Originally Posted by Rogue Nine
....and also tend to be more efficient as well, consuming as much, if not less power than their AMD contemporaries.
sorry niner, you cant make a statement like that without some testbed articles to back it up!!
Its one of the most contentious issue for those of us that are into power efficiency. The testing for this stuff is done in such specific conditions, its hard to fully extrapolate those into energy consumption per user year. Of course, not all homes contain pc that rip crysis for 3+ hrs a day either. ie. how do lower loaded CPUS handle prolonged vs intermittent use ?? The information on this type of stuff is scant.
It is also a *serious* joke when someone even mentions they are thinking about how wonderfully power efficient their CPU is when they are high load-duration users of full sized boards with SLI/XF ready 700-1500W PSUs!
To those buying a CPU, I'd look most closely at price rather than reported high level performance on a testbed you most likely will not have. There is a well demonstrated ceiling effect currently demonstrated in the way CPU v GPU are handling higher end games. You get to a certain level of graphical output and the CPU marks hit a plateux, whereupon the GPUs capabilities are the final telling factor of what you're system can handle.
If you are a professional video editor and the like, sure, a powerful system is always going to benefit you. 99% of the people Ive met that do that professionally are mac-users, tinkering away on teh wonderful Final Cut Pro.
So apart from lame bragging rights, a CPU that can be 'mad overclocked' is a waste of money(and power!)... put your money into a nicer GPU and some RAM< you'll have more fun on your rig!! >> I guarantee it.