DragonFly BSD
DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2005-04
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: xorg +XGI Volari XP5

From: Hummel Tom <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:55:54 +0200

In-Reply-To: <426e8d50$0$718$415eb37d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <426e9cc1$0$719$415eb37d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Trace: 1114545345 crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org 719
Xref: crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org dragonfly.users:3155

> it for several weeks. Besides, a Pentium-M 1.5GHz runs circles around 
> said 1.6GHz Turion64.

Numbers? I think "running circles" is unlikely.

> My calculations (see below) resulted in a measured TDP of 72W tops, for 
> the Winchester 3000+.


Another picture which shows a different result from yours.

Winchester3000+ 40.8 W
Comment on the test:
In other words, the data given below doesn?t take into account the 
performance index of the CPU power converter that is why you may find 
these numbers a little bit higher than the actual processor power 
consumption values (about 10%).
something about the load:
case of maximum CPU workload created by the S&M utility
though i don't know this S&M utility

here someone also modified his PSU for measure

Winchester 3000+ 1.4V max Watt: 30.3W

you can find the information you seek easyily
something i want to copy here:
I generated the load using a BurnK7 program. The reason for this was 
that it generated the highest load of the programs that I could easily 
take with me to other peoples? computers. Some people have suggested 
Prime95 for generating a load, but would be very surprised if it made 
the CPU to consume any more than BurnK7 does. BurnK7 is a part of 
BurnCPU package I got from the net. BurnP6 didn not produce as high a 
result, but was very close.
It is an interesting excercise to compare these numbers to published TDP 
figures. P4E and Palomino chips seem to come extremely close to their 
advertised TDP figures while K8 actually consume WAY below their 
advertised TDP. It seems as if the manufacturers sell CPU-s that consume 
the same amount as their advertised TDP only when they are in deep 
trouble as far as power consumption goes. AMD was in their deepest 
trouble in Athlon Thunderbird 1.4GHz and Palomino era. Intel now.
to backup my claims about AMDs TDP and Intel TDP at the moment.

[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]