AMD clubs Intel like a baby seal.

On 10/09/2017 15:56, Mayayana wrote:
"RJH" wrote

| What is certain: AMD will continue to be a much better
| deal for the money.
|
| Increasingly, energy efficiency is becoming a factor determining how
| good a deal is. And Intel usually betters AMD on that front.
|

That sounds like a statement from an Intel shill.

First, unless you're talking about a notebook that
you can't typically plug in, energy is not relevant.
So you'd need to qualify it:
"It's worth it to me to pay through the nose if I
can get an extra 20 minutes in the park on my
laptop."
In that case you'd probably also want to be looking
hard at laptop models and OSs.

Second, where are your back-up statistics? You're
making a claim with no links or evidence.


Couple of online tests:

https://www.techspot.com/review/943-...e-desktop-cpu/

"In the end, AMD's FX-8320E is an affordable quad-core processor that
overclocks decently, but even if you pushed it to 5GHz it would struggle
to match the slightly pricier Core i5-4430 and even the Core i3-4360 at
times. Then after you take the power consumption figures into account,
arguments for the FX-8320E begin to seem rather indefensible."

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html

Mind, a couple of the low power AMD CPUs seem to do quite well - which
shows they can do it. And I gather the latest generation of AMD
processors are a lot better -especially when compared with the high end
consumer Intel offerings.
--
Cheers, Rob

| Second, where are your back-up statistics? You're
| making a claim with no links or evidence.
|
|
| Couple of online tests:
|
| https://www.techspot.com/review/943-...e-desktop-cpu/

That's an ambiguous report. A quick check at Tigerdirect
for prices turns up $129 vs $169. So they're not even in
the same price range. And I didn't see any figures about
what they actually mean by power consumption. There are
no actual wattage numbers. And these are only power
figures for situations that run the CPU to its limits. Meanwhile
my electricity costs last month were about $25. Most of that
is scam fees and taxes. ("Delivery charge", state and federal
taxes, etc.) If I accidentally leave my cellar light on for
a hour I've probably more than eaten up my alleged savings
from the Intel CPU, if they exist at all. Context. But I can
never be sure because I don't have even vague figures on
what the actual difference might be. If there were credible
figures saying that an AMD will use, say, 30 watt hours a month
more than Intel with normal usage, and thereby cost 7 cents
more, that would at least be evidence. But for me it wouldn't
be relevant... for obvious reasons.

But more importantly, there's a massive media invention
of sheer nonsense around these things. They're comparing
things like overclocking to perform a demanding task in
Powerpoint or 7-Zip. Who pushes their computer to the limit
working in Powerpoint? Who overclocks? I don't. If your
life is high-end video games and you're 16 years old and
you want to beat out all of your friends, then you save up
and study these tests and try to get the best possible CPU
to render incredibly complex scenes at the fastest possible
speed. For the rest of us this is just bunk. CPUs have been
far more powerful than necessary for many years now.

I need a CPU for my latest computer. I can pay one price
for AMD or significantly more for Intel. If it were not for AMD
we'd probably be paying in the thousands, and we'd need
different CPUs for 32-bit OSs and 64-bit OSs. (That was
Intel's plan before AMD thwarted them.)

* And no one with any sense buys a top CPU for a typical
computer. My current 8-core FX-8200 was one of the
cheapest available when I bought it.*

Maybe the benchmarking reports can sometimes be
informative to identify lemons or peaches in the CPU market.
But in general they're useless for the average person. It
reminds me of the PC magazine articles of the 90s. They
got advertising money from hardware companies, so they
had to push hardware. Every time a new PC came out it
was "blazingly fast", and magically the PC that was blazingly
fast 6 months ago had become "good enough for email and
some web browsing". It was absurd. Much of Consumer
Reports is similar. They'll compare idiotic things like "ease of
cleanup" for water based paints, cooking up any old
"benchmark" to make their ratings seem significant.

As Trump says, it's fake news.

On Sep 16, 2017, Mayayana wrote
(in article ):
Snip #1

Meanwhile my electricity costs last month were about $25. Most of that
is scam fees and taxes. ("Delivery charge", state and federal
taxes, etc.) If I accidentally leave my cellar light on for
a hour I've probably more than eaten up my alleged savings
from the Intel CPU, if they exist at all.

$25!! I guess you don’t live anywhere where it gets truly hot, where you need AC to be even vaguely comfortable indoors. I wish that my electricity costs were as low as $25/month, with, or without the add-on fees & taxes.

Just be happy you are not dealing with PG&E in California. Taxes are the least of it.

Here is my break down for last months bill with AC running to make the 104-115ºF temps bearable.

Conservation Incentive: $43.44
Generation: $136.26
Transmission: $38.32
Distribution: $119.05
Electric Public Purpose Programs: $20.79
Nuclear Decommissioning: $2.06
DWR Bond Charge: $7.60
Competition Transition Charge (CTC): $1.80
Energy Cost Recovery Amount: $-0.01
Taxes and Other: $0.40

Total Electric Charges: $369.71

This is the sort of bill I get for the high temperature Summer months. In the late Fall, Winter, and early Spring the total is around $80-$100. I am seriously considering getting a solar installation on my roof.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Second, where are your back-up statistics? You're
| making a claim with no links or evidence.
|
|
| Couple of online tests:
|
| https://www.techspot.com/review/943-...e-desktop-cpu/

That's an ambiguous report. A quick check at Tigerdirect
for prices turns up $129 vs $169. So they're not even in
the same price range.

that's the same price range.

And I didn't see any figures about
what they actually mean by power consumption. There are
no actual wattage numbers. And these are only power
figures for situations that run the CPU to its limits. Meanwhile
my electricity costs last month were about $25.

do you live in a one room apartment lit by a candle?

Most of that
is scam fees and taxes. ("Delivery charge", state and federal
taxes, etc.) If I accidentally leave my cellar light on for
a hour I've probably more than eaten up my alleged savings
from the Intel CPU, if they exist at all.

get an led bulb and maybe you can reduce your electric bill to $15.

"Savageduck" wrote

| $25!! I guess you don't live anywhere where it gets truly hot, where you
need AC to be even vaguely comfortable indoors. I wish that my electricity
costs were as low as $25/month, with, or without the add-on fees & taxes.
|

Actually I should clarify that's for 2 of us. $50
altogether. But no, I don't use AC. I live in Boston.
When it's high 90s and humid I keep a fan on
myself all the time. Other than that -- some TV,
lights, a couple of computers, a couple of clocks,
frig. Gas stove. Gas heat. Our expense is in the
Winter. But gas isn't too expensive. We keep it at
62 in the day and 55 at night. It's gentler on the
sinuses and skin while cutting down the need for
the furnace to run.


| Just be happy you are not dealing with PG&E in California. Taxes are the
least of it.
|
| Here is my break down for last months bill with AC running to make the
104-115ºF temps bearable.
|
| Conservation Incentive: $43.44
| Generation: $136.26
| Transmission: $38.32
| Distribution: $119.05
| Electric Public Purpose Programs: $20.79
| Nuclear Decommissioning: $2.06
| DWR Bond Charge: $7.60
| Competition Transition Charge (CTC): $1.80
| Energy Cost Recovery Amount: $-0.01
| Taxes and Other: $0.40
|
| Total Electric Charges: $369.71
|
| This is the sort of bill I get for the high temperature Summer months. In
the late Fall, Winter, and early Spring the total is around $80-$100. I am
seriously considering getting a solar installation on my roof.
|

Wow. I had no idea such high prices existed.
Conservation incentive? Does that mean the
more you use the more they add to that
trumped up fee? I don't have a bill handy, but
here are our current rates:

Customer Charge (per month): $6.43
.. Distribution Charge (per kWh): $0.05585
.. Transition Charge (credit per kWh): $0.00243
.. Transmission Charge (per kWh): $0.02307
.. Energy Conservation Charge (per kWh): $0.01639
.. Renewable Energy Charge (per kWh): $0.00050

The "generation cost" seems to be similar to the
various charges.

So it's about $7 fee and maybe 20 cents
per kwh. I actually thought there were also
taxes. Maybe those are included. Most of your
bill doesn't look so different. I guess you're
paying a lot more per kwh and/or you're using a
lot more. I gather you have central AC. I can
imagine that might be very expensive. The problem
with central AC is you get used to it and end up
wanting it all season. I hear my neighbors' AC
going on even on cool evenings when I have a fan
in the window. They get used to keeping the windows
closed and use the AC for climate control rather
than necessary cooling.

Solar may have its own problems. I'm not convinced
people really save as much as they'd like to think. How
long will it take to recoup the tens of thousands of dollars
for setup? Additionally, the more people set up solar,
the more pressure there will be to charge them. Even
now, in MA, Eversource is pushing to add extra fees
for customers with solar panels. And there's always the
threat that regulations could be changed to ban selling
electricity back into the grid. That may be less of a
risk in liberal CA, but it's something to consider.

Maybe you should just invest in a swamp cooler
and limit your physical activity.

"nospam" wrote

| That's an ambiguous report. A quick check at Tigerdirect
| for prices turns up $129 vs $169. So they're not even in
| the same price range.
|
| that's the same price range.
|

If you say so. I don't consider 30% higher price
to be a fair comparison.

| get an led bulb and maybe you can reduce your electric bill to $15.

I don't think LEDs are going to save a heck of a lot.
I don't leave lights on in rooms that are empty. But
I have been switching. I avoided the fluorescents --
They contain mercury, they die early, and the light
is ugly. I avoided LED at first because of the cost.
I prefer halogens. But now I can get LEDs relatively
cheap and they have a nice color. Hopefully they'll
last as long as the companies claim they do.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| That's an ambiguous report. A quick check at Tigerdirect
| for prices turns up $129 vs $169. So they're not even in
| the same price range.
|
| that's the same price range.

If you say so. I don't consider 30% higher price
to be a fair comparison.

what you're missing is there's more to a computer than just a cpu.

if the whole computer ends up costing $500, the extra $40 is under 10%
extra and not worth worrying about.

| get an led bulb and maybe you can reduce your electric bill to $15.

I don't think LEDs are going to save a heck of a lot.

they definitely do.

led bulbs consume a few watts, versus 60-100w for a typical
incandescent bulb.

I don't leave lights on in rooms that are empty. But
I have been switching. I avoided the fluorescents --
They contain mercury, they die early, and the light
is ugly. I avoided LED at first because of the cost.
I prefer halogens. But now I can get LEDs relatively
cheap and they have a nice color. Hopefully they'll
last as long as the companies claim they do.

led bulbs can have many colours.

the cheaper bulbs are just a single colour temp (daylight or indoor)
while the premium bulbs can be just about any colour you want,
changeable at any time:

http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6LKdRRzc2scv58DMNwRvH8-970-80.jpg

"nospam" wrote

| If you say so. I don't consider 30% higher price
| to be a fair comparison.
|
| what you're missing is there's more to a computer than just a cpu.
|
No. We're talking about CPUs. If I'm thinking
of buying a CPU for $100 I'd expect to get a notably
better one for $130. The cost of a CPU in an OEM
computer, by contrast, is very difficult to quantify.
I can't even buy the parts for what an OEM company
charges retail. They get big discounts. They also get
a big discount on Windows. And a PC with one CPU
may have very different graphics or disk storage
from the next PC with a different CPU.

But none of that applies here. The discussion was
just about whether AMD is a better deal than Intel.
The fact they're comparing a cheaper AMD implies
they already assume AMD is priced cheaper. So assuming
there could ever be any sense at all in calculating
electric bill savings from CPUs, the question would
be how long does it take to save $40 by using an
Intel over an AMD of the same wattage that
allegedly doesn't use power as efficiently?

As an AMD lover who paid under $70 for my
last 8-core 3.3 GHz CPU, I think I'll take my
chances that I got the better deal over the
alternative of buying Intel. But I think I'll turn on
my kitchen light 5 minutes late tonight, just to
make sure.

This isn't like Macs, where you can't assemble
the parts and you have little if any choice over
brands that Apple builds with. It's only a relevant
conversation for people who make their own
computers. A quick look at specs for Macbooks and
Macbook Pros seems to indicate that the only option
for CPU is an i5 or i7 and the only option for graphics
is Intel. In building a PC there are dozens of options
(too many, really) for each element. Though personally,
these days I just settle for onboard graphics, sound
and ethernet, so I don't need expansion cards. Like the
other elements in a PC, they all surpassed what I
need in functionality a long time ago.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| If you say so. I don't consider 30% higher price
| to be a fair comparison.
|
| what you're missing is there's more to a computer than just a cpu.
|
No. We're talking about CPUs.

a cpu does nothing all by itself.

what are you going to with just a cpu? frame it and put it on the wall?

there needs to be a computer to go with it.

$40 difference for the entire computer is nothing.

If I'm thinking
of buying a CPU for $100 I'd expect to get a notably
better one for $130.

all things being equal, sure.

except that all things are never equal.

when you're comparing two different processors with a different
internal (although compatible) design from two different manufacturers.
price is not necessarily an indicator of anything.




This isn't like Macs, where you can't assemble
the parts and you have little if any choice over
brands that Apple builds with.

so what?

you don't have a choice in what parts toyota or ford chooses, and even
if you did, it's not going to get you to work any faster.

do you know who makes the cpu in your microwave oven?? no. does it
matter? no.

what matters is does the product do the tasks that the user needs to do
and do so reliably, with little to no fuss.

It's only a relevant
conversation for people who make their own
computers.

which very few people do.

the vast majority buy pre-built computers, whether it's apple, asus,
dell, lenovo or some other company.

they also buy pre-built cars, microwave ovens, tvs, and pretty much
everything else too.

A quick look at specs for Macbooks and
Macbook Pros seems to indicate that the only option
for CPU is an i5 or i7 and the only option for graphics
is Intel.

look again.

macbook cpus range from the energy efficient m3 to an i7. desktop macs
range from an i3 (although that model is now discontinued) to the i9
(in the forthcoming imac pro).

graphics is either amd or nvidia discrete graphics as well as intel
integrated grahphics, and can seamlessly switch as needed if both are
available.

ios devices use apple's own a-series processors, which are benchmarking
roughly the same as intel's latest offerings and expected to be used in
macs at some point.

microsoft is already moving towards arm processors for windows laptops.

intel versus amd is so 1990s.

not that any of it matters, because photos or videos won't look any
different when processed on an intel, amd or arm-based chip.

On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 14:51:41 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I don't think LEDs are going to save a heck of a lot.
I don't leave lights on in rooms that are empty. But
I have been switching. I avoided the fluorescents --
They contain mercury, they die early, and the light
is ugly. I avoided LED at first because of the cost.
I prefer halogens. But now I can get LEDs relatively
cheap and they have a nice color. Hopefully they'll
last as long as the companies claim they do.

I've had a pretty high failure rate for LED's , but they're still
worth it. One benefit that most people overlook is that you can get a
LOT more light out of wattage limited fixtures. There is never any
concern about overloading circuits or fixtures. And if you live in a
hotter climate, they give off far less heat.