Replies to post #41119 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[Petz]

re: Doesn't Hammer run substantially cooler than Athlon, even though again it's a more complex chip?

No, the TDP for Hammer is higher than Athlon. It runs cooler in some tests because of DBS capabilities (Cool 'n Quiet).

WRONG.
Power consumption comparison of entire systems:

- Athlon XP 3200+ : 192 Watts
- Athlon 64 3400+ Socket 754 2.4 GHz / 512 Ko : 163 Watts
- Athlon 64 3400+ Socket 754 2.2 GHz / 1024 Ko : 165 Watts
- Athlon 64 3800+ Socket 939 : 169 Watts
- Athlon 64 FX-53 Socket 939 : 165 Watts
- Athlon 64 FX-53 Socket 940 : 166 Watts
- Pentium 4 3.4C GHz : 191 Watts
- Pentium 4 3.4E GHz : 227 Watts
- Pentium 4 3.4 EE GHz : 217 Watts

http://hardware.fr/articles/496/page3.html

Take a look at the link. The above power figures are at 100% CPU load, so CNQ has no effect.

Petz

[j3pflynn]

wbmw - re:"Doesn't Hammer run substantially cooler than Athlon, even though again it's a more complex chip?

No, the TDP for Hammer is higher than Athlon. It runs cooler in some tests because of DBS capabilities (Cool 'n Quiet)."

Really? So how do you explain the fact that they were running cooler before "C 'n Q" was working right?
Paul