MandolinRain wrote:
上面這是Tom在跑"所有測試"時的全程耗能量測。
那不是跟我的表差不多嘛
反正整台電腦最大耗電量就130瓦不會再多
閒置時連50瓦都不到,相當於一顆燈泡
我來給大家比較一下,一張6850獨立顯卡的耗電量就差不多是130瓦
也就是說你只要人家一張顯卡的耗電量就能運行整台電腦了
ponjiayulady wrote:
第二代APU還有一個...(恕刪)
我家省電燈泡才用14W的....
一般省電燈泡應該是23W的(我家從23W→17W→14W)
而且我家開始改用瓦數更低的LED燈了....
ponjiayulady wrote:
第二代APU還有一個強項是整機耗電量
你的 選擇性找有利資料看 的習慣, 什麼時候會好啊?
AMD APU Idle 的時候是比較省電 (差異不到 10W),
但真的要拿來用的時候很耗電 (差異數十瓦)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-trinity-efficiency,3315-12.html
In the end, then, both Intel and AMD are offering you an experience. Which one do you pick?
Intel gives you great performance in productivity and content creation apps, with a fantastic thermal envelope. But any aspiration for gaming necessitates discrete graphics, putting you in the $200 range.
AMD counts on a “good enough” showing in x86-based applications and ample 3D muscle to play a number of modern games at mainstream resolutions. In exchange, you’re asked to accept comparatively high power use. But it’s a price point below what Intel charges for its neutered Core i3-3220 that swings favor toward the A10-5800K for enthusiasts on a strict budget.
We’re power users, after all. We know how to cope with heat and noise; we can deal with a 100 W chip, even in an HTPC. But there’s no way to make the Core i3 look better unless you spring for an add-in card. AMD’s emphasis on balance makes the A10-5800K a better platform for more people than Intel’s closest competition.
各人組機狀態和用途不太一樣, 不過基本屬性是如上.
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X