Intel Core 2 on 45nm: Performance, Overclocking, Power Usage

jmke · 29th October 2007, 15:13

Intel is launching their successor the popular Conroe CPU, build on 45nm manufacturing process, it boasts reduced power consumption and has 50% more L2 cache. The first product out the door is a quad core beast dubbed QX9650. We take this new creation through its paces, comparing performance, power consumption and venturing into overclocking land, where sub zero cooling is the norm.

http://www.madshrimps.be/gotoartik.php?articID=636

Sidney · 29th October 2007, 15:26

Reading other reviews, it would seem the engineering sample tested at [M] requires more vcore than others. 4Ghz quad would now be common speed; no bragging right unless you see 5Ghz.

jmke · 29th October 2007, 15:29

yes that seems to be the case, but no faulting engineering samples, they are supposed to run without fault at rated speeds with default vcore, which this QX9650 did

29th October 2007, 22:33

2.0v for 4.9GHz? Would have loved to see what that did to the power consumption figures for that CPU!

Regarding the discrepancy with your power chart, I think that has something to do with the physical properties of the chip design. I suspect that at very high frequencies there is a thermal threshold that once neared the leakage increases dramatically. After which it will quickly reach the point where the chip ceases to function or function stably since the increased leakage raises the heat, and the heat only further increases the transistor leakage in a self-fulfilling cycle. I don't have any real proof other than my own experiences with my Q6600...

I am curious, I notice from that CPUZ image the ES QX9650 uses 1.20v at 3GHz. My own Q6600 does the same... so how far can you drop the voltage and have the QX9650 remain stable at 3Ghz? I got a Q6600 down to 1.5v, but somewhere below that point my Q6600 will show errors. Gigabyte unfortunately lacks most of the FSB voltage tuning ASUS boards offer, as some members on the XS forums claim to have reached 1.10v for 2.5-2.8Ghz speeds for Kentsfields. Would be interesting to note what effect the smaller process size and change in transistor materials would have on this for Penryn.

jmke · 29th October 2007, 23:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kougar

2.0v for 4.9GHz? Would have loved to see what that did to the power consumption figures for that CPU!

You can

last chart on this page: http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...&articID=6 36
386W vs 210W stock

30th October 2007, 00:25

Ah, nice! I had completely missed that, staring me in the face.

I guess I need to take more power measurements since the data I have on my Q6600 includes my video card...

Why not extend that same chart a bit more to the right though, and undervolt that puppy?

30th October 2007, 07:33

I'm a little surprised that you're talking about a discrepancy in the chart while you're mentioning the changed cooling solution in the same sentence. The die temperature is one of the most important factors for the CPU power consumption and if you switch to a solution which removes the heat more efficiently, you should expect reduced power draw even with a higher clock and voltage.

That's also the reason why the maximum current in the electrical specifications for CPUs significantly exceeds what you would get from dividing the TDP by the core voltage. It's given for the maximum die temperature, which you will (hopefully) never reach in a real world situation.

Bear that in mind when testing or comparing CPU power consumption: The room/case temperature and cooling solution have a major influence and the die temperature at a certain load is an interesting figure to report along the power draw (sadly missing in most reviews).

jmke · 30th October 2007, 09:17

Thank you CFKane for you post and welcome to the forums

since the temperature was the only large difference between the two settings we were not doubting that it was indeed the lower temperature which was causing the lower temps; but I've not seen any article on the web discussing this aspect of the power consumption... hence were a bit hesitant to include that statement.

jmke · 7th December 2007, 11:03

we also got word back from Intel explaining the power usage at different temperatures:

Quote:

Matty @ Intel:

Yes, the power consumption is reduced when the temperature of the processor is lowered.

There are many things that happen in a CPU when the temperature is changed and to elaborate further on the processor specific causes we have to look at the origin of the power consumption. We can divide the total consumed power into two main parts, static power (Ps) and dynamic power (Pd).

The static power consumption is what we usually call the leakage. In an ideal transistor, it should completely shut off the channel between the source-drain, gate-source and gate-drain. Transistors are far from ideal, and the current leaks between these parts and the substrate of the processor, and this is heavily dependent on the temperature.
For example, going from room temperature to 85C (~60C difference) increases the leakage power by a factor of more than 50. Thus, reducing the temperature with the same amount will make a huge impact on Ps.

Dynamic power consumption is emitted during the short amount of time that the transistor switches. Lower temperature reduces the resistance in the processor which results in shorter delay/faster switching of the transistors. Shorter delays and less noisy signals also reduce Pd.

I hope this explanation give you some clarity to the relation between power consumption and temperature. This can even be seen with air cooling: The power consumption is lower just after a load is applied compared to after a while when the temperature has levelled out, even though the load is the same.

29th October 2007, 15:13	#1
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,022	Intel Core 2 on 45nm: Performance, Overclocking, Power Usage Intel is launching their successor the popular Conroe CPU, build on 45nm manufacturing process, it boasts reduced power consumption and has 50% more L2 cache. The first product out the door is a quad core beast dubbed QX9650. We take this new creation through its paces, comparing performance, power consumption and venturing into overclocking land, where sub zero cooling is the norm. http://www.madshrimps.be/gotoartik.php?articID=636 __________________

29th October 2007, 15:26	#2
Sidney Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 15,738	Reading other reviews, it would seem the engineering sample tested at [M] requires more vcore than others. 4Ghz quad would now be common speed; no bragging right unless you see 5Ghz. __________________ lazyman Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II

29th October 2007, 15:29	#3
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,022	yes that seems to be the case, but no faulting engineering samples, they are supposed to run without fault at rated speeds with default vcore, which this QX9650 did __________________

30th October 2007, 07:33	#7
CFKane Posts: n/a	Power consumption chart I'm a little surprised that you're talking about a discrepancy in the chart while you're mentioning the changed cooling solution in the same sentence. The die temperature is one of the most important factors for the CPU power consumption and if you switch to a solution which removes the heat more efficiently, you should expect reduced power draw even with a higher clock and voltage. That's also the reason why the maximum current in the electrical specifications for CPUs significantly exceeds what you would get from dividing the TDP by the core voltage. It's given for the maximum die temperature, which you will (hopefully) never reach in a real world situation. Bear that in mind when testing or comparing CPU power consumption: The room/case temperature and cooling solution have a major influence and the die temperature at a certain load is an interesting figure to report along the power draw (sadly missing in most reviews).

30th October 2007, 09:17	#8
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,022	Thank you CFKane for you post and welcome to the forums since the temperature was the only large difference between the two settings we were not doubting that it was indeed the lower temperature which was causing the lower temps; but I've not seen any article on the web discussing this aspect of the power consumption... hence were a bit hesitant to include that statement. __________________

29th October 2007, 22:33	#4
Kougar Posts: n/a	2.0v for 4.9GHz? Would have loved to see what that did to the power consumption figures for that CPU! Regarding the discrepancy with your power chart, I think that has something to do with the physical properties of the chip design. I suspect that at very high frequencies there is a thermal threshold that once neared the leakage increases dramatically. After which it will quickly reach the point where the chip ceases to function or function stably since the increased leakage raises the heat, and the heat only further increases the transistor leakage in a self-fulfilling cycle. I don't have any real proof other than my own experiences with my Q6600... I am curious, I notice from that CPUZ image the ES QX9650 uses 1.20v at 3GHz. My own Q6600 does the same... so how far can you drop the voltage and have the QX9650 remain stable at 3Ghz? I got a Q6600 down to 1.5v, but somewhere below that point my Q6600 will show errors. Gigabyte unfortunately lacks most of the FSB voltage tuning ASUS boards offer, as some members on the XS forums claim to have reached 1.10v for 2.5-2.8Ghz speeds for Kentsfields. Would be interesting to note what effect the smaller process size and change in transistor materials would have on this for Penryn.

30th October 2007, 00:25	#6
Kougar Posts: n/a	Ah, nice! I had completely missed that, staring me in the face. I guess I need to take more power measurements since the data I have on my Q6600 includes my video card... Why not extend that same chart a bit more to the right though, and undervolt that puppy?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[M] Intel Core i7 In-Depth Performance Scaling Analysis	jmke	WebNews	1	11th August 2009 11:33
Intel Core i7 In-Depth Performance Scaling Analysis	jmke	Articles & Howto's	0	11th August 2009 11:31
Intel Core 2 "Penryn" Performance under Linux	Sidney	WebNews	0	28th November 2007 01:33
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Overclocking Report	jmke	WebNews	3	26th July 2007 10:12
Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 overclocking	jmke	WebNews	0	4th February 2007 22:04
Intel Core 2 Q6600 Performance Test	jmke	WebNews	0	8th January 2007 15:58
Intel Core 2 Chipset Power Consumption Shootout	jmke	WebNews	0	13th October 2006 11:28
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6700 Overclocking	jmke	WebNews	0	31st August 2006 11:48
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 & E6400: Tremendous Value Through Overclocking	jmke	WebNews	2	26th July 2006 18:13