Moderator: Site Moderators
MtM wrote:@yashbudini it's not only relevant how high the utilisation of each core is, it's also very relevant to how balanced the execution of each thread is in regards to the others. This is also the main argument toTow focuses on with his view on the current linux 2.10 core issues. If one thread has to wait for the others it slows down the computing process, so while in theory a tri core could offer the same performance for each thread as a quad core ( assuming about 75% usage on the quad which isn't exactly true but let's use it for arguments sake ) the synchronisation between the threads would negatively impact the final performance.
YashBudini wrote:Looking at it from a slightly different perspective if xxx WU with 4 threads could be changed to 5 smaller threads could the end result still come out in your (and mine) favor?
jrweiss wrote:After installing a new PSU in my older machine, I was measuring power consumption (at the UPS) of each of my rigs. The Q9650 is on a P35 MoBo, and the i7-3770S is on a Z77. The Vcore for the Q9650 is set at 1.150; VID is 1.156. The i7 is at default. Both have 8 GB RAM and Fold SMP. While the i7 system uses significantly less power overall, it appears they both increase by 54 Watts from idle to Folding.
That was a surprise to me, because I would expect the Q9650 with a TDP of 95W would increase more than the i7 with a TDP of 66W. HWMonitor confirms that the power attributed to the "cores" on the i7 is under 4W at idle and 42-43W while Folding; there is no similar function available on the P35 system.
Can anyone tell me if there is a relationship between rated TDP and actual expected CPU power burn? It seems I'm using significantly less than TDP at 100% CPU load...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest