Yes, it does help. The fact of the matter is that TDP has nothing to do with anything, but the required cooling. IF TDP = MAX power draw, we'd not be able to overclock, because although my SB will draw ~65w-70w using the CPU alone, it draws 125w, which is close to double, for 4.5 GHz. You could even say, that TDP is a meaningless number with todays technology...Intel's SB chips will make sure they do nto exceeed that 95w TDP, and throttle, even if running cool, unless you manipulate the BIOS. In that instance, it would be max power draw, but only then.
Under more harsh environments, CPU will run hotter, and will require that 95W of cooling at stock clocks, as the iGPU actually consumes very little power.
You realyl need to be careful how you state thing, or I'm afraid the good ol' "Boy who cried wolf" may apply to you here @ TPU.
Now here's my thing.
We got 95w SB chips pulling 125w @ 4.5 GHz. It's very common for power draw to be much less.
We got Bulldozer STOCK @ 125W. It's likely to use more.
So, OK, we got a silicon problem. Is that AMD's fault, or GLoFo's fault?
I am very excited by the Bulldozer design, but not about GLoFo's silicon. You wanna knwo about real perforamnce? Ignore the banches, and leaks, and examine the silicon. 32nm FM1 chips are available now.
So you can post all these benchmarks, or whatever...the fact remains that we know Bulldozer is going to require more cooling, from an "overclocking perspective"; it's also going to draw more power, and that alone will affect thier success. Just liek my SuperPi numbers, really, aren't that important, per se, there are those that care about such things. Likewise, there are those that like low-power, but hella fast chips.
I effect, you are posting and hyping up Bulldozer, but far too many of us here have been burnt by the hype in the past, so we won't go for it. It doesn't matter who the source is...people will remain skeptical.
Unless, of course, it's ME, or perhaps W1zz, posting those numbers.
