Intel Core i7 Performance Preview
- Thread starter Rob Williams
- Start date
Rob beat me to it... that was mostly my point, if you ONLY overclock to the 940's 2.93GHz speed then the additional power consumed used over ~4 years is not going to add up to the $266 price difference you pay upfront.
Most Intel CPUs will become extremely power hungry as you clock them above 3.2GHz... My Q6600 will pull 200W+ of power by itself at 3.6GHz, probably more but I don't have the means to measure CPU-only power consumption.
Power saving technology turned off:
CPU Only Load (measured from the wall)
2.4GHz ~235watts 1.20v
3.6Ghz ~475watts 1.45v
It's no wonder I use watercooling...And why I most often run with my CPU at 3.2GHz at a much lower voltage.
Thank you for the reply, a huge difference between 2.4GHz and 3.6GHz!!
Those figures where realy helpfull, did you include screen etc in your figures?
I have to watch out because i pay all of my energie bills, and not my parants
I had plans to combo the i7 920 with a GTX 260 55nm, story's indicated that the GTX 260 55nm would have a 30% maybe more drop in power consumption (TDP) in comparison with the 65nm version, boy was i wrong!
It only increased! oh well have to search further for a gpu.
I almost forgotten the question i asked previously why the higher price tag of a i7 940 in comparison with the 920, because you can overclock a 920 to 3.0GHz almost the same as the 940. Does the 940 has better quality parts in it? Could someone shed some light?
Any way thanks for the advise guys its appreciated
Last edited:
Those power figures included a PC Power & Cooling PSU (I use a different one now that draws less power thanks to better efficiency), and the computer itself. Screen and speakers are on different lines... I only measured from the plug going into the back of the PSU. Honestly I really should retest all those numbers, as much of the hardware config has changed again. Last time I was playing around I almost reached 750W in power draw from the wall... not bad for a single CPU, single GPU system. And no I've not melted anything yet...
If I had to guess I'd say a 3GHz Core i7 + GTX 265 should hit 300-450watts draw depending on CPU+GPU load combinations. That's not very much, it is only when you overclock things far beyond their original specs does the hardware become extremely power hungry... kind of like a car's MPG rating dropping like a stone in a lake as you increase your speed.
Regarding the 55nm GTX 260, production silicon should have a lower power draw. Unless they increased the clockspeeds there isn't any reason for that early "preview" card to have a higher power draw.... either that, or NVIIDA has a major transistor leakage problem but I don't believe that is likely. It's not their first 55nm chip.
The 940 is higher binned silicon... which is to say it has less silicon imperfections than a lower bin grade chip. Intel wants to make the most profit they can, so they bin grade their chips... chips they need to clock lower for one reason or another get clocked lower and sold for less. There's no real difference, except that overclocking a chip is avoided by most people and it does invalidate the CPU warranty. RAM chips are an easier example to think of when it comes to bin grades, because the lower the bin grade the worse the timings or slower the frequency.... not so much with a CPU, but it is done for the same reasons.
If I had to guess I'd say a 3GHz Core i7 + GTX 265 should hit 300-450watts draw depending on CPU+GPU load combinations. That's not very much, it is only when you overclock things far beyond their original specs does the hardware become extremely power hungry... kind of like a car's MPG rating dropping like a stone in a lake as you increase your speed.
Regarding the 55nm GTX 260, production silicon should have a lower power draw. Unless they increased the clockspeeds there isn't any reason for that early "preview" card to have a higher power draw.... either that, or NVIIDA has a major transistor leakage problem but I don't believe that is likely. It's not their first 55nm chip.
The 940 is higher binned silicon... which is to say it has less silicon imperfections than a lower bin grade chip. Intel wants to make the most profit they can, so they bin grade their chips... chips they need to clock lower for one reason or another get clocked lower and sold for less. There's no real difference, except that overclocking a chip is avoided by most people and it does invalidate the CPU warranty. RAM chips are an easier example to think of when it comes to bin grades, because the lower the bin grade the worse the timings or slower the frequency.... not so much with a CPU, but it is done for the same reasons.
Last edited:
Thanks again for the reply Kougar,
I now have a better understanding about the difference between the 920 and 940. Yes maybe its better to wait when indepth reviews emerge for the GTX 260 55nm regarding power consumption. Hope its going to be a lower tdp.
I do know high performance means most of the time a higher power draw. But if i could choose between the same models one is energie efficient the other not, then the choice is abviously...Any way.
I wish you and all the Techgage members and the rest a healthy happy(hardware) ^_ - new year!
I now have a better understanding about the difference between the 920 and 940. Yes maybe its better to wait when indepth reviews emerge for the GTX 260 55nm regarding power consumption. Hope its going to be a lower tdp.
I do know high performance means most of the time a higher power draw. But if i could choose between the same models one is energie efficient the other not, then the choice is abviously...Any way.
I wish you and all the Techgage members and the rest a healthy happy(hardware) ^_ - new year!
I owe Kougar a beer one of these days... he definitely makes sure no one is left uninformed (including me!).
You as well, and feel free to drop by anytime
You as well, and feel free to drop by anytime