graysky
05-17-2008, 12:53 PM
Got bored yesterday, so I ran checked out the power consumption of my X3360 system for shits and giggles with my kill-a-watt.
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/8808/killawattdi8.jpg
Powered Hardware Details:
Intel X3360 (C1 stepping) @ 8.5x400=3.40 GHz
266/667 MHz Strap CPU Vcc=1.12500
NB Core=1.370 CPU VTT=1.310
DFI LT P35-TR2 (no modifications)
eVGA 8800 GTSG92 512 meg
(770/1,923/2,000 MHz : Core/Shader/Memory)
Corsair Dominator DDR2-1066 (TWIN2X4096-8500C5DF)
2x 2Gb @ 5-5-5-15 (performance level 6) @ 1,000 MHz (4:5) @ 2.100V
Corsair HX620
2x HDs (seagates, one a 10th generation and the other an 11th)
1x DVDROM
4x120 mm Tricool fans (came with the p182 case) all on low
1x120 mm S-Flex SFF21F (1600 RPM) on the HS
1x40 mm silent fan on the NB
That's it... no other hardware (speakers, monitor, etc.) was in the loop.
Kill-a-Watt Readings
Idle in BIOS screens - 158 W
Idle in BIOS screens with both HDD's unplugged - 144 W
Idle (with speedstep active in XP x64) - 137 W
Load (prime95 v25.6 small FFT) - 213 W
Load (prime95 v25.6 large FFT) - 216 W
Load (prime95 v25.6 blend) - 210 W
Playing Crysis - 237-241 W
x264 encode - 197 W
Standby - 0 W
No real point to this post beyond just trivial information! It is interesting to me that the large FFTs consistently read 3-4 watts higher than the small ones did which is inline with the software's description of the large FFTs as generating the max heat/power consumption. Here (http://www.overclockingwiki.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1709&highlight=kill) is the similar analysis of my older Q6600-based system, but there are too many changes (MB, settings, video board, memory, etc.) for a "which processor is more power efficient" comparison.
What is little bit crazy is that both systems draw the same while idle, and even @ 3.4 GHz, and faster memory, the X3360-based system uses less wattage on p95.
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/8808/killawattdi8.jpg
Powered Hardware Details:
Intel X3360 (C1 stepping) @ 8.5x400=3.40 GHz
266/667 MHz Strap CPU Vcc=1.12500
NB Core=1.370 CPU VTT=1.310
DFI LT P35-TR2 (no modifications)
eVGA 8800 GTSG92 512 meg
(770/1,923/2,000 MHz : Core/Shader/Memory)
Corsair Dominator DDR2-1066 (TWIN2X4096-8500C5DF)
2x 2Gb @ 5-5-5-15 (performance level 6) @ 1,000 MHz (4:5) @ 2.100V
Corsair HX620
2x HDs (seagates, one a 10th generation and the other an 11th)
1x DVDROM
4x120 mm Tricool fans (came with the p182 case) all on low
1x120 mm S-Flex SFF21F (1600 RPM) on the HS
1x40 mm silent fan on the NB
That's it... no other hardware (speakers, monitor, etc.) was in the loop.
Kill-a-Watt Readings
Idle in BIOS screens - 158 W
Idle in BIOS screens with both HDD's unplugged - 144 W
Idle (with speedstep active in XP x64) - 137 W
Load (prime95 v25.6 small FFT) - 213 W
Load (prime95 v25.6 large FFT) - 216 W
Load (prime95 v25.6 blend) - 210 W
Playing Crysis - 237-241 W
x264 encode - 197 W
Standby - 0 W
No real point to this post beyond just trivial information! It is interesting to me that the large FFTs consistently read 3-4 watts higher than the small ones did which is inline with the software's description of the large FFTs as generating the max heat/power consumption. Here (http://www.overclockingwiki.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1709&highlight=kill) is the similar analysis of my older Q6600-based system, but there are too many changes (MB, settings, video board, memory, etc.) for a "which processor is more power efficient" comparison.
What is little bit crazy is that both systems draw the same while idle, and even @ 3.4 GHz, and faster memory, the X3360-based system uses less wattage on p95.