Debunking ZDnet on Intel and power consumption

The ZDNet author seems to be making his statements based on press statements about CPU's that promise a lot but have proven little in the real world. There are a lot of smaller companies that offer seemingly-exotic solutions that end up not passing muster in the real world (at least for mainstream applications such as notebook computers.)

And even though the MacBook uses more power than say the last gen iBook, it is MUCH more powerful. The main basis for Apple's move to Intel was power per watt for the notebooks, as IBM was failing to provide any sort of workable notebook G5.

Next thing you know, he's going to argue that Apple shoulve have used Transmeta CPU's...

I left out my actual point, which is: as Roughly Drafted says, the CPU is not the most power-hungry part of the system, the display (usually) is. Challenging Apple's carbon profile based on the Intel switch is like blaming Shell for not putting solar panels on the gas pumps. It's not the most significant bit.

#4 -- Jeffrey, the relative performance story for the Mac vs. Windows isn't what's important about the Intel switch. It's the virtualization/Boot Camp "permission to switch" that makes the difference in Apple's CPU sales. Windows users now have confidence that they can still run that one application they need while getting the best of both worlds.

Wheels, check the rest of that Cnet article... they compare on a per-area basis, which is relevant even though plasmas and LCDs tend to be larger than the CRTs they replace:

----
* Microdisplay rear projector: 0.14 watt per square inch
* LCD: 0.29 watt per square inch
* Plasma: 0.34 watt per square inch
* CRT: 0.34 watt per square inch

If power efficiency is all you're after, the clear choice is rear-projection technology. Of the four, plasma screens are generally the most power hungry, but that's more because of their size--on a square-inch basis, they are roughly equivalent to a large CRT set. Flat-panel LCDs often have a good brightness-to-consumption ratio, but they're not exactly consistent. Some LCDs are as low as 0.11 watt-per-square-inch, but some go as high as 0.37 watt. Of course, there's always exceptions, the most noteworthy being Sharp's 65-inch LCD that pulled down an amazing 583 watts in use and 76 watts even when it was "off." Luckily, more and more new TVs are coming with a power-saver mode, which we've found can drastically cut power consumption.

JeffDM, check this out.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-2.html

And for those of you who don't want to click above, here's the raw synopsis:

Power consumption compared
TVs:
Average plasma: 328 watts
Average rear-projection: 208 watts
Average LCD: 193 watts
Average CRT: 146 watts

I too was kind of shocked that CRTs edged out LCDs (by 23% though, that's significant), but I know the plasma vs. CRT wattage numbers to be accurate. I have a friend who had worked for a power company and he was shocked when he checked the power consumption of plasma TVs, since he was interested in buying one. He didn't buy one based on their power hog status.

"bogus statistics and correspondingly off-the-wall conclusions." --->this must refer to 'An Inconvenient Truth.'

I really can't comment on the notebooks, though I remember that long time Mac users were saying that their PowerBooks ran hotter than their MBPs.

Wheels; I'm not buying the assertion that a CRT is more power efficient than an LCD, or that the power to run a plasma can run two CRTs unless _very_ differently sized screens are compared. My 21" CRT runs at about 175W, and the 30" Apple display is rated at 150W. I haven't run a Kill-A-Watt yet, but one 30" has about twice the screen area so you'd have to compare one 30" to two 21" CRTs.

@ Tom : you have to understand. Apple should save the world, you see ?

Save the macintosh, Save the world !

Paul Murphy: "Core Duo architecture processors - ranging in power demand from a claimed 31 watts for the low end of the laptop line to well over 180 watts at the high end of the desktop line. […] A bit less than half of Apple's Macintosh sales are desktops, the rest laptops."

Apple is using mobile chips in every Mac (Merom but also the older Yonah in the Mac mini), except for the Mac Pro.

Core 2 Duo: design thermal power up to 35W at 2.4 GHz.

Source:
download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/31674501.pdf

Xeon 5300 (8-cores Mac Pro): design thermal power up to 120W at 2.66 GHz, the 3.0 GHz part is not listed.

Source:
download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/dc53kprodbrief.pdf

Xeon 5100 (other Mac Pro): design thermal power up to 80W at 3.00 GHz.

Source:
download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/dc51kprodbrief.pdf

According to Freescale's marketing blurb "The MPC8641D processor integrates two e600 cores, each scaling up to 1.5 GHz […] -all at just 15 watts of power dissipation." But the MPC8641D processor is not using 15W at 1.5 GHz. Freescale is still in the same ~30W thermal envelope. Pretty good but not unheard of.

MPC8641D - dual core - 90nm
Typical (max is higher): 23.9W at 1.33 GHz, 32.1W at 1.5 GHz.

Source:
www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/fact_sheet/MPC8641DDLCRFS.pdf?fpsp=1

Apple used the 7447A in its notebooks before the switch, the 7448 is a 90nm die shrink:

7448 - single core
Typical: 25.6W, Maximum: 29.8W at 1.7 GHz.

Source:
www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/data_sheet/MPC7448ECS02AD.pdf?fpsp=1

7447A - single core
Typical: 21.0W, Maximum: 30.0W at 1.42 GHz.

Source:
www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/data_sheet/MPC7447AEC.pdf?fpsp=1

A quick look at PA-Semi:

PA6T - dual core - 64-bit - 65nm:
Typical: 13W, Maximum: 25W at 2.0 GHz.

Source:
www.pasemi.com/downloads/PA_Semi_ISSCC_2007.pdf

PWRficient PA6T-1682M projected power dissipation:
Typical: 17W, Maximum: 25W at 2.0 GHz.

Source:
www.pasemi.com/downloads/PA_Semi_HotChips_18_Presentation.pdf

That's pretty ridiculous to criticize Apple for switching to Intel, especially without criticizing other PC manufacturers for NOT switching to PowerPC.

it also is worth mentioning that the new intel chips do use more power than the g4. this the need for the increased battery and powersupply size for the macbook pro. however, they are much faster than the g4's. however, the power consumption is something easily measured, while preformance is something that is quite difficult to measure. so who really knows if the intel ones are more efficient. i think all-in-all it was a bad move for apple because now it is impossible for a mac to be faster than a PC. IMPOSSIBLE. before it was most likely not true, but at least possible. now a mac will always be as fast or slower. apple will always take a few months after a new chip is released to get it into their computers. it also means far more often updates from apple, which always upset current owners.