If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
AMD clubs Intel like a baby seal.
In article , Bill W
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. no failures here. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
AMD clubs Intel like a baby seal.
On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 18:30:06 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Bill W 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. no failures here. Odd. I've had several fail, I think mostly Cree's. I also started buying them fairly early, so I hope they're a bit more durable these days. It's pretty much all of my bulbs now. I think those Cree's are still under warranty, but shipping costs more than new bulbs these days. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
AMD clubs Intel like a baby seal.
On 16/09/2017 17:15, 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. What I was meaning was same class of processor - given two processors of roughly comparable performance - the Intel processor is likely more efficient (does more work per watt) than an AMD processor. If you don't accept that then fine - I will find you some more specific data to support that proposition. On price - yes, of course, Intel processors are generally more expensive than AMD for any given benchmark. But that wasn't my original point - benchmarks rarely take into account energy efficiency. If they did, the TCO would go down, and some users would feel (more) ethically superior ;-) 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. Indeed - some of the more thorough tests look at idle and a range of scenarios. If you can't find anything to support your thesis, I'll come back to this thread with some more data. 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. Oh of course, yes, context. If I take an electric shower, that scrubs a month of savings I made by choosing Intel. Why bother? And that's a question you need to answer for yourself - no right or wrong there. Why recycle, why avoid meat, and so on. Mind, I'm still not sure that you accept that AMD processors are, on the whole, less energy efficient than Intel. 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. Agreed. 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.* And a good buy it is - for you. If I bought an FX-8320 and used it 10 hours/day at not much more than idle, I'd be consuming 260kW of electricity a year - at UK prices, about £40*. If I bought an i5 3570 and used it on the same basis the electricity would cost me £33. That cost saving might not ever offset the higher purchase price, but that isn't the sole reason for my choice - 'saving the planet' (sic) is there too. Also, inefficient doesn't necessarily mean waste - that extra heat generated by an AMD chip may be useful in some situations. For a variety of reasons it isn't useful to me. * http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/6 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. :-) If you do require granular, per user, evidence that is so tightly contrived that it could produce (and predict) accuracy to within a few points before you would even consider a discussion on this topic, then yes, I concede, you are correct, and I have made a bad choice of processor. But hopefully we both know that that is impossible, and a reasonable prediction is possible from the data available. Whether we treat all the variables with equal weight is another matter. -- Cheers, Rob |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
AMD clubs Intel like a baby seal.
On 18/09/2017 09:50, Paul Carmichael wrote:
El 16/09/17 a las 20:51, Mayayana escribió: Â*Â* 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. They don't. HTH. My house is full of them and I buy new ones every few weeks. Not sure how useful anecdote is, but I've been using LEDs throughout for some years. Most of them from the pound shop, and a few on 12 hours each day. Not a single failure yet. And because of my rather careless use (lighting unused areas for example) they have saved me quite a few hundreds of pounds. -- Cheers, Rob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Eagle Eating a Baby Seal | C J Campbell | Digital SLR Cameras | 16 | June 7th 07 04:03 AM |
New set of golf clubs and bag | Chris Berry | Digital Photography | 1 | February 8th 05 12:29 PM |
New set of golf clubs and bag | David Geesaman | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | February 8th 05 12:29 PM |
New set of golf clubs and bag | Chris Berry | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | February 8th 05 10:49 AM |
Lebanon, PA Camera clubs | Morris Coleman | Photographing Nature | 1 | February 4th 04 03:14 AM |