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
Future1investor - Tuesday, August 11, 2009 - link
I bought this unit in Oct 2006 except instead of the ATI video it has the GF7950GX2-1GB NVIDIA card. I also have a Depot or Onsite 3yr Warranty, which is the issue here.After the liquid cooling pump went out and I started experiencing various problems likely to be related, ABS would not give me onsite service. Instead they wanted me to remove the Liquid Cooling unit, and ship me an air-cooled replacement. After much pain in communications, they then expected me to send it back and then ship me another liquid cooler. But I said with the other problems the whole system needs to be diagnosed properly on the bench.
I shipped the whole computer back at my expense of $87 through UPS. When they received it they again balked saying that they "don't do that" which I interpreted as bench diagnostics. This was confusing because under warranty, the risk of the average user damaging something can be rather high if they are asked to do their own diagnostics and replacements (even given phone assistance). But what of the 3Yr Onsite warranty?
Anyway, long story short; they agreed to bench test and fix what was needed. They told me after a week that they had replaced the liquid cooling unit and the graphic card. I also had a problem with the OS recognizing an additional 4GB Ram same timing, same brand. They said that they'd test for that too but I havn't heard the results. They have closed the RMA and I assume the computer is on route back across the country to me.
Communication has been poor. I don't know if my additional 4GB Ram will be utilized. They changed the Onsite warranty to Depot only. I had to pay for packaging and shipping back to their dock at $87. A few months ago, a phone call to support, to talk about the Ram was met with odd laughter. The person on the phone said it was to be expected for buying that operating system (Windows XP Professional) the only thing available at time of purchase.
This was my second computer purchase from ABS. The first with a 3Yr Onsite Warranty. The tech support is sketchy. They will only call you back from an unidentifiable phone number. They want you to pay for shipping along with any replacement parts, saying that they'll reimburse you once they receive the defective pieces. They want you to do your own repairs. And only if you push the issue to the wall will they attempt normal customer satisfaction (though I paid for it with additional costs to me).
Perhaps ABS' business is not as good as it used to be, and perhaps they are cutting corners and cutting up warranties at the expense of future business.
Considering ABS for a future purchase looks doubtful. Like customer service from Dell. It is a customer nightmare scenario. Though Dell is much much worse! I will be focusing more attention on the warranty service given though Digital Storm. They have one of the absolute highest customer service ratings of any boutique computer retailer. Though I will still monitor the rating in this area for ABS, as perhaps things will improve greatly?
appu - Saturday, August 26, 2006 - link
Just came across this yesterday - http://www.velocitymicro.com/">http://www.velocitymicro.com/How about test-driving one of their systems (although I think we can hazard guesses at the results for the most part)?
These guys also seem like a really nice alternative to building your own box if you don't like generic OEM stuff and don't have the time to put one together yourself. I was definitely impressed with the 15-20 mins I spent on the site looking at various options.
Justin Case - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
One month ago all articles around here were saying what a brilliant combination Core + Crossfire was. Now AMD buys ATI, and all of a sudden the conclusion changes to "Crossfire is immature". Interesting...yyrkoon - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
"The second item worth nothing is that the NVIDIA SLI solution outperforms all of the X1900 CrossFire configurations, including the 20% overclocked ABS, even when using a slower CPU. Other games might perform better on CrossFire, but there certainly appears to be plenty of room for improvement in the ATI drivers, particularly when it comes to Core 2 optimizations."Saying that ATI needs to iron out thier drivers for core 2 duo is hardly concluding thats 'Crossfire is immature'. Of course, I can pretty much twist something someone says in any dirreciton I want to also. However, I think taken in with the rest of the context, they are trying to say something along the lines that performance wise right_now, Crossfire boards seem to underperform the nVidia varients, but this doesnt mean its going to hold true in the future.
JarredWalton - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
On AM2/939, CrossFire often beats out 7900GTX SLI. On Core 2 *right now* it doesn't, at least in the tests I looked at. (I don't have a full SLI 775 Core 2 setup right now, unfortunately.) I've *always* felt CF left a bit to be desired, and I'd say the same thing about .NET and CCC. For whatever reason, some of the issues with CF were magnified on this ABS system. Seriously, THIRTY SECONDS after XP shows the desktop before CCC is finished loading. That's terrible. It's also about 3X as long as a 939 ASUS A8R32-MVP for the same thing, which is why I conclude that CF on C2E has some issues. Of course, the 6.8 drivers may have just addressed a bunch of my concerns - I have to retest that before sending the system back.yyrkoon - Monday, August 21, 2006 - link
I will agree with you that 1 minute OS load times is terrible, hell even my budget Asrock AM2NF4G-SATA2 / 3800+ system boots XP in 18 seconds, and thats from IDE. Not that its cutting edge technology either . . .JarredWalton - Monday, August 21, 2006 - link
It's about 18 seconds to load the OS, but it's 33 seconds of POST codes and 35 seconds of ATI/.NET after XP is basically loaded. With RAID 0 Raptors no less. And people wonder why we at AnandTech often say NVIDIA seems to have more robust solutions....yyrkoon - Monday, August 21, 2006 - link
Well, when I said 18 seconds, its 18 seconds to boot to desktop, and about 1-2 seconds more and its ready to use, however, I just installed the 2.0 framework for microsoft web dev express, and havent rebooted yet. so perhaps it'll take a little longer now. I still dont have 1.1 installed, but on this machine (my gaming rig) I dont plan on installing it, thats what my dev box is for :)JarredWalton - Monday, August 21, 2006 - link
.NET should only affect load times when it is used - i.e. by the ATI CCC drivers. I don't think just installing it really impacts performance. I have it installed on most of my PCs - both 1.1 and 2.0 - and have never noticed any delays on booting, except when using an ATI card.KrazyDawg - Monday, September 4, 2006 - link
I never really noticed that the ATI drivers utilizing .NET was the cause of a longer boot time. In the past, I used omega drivers for my Radeon 9800 Pro but stopped using them when the latest release failed to install properly. I haven't tried other drivers since but a driver review would be interesting and beneficial to many.