Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!


Discussion on Article:
Energy-Efficient Sandy Bridge: Intel Core i5-2400S CPU Review

Started by: SteelCity1981 | Date 01/22/11 10:41:32 PM
Comments: 20 | Last Comment:  12/21/15 11:53:34 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads


Yes, all of that is good if you aren't a gamer or are into a lot of 3D rendering to have an intergrated graphics processor on the processor which will in return cut cost overall in a budget system. But for those that are gamers or are into a lot of 3D rendering the intergrated graphics processor on the chip is pointless, because it will never get used and thus are paying extra money towards something on the chip that is useless to them. Which is why Intel was better off just not including the intergrated graphics processor on its Core i7 2xxx line and in return add more MB cache in which would be useful to gamers or people that do a lot of 3D rendering.
0 0 [Posted by: SteelCity1981  | Date: 01/22/11 10:41:32 PM]
- collapse thread

That's very much true. Integrated graphics of that class are pointless with quad core CPUs.

The whole point of integrating a GPU into the CPU is so that it can be much more powerful, because TDP isn't a problem, unlike with chipsets.

Unfortunately Intel's GPU is terrible, and Ivy Bridge won't change that. They should've included a powerful GPU with just the dual core CPUs.

In a few months Fusion comes out, and it'll completely outclass Intel. Sure they CPU won't be that powerful, but the GPU will be amazing (compared to other integrated solutions). That's exactly what an APU should look like.
0 0 [Posted by: Harry Lloyd  | Date: 01/24/11 04:14:40 AM]

With a regular 95W Sandy Bridge processor, is it allowed to lower the voltage to 1.05V (or less) and lower the multiplier to make your own custom S version?
0 0 [Posted by: BernardP  | Date: 01/23/11 07:18:49 PM]
- collapse thread

I think you will be able to achieve lower power consumption. But the turbo boost will not be so aggressive as on the S version.
0 0 [Posted by: pabouk  | Date: 01/24/11 07:27:21 AM]

The same idle consumption of 2400 and 2400S CPUs mean that there is almost no benefit of 2400S for me.

Please could you compare real energy consumption of the 2400 and 2400S CPU required to accomplish certain task? For example run a CPU-intensive task (like MP3 encoding, video encoding, file compression), measure the power consumption during the task and then integrate it over time to get the total consumed energy (in Joules).

The instantaneous power consumption of 2400S would be lower but as the task would require more time to accomplish the total energy consumption could be very similar on both processors.
0 0 [Posted by: pabouk  | Date: 01/24/11 07:41:36 AM]

Considering that there is a lot of overclocking headroom in SB on stock voltage, it should be possible to obtain a good-power-saving-without-loss-of-performance compromise from the 95W version by keeping stock clocks and lowering voltage to the minimum required to maintain stability.

Ergo, the S version is pointless
0 0 [Posted by: BernardP  | Date: 01/24/11 10:35:49 AM]

just test
0 0 [Posted by: cashkennedy  | Date: 01/25/11 10:27:25 PM]

an Ie8 test
0 0 [Posted by: cashkennedy  | Date: 01/25/11 10:33:55 PM]

Thanks for the review, very useful data.
0 0 [Posted by: CSMR  | Date: 01/27/11 09:49:28 AM]

I noticed that the reviewer didnt mention where Turbo Boost was included in the power consumption tests. Any ideas?
0 0 [Posted by: xxxxxl  | Date: 02/23/11 08:52:06 AM]


Back to the Article

Add your Comment