hehe, and AMD use to have the extremely hot running chips while intel had the cold as ice processors. My my, how the times have changed 
now, AMD just needs some major TV advertising.
now, AMD just needs some major TV advertising.
then compare motherboard prices, and stop being a fanboy, and everything comes into perspective.
Edit: And i think its kinda funny that its called the emergency edition. I personally think it was an extremely intelligent move by intel.
I am by no means putting down the Athlon FX, im just saying the extreme edition is a high performance chip, and why is anyone complaining about a higher performance option, if you dont like it dont buy it. But after other costs like mobo, the prices of them are very similar. Quit calling it a bad option.
The 4/3 approximation of the max power using TDP was used in the initial P4s, but the P4 has undergone numerous core and platform changes. The differences between the Xeon MP 2.8 GHz, with 2MB L3 cache, is 1.15%, which suggests a max power of under 106W for the P4EE.
The K8 is significantly different core than the P4, so it will not have an identical relationship between TDP and max power. And 89W is given as the TDP, not the max power.
There is some difference, but nobody has properly quantified it yet. One of the few attempts:
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/daily_column/article/1653
From sandpile.org:
Link
Maximum power for the P4EE is listed at 114 Watts
89W is not the typical thermal power, it is the max thermal power. AMD has ALWAYS listed their figures in max power, intel has always listed their figures in typical power. You can see that 89W is the max power here:
Link
As you can see, with the K8 series (opteron/A64), each chip has the same listed max power. The 1.4ghz, 1.6ghz, 1.8ghz, and 2ghz opterons for example all have a max power of 84.7 Watts. Obviously, the 1.4ghz chip will have a lower max power than the 2ghz chip. AMD has given a maximum power design spec for the entire hammer series of CPUs; no opteron will ever exceed 84.7 Watts max, no A64/AFX will ever exceed 89W.
So again, there is a huge difference in heat output between these two CPUs.
All this quote shows is that cranking up the Vcore 1.5V from default will increase heat output a lot. Duh...
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/30430.pdf
Page 7.
All this quote shows is that cranking up the Vcore 1.5V from default will increase heat output a lot. Duh...[/quote]
Some calculations would suggest that at 2GHz and 1.5V, the bestcase underload heat output is over 75W at 2GHz.
As user experience suggested there is no way current A64 to dissipate 75W
http://www.aceshardware.com/forum?read=105049324
Aceshardware also had calculations some time ago for Opteron (144 so 1.8GHz) power consumption and it concluded that at full power it dissipates around 55W
See also another user experience:
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums...ostNum=1712&Thread=17&entryID=22310&roomID=13
For this whole system user measured with electricity meter following consumptions idle 91W/Compress folder 110 W/Full load 130W
Athlon 64 3200+
2x256 MB DDR(400?)
GeForce FX 5200 128MB (why?)
120 GB 7200rpm HD
LG M40408 multi format writer
Assuming his power supply has efficiency 80% (which I think is rather high number) you end up with 72W/88W/104W which is nowhere near 75 just for the CPU alone (just MB & Geforce 5200 probably consume 15-20W each)
Finally do not forget that amount that A64 consumes is increased with the power needed to drive RAM which is not included in heat dissipation of the CPU but rather heats up MB and memory modules - so from total CPU consumption you can substract 5-7W needed to drive memory.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
Originally posted by: AgaBooga
No, why would they? After all, consumers want slower speeds at higher costs
Alienware buyers do. They're like the riceboys of the PC world - they think that big nVidia decal, "Intel Inside" sticker, and Alien-head logo makes their system 53% faster and the neon lights increase stability.
- M4H
TDP is the power limit that system designers should design to as it is unlikely any usable application would ever exceed it. Max power is the maximum theoretical power output of the processor, only achievable with custom designed power viruses. Since the Opteron/AFX/A64 have CPU throttling capabilities similar to the P4, the max power values becomes less relevant.
Doesn't mean anything. It's a guesstimate on their part. Same as Apple giving estimates of November ship dates back in August to some people for Dual G5's. Doesn't mean it will really take that long, but they are covering their tracks, and making themselves look good to their customers if they can beat that date. If you click on the get it quicker link there is no parts shortage listed as the reason for later ship date. Maybe they haven't finished validating the configurations yet, who knows. Alienware has build to order EE's up as well, and don't have any sort of delay listed.
TDP can be given in max terms, or typical terms. Max TDP = max power = the maximum amount of power the CPU will ever dissipate. Typical TDP = the amount a CPU will usually dissipate, given a reasonable workload.
Intel lists typical TDP for their CPUs, AMD lists max TDP.
TDP for Intel and AMD represents the upperend sustained power dissipation found after testing a variety of applications. They represent the same thing.
No, they have different meanings. I have provided links which show the max power of the P4EE is 114W, not 92. I've also shown a link showing the max power of the entire AMD Hammer line is 89W. If you have links which show otherwise, list them.
You have not shown that Intel's Max power dissipation is "==" AMD's Thermal Design Power.
Intel TDP from Pentium® 4 Processor in the 423-pin Package Thermal Design Guidelines, p. 25 clearly shows that its thermal design power is set to the tailend of the power dissipation sustained from using a large mix of applications.
ftp://download.intel.com/design/Pentium4/guides/24920301.pdf
So the 3.2EE could only exceed 92W using special power viruses, if ever. The max power dissipation could also represent a theoretical power dissipation should every transistor switch at the same.
AMD TDP from : AMD Athlon XP Processor Model 10 Data Sheet, pg 21.
Thermal design power represents the maximum sustained power dissipated while executing publicly-available software or instruction sequences under normal system operation at nominal VCC_CORE .
Sounds to me, that they both refer to a nearly-identical state to me.
This is from page 25:
Processor power dissipation simulations indicate a maximum application power in the range of 75% of the maximum power for a given frequency. Therefore, a system designed to the thermal design point, which is set to approximately 75% of the maximum processor power....
This is intels thermal design point, approximately 75% of the max thermal power. It would then make sense that the maximum power would be in the range of 114W, as listed on sandpile.org.
Also, from here:http://www.plastech.ru/html/techsupport/faqs/p4_thermal.pdf
"[Intel] specifies a thermal design power dissipation envelope for pentium 4 processors. Analysis indicates that real applications are unlikely to cause the processor to consume its maximum possible power consumption"
This it the TDP that intel gives...it is not the maximum power consumption.
The AMD data sheet lists the TDP as (IDDmax * VID_VDD) - this is the maximum power, similar to the 114W for the P4EE. Sandpile.org confirms this, the maximum power for all opterons is listed as 84W, and 89W for all Athlon 64/FX's.
You're comparing apples to oranges, typical TDP to maximum TDP. There is no way a P4EE running @ 1200mhz more than an A64 with 63,000,000 more transistors, the vast majority of which are used for cache and are therefore always on, will dissipate a similar amount of power, especially with AMD using SOI.
The maximum TDP for a 2ghz Athlon XP @ 1.65V is around 68W. The Athlon 64, using the same .13 micron process, with SOI and a core voltage of 1.5V, will not dissipate 20W More. 89W simply does not make sense as a typical TDP.
Article on Intel vs AMD thermal requirements:
Link
I just think it would be hilarious if AMD released a faster A64 later this month. What would Intel do then? Paper launch another chip while Dell is still unable to ship the 3.2 EE in large quantities?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter