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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
AMD clubs Intel like a baby seal.
| 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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
AMD clubs Intel like a baby seal.
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
AMD clubs Intel like a baby seal.
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
AMD clubs Intel like a baby seal.
"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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
AMD clubs Intel like a baby seal.
"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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
AMD clubs Intel like a baby seal.
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
AMD clubs Intel like a baby seal.
"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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
AMD clubs Intel like a baby seal.
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
AMD clubs Intel like a baby seal.
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. |
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 |