main
Report a problem

Intel claims big bucks

Horrocks   on 25 September 2008 - 16:47 · 13 comments & 8184 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Intel is claiming that its Core line of processors has allowed for $2bn in savings since release.

First introduced two years ago, the Core chips were touted by Intel in part for their low power consumption in the face of ever-climbing energy rates.

A company report estimates that since their release, the Core desktop, notebook and server chips have allowed for some 20 Terawatts less energy being used by the processors over the previous line.

Intel then divided this by an average energy cost of $0.10 per kilowatt hour to claim a $2bn energy savings from the chips.

"All the while we've been delivering these performance improvements, we have also been able to reduce the energy used by our microprocessors," wrote Lorie Wigle, general manager of Intel's eco-technology program office.

Energy savings have become a major selling point for all major chipmakers in recent years.

Both Intel and chief rival AMD have touted faster and more efficient processors of late, fuelled by smaller manufacturing processes and the use of more efficient materials.

View: vnunet

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 13 additional comments
#1 vetneufuse on 25 Sep 2008 - 17:04
Wonder how long till someone screams "they should of done that a while ago!"...
(1 reply) #2 Skynetfuture on 25 Sep 2008 - 18:39
then here come companies like ATI & nV , making more power hungry graphic cards Vs the old GFX line !
#2.1 buletov on 25 Sep 2008 - 19:37
lol, well it's all about the balance!
(6 replies) #3 eilegz on 25 Sep 2008 - 22:35
now if ati and Nvidia could improve their gpu with more performance and less energy it would be nice...
#3.1 Shiranui on 26 Sep 2008 - 00:34
Indeed, the higher-end GPUs now consume more power than complete systems did a few years ago.
#3.2 pagnaet on 26 Sep 2008 - 07:24
Why arent we using multi-core GPUs by now? They just keep making them faster. Speed isnt everything when crunching numbers, which is (mostly) what 3D is.
#3.3 humcheepeng on 26 Sep 2008 - 09:44
Why isn't there any power-saving technology similar to SpeedStep for GPUs by now? Surely it shouldn't be difficult to make a high-end GPU like the 8800 Ultra consume not much more power than an integrated graphics solution during less intensive tasks like web browsing?
#3.4 eAi on 26 Sep 2008 - 12:38
(pagnaet said @ #3.2)
Why arent we using multi-core GPUs by now? They just keep making them faster. Speed isnt everything when crunching numbers, which is (mostly) what 3D is.
GPUs are by their nature multicore. For example, the new Nividia GForce GTX 350 has 480 Unified Shaders - each one is a separate core and can be run completely in parallel. The whole point about graphics rendering is that it can be done in parallel in hardware, that's why GPUs were invented! It's also why GPUs are now being used for other tasks and why AMD are integrating the GPU into the processor die.

And humcheepeng, I'm pretty sure that GPUs do consume less power when not used for gaming (etc).
#3.5 carmatic on 26 Sep 2008 - 14:47
(eAi said @ #3.4)
(pagnaet said @ #3.2)
Why arent we using multi-core GPUs by now? They just keep making them faster. Speed isnt everything when crunching numbers, which is (mostly) what 3D is.
GPUs are by their nature multicore. For example, the new Nividia GForce GTX 350 has 480 Unified Shaders - each one is a separate core and can be run completely in parallel. The whole point about graphics rendering is that it can be done in parallel in hardware, that's why GPUs were invented! It's also why GPUs are now being used for other tasks and why AMD are integrating the GPU into the processor die.

And humcheepeng, I'm pretty sure that GPUs do consume less power when not used for gaming (etc).


yeah, its like, multicore in gpu is all about raw performance increase, not enabling things like parallel processing to be done...
so like sticking to the efficiency theme, is one big chip more efficient than a number of smaller chips working together? dunnoe.... maybe...
#3.6 Shining Arcanine on 27 Sep 2008 - 02:24
(carmatic said @ #3.5)
(eAi said @ #3.4)
(pagnaet said @ #3.2)
Why arent we using multi-core GPUs by now? They just keep making them faster. Speed isnt everything when crunching numbers, which is (mostly) what 3D is.
GPUs are by their nature multicore. For example, the new Nividia GForce GTX 350 has 480 Unified Shaders - each one is a separate core and can be run completely in parallel. The whole point about graphics rendering is that it can be done in parallel in hardware, that's why GPUs were invented! It's also why GPUs are now being used for other tasks and why AMD are integrating the GPU into the processor die.

And humcheepeng, I'm pretty sure that GPUs do consume less power when not used for gaming (etc).


yeah, its like, multicore in gpu is all about raw performance increase, not enabling things like parallel processing to be done...
so like sticking to the efficiency theme, is one big chip more efficient than a number of smaller chips working together? dunnoe.... maybe...


No it is not. The graphics performance you can get from 2 "cores" is worse than the performance you can get from one core with twice the execution units. Multi-core GPUs are just an advertising gimmick.
(1 reply) #4 Peas on 26 Sep 2008 - 00:34
Just more Intel marketing garbage, as with any large corp. Back in the Pentium4 days, Intel's marketing machine was all about clock speed. Nothing else mattered. It wasn't until AMD (and Via to some extent) proved Intel wrong that they finally ditched the horrid P4 microarchitecture. 20 stage "hyperpipeline" sounds great on the marketing sheet, don't it?
#4.1 portauthority on 26 Sep 2008 - 18:54
what's the matter, angry because intel is actually good and AMD is in the crapper
#5 Atlonite on 27 Sep 2008 - 06:10
um i dont know how they got the arbitary cost for a KWh but here in New Zealand im paying 3x that for KWh so by my rekoning they only managed to save a third of what they say

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)