MaximumPC 2007 06

19 Upgrades

POWER-EFFICIENT PSU

SAVE THE PLANET AND YOUR DUCATS BY RUNNING A SMALLER,

MORE EFFICIENT POWER SUPPLY

A

bigger PSU doesn’t always equate to a better PSU. If

you’re concerned about saving the planet’s resources,

a power supply that’s more efficient translates into less

power consumed. We looked at some of the big-boy PSUs

in the 1,000- to 1,100-watt range, a middle-of-the-road

750W unit, and a 500W unit specifically designed to be

more efficient.

In the end, the midrange PC Power and Cooling Silencer

750 Quad ($200, http://www.pcpowerandcooling.com) won out

because it was every bit as effi cient as the 500W Antec and

has a harness capable of supporting dual 8800 GTX cards.

It’s no surprise, however, since the effi ciency of most PSUs

depends on the hardware load. The load we used—a Quad

FX machine with 7900 GTX cards in SLI, 4GB of RAM, two

10K hard disks, and two optical drives—while ample, doesn’t

really need the big boys’ power output.

POWER-EFFICIENT CPU

WHEN YOU CARE MORE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT THAN

CLOCK SPEEDS

N

ot everyone needs or wants a high-performance CPU—even

less so when it’s a second or third machine. So why not

choose a CPU that’s particularly friendly to the environment?

We all have to do our part.

To determine the greenest CPU, we compared AMD’s

2.4GHz Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Energy Effi cient chip ($200, http://www.

amd.com) to a comparable Intel part. Intel says all its CPUs are

energy effi cient, so we chose the one closest in cost to AMD’s

proc, the Intel 1.86GHz Core 2 Duo E6300 ($180, http://www.intel.com).

To narrow the hardware variables we used micro-ATX boards

with integrated graphics chipsets from each company: AMD’s

new 690 for the Athlon and Intel’s 965G for the Core 2. All other

components were identical in all tests. We measured the power

load using an Extech watt meter.

The results? Well, surprise, surprise, surprise. After months

of eating dirt, AMD comes out ahead in power conservation and

performance (although we ran just one performance bench-

mark). The Athlon 64 EE showed signifi cant savings at idle, and

even under load, the CPU consumed almost 18 percent less

power while performing 13.1 percent better in Cinebench!

Of course, you won’t see these kinds of accolades heaped

on AMD’s power-porking, second-fi ddle Quad FX.

AMD’s Athlon 64 X2 4600+ EE part delivers better power

efficiency than Intel’s equivalent $200 part.

Best scores are bolded. We used 2GB of DDR2/800, a 74GB WD740GD, a DVD-ROM drive, and an Antec 500W EarthWatts PSU.

ENERGY-EFFICIENT CPUs COMPARED

ATHLON 64 X2 4600+ EE CORE 2 DUO E

IDLE (WATTS) 50 84

LOAD (WATTS) 95 112

CINEBENCH 658 582

28 MAXIMUMPC JUNE 2007

Best scores are bolded.

PSUs COMPARED

PC POWER AND COOLING 1K-SR ANTEC EARTHWATTS 500 TAGAN TURBOJET 1100 TURBOCOOL 750 QUAD

IDLE (WATTS) 458 450 462 450

LOAD (WATTS) 565 550 560 540

It may not be 80 Plus certified, but the TurboCool 750

Quad is just as efficient as smaller certified units.