5 ms·
That may be true in the short term, but comparable Intel processors actually cost a lot more because the motherboards are more expensive and power consumption o
by bloodyplonker22 4y ago
That may be true in the short term, but comparable Intel processors actually cost a lot more because the motherboards are more expensive and power consumption over time will make the less power efficient Intel CPU much more expensive than AMD.
- wtallis 4y agoIn terms of power consumption, I think that will heavily depend on usage patterns. AMD desktop processors currently have really bad idle power because of the chiplet-based design with an outdated 14nm IO die. So if a machine spends most of its time idle or mostly-idle, its long-term energy usage (and thus operating cost) could easily be higher with AMD than with an Intel processor that has excessive peak power draw but better idle power management. (Are there any business-oriented AMD desktop PCs with Energy Star or similar certifications, or are those regulations too loose to matter here?)
- dralley 4y agoZen 4 will have a 6nm I/O die from TSMC, power usage ought to be lower.
- wtallis 4y agoThat new IO die is by far the most important and interesting thing about their upcoming generation. Basic graphics capability as a universal feature, hopefully better idle power, DDR5 and PCIe gen5, while the compute chiplets will seemingly be getting fairly modest performance improvements.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agoA process shrink for the compute cores is always nice. 15% single core performance is always nice.
- jhgb 4y ago> AMD desktop processors currently have really bad idle power because of the chiplet-based design with an outdated 14nm IO die Unless you use one of their fairly popular APUs, I assume? I got something something like 15 W on idle at the plug for an OEM AMD box. Is that a lot?
- wtallis 4y agoI was ignoring their desktop APUs, yes, because AMD seems to do quite a lot of that themselves. As repackaged laptop SoCs, they're decent at idle power, and they're fine if you only need mid-range performance and last year's features out of your desktop.
- ntauthority 4y agoOf note is that pairing the desktop APU with one of the higher end desktop chipsets will still have the chipset (which is just another legacy IO die) have the excessive 10-15W idle consumption it would anyway. I'm not sure if the Bx50 chipsets are any more efficient or if that needs the absolute low end of A series chipsets (that I believe are instead some ASMedia designed IO stuff).
- nottorp 4y ago> I got something something like 15 W on idle at the plug for an OEM AMD box. Is that a lot? What kind of systems are those? I’ll need something like this soon.
- jhgb 4y agoI got a ThinkCentre M75t Gen 2 with a 4750G. Note that this was out of the box; when I added two more memory modules to get 48 GB of RAM, it rose to ~20 W on idle, but I kind of expected that.
- LegitShady 4y agoI have a fairly high end gaming PC, and have hooked it up to measure the power used in a typical week over 4 weeks. I found it cost me about $12/month, which given my electricity bill has much larger administration and other fees, is minimal. I don't think people who don't run a datacenter care that much about the difference in power draw between an AMD or intel cpu.
- chii 4y agoi bet the cooling in a data center costs way more than the electricity used in the chips.
- bryondowd 4y agoWouldn't efficiency affect the cost of cooling, given that the excess energy becomes heat?
- smueller1234 4y agoIt depends. Look up PUE for data centers. Because I work for Google, I recall, for example, that we build very efficient data centers: https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/efficiency/ https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/efficiency/ Ie. just 10% overhead.
- throwaway0x7E6 4y agoyeah. it is very entertaining/annoying to see carbon zealots bark at high-end PCs, as if they run under 100% CPU+GPU load 24x7
- BenjiWiebe 4y agoMaybe the zealots actually bring up this point as well... To me a high end computer looks wasteful because it was recently built and caused another computer to hit the landfill (usually). It would be more efficient to replace a computer on a 5 or 10 year cycle rather than a 1 or 2 year cycle, but then you'd have a high end computer for a much lower percentage of the time.
- fomine3 4y agoIntel Z690 motherboard price is awful. I paid $220 for a boring basic board. I suspect that X670 boards will have higher price than X570 thanks to DDR5 and PCIe Gen5.
- scheme271 4y agoIt's the other way around. The reports are that the 2 X670 chipsets cost less than the X570 chipset. The motherboard might be more expensive due to additional capabilities and having to support ddr5 and pcie 5 but a basic amd zen4 motherboard with a single X670 chipset and limited addon ports and controllers might be less than a basic X570 motherboard.
- fomine3 4y agoFor Z590 vs Z690, chipset price difference is just $1 according to Intel ark. I think price up is mainly due to other components. I found good article. https://www.techpowerup.com/289728/intel-z690-motherboard-costs-explained https://www.techpowerup.com/289728/intel-z690-motherboard-co...
- mhh__ 4y agoIntel processors are currently actually very efficient on the workloads they're actually designed for. The mid level 12th gen chips absolutely fly in gaming workloads, it's only if you max all cores for hours on end that the "Sell your grandmother for a MHz" approach Intel currently has makes a difference.