News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:AMD Ryzen 5 1600X vs Core i5 Review by jhugg on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @10:15AM (#14087938)
I wonder how much more you pay in electricity costs over a Kaby Lake 7700K for example, which idles much lower and wouldn’t need to overclock.
Re:AMD Ryzen 5 1600X vs Core i5 Review by gpderetta on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @10:24AM (#14088055)
I'm sure that KL consumes significantly less in practice, especially idle, but for what is worth they are 91W vs 95W TDP.

Anyway, the machine runs an, admittedly overkill, GTX 1070 with a TDP of 150W, so the CPU power usage is the least concern.

Re:AMD Ryzen 5 1600X vs Core i5 Review by tutanchamun on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @10:51AM (#14088346)
Since TDP is not power consumption, the GTX 1070 will most likely consume less power than your CPU because it has much better power saving features.

Also, since CPU's are idle more of the time than under load the savings by using a newer CPU like Kaby Lake or Ryzen could be interesting. There is also the motherboard. Newer boards consume less power because the chips are on a smaller node.

But I guess the money you saved on buying the CPU will outweigh the electricity costs even in countries where electricity is expensive.

Re:AMD Ryzen 5 1600X vs Core i5 Review by throwawayish on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @03:31PM (#14091596)
> But I guess the money you saved on buying the CPU will outweigh the electricity costs even in countries where electricity is expensive.

Unless he's running 24/7 and paying way too much, yeah, by a large margin. Even these older Xeons weren't that bad at energy saving.

Re:AMD Ryzen 5 1600X vs Core i5 Review by gpderetta on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @06:06AM (#14096226)
To be honest the machine is turned off most of the time, as I have very little time to play with it.
Re:AMD Ryzen 5 1600X vs Core i5 Review by jhugg on Friday April 14, 2017 @10:55AM (#14114794)
But the overclock is going to affect actual draw. Not sure by how much... possibly a lot.