Any modern processor that doesn't dump out heat?

[sindows]

I never thought of this to be an issue but I recently put together a Q6600 cooled by a Zalman heatsink(the vertical flower ones) and the area around my pc gets noticeably warm. I've got a single 120mm exhaust fan and it runs at ~2k rpm. My Zalman is also running at full speed so the temps on my processor are fine(40 idle, 60 load). I'm using integrated graphics with a couple harddrives and one dvd burner and all is powered by a Seasonic 430W.

If I were to replace the Q6600 with a E5200, would I solve my heat issues or are pcs just getting too powerful these days?

 

[richierich1212]

Yeah the E5200 is 65w compared with the Q6600 which is 95w. You should notice a difference in heat output. But performance will be affected, which of course unless you overclock. But then overclocking uses more power which brings more heat output. So you might want to look at more of a powerful processor.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Q6600 just runs pretty hot, especially if you overclock. I got mine to 3.6 the other day, and it hit 90C+ running OCCT:linpack 64-bit. Got a Tuniq Tower on it.

E5200 run MUCH cooler by comparison. Even if you overclock them, then they can get up to 80C, but I think that the overall wattage that they dump out as heat into your case is much less. Plus, your VRMs will run cooler.

It's up to you if you are willing to take the performance hit of moving from a Q6600 to an E5200. What kind of apps do you run? Are they optimized for quads?

 

[sindows]

I'm running the Q6600 at stock speeds and I don't run anything that requires all 4 cores, I just bought the processor because I got an incredible deal on it and just for the sake of having a quad core processor. Would moving to a Q9xxx or Q8xxx reduce the heat or would it still be noticeably hot?

I know that dual core is more than enough for my computing purposes but I remember when dual cores first come out and lots of people said that a higher clocked single core is more than enough and we all know how well that turned out...

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Yes, the Q8xxx series uses less power and produces less heat, but whether it will be a difference for you I do not know. If you're concerned about heat, you would have to look at your entire platform, from processor to video card to power supply, to lower the heat output of your computer. Heck, even monitors put out quite a bit of heat.

And single cores can be "more than enough" depending on the application. Part of the reason they have fallen out of favor is because no one makes a high-end, fast single core processor. A single core of an E8600 would probably be "more than enough" for most people, including some gamers, but since it doesn't exist we really have little ways of knowing.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
Yes, the Q8xxx series uses less power and produces less heat, but whether it will be a difference for you I do not know. If you're concerned about heat, you would have to look at your entire platform, from processor to video card to power supply, to lower the heat output of your computer. Heck, even monitors put out quite a bit of heat.

And single cores can be "more than enough" depending on the application. Part of the reason they have fallen out of favor is because no one makes a high-end, fast single core processor. A single core of an E8600 would probably be "more than enough" for most people, including some gamers, but since it doesn't exist we really have little ways of knowing.

The big reason single cores fell out of favor is because both intel and AMD hit a wall so to speak on performance increases. So, to keep transistor count up, they started throwing more and more cores per CPU.

Personally, I think that most people multi-task enough to see a noticeable difference between a single core and a dual core. However, a quad core provides minimal improvements for most people.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: sindows
If I were to replace the Q6600 with a E5200, would I solve my heat issues or are pcs just getting too powerful these days?

http://www.behardware.com/arti...-ii-x4-the-return.html

 

[TC91]

have you tried to undervolt it?

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
Yes, the Q8xxx series uses less power and produces less heat, but whether it will be a difference for you I do not know. If you're concerned about heat, you would have to look at your entire platform, from processor to video card to power supply, to lower the heat output of your computer. Heck, even monitors put out quite a bit of heat.

And single cores can be "more than enough" depending on the application. Part of the reason they have fallen out of favor is because no one makes a high-end, fast single core processor. A single core of an E8600 would probably be "more than enough" for most people, including some gamers, but since it doesn't exist we really have little ways of knowing.

The big reason single cores fell out of favor is because both intel and AMD hit a wall so to speak on performance increases. So, to keep transistor count up, they started throwing more and more cores per CPU.

Personally, I think that most people multi-task enough to see a noticeable difference between a single core and a dual core. However, a quad core provides minimal improvements for most people.

I don't think it was purely transistor count, and I doubt that's what you meant anyway. I did say "part of the reason" was because AMD/Intel doesn't make them because they did hit a wall. The other part is because of the multitasking aspect of dual cores and its marketability took off, so they shifted their focus especially in hopes software would follow. However I will argue that literally most people would not, hypothetically, notice the difference between a faster single core of a processor like the E8600 vs. the dual cores of a slower processor, like an Intel E2xxx. A lot of people would benefit, but the average user who watches movies, browses the internet, burns CDs, or plays flash games would not.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: sindows
I'm running the Q6600 at stock speeds and I don't run anything that requires all 4 cores, I just bought the processor because I got an incredible deal on it and just for the sake of having a quad core processor. Would moving to a Q9xxx or Q8xxx reduce the heat or would it still be noticeably hot?

I know that dual core is more than enough for my computing purposes but I remember when dual cores first come out and lots of people said that a higher clocked single core is more than enough and we all know how well that turned out...

PCs run hot these days. Replacing a Q6600 with a Q9XXX or Q8XXX doesn't mean a great deal, if they're both at stock. Replacing it with an E5200 will give you some reduction in power consumption. But, may I ask why does this bothers you? Does your room get too hot and you can't really stay in it? Because if your room overheats, it would be wiser to buy yourself an AC unit, then to change the cpu.

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: error8
Because if your room overheats, it would be wiser to buy yourself an AC unit, then to change the cpu.

OP doesn't indicate that the whole room is overheating, and besides, an AC unit is hardly an energy-efficient or cost-efficient way of getting a cooler running CPU/internal case temp.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: betasub

Originally posted by: error8
Because if your room overheats, it would be wiser to buy yourself an AC unit, then to change the cpu.

OP doesn't indicate that the whole room is overheating, and besides, an AC unit is hardly an energy-efficient or cost-efficient way of getting a cooler running CPU/internal case temp.

It's not energy efficient at all, but it does cool the room so well.

For me at least, in the summer, it's impossible to use my computer as it is, without AC, since it makes the room air intolerable and everything inside the computer starts overheating.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

EVERY CPU dumps heat out of it. thats just how it goes. how much is the cpu actually heating YOU up? is it making u sweat or something? if so, then open a window, it'll make you more comfy AND be better to cool down ur pc. win-win.

i have an overclocked Q6600 and i dont feel my room any warmer with my pc on/off

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
I don't think it was purely transistor count, and I doubt that's what you meant anyway. I did say "part of the reason" was because AMD/Intel doesn't make them because they did hit a wall. The other part is because of the multitasking aspect of dual cores and its marketability took off, so they shifted their focus especially in hopes software would follow. However I will argue that literally most people would not, hypothetically, notice the difference between a faster single core of a processor like the E8600 vs. the dual cores of a slower processor, like an Intel E2xxx. A lot of people would benefit, but the average user who watches movies, browses the internet, burns CDs, or plays flash games would not.

If you think about it, dual-core versus single-core in windows is kind of like OCZ vs Apex in SSD.

Single-core is prone to "stutter" in windows, those laggy moments where some applications somewhere in the system decided it gets to hog the cpu for a moment and you (the user) get to sit there with an unresponsive system. 1st gen OCZ SSD (or any other with jmicron, not to pick on specifically OCZ here)

Upgrading to dual-core suddenly eliminates 95-99% of these situation where the system hangs/stutters as it is very rare to have two simultaneous apps causing both cores to lag.

You've now got an Apex SSD with dual-jmicron controllers, reducing the likelihood of stutter.

This is true for quad's as well, its just most people don't have a stutter hit-rate on dualcores that exceeds their personal tolerance threshold and as such they won't really feel like their computing experience has improved when migrating to a quad-core.

As for the OP, it sounds like you want/need an i7. Nehalem shuts entire core's down when they aren't used. This is true even when you are doing something that is using some cpu power, it will keep the unused cores inactive.

Having said that, you do realize that your entire computer is only putting out about as much heat as the combined heat from 3-4 lightbulbs, right? I mean if you are that sensitive to the heat output of 4 lightbulbs then it really would suggest you are experiencing unacceptable heat output from everything else in your house as well, from lightbulbs to the TV to the fridge, etc.

I'm with Louis, I sit next to a B3 stepping QX6700, second only in heat output to a Phenom. I feel nothing when the system is on, nothing when it is off. The rig uses 350W fully loaded, that a little less than have four lightbulbs turned on the room. Sure a lightbulb is hot, never touch one, but they aren't exactly considered a heatsource for winter usage :laugh:

 

[Kraeoss]

reinvent your room's image install an extractor fan at a high corner to create airflow inside your room, cheap and efficent just place vents appropriatly and boom cooler room temps sure the Q6600 is hotter than the E5200 but will last longer and do more than the dual.... fans are the way to go if u wanna save on energy

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Kraeoss
reinvent your room's image install an extractor fan at a high corner to create airflow inside your room, cheap and efficent just place vents appropriatly and boom cooler room temps sure the Q6600 is hotter than the E5200 but will last longer and do more than the dual.... fans are the way to go if u wanna save on energy

Fans do not cool the air, they just move it around and that is all. It gives you the false sense of cooling, since it improves the heat exchange through convection at the surface of your skin, so you are loosing heat faster when the fan is blowing in your face, then you are when the fan is off. But they don't do anything to the air temps, maybe increasing it a bit because of the heat generated by the electric motor.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: Kraeoss
reinvent your room's image install an extractor fan at a high corner to create airflow inside your room, cheap and efficent just place vents appropriatly and boom cooler room temps sure the Q6600 is hotter than the E5200 but will last longer and do more than the dual.... fans are the way to go if u wanna save on energy

Fans do not cool the air, they just move it around and that is all. It gives you the false sense of cooling, since it improves the heat exchange through convection at the surface of your skin, so you are loosing heat faster when the fan is blowing in your face, then you are when the fan is off. But they don't do anything to the air temps, maybe increasing it a bit because of the heat generated by the electric motor.

Still sounds like a viable alternative solution to me.

I love the ceiling fans in my house. They let me keep the AC a good 5 degrees higher (75F vs. 70F) than I would otherwise need it to be set at for an equivalent comfort level of what I define as "room-temperature".

I don't need it to be 70F, I just need it to feel like it is and I'm happy. Given the OP's stated discomfort with the elevated sensation of warmth when they are in the vicinity of their computer, a well placed $25-$30 vertical fan from walmart would serve them well IMO.

 

[error8]

Fans always made my nose stiff and they never cooled my computer when temperatures we're very high. So.....I despise them.

 

[Kraeoss]

well just saying that "extractor" fan would be kinda ok just to pull out warm air from inside and keep slightly cooler air moving tru the room... that's all i meant man a fan is like 10% the energy of an ac ? or less prolly i use fans here in the caribbean it's not as cosl as i want it to be but it keeps the room from being uncomfortable and here it's almost a steady 30c-30+c up to 35c on a really hot day.

i understand that you may have a problem with fans because u have a nasal problem associated with dust or something but it's always a cheaper alternative and the choice is a choice for the op to make or not make that's all i personally cannot afford ac hence my choice.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
I don't think it was purely transistor count, and I doubt that's what you meant anyway. I did say "part of the reason" was because AMD/Intel doesn't make them because they did hit a wall. The other part is because of the multitasking aspect of dual cores and its marketability took off, so they shifted their focus especially in hopes software would follow. However I will argue that literally most people would not, hypothetically, notice the difference between a faster single core of a processor like the E8600 vs. the dual cores of a slower processor, like an Intel E2xxx. A lot of people would benefit, but the average user who watches movies, browses the internet, burns CDs, or plays flash games would not.

If you think about it, dual-core versus single-core in windows is kind of like OCZ vs Apex in SSD.

Single-core is prone to "stutter" in windows, those laggy moments where some applications somewhere in the system decided it gets to hog the cpu for a moment and you (the user) get to sit there with an unresponsive system. 1st gen OCZ SSD (or any other with jmicron, not to pick on specifically OCZ here)

Upgrading to dual-core suddenly eliminates 95-99% of these situation where the system hangs/stutters as it is very rare to have two simultaneous apps causing both cores to lag.

You've now got an Apex SSD with dual-jmicron controllers, reducing the likelihood of stutter.

This is true for quad's as well, its just most people don't have a stutter hit-rate on dualcores that exceeds their personal tolerance threshold and as such they won't really feel like their computing experience has improved when migrating to a quad-core.

As for the OP, it sounds like you want/need an i7. Nehalem shuts entire core's down when they aren't used. This is true even when you are doing something that is using some cpu power, it will keep the unused cores inactive.

Having said that, you do realize that your entire computer is only putting out about as much heat as the combined heat from 3-4 lightbulbs, right? I mean if you are that sensitive to the heat output of 4 lightbulbs then it really would suggest you are experiencing unacceptable heat output from everything else in your house as well, from lightbulbs to the TV to the fridge, etc.

I'm with Louis, I sit next to a B3 stepping QX6700, second only in heat output to a Phenom. I feel nothing when the system is on, nothing when it is off. The rig uses 350W fully loaded, that a little less than have four lightbulbs turned on the room. Sure a lightbulb is hot, never touch one, but they aren't exactly considered a heatsource for winter usage :laugh:

This is the advantage to dual core that I meant, but as a long time single core user (and relatively short time multi core user) I never experienced very many of these stutters or unresponsive systems with a lowly Athlon XP. And I wish I could have had more experience with the single core Athlon 64s so I can comment on them. I have had a very short experience with an Athlon X2 on Windows XP, from installing the OS to installing and using some applications and games, and I can't really recall any hang-ups. I do have more experience with an Athlon X2 on Vista Ultimate, and I can definitely say I have had my fair share of system hang-ups, probably moreso per time period than I did with Windows XP. However, I don't know whether dual cores or Vista should get the praise, I have been able to ctrl+alt+del out of all of them and close the nasty application, which is usually a game or web browser.

Now Windows 98 is just another story... I remember reformatting it (a family computer) in the span of two years more than I have with any of my own machines because of purely crappy performance.

And I recently confirmed my old rig, as well as my parents', was dated when my Athlon XP CPU utilization spiked during Youtube video playback, which made it run at 5 frames per second.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
EVERY CPU dumps heat out of it. thats just how it goes. how much is the cpu actually heating YOU up? is it making u sweat or something? if so, then open a window, it'll make you more comfy AND be better to cool down ur pc. win-win.

i have an overclocked Q6600 and i dont feel my room any warmer with my pc on/off

I nominate this as the most useless post of the month.

 

[Modelworks]

Go into the bios settings and make sure C1E (CPU Enhanced Halt) & CPU EIST Function are enabled. Those can make a big difference in temp.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: iFX

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
EVERY CPU dumps heat out of it. thats just how it goes. how much is the cpu actually heating YOU up? is it making u sweat or something? if so, then open a window, it'll make you more comfy AND be better to cool down ur pc. win-win.

i have an overclocked Q6600 and i dont feel my room any warmer with my pc on/off

I nominate this as the most useless post of the month.

Is this really necessary?

 

[aigomorla]

socket p motherboard.

ULV intel Lappy processor.

A can of beer as a sink. (oh wait the beer would eventually get warm and that would be a waste of good beer)

but seriously.

Atom is low wattage, can do about everyting a normal computer can do minus gaming.

The ULV intel lappy processors are also very low wattage, but powerful computers. Of course they werent ment for gaming also.

Gaming computers dump heat. Thats why most high end computers are benched via games on performance.

Then there's always enterprise sector, but the price tag on enterprise starts at 2-3x more.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: iFX

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
EVERY CPU dumps heat out of it. thats just how it goes. how much is the cpu actually heating YOU up? is it making u sweat or something? if so, then open a window, it'll make you more comfy AND be better to cool down ur pc. win-win.

i have an overclocked Q6600 and i dont feel my room any warmer with my pc on/off

I nominate this as the most useless post of the month.

Is this really necessary?

Telling someone to open a window? Come on. How is THAT helpful to the OP. It isn't.