Thanks for your posts, guys!
I'm also aware to large part of (lots of) suggestions and tips given by MU_Engineer, unfortunately they are not the case. Im not using a psu voltmeter to messure. I was using a standard multifunction euro socket meter - similar to this one: http://www.ebreaker.de/images/ab-energiem-01.jpg
It does produce fairly accurate result, when connected over a longer period. Only case was calculated, 40W 24" acer monitor was using separate line.
The problem is that AMD Cpu power hunger is something that is already well known in the world.
The first core2d and second athlon II config were used inside same machine - HDDs, optical, monitor and PSU unchanged.
- The first was dual core e5300, asrock p43me, 2x2gb ddr2-800, gf-9800gt-green(rated at max 75W).
- The second - athlon II x4 630, gigabyte ga-ma785gmt-ud2h(lastest bios), 2x2gb ddr3-1600, rd-hd4770(rated at max 85w).
The psu is 2.5 year old BeQuiet 400W, should be very comparable to enermax in terms of efficiency.
Athlon II x4 has nothing more with PhenomII - the L3 cache is physically absent, it is cut down already in design; not after production. First prototypes were, true, phenoms II with disabled cache, but the ones I possess is not, its Propus core.
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 16
model : 5
model name : AMD Athlon(tm) II X4 630 Processor
stepping : 2
cpu MHz : 800.000
cache size : 512 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 4
core id : 0
cpu cores : 4
apicid : 0
initial apicid : 0
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 5
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm 3dnowext 3dnow constant_tsc rep_good nonstop_tsc extd_apicid pni monitor cx16 popcnt lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw ibs skinit wdt npt lbrv svm_lock nrip_save
bogomips : 5625.32
TLB size : 1024 4K pages
clflush size : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 48 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management: ts ttp tm stc 100mhzsteps hwpstate
I think it is highly unprobable that cpu gets overvolted for stability. Why for, when phenom II uses exactly the same Vcc. 6 megabyte of cache are away, why not to drop the voltage...
This is pure craziness if AMD think desktop are unimportant for power efficiency! Look, for example my cpufreqinfo for one of the cores:
CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 3
CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 3
maximum transition latency: 8.0 us.
hardware limits: 800 MHz - 2.80 GHz
available frequency steps: 2.80 GHz, 2.10 GHz, 1.60 GHz, 800 MHz
available cpufreq governors: ondemand, performance
current policy: frequency should be within 800 MHz and 2.80 GHz.
The governor "ondemand" may decide which speed to use
within this range.
current CPU frequency is 800 MHz.
cpufreq stats: 2.80 GHz:2.12%, 2.10 GHz:0.02%, 1.60 GHz:0.07%, 800 MHz:97.79% (9570)
As you note, unlike server, 97% of time is spent on things that can be done in idle mode anyway. I need the power of four cores much more on-demand (encoding and compiling).
I highly doubt that energy efficiency of topmost priority in server systems.
Also, I too heard, that AMD opteron has 80W not due to "better cores", but due to adding N while, at same time, droping total GHz ratio of CPU - to maintain TDP. And the additional cache is included in the formula as well.
This, combined with previous statement will make Opteron use on my desktop rather unefficient and unused. Well, I dont run server at home(yet), I only need boost of power maybe only some times per day.
Qaridarium, you are living in Germany, no? What is your Stromanbieter? It is normal that extra 60W used 12 hour per day, done for the year, will make €53 extra cost!!
Also, please please look here: http://techreport.com/articles.x/18448/4
You will see now nicely even 8 HT-cored 870 is behaving. The cpu is sleeping if not needed, using all power when required then going into idle again.
The nice new things that I know now (and lots due to your help) are:
-) Intel is selling unlock cards for extra price for low-level intel cpus, to unlock their original performance. Pretty dirty, when a cpu that is capable at running faster with zero cost, is being added to this scheme(implementing which also ADDS extra cost) and the result is then sold at lower price. Pretty dirty.
-) Intel is selling SAS cards on server boards that are also locked! Present, working, using power, but LOCKED unless you purchase the code(600$ or so).
-) AMD sorts out bad cores for desktop, where with Intel you are running server quality(in terms of AMD) cpu on desktop system.
-) AMD uses 2 chip logic, similar to core i7-9xx. This is very probably adding to idle usage..
So from infos you told me, guys, high power drain seems to be combination of:
-) AMD not caring about tighter and accurate voltages (idle and load +)
-) AMD giving worser cores to desktop (idle and load +)
-) Aging 45nm process on CPU and -bridges (idle and load +)
-) PCB using 2 chips, instead of one like on 11xx boards (idle +)
Seems to pretty much apply here..