Fast processors kinna suck......

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: ketchup79

No wonder, AMD's run hot

I know you're joking... but AMD's don't have to run hot... spend $20 on a heatsink and $5 on a fan and you'll be set.

And just where do you think the heat goes? Mars? Seriously folks, I don't care if you have a Vapochill, nothing is going to make your CPU produce less heat than it already does, unless you A. turn down the core voltage, B. lower your CPU speed, or C. turn the computer off. CPU's put out major amounts of heat , and it's not getting any better. I remember my first computer that had a fan on the CPU, and thought, "OMG, isn't this overkill?"

ALSO, while we are on the subject, since it was brought up, the cores of the P4's and t-bred's and bartons are not much different from each other in size. In fact, before AMD went to the t-bred, the core on the P4 was much smaller. Don't confuse the heatspreader on the P4 for the core. The P4 would run cooler if the heatspreader wasn't there, but Intel got sick of people crushing their cores and trying to return them.

Moral of the story: CPU's produce heat , so next time, leave the AC on!

Think before you post... I said "AMD's don't have to run hot." I never said a damn thing about how much heat is created. The amount of heat created won't change, the temperature it runs at is dependant on ambient air temp, thermal conductivity between the core and heatsink, and the quality of the heatsink/fan.

Also, the Barton core CPU's are 101 mm square... the T-Bred A & B's are 84 mm Square... and the P4 Northwood is 131 mm square.

So they're not THAT similar in size... the P4 core is still pretty damn big compared to a Barton.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Intelligence3
I read somewhere (actually, in The Economist) that the Prescotts will produce as much heat as a 120-watt bulb. From an area the size of a postage stamp. Yow!

So in other words their "thermal design power" as Intel calls it, will be 120 watts... vs. the 81.9 watts for the P4 3.0C (as seen here)

The "thermal power" as AMD calls it, of an XP3200 is 76.8 watts (as seen here)

 

[Whitedog]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: ketchup79

No wonder, AMD's run hot

I know you're joking... but AMD's don't have to run hot... spend $20 on a heatsink and $5 on a fan and you'll be set.

And just where do you think the heat goes? Mars? Seriously folks, I don't care if you have a Vapochill, nothing is going to make your CPU produce less heat than it already does, unless you A. turn down the core voltage, B. lower your CPU speed, or C. turn the computer off. CPU's put out major amounts of heat , and it's not getting any better. I remember my first computer that had a fan on the CPU, and thought, "OMG, isn't this overkill?"

ALSO, while we are on the subject, since it was brought up, the cores of the P4's and t-bred's and bartons are not much different from each other in size. In fact, before AMD went to the t-bred, the core on the P4 was much smaller. Don't confuse the heatspreader on the P4 for the core. The P4 would run cooler if the heatspreader wasn't there, but Intel got sick of people crushing their cores and trying to return them.

Moral of the story: CPU's produce heat , so next time, leave the AC on!

Think before you post... I said "AMD's don't have to run hot." I never said a damn thing about how much heat is created. The amount of heat created won't change, the temperature it runs at is dependant on ambient air temp, thermal conductivity between the core and heatsink, and the quality of the heatsink/fan.

Also, the Barton core CPU's are 101 mm square... the T-Bred A & B's are 84 mm Square... and the P4 Northwood is 131 mm square.

So they're not THAT similar in size... the P4 core is still pretty damn big compared to a Barton.

Why don't you like, get off everyone's case. Eh? How much heat is being created is what this thread is about... so Chill! 😉

 

[lobadobadingdong]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

And that's assuming your processor is working at 100% duty constantly... which it rarely does.

You obviously do not run DC projects Jeff 😉

Open Windows? that would increase the temp in my house, good ol' TX weather, 2 days ago(still spring) the high was 72, today it'll get up to 98. next week it'll be fall (high's of low 80's) 😉 then the real summer will kick in with constant 100+ temps for 3 months w/100% humidity.

 

[Whitedog]

I live in the modern world. I have air conditioning. 😎

 

[pspada]

Originally posted by: Whitedog
I live in the modern world. I have air conditioning. 😎

I live in the ecologically correct world, and don't use air conditioning.

 

[Whitedog]

Originally posted by: pspada

Originally posted by: Whitedog
I live in the modern world. I have air conditioning. 😎

I live in the ecologically correct world, and don't use air conditioning.

But you use electricity to run your non-essential electronic components, which have to be replaced every so few years (months in our case)... don't you. In which these used electronic components get dumped on the streets of China and cause serious health problems for them...

What did I miss? 😉

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Whitedog

Originally posted by: pspada

Originally posted by: Whitedog
I live in the modern world. I have air conditioning. 😎

I live in the ecologically correct world, and don't use air conditioning.

But you use electricity to run your non-essential electronic components, which have to be replaced every so few years (months in our case)... don't you. In which these used electronic components get dumped on the streets of China and cause serious health problems for them...

What did I miss? 😉

I thought this thread was about how much heat was being created :evil:

 

[BD231]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Intelligence3
I read somewhere (actually, in The Economist) that the Prescotts will produce as much heat as a 120-watt bulb. From an area the size of a postage stamp. Yow!

So in other words their "thermal design power" as Intel calls it, will be 120 watts... vs. the 81.9 watts for the P4 3.0C (as seen here)

The "thermal power" as AMD calls it, of an XP3200 is 76.8 watts (as seen here)

Damn, that didn't hit me, light bulbs create a huge amount of heat DAMNIT!!! Processors will only get hotter 🙁. Intel and AMD probably have a scam going on with companies that make air conditioners......

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: BD231

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Intelligence3
I read somewhere (actually, in The Economist) that the Prescotts will produce as much heat as a 120-watt bulb. From an area the size of a postage stamp. Yow!

So in other words their "thermal design power" as Intel calls it, will be 120 watts... vs. the 81.9 watts for the P4 3.0C (as seen here)

The "thermal power" as AMD calls it, of an XP3200 is 76.8 watts (as seen here)

Damn, that didn't hit me, light bulbs create a huge amount of heat DAMNIT!!! Processors will only get hotter 🙁. Intel and AMD probably have a scam going on with companies that make air conditioners......

That's a downside to ramping up clock speeds constantly... I think that's the main reason AMD has chosen to gain performance by increasing efficiency rather than just clock speed. Intel made a step in that direction with Hyper Threading... and Apple... well... they've been doing that for years and years and years.

 

[Whitedog]

I don't care if I have to upgrade the electrical service to my house...

M U S T - H A V E - M O R E - P O W E R F U L - C O M P U T E R S ! ! !

😉

 

[Quackmaster]

Originally posted by: Whitedog
I don't care if I have to upgrade the electrical service to my house... M U S T - H A V E - M O R E - P O W E R F U L - C O M P U T E R S ! ! ! 😉

lol, no kidding, huh? DV editing and gaming will always keep my appetite famished.. Screw work, it's leisure that makes me want faster 'puters.

 

[Intelligence3]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Intelligence3
I read somewhere (actually, in The Economist) that the Prescotts will produce as much heat as a 120-watt bulb. From an area the size of a postage stamp. Yow!

So in other words their "thermal design power" as Intel calls it, will be 120 watts... vs. the 81.9 watts for the P4 3.0C (as seen here)

The "thermal power" as AMD calls it, of an XP3200 is 76.8 watts (as seen here)

Thanks! 😎

 

[txxxx]

Originally posted by: Tetsuo

Originally posted by: BD231
Left my 2.1ghz T-Bred on before I left for work today on accident

No wonder, AMD's run hot 😛

News flash - P4 @ 3gigs releases 100watt's of heat 🙂

 

[zephyrprime]

Your hard drive creates as much heat as your processor... and your monitor creates a ton more... and your power supply itself creates more heat than your processor. And that's assuming your processor is working at 100% duty constantly... which it rarely does.

That's not exactly right. A processor can consume ~80-90watts if it's top of the line. A HD consumes like 15watts. Monitors can consume 80-150watts (crts only of course). Ther power supply varies greatly depending on load. They have about 70% efficency so at full load a 350watt PS would consume 150 watts but if only at 100watts, a ps would only consume ~40 watts.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Your hard drive creates as much heat as your processor... and your monitor creates a ton more... and your power supply itself creates more heat than your processor. And that's assuming your processor is working at 100% duty constantly... which it rarely does.

That's not exactly right. A processor can consume ~80-90watts if it's top of the line. A HD consumes like 15watts. Monitors can consume 80-150watts (crts only of course). Ther power supply varies greatly depending on load. They have about 70% efficency so at full load a 350watt PS would consume 150 watts but if only at 100watts, a ps would only consume ~40 watts.

By your logic you're wrong. You're saying if a power supply only at 100 watts would consume 40... well a processor running idle doesn't consume 80 watts. I'm talking full load.
BTW... I thought hard drives were closer to 40... I could be wrong.

 

[Whitedog]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Your hard drive creates as much heat as your processor... and your monitor creates a ton more... and your power supply itself creates more heat than your processor. And that's assuming your processor is working at 100% duty constantly... which it rarely does.

That's not exactly right. A processor can consume ~80-90watts if it's top of the line. A HD consumes like 15watts. Monitors can consume 80-150watts (crts only of course). Ther power supply varies greatly depending on load. They have about 70% efficency so at full load a 350watt PS would consume 150 watts but if only at 100watts, a ps would only consume ~40 watts.

By your logic you're wrong. You're saying if a power supply only at 100 watts would consume 40... well a processor running idle doesn't consume 80 watts. I'm talking full load.
BTW... I thought hard drives were closer to 40... I could be wrong.

No, what he is saying, is the Power Supplies consume that much power ON TOP of what the computer does... say Your PC has a 400watter, and draws around 250 at max load... the power supply itself will draw another 160 watts... for a total of 410 watts consumed.
Remember, the wattage rating of a power supply is the "Output wattage", not total wattage.

And yes, hard drives hardly use any power. Typical HD is between 10-15 watts. It says right on them (volts x amps = watts)
This Quantum 10 gigger I'm looking at has( Power Req: 5/12 --- 650/720mA ) written on it. (5 x .650 = 3.25 watts + 12 x .720 = 8.64 watts)
Even the 10,000 rpm 1.6" SCSI's only pull about 25 watts...

Cheers!