Intel Unleashes Conroe: X6800 and E6700 ReviewedWed, Jul 12, 2006 - 10:00 PM
Since power consumption is a big deal these days we ran some simple power consumption tests on our test beds. Both systems ran with the same memory, power supplies, case fan, video card and hard drive model. TO measure idle usage we ran the system at idle for one hour on the desktop with no screen saver and took the measurement. For our ‘load’ readings we ran the system under partial load by running a custom video game demo on all of the processors. This simulates real world use as the majority of our readers play video games.
When it came to idle power consumption I thought I did something wrong when both the Intel Core 2 Extreme Processor X6800 and the Intel Core 2 Duo processor E67000 both used 128 Watts. It was then that I remembered that both processors lower down to a multiplier of 6 when at idle and run at the same voltage at these idle state. Intel was able to get a healty performance increase with Conroe and was able to do so using 22W less power at idle when compared to their Pressler core. The AMD FX-62 used 20W more power than the Conroe, so AMD can no longer say they have more energy efficient processors.
Under load the Intel X6700 uses the least amount of power followed by the faster clocked Intel X6800 and then the Intel 965 Extreme Edition processors. The AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ AM2 processor and the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 came in the rear using the most power of the bunch. The AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 with it’s Windsor core consumed a healthy 314W of energy while running the first test of 3DMark06. From our testing the flagship AMD processor consumes roughly 45W more power than the fastest Intel dual-core processor, the Intel Core 2 Extreme processor X6800. Not only does the Intel Core 2 Extreme processor X6800 beat the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 on nearly every single benchmark we ran it also consumes less energy!
What does 45W at idle mean to you? Electricity is measured in kilowatt-hours and the current charge for electricity varies from state to state. Since pricing varies from state to state and during seasons let’s just use $0.15 per kilowatt-hour for pricing to figure up some rough numbers.
X6800 VS FX-62 Cost Saving Estimates:
- 24 hours a day – $4.94 per month or $59.18 yearly
- 10 hours a day – $2.06 per month or $24.66 yearly
- 4 hours a day – $0.83 per month or $9.87 yearly
Since I keep my computer on nearly 24 hours a day and fold 24/7 on it for the Legit Folding Team (Team #38296) I would save roughly ~$60 per year by running an X6800 versus the FX-62. This is a change is big enough to notice in your utility bill!
**TIP** If you are interested in saving even more money every month try switching to an Active PFC power supply!