sandybridge E, 180W??

[blackened23]

Lol didnt you say sandys consume 60 watts idle and up to 280 on load when overclocked.

Sandy e will consume a tiny bit more than regular sandys because its got no gpu so adding a few cores will be a wash.

Can someone with a 2500 see how much power it draws at load being stock clocked?

I bet it wont go over 75 watts and its tdo is 95 i think.

Yeah I made a mistake concerning SB power usage. Evidence has already been presented in this thread of how much power the old bloomfield / lynnfields drew, are you disputing that? Every major PC enthusiast website has proof of high lynnfield / bloomfield power draw. Its undeniable that Lynnfield / bloomfield were power hungry when OC'ed - and SB-E supposedly uses more power? You're saying SB-E will use only "slightly" more power. Based on what? I mean this is all speculation at this point but it APPEARS that it will use more power than the old lynnfield / bloomfields did. Pretty much your 2600k power draw is meaningless in this context.

The conclusion being drawn is that SB-E will likely use much more power than the current SB. Bottom line is that nobody knows for sure -- it could use far more power than SB or only slightly more. But signs certainly point to a LOT more. And current SB power draw isn't really relevant to the dicussion.

 

[grkM3]

Yeah I made a mistake concerning SB power usage. Evidence has already been presented in this thread of how much power the old bloomfield / lynnfields drew, are you disputing that? Every major PC enthusiast website has proof of high lynnfield / bloomfield power draw. Its undeniable that Lynnfield / bloomfield were power hungry when OC'ed - and SB-E supposedly uses more power? You're saying SB-E will use only "slightly" more power. Based on what? I mean this is all speculation at this point but it APPEARS that it will use more power than the old lynnfield / bloomfields did. Pretty much your 2600k power draw is meaningless in this context.

The conclusion being drawn is that SB-E will likely use much more power than the current SB. Bottom line is that nobody knows for sure -- it could use far more power than SB or only slightly more. But signs certainly point to a LOT more. And current SB power draw isn't really relevant to the dicussion.

its TDP is 130 WATTS so you figure it out.Its a sandy bridge Arch and it has no gpu and adds 2 cores to it.

at most it will consume 20-30 watts more than a regular sandy.I never said anything about the old chips and I dont know why people are bringing up a different arch when sandy was desighned to be power effiecient and intel said haswell will bring even bettter power savings.

Dont forget that ivy bridge will be on socket 2011 and intel said there 22nm process will cut power by 50% at the same clocks as there 32nm sandys.

Like I said,sandys dont even come close to there rated TDP even when overclocked to 4.8-5.0 ghz they barely break 120 watts.

We are talking about the same chip here with 2 cores added minus the gpu.They added some cache and tweaked the core a bit with the new memory controller but I dont think it will consume over 130 watts even when over clocked a few hundred mhz.

Ohh did I mention there TDP is 130 watts lol

can you please tell me how sandy bridge power draw is not relevant?Its the same Arch with 2 more cores.

I can see you saying that haswell has nothing to do with sandy E because its a totally new arch but sandys and sandy E are very close.

A hell of alot closer than the Old I7s you people are using to say that sandy E will consume massive power.

 

[Nemesis 1]

So tell why have people twisted the words article around to mean O/Cing . The article said at Stock setting . Proves an agenda here if the use of Red herring is deployed

 

[toyota]

So tell why have people twisted the words article around to mean O/Cing . The article said at Stock setting . Proves an agenda here if the use of Red herring is deployed

off topic but why do you skip a space before your periods?

 

[blackened23]

its TDP is 130 WATTS so you figure it out.Its a sandy bridge Arch and it has no gpu and adds 2 cores to it.

at most it will consume 20-30 watts more than a regular sandy.I never said anything about the old chips and I dont know why people are bringing up a different arch when sandy was desighned to be power effiecient and intel said haswell will bring even bettter power savings.

Original post in this thread:

On top of this, we're hearing that although the rated TDP is 130W these beasts are consuming closer to 180W and that's without even overclocking them. In fact, according to PSU design guidance we've seen, Intel is telling power supply makers to make sure their Sandy Bridge-E PSUs can cope with a peak current of 23A on the 12V2 rail and based on an 80 percent or better efficiency rating of the PSU.

Hence the speculations and comparisons to bloomfield / lynnfield....I do not believe that 860/870s used that much power draw...In fact I think overclocked 870s were around 170-180 when overclocked to 4ghz - Now the stock SB-E is 180 not overclocked? Thats the basis of the comparison.

Again, this is all speculation and we won't know FOR SURE until the chip is released!

 

[Nemesis 1]

off topic but why do you skip a space before your periods?

Old habits die hard . You say its not proper .

 

[toyota]

Original post in this thread:

On top of this, we're hearing that although the rated TDP is 130W these beasts are consuming closer to 180W and that's without even overclocking them. In fact, according to PSU design guidance we've seen, Intel is telling power supply makers to make sure their Sandy Bridge-E PSUs can cope with a peak current of 23A on the 12V2 rail and based on an 80 percent or better efficiency rating of the PSU.

Hence the speculations and comparisons to bloomfield / lynnfield....I do not believe that 860/870s used that much power draw...In fact I think overclocked 870s were around 170-180 when overclocked to 4ghz - Now the stock SB-E is 180 not overclocked? Thats the basis of the comparison.

Again, this is all speculation and we won't know FOR SURE until the chip is released!

sorry but 870s used a crap ton of power when oced. here the 875k is using twice the power at 4.0 as Sandy Bridge is at 4.3. that's full system power so the 2500k cpu itself is using just under 90 watts at 4.3 while the old 875k by itself is using just under 210 watts.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-2600k-990x_12.html#sect0

 

[blackened23]

sorry but 870s used a crap ton of power when oced. here the 875k is using twice the power at 4.0 as Sandy Bridge is at 4.3. that's full system power so the 2500k cpu itself is using just under 90 watts at 4.3 while the old 875k by itself is using just under 210 watts.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-2600k-990x_12.html#sect0

Thats what i've been saying, that the 870s used a ton of power and if the SB-E apparently uses more than it, thats cause for concern.

 

[podspi]

So tell why have people twisted the words article around to mean O/Cing . The article said at Stock setting . Proves an agenda here if the use of Red herring is deployed

Because it is hard to believe that stock SB-E will consume 180W? Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[toyota]

Thats what i've been saying, that the 870s used a ton of power and if the SB-E apparently uses more than it, thats cause for concern.

well you said the 870s did not use much power when oced to 4.0 but clearly they did. I guess you just worded it in an odd way.

 

[blackened23]

well you said the 870s did not use much power when oced to 4.0 but clearly they did.

No, you misunderstand. I worded it improperly but what I meant was that the SB-E uses 180 at stock, while the 860/870 did not use nearly that much at stock. And we're all well aware (as i've stated many times in this thread) that lynnfield power draw while oc'ed was outrageous.

Basically the conclusion is that if SB-E uses more power draw than the lynnfield, thats a cause for concern.

 

[grkM3]

No, you misunderstand. I worded it improperly but what I meant was that the SB-E uses 180 at stock, while the 860/870 did not use nearly that much at stock. And we're all well aware (as i've stated many times in this thread) that lynnfield power draw while oc'ed was outrageous.

Basically the conclusion is that if SB-E uses more power draw than the lynnfield, thats a cause for concern.

please tell us how a sandy e can consume 180watts when its tdp is 130watts?

are you saying intel is putting out a chip rated at 130 but draws 180 at stock speeds?

sandy bridge is the same arch as sandy E,so forget about anything from the past and look at what sandys consume.

This is just something to get hits on there site.

Its like selling a 5000 dollar zeon e7 that is specd to 130 watts and it really draws 180.

I dont see this happening.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Because it is hard to believe that stock SB-E will consume 180W? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Ya your misunderstanding , But the way I write thats understandable. Intels SB-e will not exceed its TDP. AT Stock.

 

[grkM3]

Ya your misunderstanding , But the way I write thats understandable. Intels SB-e will not exceed its TDP. AT Stock.

thank you

I can see one drawing 180 at 5.2+ghz with 6 cores running but not at stock speeds.

 

[MrTransistorm]

Again, this is all speculation and we won't know FOR SURE until the chip is released!

Exactly. This is all speculation. The article uses such words as "hearing" and "seen" with respect to the power draw. I'm not believing any of it without verification.

 

[AtenRa]

A few things,

Take a look at Core i3 540 (32nm dual Core) and Core i3 2100 (32nm Dual Core SB architecture), also have a look at Intel Core i7 980X (32nm 6-Core).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/21

It seams that dual Core SB uses more power but it has a 10-15% higher performance on average than Westmere Core i3 540.

I except a 6-Core SB-E to be close in power usage as Intel core i7 980X/990X

 

[Kevmanw430]

While the i3's are close, the i5 and i7 at load both consume less power at load, and more at idle. Therefore, it still a toss up... However, I agree, it should be close to a 980X, but maybe a little less for a 6 core SB-E.

 

[AtenRa]

While the i3's are close, the i5 and i7 at load both consume less power at load, and more at idle. Therefore, it still a toss up... However, I agree, it should be close to a 980X, but maybe a little less for a 6 core SB-E.

Core i5 750 and Core i7 870 are 45nm and not 32nm as SB

 

[SHAQ]

147 Watts @ 3.9ghz on a 920 at load is way off. Your CPU can draw 130W at stock 2.66 with Turbo alone. You guys should stop using Gigabyte's software as it's not accurate.

Try SiSoftware Sandra or AIDA64/Everest. They will show much higher / realistic numbers.

Modern air coolers can dissipate 200-300W btw (esp. the top of the line ones).

There is a ton of misconception about CPU power consumption figures in this thread.

Look at this graph:

There is no GPU load here. The massive increases in power consumption are coming almost entirely from the CPU and northbridge on the mobo.

There is absolutely no way that an i7 920 @ 3.9ghz consumes only 147 Watts of power at 100% load unless you have some amazing chip that can do so at 1.1V.

I have provided at least 3 separate websites (Bit-Tech.net, Xbitlabs and Toms) which all show that overclocking alone can add 150+ Watts of power to a 45nm CPU. Now, you still have to add the original amount of power that CPU was using at stock speeds.....

Just think about it logically, your CPU is rated at 130W TDP, while i7 860 is rated at 95W TDP. Both of those CPUs ship with tiny stock heatsinks. You are telling me by only going to 150W on the CPU, your Megahalems is barely able to contain such a processor at 3.9ghz at 63-65*C? It wouldn't even break a sweat if your overclocking just added another 20-30 Watts on top of stock. Your CPU alone is pulling 200W+ of power, easily. Overclocking the i7-950 from 3.06ghz to 4.3ghz alone adds 150Watts. What about the power consumption at load for a stock i7-950?

Three points. That is from the wall which means it is 80% of that figure minus every other component(RAM,video,mobo etc.) Second, that might be with hyperthreading. I turn it off since it is mostly worthless.And thirdly, every chip is different. I don't OC to 4.0 because it is less efficient and uses more power which is what that graph is showing going from 3.8-4.0.

 

[Joseph F]

I think that a 180W TDP (not necessarily real-world power draw) is very plausible with SB-E.
Look at it this way: A Core i7 2600k has a rated TDP of 95W. Now, if you take into account that we're adding on two more cores, 7MB more cache (87.5% more than the 2600k), a 32-lane PCI-E v3 controller, and two more DDR-3 channels, we're probably going to see a 60-80% increase in TDP. (152W-171W)

 

[imaheadcase]

Why the hell are you guys even caring about this? Did you forget what the E stands for, no one is building a gaming computer and worrying about the power draw. lol

 

[ed29a]

Why the hell are you guys even caring about this? Did you forget what the E stands for, no one is building a gaming computer and worrying about the power draw. lol

Because fanbois take it very personally when someone says that something could be wrong about their beloved brand. Some people can't accept that SB-E might not be the pinnacle of perfection and it is not the second coming of Zeus.

 

[toyota]

why does every thread have to turn into ignorant fanboy accusations? I do not see that as having a damn thing to do with it. this is a rumor about high power consumption that is being discussed and whether it is AMD or Intel was not a factor.

 

[grkM3]

Why the hell are you guys even caring about this? Did you forget what the E stands for, no one is building a gaming computer and worrying about the power draw. lol

becasue most sandys are very good overclockers and if the tdp is this high an overclocked 2600k will beat a 1000 dollar sandy e.and forget what a 22nm 1155 ivybridge will do when overclocked probably 5.2-5.8ghz on air average

there was a 10 core 32nm sandy e for sale on ebay not to long ago,I wonder whats its tdp was.

360 watts?

 

[StrangerGuy]

Why the hell are you guys even caring about this? Did you forget what the E stands for, no one is building a gaming computer and worrying about the power draw. lol

I do. Just like many others here.