ABS Ultimate X9: Core 2 Extreme Hits a Speed Bump
by Jarred Walton on August 18, 2006 1:35 PM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Noise and Power
We've looked at how the system performs, but another aspect of performance that needs to be addressed is the noise and power requirements. We tested the ABS system at stock, overclocked, and underclocked speeds in both idle and 100% load situations. We then measured power draw and noise levels created by the system. 100% CPU load was achieved by running two instances of Folding@Home along with the Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory benchmark. Performing video encoding or other CPU intensive tasks while playing a game will achieve a similar CPU load. We also provided a CPU-only stress test to show the difference between 100% CPU load and 100% CPU + GPU load. The CPU load was achieved by running the two Folding@Home instances without starting any games or other tasks.
Noise results basically showed no difference between any of the clock speeds, as all of the fans run at a constant RPM. However, the water cooling fan does come with the ability to control fan speed, so we set that to minimum for idle testing and maximum speed to show the difference in noise levels.
It should come as little surprise that increasing the CPU speed requires more power. However, the system is designed such that noise levels are relatively constant. This is certainly not a silent system, but neither is it terribly loud, even at maximum fan speed. At minimum fan speed, the system does become nearly silent, which is particularly impressive when you consider the amount of noise normally generated by two X1900 cards. If your typical use of the system will not place it under heavy stress, you can use the fan speed control to dramatically lower the noise levels. We would recommend cranking up the fan speed for gaming sessions, however, as the GPUs and CPU will definitely put out a lot of heat. Besides, with all the noise from your speakers, the importance of reducing fan noise is greatly diminished.
The power results are interesting, as they show both the efficiency of the Core 2 CPU as well as the inefficiency of the X1900 GPUs. Going from 100% CPU load to 100% CPU + GPU nearly doubles the total system power draw. In other words, the two GPUs consume as much power together as all the remaining components. Needless to say, even at the heavily overclocked setting, power requirements are still lower than your typical NetBurst system, but we're now waiting for energy efficient GPU designs to go along with the lower power Core architecture.
Another interesting aspect of the power requirements for the Core 2 Extreme is that EIST (Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology) was able to function even at overclocked settings. The default CPU speed is 11 x 266, or 2.93 GHz. EIST allows the CPU to run at a 6X multiplier, resulting in a clock speed of 1.6 GHz. At the overclocked settings, the CPU runs at 3.5 to GHz under load, but drops to 1.92 GHz when idle. Now even overclockers can take advantage of energy-saving technologies. In case you were wondering, the idle power results for the "E6700" and X6800 are identical because the CPU throttled down to 1.60 GHz in both cases.
We've looked at how the system performs, but another aspect of performance that needs to be addressed is the noise and power requirements. We tested the ABS system at stock, overclocked, and underclocked speeds in both idle and 100% load situations. We then measured power draw and noise levels created by the system. 100% CPU load was achieved by running two instances of Folding@Home along with the Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory benchmark. Performing video encoding or other CPU intensive tasks while playing a game will achieve a similar CPU load. We also provided a CPU-only stress test to show the difference between 100% CPU load and 100% CPU + GPU load. The CPU load was achieved by running the two Folding@Home instances without starting any games or other tasks.
Noise results basically showed no difference between any of the clock speeds, as all of the fans run at a constant RPM. However, the water cooling fan does come with the ability to control fan speed, so we set that to minimum for idle testing and maximum speed to show the difference in noise levels.
The power results are interesting, as they show both the efficiency of the Core 2 CPU as well as the inefficiency of the X1900 GPUs. Going from 100% CPU load to 100% CPU + GPU nearly doubles the total system power draw. In other words, the two GPUs consume as much power together as all the remaining components. Needless to say, even at the heavily overclocked setting, power requirements are still lower than your typical NetBurst system, but we're now waiting for energy efficient GPU designs to go along with the lower power Core architecture.
Another interesting aspect of the power requirements for the Core 2 Extreme is that EIST (Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology) was able to function even at overclocked settings. The default CPU speed is 11 x 266, or 2.93 GHz. EIST allows the CPU to run at a 6X multiplier, resulting in a clock speed of 1.6 GHz. At the overclocked settings, the CPU runs at 3.5 to GHz under load, but drops to 1.92 GHz when idle. Now even overclockers can take advantage of energy-saving technologies. In case you were wondering, the idle power results for the "E6700" and X6800 are identical because the CPU throttled down to 1.60 GHz in both cases.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
48 Comments
View All Comments
yyrkoon - Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - link
Ah, I was wondering why you were mentioning .NET in technologies you were unhappy with. .NET is really a boon for programmers, and even more so for hobbyist programmers such as myself (it makes things much easier, and faster to code very usefull applications ).JarredWalton - Monday, August 21, 2006 - link
Of course, after looking at some of the results on the AM2 RD580, maybe SLI *is* faster in most situations. We need to test additional games to say for sure, which I think Derek will be doing on his next GPU article.yyrkoon - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
I think they were talking about the intel crossfire implementation is immature. Irregaurdless, comparred to nVidia technology, Crossfire technology IS Immature.giantpandaman2 - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
Here's my suggestion to have better system reviews:1) A ratings system where you break down things like value, game performance, work performance, ease of use/documentation, customer service and the like. Similar to CNET and HardOCP.
2) A greater focus on the complete end user experience. How easy was it to order the system? How long did it take to get it after ordering. Was the packaging good? How was customer service when you had a part fail (made up or real)?
3) A handy list of comparable systems from other vendors w/reviews of those systems if you have them. Or if there are other respectable sites that have reviews of them. (Now this is a pie in the sky type of request, but it'd be an extremely nice little function.)
4) A small separate box for the "reviewers tilt." In other words, whether the reviewer would buy the system or get something else. For example, for the added cost would you buy a mac? Would you prefer a different type of memory? What concerns do you have with the system? IE-Case cooling would be poor if you added a second video card. Etc. This would be totally subjective, hence why it'd have to be offset from the normal review.
5) A chance for the vendor to respond to any questions or criticisms you had with the system and/or customer experience.
Now, honestly, given your focus on less consumer oriented computer stuff I don't know how far you'd want to go with any of these. As much as I understand why people dislike HardOCP a couple of things they've put in that are nice is a focus on customer experience in system reviews and they're slight separation of consumer oriented reviews as compared to enthusiast reviews.
Personally I'd love it if Anandtech created more focused regular content based around Business IT/Consumer/Enthusiast rather than your current back end classification of stuff. (Motherboard/CPU/Video/etc.) Why? Well, I think you'd be able to up your number of reviews. Quicker less technical reviews for a lot of the consumer stuff. IE-You could quickly do reviews of a lot of cheap digital cameras and OS iterations. And far more technical and in depth reviews of expensive cameras or OS iterations when used in business/network settings.
Heck, you could almost do both types of reviews at once, get out the consumer one early, then the more in depth one later. That way low end consumers don't have to wade through a lot of stuff they don't understand or may not be interested in, and gurus can get the fix they need. Anyhow, just a few ideas out of many, but this post is getting too long. :)
yyrkoon - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
I'd have to agree somewhat. Breaking down how a system performs into categories I think is a good idea. Something along the lines of how TH does it but perhaps with your own little twist. Doing two seperate reviews on a product however, I would think is a bit overboard. People like me, who are very interrested in the technical aspect of hardware, will pick and choose thier articles, which may give you less readers for those type of articles, but I think the over all experience for everyone would be fine. My suggestion for this type of thing, would be maybe to make a dumbed down review, if you think readers of said article may not be interrested in the technical aspect, and just leave it at that. *shrug*I still think you guys do a bang up job, and it isnt fanboyism when I repeat the words "I'll read your articles over tomshardware.com's reviews any day". It just seems to me, that you guys at AT are less worried about how the manufactuers feels about your reviews, and call it how you see it.
Now, for a couple of gripes:
1) PLEASE work on your forums, its ugly, not very organized, and the over all experience just doesnt "leave a good taste in my mouth".
2) I've sent you guys an email concerning this issue, Animated ads within the text area of your articles are very annoying, and make it sometimes very hard to read / concentrate on the article on hand. Since this, I've disabled all images within my browser from your site, but what IF I want to veiw a photo relating to the article ?!
Take these gripes for what they are worth, and not personally please, it is my hope that these gripes will help you improve your reader overall experience whilst on your site, and forums.
chunkychun - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
I am a non techie and I am glad you review the OEM systems, high end or low end. Although I don't have the time or patience to learn how to build a computer, I enjoy reading which components are perfered by more experienced builders. Keep up the good work.SunLord - Saturday, August 19, 2006 - link
Now we jsut need Anandtech to get a ABS Ultimate M6 Sniper AM2 speced out with as much incommon as possible and see what the performance difference is on a real world systems...JarredWalton - Saturday, August 19, 2006 - link
It depends on what you're doing. If you're playing games at high resolutions, the difference in performance is negligible. If you're doing video encoding or 3D rendering or certain other tasks, Core 2 Duo is still quite a bit faster -- and even more so when overclocked to 3.52 GHz. If you want to buy a $4000 computer, I really see no reason to purchase an AMD system right now. However, I don't think most people should spend that much money on the computer system regardless of processor type. You can build a system that is almost as fast (in games) for about $2000 -- using either Intel or AMD processors.pottervillian - Saturday, August 19, 2006 - link
One Error:Page 2: Features and Price
Component Price List
"Power Suply: Enermax Liberty 620W Modular PSU 155"
Other than that, this is a great article. Too bad I don't have a rich uncle.
eastvillager - Saturday, August 19, 2006 - link
If you had a rich uncle, you'd be better off getting cash and building it yourself, or paying a friend to do it. These prices are crazy.