4 ms·
> I read on many different sites that AMD’s current CPUs beat Intel’s CPUs in terms of performance per watt. We can better achieve goals 2 and 3 (low noise and
by formerly_proven 5y ago
> I read on many different sites that AMD’s current CPUs beat Intel’s CPUs in terms of performance per watt. We can better achieve goals 2 and 3 (low noise and low power usage) by using fewer watts, so we’ll pick an AMD CPU and mainboard for this build.
Unfortunately many reviews are very misleading here. Zen 2/3 CPUs have good performance per Watt, that's true. But for a machine like this, which will be mostly idle, this is not the interesting metric and Zen 2/3 systems show that you can combine good perf/W with poor idle power consumption (which is not true for their monolithic APU brethren, which are used in laptops).
One of the biggest idle power hogs for these is the IO die, so make sure that XMP is disabled and the memory uses one of the slow JEDEC timings. This should be fine for a router. Check that the SoC/NB voltage is set to 1 V or less. Some boards set this higher. In the AMD CBS section of the board firmware there should be an item "SoC OC Mode" somewhere. Disable it. Some boards allow you to set a new PPT (package power target), but it's worth pointing out that values which are too low will make the CPU very slow because it essentially forces all cores to very low power states in order to meet the PPT since the CPU can't influence the baseline power (due to fabric and I/O die). The upside of using a reasonable PPT of e.g. 50-60 W is that you reduce power consumption if some errant task hogs the CPU.
These settings make a big difference, but only if the CPU is really idle. Even fairly light loads (e.g. on a desktop, moving the mouse on the background) has everything rev up. In deep idle (nothing running at all, no user interaction on a desktop) you might get a Zen 2/3 CPU down to around 20 Watts, but as soon as anything is happening at all we're straight back to the 40-70 W region.
Using an Intel system for this would have likely saved 10-20 W.
- iforgotpassword 5y agoYes I can unfortunately confirm this. Don't know how much has changed, but about a year ago my current employer evaluated about 10 desktop pcs from dell, lenovo, hp and the likes as all staff was supposed to get new machines. One of the important criteria was power consumption. The few AMD systems that were among the contestants had absolutely ridiculous idle consumption and weren't even considered any further.
- ta988 5y agoAt work people leave their computers and screens on (and unlocked most of the time)... (edit): I tried to educate but nobody really care...
- zymhan 5y agoHence the need for lower idle power consumption
- judge2020 5y agoMaybe in your office, but when I was in the office we had a culture of pressing Win+L or the dedicated lock key on the keyboard and letting Windows turn off the display after a minute of being on the lock screen.
- ta988 5y agoYes I tried to explain both the energy and security reasons behind locking and hibernate/sleep.
- chefkoch 5y agoThat's what Group Policy is for.
- nfriedly 5y agoAt my job people tend to post silly things in slack, like an "I love ponies" giphy image, when they see someone else's computer unlocked and unattended.
- jiggawatts 5y agoUsing local retail electricity prices, the idle power draw of 20-40W for the AMD CPUs comes out to $20-$40 per annum. If THAT breaks the bank, run screaming from your workplace as fast as you possibly can. The bean counters can't count, and they're being penny wise and pound foolish in the worst possible way. AMD CPUs run circles around anything Intel makes. Total performance, performance per core, price/performance, and performance per watt. Giving all of that up for... $20? Seriously?