- May 14, 2012
- 6,762
- 1
- 0
I'm just telling you what Intel said.. they said SDP would only be used in the case of low-power devices. I'm skeptical myself...
Oh, I know it's new and it's obviously not been calculated for older chips. I just making a silly example to demonstrate that Ark is not infallible, although it is clearly far better than the AMD offerings. I'm curious how it is not applicable to Xeon chips, though. Surely a metric intended to indicate power draw under a typical load would be even more useful for server markets which are constrained by performance/watt?
Scenario Design Power (SDP) is an additional thermal reference point meant to represent mainstream touch-first usages. It balances performance and mobility across PC and tablet workloads to extend capabilities into thin, thermally-constrained designs.
From what I've been able to gather so far, there are no fewer than1812 specific named CPU lines using the Trinity core. Many of them basically just rebrands of others.
It's bizarre. I get why they're doing it, but still.. wow.
From what I've been able to gather so far, there are no fewer than1812 specific named CPU lines using the Trinity core. Many of them basically just rebrands of others.
It's bizarre. I get why they're doing it, but still.. wow.
You're right, it's also true of Intel.
I guess it doesn't bother me as much with Intel because they do tend to avoid simply taking the same chip and rebranding it, which AMD does a lot. Plus, again, the "freedom of information" issue, which makes it easier to see what's what.
That looks to be more like a templating auto-fill default value type situation. Intel must have updated their spec template but did not spend money on salaries for people to go back and vet the auto-generated template for zero-values for products which were alread EOL.
On the other hand it would be nice if AMD would actually fill in the spec values for the FX-8350 I bought, and that AMD still sells, considering it is an FX chip but I have no idea as to the max spec for operating temperature or voltage. Talk about selling something "as is"
I feel it is safe to assume that if AMD wanted us to assume 61C was the max temp for Piledriver as it is for Bulldozer then they would have prioritized someone to take the 500ms it takes to type "61C" in the max temp field for the spec sheet.Have you tried using the 8150 stats? I know it isn't exact. But it at least has the temps. Max temp is 61c. No voltages on it, though.
It's not even that. A Xeon wouldn't have an SDP. So Zero or NA, it means the same thing.
^ That's why it doesn't apply to Xeon.
If thermal solutions intended for 125W don't prevent the chip from throttling, isn't that a problem?
Where has that happened? The only instance I've heard of is the MSI motherboard with overheating VRMs because it was badly designed. The VRM overheating because it can't handle the current draw is not the same as the CPU overheating. If someone at MSI was stupid enough to use the TDP as a number for max power draw the VRMs should be able to handle, then some engineer in that company should get reprimanded or fired.
Where has that happened? The only instance I've heard of is the MSI motherboard with overheating VRMs because it was badly designed. The VRM overheating because it can't handle the current draw is not the same as the CPU overheating. If someone at MSI was stupid enough to use the TDP as a number for max power draw the VRMs should be able to handle, then some engineer in that company should get reprimanded or fired.
What is wrong with calling a spade a spade? AMD won't even spec the max voltage or temperature for their FX08350 processor, is it really all that suprising to consider that maybe AMD doesn't care if their 125W TDP processors should actually be spec'ed as 140W TDP processors? I don't think AMD gives two craps about it.
It could be even worse than that. It could be that they know that in order to remain even remotely competitive with Intel, they needed to up the clock speeds and not up the TDPs. So... they did -- on paper.
I think both companies are playing games with these power figures. Last month it was Intel inventing "SDP". Both companies are putting out chips with lower base speeds and massive turbo boosts, lower TDPs while advertising "up to" the turbo speed.
I don't think Intel is messing with TDP yet. The whole SDP scheme is a a mean to better advertise their products for a specific scenario while at the same time keeping TDP as a credible metric.
Maybe. But I was very annoyed with the rollout of their "Y" chips, because they introduced SDP in order to come up with their 7W figure, and then spread that number around in such a way that people thought it was comparable to TDP figures from earlier processors.
From a consumer standpoint I don't support MSI here. All electronics age at least a bit with usage, even solid caps and VRMs. Thus, designing a board which can just barely run the processors it was designed to run while being factory new just reeks of trouble to me.MSI is saying that their engineers have discovered some non-zero percentage of FX chips exceed the 125W rating, for all intents and purposes those chips have to be treated as if they are 140W TDP and not 125W TDP when it comes to mobo design.
Other mobo makers may be over-engineering their mobos, at added expense to the customer of course.
From a consumer standpoint I don't support MSI here. All electronics age at least a bit with usage, even solid caps and VRMs. Thus, designing a board which can just barely run the processors it was designed to run while being factory new just reeks of trouble to me.
A new (premium) forklift truck can easily stem 1.3 times of its maximum load, because it will still be able to handle its rated load 10 years from now. I can plug two Headsets into the same jack of my X-Fi even though the impedance will be out of spec, I can plug a 2.5" usb drive into one USB port only and be fine, put 1.5V cells into my 'NIMH only' mouse, oc my Graphics card, I could even oc my Monitor because its chip is designed with a robust safety. Consumers do not lose anything with sensible over-engineering because that is - and should be - the norm, not the exception.
Of course it's bad if AMD actually exceeded their own specs (and it's good if there are well designed safeties in place), but I would expect a new 125W board to handle a 137W load (+10%) for some months at least.