• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

CPU Power Comparison

No wonder the preshot is so hot, it uses 87.8 watts compared the the Athlon64 at 47.5 ? (3000+ compared to 3.0E)
 
What amazed me was how much power the Celeron D sucks up...!
I expected it to be a bit lower than that...
 
Why is the power draw of the Prescott "frightening"? 😀

Even the 3.6GHZ full system power was only 210watts. A couple of incandescent light bulbs.

Kudos to AMD's 90nm chips, though. That's low.
 
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Why is the power draw of the Prescott "frightening"? 😀

Even the 3.6GHZ full system power was only 210watts. A couple of incandescent light bulbs.

Kudos to AMD's 90nm chips, though. That's low.
Click to expand...

More power consumption usally means more heat. More heat means unhappy consumers.
 
remember that as they shrink the die size, it puts all of that heat in like 50% less area, so the power dissipation becomes a big problem and core temps go way up
 
Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
remember that as they shrink the die size, it puts all of that heat in like 50% less area, so the power dissipation becomes a big problem and core temps go way up
Click to expand...

yes! high power density is a serious issue. which makes we wonder how succesful 65nm or smaller will be.
 
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Why is the power draw of the Prescott "frightening"? 😀

Even the 3.6GHZ full system power was only 210watts. A couple of incandescent light bulbs.

Kudos to AMD's 90nm chips, though. That's low.
Click to expand...

In the case of power requirements for AMD, it means a lot since they don't exactly have a laptop line. If the AMD64s run cool in a desktop, they will work even better in a laptop when scaled down a bit. For AMD, a low powered, powerful desktop chip is gold since it doesn't have the resources to made its own mobile line like the dothan.

I can't wait to upgrade this laptop with a faster 90nm AMD 64 and almost double my battery life while getting a nice performance boost.

 
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Why is the power draw of the Prescott "frightening"? 😀

Even the 3.6GHZ full system power was only 210watts. A couple of incandescent light bulbs.

Kudos to AMD's 90nm chips, though. That's low.
Click to expand...

210 watts of power for a desktop system under normal load. Are you kidding me? That is frightening. Imagine dual processor or quad processor servers based on those numbers. Good God that would be outrageous compared to the Opterons. It does add up even in the server space. Yes I think the FX numbers are getting up there into Yikes land but not compared to the Prescott

Notice the FX-55 only goes up 56 watts under load while the Prescott goes up 86 watts DOH

The die shrink on the AMD's lowered power consumption so heat will probably be less compared to the 130nm but more because of the smaller die to dissipate the heat so we get slightly higher numbers How funny
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
remember that as they shrink the die size, it puts all of that heat in like 50% less area, so the power dissipation becomes a big problem and core temps go way up
Click to expand...

yes! high power density is a serious issue. which makes we wonder how succesful 65nm or smaller will be.
Click to expand...


Except the 90nm AMD64's aren't doing that. Their temps are only going up fractionally if at all with the die shrink. CPU design?
 
Virtually no one knows or even cares about the power consumption except in laptops.

Now, if Prescott were actually on fire as a lot of people like to claim, I'd agree that it's a problem.

Since Prescott can be properly cooled on air with readily available HSF's, I don't see how it's power consumption matters much except to us geeks. 😀

 
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Virtually no one knows or even cares about the power consumption except in laptops.

Now, if Prescott were actually on fire as a lot of people like to claim, I'd agree that it's a problem.

Since Prescott can be properly cooled on air with readily available HSF's, I don't see how it's power consumption matters much except to us geeks. 😀
Click to expand...

Sure you do. Or should. This high power, means high heat, means 2kg copper HS with tornado fan if you want to overclock. Why do you think people are getting such lame 10-15% overclcoks with presshot? It also adds to PSU bill, electric bill, and more expensive HSF.

I remeber Intel fans harping how hot the t-birds were compared to 1.4-2.0As when only 20% hotter/power comsumption. Now that it's 50-100% difference tilted the other way it's a non-issue. I don't think so.😉

ed birds
 
I don't agree that people are getting only 10-15% overclocks with Prescotts.

Once again, pretty much no one but us geeks even knows what "overclock" means, anyway.

None of this is going to help AMD's marketing, which is a shame.

What they need is a parody of those blue guys. I can see nearly endless possibilities there for emphasizing AMD's prowess.
 
Ya green guys.. Leprechauns.

In all seriousness AMD is selling all the chis they make right now, would be bad IMO if everyone wanted them.
 
Why do you think people are getting such lame 10-15% overclcoks with presshot?
Click to expand...

That is total BS, I just switched from a 3.0c to a 3.2e and sure can't complain about the oc I get..... maybe you just had a bad prescott........ surely you have tried overclocking one, I'm sure a "lifer" wouldn't just throw out statements like that without firsthand knowledge 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top