody ignore this article because all the performance-per-watt numbers are wrong.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    65

    Default

    It can't be that much of a surprise that intel is more efficient than AMD.
    Wasn't it roughly a 30% drop in wattage, or a 30% increase in performance at the same wattage, that intel reached, when they switched to the tri-gate design?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UraniumDeer View Post
    It can't be that much of a surprise that intel is more efficient than AMD.
    Wasn't it roughly a 30% drop in wattage, or a 30% increase in performance at the same wattage, that intel reached, when they switched to the tri-gate design?
    They went from 95w -> 77w on the top end, so it was a 19% drop, but the performance went up a bit too, so that sounds like an ok ballpark.

    But that was more node shrink from 32 -> 22 than using trigates. Look at how Intel shrunk 45nm -> 32, going from 120w to 95. Same effect.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,187

    Default

    Michael, you put the same graph twice on the last page.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    62

    Default

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/7318/i...r-than-haswell

    Performance per watt gap is gonna widen even more once Broadwell hits retail.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GT220 View Post
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/7318/i...r-than-haswell

    Performance per watt gap is gonna widen even more once Broadwell hits retail.
    Native compiled applications please, not some generalized BS.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    226

    Default

    It seems that AMD tried to pass Intel on Performance per Watt to convince OEMs to choose their products. Clever move..

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightmarex View Post
    As it stands that's really surprising....
    Is it really? We all know AMD is a power hog, it's always been that way and it will be that way for a while.

    Does that stop me from buying AMD? No. I don't game much or do many other power-intensive tasks, so it stays relatively low for me for the cost.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •