AMD: The Lies About Power Consumption Start Here

With Intel doing the same thing for ages this story shouldn't even have been printed and your LIE shouldn't have been told. Talk about irresponsible reporting. As long as we know BOTH TDP and ACP numbers who cares? Intel has been lying about theirs with avg numbers for years (I'm reminded of the stink of Dell Optiplex SFF machines with P4's above 2.4ghz...LOL. Presshots anyone?). Why is it a story when AMD does the same?


As you can see they sound like they're saying it's about time AMD did this. They even say they like it but don't care because they'd test the chips themselves any way. Which is exactly what all review sites should do. They call it "justifiable". "This move may be controversial, but personally, I think it's probably justifiable given the power draw profiles we've seen from Opterons." Is there a problem with them wanting to be compared accurately to their rival? Most websites totally leave out the differences between Intel's TDP version and AMD's. What you get is AMD's are higher and must suck. I'm not saying they're better than Intel (I just bought a core2 myself a few months back thanks to 1.8's running at 3ghz on air so easily - and mine runs cool even without my koolance...LOL) but review sites have been doing this for ages. I don't blame them for wanting to fix this problem especially with their profits tanked. They should have done this 4 years ago. Instead their stupid marketing dept decided it was best to tell people the max TDP of any cpu that they might not ever produce in a particular product family. When they said 89w for A64's a few revs back it was for the whole family. Don't tell me you think a X2 3800+ is the same as a X2 5400+. Yet all of these were quoted at 89w. Look at Anand's chart here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

All AM2 chips show 89w. I've always thought they were stupid for allowing this. Review sites didn't help by making people believe they put off 89w. Usually forgetting to say it's so far off its ridiculous. AMD shot themselves in the foot by starting this MAX crap NOT by fixing it now. Why is it a LIE to tell the truth about their cpus? It's quite clear they LIED before by saying they were all 89w when they were really more like 40-89w. My old 3800x2 was cold with retail heatsink at 2.4ghz (400mhz oc per core, no heat). Their marketing dept should be fired. YES (and Ruiz too...Bring back Jerry!). But AMD correcting their marketing mistakes should not be attacked. Your previous story was the equivalent of me saying I saw you murder someone and I get you convicted with no proof. The following day (after the damage is done for anyone who doesn't come back to read a correction story) DNA proves you innocent and you get off. Don't I owe someone an apology here? You called them outright liars in the title. You even stated in the article that it may be a mistake in their docs. Isn't liar a bit conclusive knowing you might be completely off base? Is tomorrows article going to be called "The LIES START WITH DAILYTECH!"??? BTW core2 rocks and AMD is getting KILLED. Fanboys from both sides can just jump off a cliff :) That doesn't change the fact that AMD is having their chops busted for nothing here.

K10 Family ACP and TDP
Processor	TDP Whitepaper 1	TDP Whitepaper 2	ACP Whitepaper 1	ACP Whitepaper 2*
Quad-core AMD Opteron SE	120 W	137 W	105 W	105 W*
Quad-core AMD Opteron	95 W	115 W	75 W	75 W*
Quad-core AMD Opteron HE	68 W	79 W	55 W	55 W*

Look at those numbers closely. The first thing to notice is that TDP measurements are significantly higher than ACP. When AMD compared its power consumption figures to Intel's TDP, ACP measurements significantly underestimate power consumption. TDP differed between the two versions of the white paper by as much as 20 W, which is a 21% increase in the case of the quad-core Opteron. AMD did not increased its ACP estimates, emphasized in bold, despite the TDP increase.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/13176
Read "The nuts and bolts of the quad-core Opterons" section.