Intel Core i5 2400S
Phoronix: Intel Core i5 2400S
Now that the Linux review of the Intel Core i3 2120 is published and there were initial benchmarks of the Core i5 2400S a few weeks back when looking at the state of Intel's "Sandy Bridge New Acceleration" architecture, the complete review of the Intel Core i5 2400S processor is here. The Core i5 2400S is meant to be an energy-efficient Sandy Bridge processor with a 65 Watt TDP compared to the i5-2400 non-S CPU that has a maximum TDP of 95 Watts like the other higher-end models, but this power reduction comes by scaling the CPU frequency back by 600MHz.
i wonder if you can underclock the K series and get the same results. ;-)
Please stop recommending SNB graphics
Especially HD Graphics 2000, they're just not suited for gaming, and proper support in Ubuntu (like it or not, it's the most popular distro) hasn't come yet.
So you save 30W/h and spend more money to do so. If we say electricity is $0.25/kWh (pretend you live in Hawaii) you save....about $5.45 a month (~22 kWh) running it full-bore. This doesn't take ACPI into account either. After the initial investment of spending more on a low-power part, even the pessimistic case nets you an extra $45 in the first year: not bad!
Except electricity isn't that expensive in any of the other forty-nine states (well, California is...complicated)-- this just doesn't make much of a difference, I'm afraid.
I'd definitely like to see more effort put toward pushing the wattage lower still. Why can we not get laptop-level power consumption and ACPI in desktops?
I don't believe that works unless you change the voltage, too.
Originally Posted by Zapitron
You seem to have a very US centric view. Phoronix isn't just read by US citizens nor is Intel only catering to US customers. In some European countries electricity can be over $0.30/kWh and it's expected that prices will only go up.
Originally Posted by Wyatt
Given that I make exactly zero secret about living in Columbus, OH, USA it should be rather expected that I'm primarily familiar with local matters. I have no authority to speak for other countries; I'm generally given the impression that the culture of waste is not nearly so prevalent elsewhere (e.g. people actually turn their HTPCs off when not in use, etc.)
Originally Posted by AnonymousCoward
Regardless of that point, 30W is still only 30W. We can and should do better-- that's the real message. That the lead-up is math based on extremes of excess should, it was my hope, make clear that a pittance in a scant few places doesn't have the necessary impact to effect real change. Put another way, <45W parts in every rack and case is closer to the ideal we need to shoot for.
One of these days I'll figure out how to get my HTPC to sleep when it's not in use, but properly wake to record and when the remote triggers it...
For now, I've gone with a 780G motherboard and a low wattage CPU with no dedicated GPU. The power supply is 80+ rated, and the system draws less power than any other machine I've got (except for my laptops). It's not perfect, but it's better than when I used to have a Pentium 4 as a HTPC. The next system I'm hoping for a 65w or lower Llano on an ITX board, but given that those don't exist yet, I'll probably end up with an i3/i5 instead.
Regarding the OP: I used to live in Boston, and after taxes/delivery were added, our power peaked at $0.24/KWh a while back. It dropped to about $0.175/KWh when I moved to WI, but it was higher for a while.
The power prices were high enough that I determined that upgrading my power supplies to 80+ Bronze/Silver would actually pay for the purchase over a 2-3 year period given my daily usage cycles as measured by a Kill-a-watt.
However, I'm slightly disappointed with Intel here. Did they really need to bring out a separate i5 2400 model with completely different clockspeeds? I realize that they wanted a lower power part, but I prefer AMDs method of matching the low power and regular part model numbers based on clock speed. Intel's way seems designed to maximize confusion.