I've Got the Power: 45nm vs. 65nm

Since we're dealing with the same clock speeds as Intel's 65nm processors, power consumption has definitely gone down with the move to Penryn. Let's look at this thing at idle and under load running our WME9 test:

At idle, the QX9650 draws an impressive 34W less than the QX6850 - there's 45nm high-k + metal gate transistors in action for you.

Under load the power advantage is even more impressive, with a 47W delta the QX9650 under load uses only 11W more than its predecessor at idle. If you weren't dazzled by the performance improvements of Penryn, the reduction in power consumption is worth getting excited about.

Diving Deeper: SSE4 Performance Overclock Me Baby
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Canadian87 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    I'd like to point out that someone must have been tired when writing this. The graphs here on page 4 say "QX6950" VS "QX6850", simple reversal of the numbers, but I'd like to correct it for those that might be confused, took me a moment to figure out which was which myself the "QX6950" is ment to be the "QX9650", and obviously the "QX6850" is the correct naming.

    GL HF.
  • GlassHouse69 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link


    intel again ftw. blech. They made a great chip. power usage is fantastic. One could get even lower total wattages (by far) if they concentrated on doing so. a quad core that can be cooled near silently. neat :)

  • sprockkets - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    Just a question, what was the difference from Core to Core 2? All I could ever fine was cache size was increased.

    Now that I'm thinking about it, why not the name Quadro? Oh, nVidia ownz it.
  • defter - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    Core Duo (Yonah) was based on Pentium M.

    Core2 (Conroe) is a new architecture.
  • sprockkets - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    actually i found a comparison page about it, and core 2 isn't that much different from core. Yes, it updated a lot and gave improved performance. No, it is not a completely new architecture from PM, but you can say a big difference from the P4.

  • sprockkets - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    On page 9 I believe you are grabbing some old benchmarks, old in the sense of your previous articles. I believe I pointed this out to you as a mistake, and now it is here in the bar graph. Again, how is it that the 2.33ghz C2D outperforms the 3ghz one?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now