AMD FX series can't draw more than 150 watts!

[CrustyButt]

OK guys, so I when people, and people still do today use the FX series of proccessers, people report to be having 1000 watts of power draw when not even running a demanding system. And..not to mention, I thought the CPU 8 pin could only draw 150 watts of power? On a side note, if the FX series had power problems this serious wouldn't something give? I mean AND would have to have some input in this. I know this topic is kinda irrelevant but I was just curious on what you guys have to say on this.

 

[trents]

Where do you here of people reporting 1000 watts of power draw on a not so demanding system? That would take 3 or 4 monster video cards.

 

[CrustyButt]

I guess I should've rephrased that, my bad. You've never heard of people reporting outrageous things? I was just giving an example.

 

[Vic Velcro]

OK guys, so I when people, and people still do today use the FX series of proccessers, people report to be having 1000 watts of power draw when not even running a demanding system.

Perhaps they (or you) are misunderstanding their system. They may have a 1000 watt power supply and maybe they don't know that it only draws full load when needed. I have a 1200 watt power supply, but when I measure the AC draw from the wall to the power supply, I am only using 217 watts at idle and when 100% cpu and gpu load it shows 297 watts.

And..not to mention, I thought the CPU 8 pin could only draw 150 watts of power?

I think the 150 watt rating is the TDP. If I remember correctly, on the manufacturer specs, the 8150 can draw 243 or 247 watts at full load.

On a side note, if the FX series had power problems this serious wouldn't something give? I mean AND would have to have some input in this. I know this topic is kinda irrelevant but I was just curious on what you guys have to say on this.

I think the architecture is too new for anyone to really be able to say, except AMD. I'm willing to bet AMD isn't being entirely forthwith about details, and rightly so if you consider that trade secrets can be leaked based on theorizing about published clues.

I wouldn't say the FX has a power problem. The only issue I've encountered is when I tried to get an extra 900MHz/Core overclock. 800MHz was and is just fine, with no apparent power issues.

However, it does seem that not all FX chips are alike. Some seem to be more solid than others. Some appear to be more persnickety.


In re Post #3:

I guess I should've rephrased that, my bad. You've never heard of people reporting outrageous things? I was just giving an example.

I've heard outrageous things about every chip since the 8086. A few instances of weirdness, sure. Keep in mind, bad things will be repeated over and over, almost 100% of the time. Good things are usually not mentioned.

If somebody didn't repay money they borrowed, you'd tell everyone. If they repaid you on time, who would you tell?

 

[peanutbudder]

True the FX series cpus' do pull outrageous wattages from the wall. I can't seem to find the forum but one guy had a 8150 @4.2ghz and a 7970 @ stock speeds pulling 536 watts from the wall under full load. The other system a 2500K @4.6ghz and a 7970 @ stock pulling 376 watts from the wall.

 

[CrustyButt]

AMD does know (if what your saying is true) almost, if not all of Intel's chips draw less power than the BD's. They don't act on it, that's what I don't get. You are also saying an 8 pin can withstand 247 watts of power, when do you hit the power threshold with an 8 pin. The TDP is 124/125 according to CPU-Z.

 

[Vic Velcro]

AMD does know (if what your saying is true) almost, if not all of Intel's chips draw less power than the BD's. They don't act on it, that's what I don't get. You are also saying an 8 pin can withstand 247 watts of power, when do you hit the power threshold with an 8 pin. The TDP is 124/125 according to CPU-Z.

I can't really comment on that with personal authority. I was simply stating what the AMD people have published.

Since AMD and Intel architecture are different, perhaps Intel is overall better for energy efficiency while AMD is aiming for horse-power. Intel wants to make a Yugo and AMD wants to make a Veyron.

Please don't come back with synthetic benchmark results to argue in favor of Intel vs AMD computing performance. This discussion is about energy efficiency.

 

[CrustyButt]

I hate people that do that, who come back with an anandatech benchmark..thanks for helping me understand on why I was wrong

 

[peanutbudder]

Intel does act on the power issue of FX chips one big reason why Ivy bridge is 22nm with a 77w TDP, to steal even more of the market shares. Intel is always five steps ahead of AMD mostly because of there revenue and R&D. Intel doesn't need to bash AMD FX chips over a power issue when the have a much better IPC count than anything AMD has. Core vs. Core intel is roughly 35% faste than AMD based FX chips.

 

[Vic Velcro]

Re: post #8

I'm not saying you are wrong, nor do I believe you to be wrong.

My grandma had a gasoline Ford Tempo. My friend had a diesel Ford Tempo. She got 28MPG and he got 64MPG. Different design. Both drove the same exact roads.

Intel gets better economy than AMD, driving the same road.

The difference is there, but not as vast as the difference between gasoline and diesel. I mean, seriously... even 100 watts of efficiency difference only costs me 15 cents (US) per day.


Re post #9:

Intel does act on the power issue of FX chips one big reason why Ivy bridge is 22nm with a 77w TDP, to steal even more of the market shares. Intel is always five steps ahead of AMD mostly because of there revenue and R&D. Intel doesn't need to bash AMD FX chips over a power issue when the have a much better IPC count than anything AMD has. Core vs. Core intel is roughly 35% faste than AMD based FX chips.

Beginning to look like a zip-thunk e-peen thing starting. I won't go there.

 

[peanutbudder]

I'm not going there myself.

 

[Vic Velcro]

You started to. This discussion is about power draw, not performance. The performance of the FX isn't fully realized yet; so on that point Intel vs AMD is like Apples to Venusian Pomegranites.

 

[CrustyButt]

This discussion is about power draw, not performance. The performance of the FX isn't fully realized yet; so on that point Intel vs AMD is like Apples to Venusian Pomegranites.

Now, do you think AMD will continue their failure in the Piledriver series and their upcoming series of CPU's? We all know, unless you are computer illiterate, that AMD is for the budget gamer. End of discussion. They (meaning AMD) did not fail in the release of the 1100t, 1090t, and 1045. I thought those 3 chips were fairly up to par with Intel's current line of CPU's.

 

[peanutbudder]

The main reason why AMD bulldozer chip require so much more wattage is simple 2 billion transistors vs. Intel sandy bridge at 995 million. They are also reported to have high leakage problems which makess them even more power hungry. I do believe that thuban chips were AMD best chip produced thus far and if they would have worked off that architecture and increased the ipc count it would have been on par with sandy bridge in terms of performance but it still would have been a 125w chip compared to the Intel 95w chips. I don't think AMD has figured out how to deal with high leakage on there chips yet and is the main reason why they are all almost 125w chips.

 

[CrustyButt]

The main reason why AMD bulldozer chip require so much more wattage is simple 2 billion transistors vs. Intel sandy bridge at 995 million. They are also reported to have high leakage problems which makess them even more power hungry. I do believe that thuban chips were AMD best chip produced thus far and if they would have worked off that architecture and increased the ipc count it would have been on par with sandy bridge in terms of performance but it still would have been a 125w chip compared to the Intel 95w chips. I don't think AMD has figured out how to deal with high leakage on there chips yet and is the main reason why they are all almost 125w chips.

You didn't answer my question...

 

[Vic Velcro]

Now, do you think AMD will continue their failure in the Piledriver series and their upcoming series of CPU's? We all know, unless you are computer illiterate, that AMD is for the budget gamer. End of discussion. They (meaning AMD) did not fail in the release of the 1100t, 1090t, and 1045. I thought those 3 chips were fairly up to par with Intel's current line of CPU's.

I don't consider the Piledriver to be a failure, and thus no continuation of failure. I guess I'm computer illiterate for not having the performance bottleneck others think exists purely due to design (I say setup/config user-error or poor hardware choices to go with the chip).

However, I didn't exactly do a budget build when I threw mine together. I also did a lot of research and proper "adjustments".

 

[CrustyButt]

I don't consider people who choose an 8150 computer illiterate, I am one of those people...however the so called "pile driver" has yet to come out..unless I've been under a rock the last couple of months.

 

[Vic Velcro]

I don't consider people who choose an 8150 computer illiterate, I am one of those people...however the so called "pile driver" has yet to come out..unless I've been under a rock the last couple of months.

Correct, therefore... not a failure.

I have an AMD, and I don't feel illiterate. I do suppose, though, that I could have formulated my prior post a bit more clealy.

you=.75pts / me=.25pts

 

[CrustyButt]

Well, this thread has gotten a bit off topic...lets call it a day for this thread, shall we?