Power Consumption  

We looked at power consumption of our two testbeds, however AMD is at a bit of a disadvantage here. While our Intel testbed uses the P965 chipset, the AMD testbed uses NVIDIA’s nForce 590 SLI, a far more power hungry platform. The results below are thus better for comparing within platforms and not necessarily useful for drawing AMD vs. Intel comparisons. Note that we did use AMD’s latest 65nm Brisbane core for all of our tests.

At idle we can see that the E4300 system already uses less power than the E6300, and definitely less power than the Pentium D 945.

Total System Power Consumption at Idle

Under load, power consumption is once again reasonable - lower than the E6300. Overclocked, the E6300 uses a bit more power than the X6800 but that’s to be expected.

Total System Power Consumption under Load

Gaming Performance Final Words
POST A COMMENT

68 Comments

View All Comments

  • yiranhu - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link

    9X multiplier!!! Now there's absolutely no point in buying the 6300/6400!! Reply
  • yyrkoon - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link

    Unless of course, you're going the budget CPU server route, and need virtualization. For example, using Xen, in order to run Windows in a domU (VM), you need VT. Reply
  • yehuda - Thursday, January 11, 2007 - link

    Hi,

    Who else should be concerned with the lack of VT support?

    If I run emulators locally (my personal experience includes bochs, qemu and DOSBox), is there anything I would lose going with the E4300?

    Thanks
    Reply
  • Yoshi911 - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link

    I think that with a 3ghz Opty144, My next upgrade will be to a Opty165 that I can run at 3ghz...2mb cache and dual core, good for gaming still.. all I'll ever need...

    SPEND YOUR MONEY ON VIDEO CARD UPGRADES AND RAM!!! if you don't have 2gb's ram and a nice video card... DONT EVEN THINK about upgrading platforms.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link

    And if you don't have 2GB of RAM, don't even think about spending the money on 2x1GB DDR-400! As for me, I have an Opty 165 that tops out at around 2.6GHz with a Scythe Ninja cooler, so you'll be lucky to get 3.0GHz. Even if you do get 3.0GHz, a Core 2 E4300 overclocked to 3.5GHz+ (remember we're talking stock cooler in this article) would beat it for performance. Now, if you have 2GB of DDR and a decent CPU and you are mostly worried about games, then the GPU is the bigger issue. If you don't have any of those things and need to upgrade, you'll be best getting Core 2 with DDR2 and a fast GPU, rather than X2/Opteron and DDR/DDR2 and a fast GPU. Reply
  • Yoshi911 - Thursday, January 11, 2007 - link

    Yeah but we're talking about cost effective performance for games... 90fps vs 190fps is going to look very little difference.. the next upgrade any gamer should be thinking about should be a DX10 compatable system. Reply
  • Doh! - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link

    Why hasn't yet Intel released this cpu for the consumer in the US? This cpu has been widely available since Jan. 5 in Korea. Isn't the US usuually the first place for a new cpu launch? Reply
  • deathwalker - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link

    Very nice reiview and the introduction of a true bargin in CPU's. Alas though..once again us SFF builders(I have a microfly case) are out in the cold since nearly all the Matx C2D motherboards are "crap" overclockers. This is not the place for it..but I will none the less rant on the Mobo builders for not making an honest effort to give us a decent C2D product. By decent, I mean something that will run well at setting other than stock out the box defaults. Nice job AT..this article give hope to builders on a budget. Reply
  • tayhimself - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link

    -sigh- i complained of this after ATs informative review on uATX cases asking if anyone knew any uATX 965 boards that would OC decently (350 FSB even). Too bad I got no respnoses then either. Reply
  • Goty - Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - link

    I'm not sure the price difference here is quite enough to pull anyone away from the E6300 (or the E6320 when it hits the market). It's only $50 cheaper on average, but you lose the faster FSB of the E6300 and I've seen a lot of E6300s overclock a lot better than this chip. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now