Which CPU runs hotter AMD or Intel?

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: Blain
He didn't ask about similar performing CPU's... He asked about the "SAME SPEED" CPU's.
The FX-57 is a 2.8GHz 104W CPU, while the 2.8E is a 2.8GHz 89W CPU

1. Both are the "same speed".
2. The AMD runs hotter than the Prescott.
Does anyone dispute those facts? :laugh:

Yes, someone already disputed those numbers above your post

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: Mucho
...assuming both are running at the same speed.

AMD FX-57 - 2.8GHz @ 104W
Intel 2.8E - 2.8GHz @ 89W

At the same speed, AMD runs hotter.

Not a fair comparison with those wattage numbers.

AMD's max wattage ratings are theoretical but Intel max wattage ratings are in fact, slightly lower than the actual max. Pit a FX-57 vs a P4 2.8E in a full load power consumption test and the FX-57 should consume much less power than the 2.8E.

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article169-page3.html

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Blain
He didn't ask about similar performing CPU's... He asked about the "SAME SPEED" CPU's.
The FX-57 is a 2.8GHz 104W CPU, while the 2.8E is a 2.8GHz 89W CPU

1. Both are the "same speed".
2. The AMD runs hotter than the Prescott.
Does anyone dispute those facts? :laugh:

LoL. Except let's get this straight...

3700+ = 2.2 ghz
4000+ = 2.4
so an FX-55 should be a 4300+ and an FX-57 should be a 4600+

Thus, a "4600+" single core runs at 104W according to you, but any P4 running at 4.6 GHz would be sucking like 150W at least. But you're wrong. FX-57s don't use 104W. They're rated for 104W...

X-Bit didn't do a FX-57 power consumption graph, but here's what I found

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=fx57&page=3&cookie%5Ftest=1

TOTAL SYSTEM POWER though.

If you looked at XBitlabs' Dual Core review, the 4800+ uses ~90W of power on load? Aha! So you're wrong again. 2.8 vs 2.8. AMD still wins.

Edit: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-x2_4.html Here are raw power consumption #s for CPUs alone, not total system power.... Use this along with the previous link, and you'll figure through logic that an FX-57 uses less power than a X2 4800+ and thus less than a POS Pentium.

 

[Blain]

Mucho,
Just change the title to...
"My friend and I arguing weather AMD or Intel CPU run the hottest assuming both are running at the same performance level"

 

[redhatlinux]

This post has gone stupid. If two cars runs 60 mph, but one does 4500 rpm at 60 and the other does 2400rpm, both run 60 mph. To measure the heat, run the same workload. Everybody with ANY sense at all knows that AMD performs much more work per clock cycle that Intel, so on a clock for clock basis AMD may be hotter. One of the benefits to silicone on insulator, as used by AMD is lower heat. As a matter of fact, much of the heat generated by the cpu's of today is caused bt the leakage current of all the transistors. As they act like a faucet, they don't effectively 'turn off'. so the combined loss of all the transistors contributes to a vast portion of the heat generated.

Edit

 

[mb]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: Topweasel
Whats "same speed"

"Same Speed" is as it sounds... Same MHz.

He should really change his question to "same performance level". :laugh:
Until then, I will continue to pound the desk with AMD & Intel specs showing that the AMD runs hotter. 104W is hotter than 89W isn't it?

Same speed does not equal same MHz when comparing two different types of CPUs. A 2200MHz A64 runs faster than a 2200MHz Pentium 4. A 2800MHz A64 runs faster than a 2800MHz Pentium 4.

A 2200MHz A64 is more comparable to a ~3500MHz P4.

 

[Diademed]

Originally posted by: CraigRT
for similar price points, anything prescott runs the hottest... sure the FX-57 is one of the hottest, but that's just.. not fair.

overall the A64's are a nice fairly cool running CPU.

Only because they break and die if they get hot. (the oldish models)

 

[LED]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: Topweasel
Whats "same speed"

"Same Speed" is as it sounds... Same MHz.

He should really change his question to "same performance level". :laugh:
Until then, I will continue to pound the desk with AMD & Intel specs showing that the AMD runs hotter. 104W is hotter than 89W isn't it?

I agrre whole heartedly cause damn my DC CPU run minimal MHz's and Nice in Cool

 

[Mik3y]

crap, accidentally voted for AMD. Intel has the hotter cpu's.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: supafly

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: Topweasel
Whats "same speed"

"Same Speed" is as it sounds... Same MHz.

He should really change his question to "same performance level". :laugh:
Until then, I will continue to pound the desk with AMD & Intel specs showing that the AMD runs hotter. 104W is hotter than 89W isn't it?

Same speed does not equal same MHz when comparing two different types of CPUs. A 2200MHz A64 runs faster than a 2200MHz Pentium 4. A 2800MHz A64 runs faster than a 2800MHz Pentium 4.

A 2200MHz A64 is more comparable to a ~3500MHz P4.

Yeah, I think we all know that and are in agreement on that.

But the OP's question is:

Originally posted by: Mucho
Well, we were discussing those currently on the market at the moment.

By speed I ment Mhz to Mhz

 

[svi]

EDIT:

Whoops, wrong thread. If a mod would delete this post, I'd be very thankful.

 

[theMan]

if its really mhz to mhz, id have to go with intel. but i still dont know if its the p4 vs. a64 or what. is it prescott core or northwood or williamette?

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: Mucho
My friend and I arguing weather AMD or Intel CPU run the hottest assuming both are running at the same speed.

Mucho, how can you have 3699 posts on AT and ask such a question?
Anyway, for all relevant and corresponding desktop chips on market now, AMD is much cooler, and Intel is not only hotter, - but even too hot. ...And "everybody" knows that.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
This poll is like asking
Which Which Car has a bigger engine "Chevy or Ford"
Assuming that both are driven at the same speed.

We need exactingly specific models to compare 1 to 1. Otherwise it's just a generalization that doesn't mean squat.

Isn't that about the end result of most polls

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: Blain
He didn't ask about similar performing CPU's... He asked about the "SAME SPEED" CPU's.
The FX-57 is a 2.8GHz 104W CPU, while the 2.8E is a 2.8GHz 89W CPU

1. Both are the "same speed".
2. The AMD runs hotter than the Prescott.
Does anyone dispute those facts? :laugh:

Yes, Intel uses averages while AMD uses max so you can't go buy just TDP

The above post came from Strangerguy a few posts above and I am simply reposting it. Thanks Strangerguy.

So you have a 4watt difference between a FX-57 and a PIV Prescott 2.8 and about a billion percent difference in performance, LOL. Yes, the AMD is still "hotter" but 4watts is not too much in the desktop in this generation of processors.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

DID YOU READ WHAT I WROTE???

REGARDLESS of whether you're comparing Mhz to Mhz or speed rating to speed rating, AMD wins with less power.. If you don't believe me I'll friggn repost the whole thing i wrote below:

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Blain
He didn't ask about similar performing CPU's... He asked about the "SAME SPEED" CPU's.
The FX-57 is a 2.8GHz 104W CPU, while the 2.8E is a 2.8GHz 89W CPU

1. Both are the "same speed".
2. The AMD runs hotter than the Prescott.
Does anyone dispute those facts? :laugh:

LoL. Except let's get this straight...

3700+ = 2.2 ghz
4000+ = 2.4
so an FX-55 should be a 4300+ and an FX-57 should be a 4600+

Thus, a "4600+" single core runs at 104W according to you, but any P4 running at 4.6 GHz would be sucking like 150W at least. But you're wrong. FX-57s don't use 104W. They're rated for 104W...

X-Bit didn't do a FX-57 power consumption graph, but here's what I found

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=fx57&page=3&cookie%5Ftest=1

TOTAL SYSTEM POWER though.

If you looked at XBitlabs' Dual Core review, the 4800+ uses ~90W of power on load? Aha! So you're wrong again. 2.8 vs 2.8. AMD still wins.

Edit: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-x2_4.html Here are raw power consumption #s for CPUs alone, not total system power.... Use this along with the previous link, and you'll figure through logic that an FX-57 uses less power than a X2 4800+ and thus less than a POS Pentium.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: svi
That depends on the CPUs you're comparing. Please be more specific.

 

[wchou]

amd tend to be hotter but they're both pretty hot. it doesn't matter really heat is inevitable when it comes to energy. our sun is full of energy and nothing is more hot then a sun including an atomic bomb.

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: wchou
amd tend to be hotter but they're both pretty hot.

No. Current desktop & server AMD are always cooler. Much cooler.

it doesn't matter really...

It does matter. Comparing non-budget desktops, the Intel may cost $80/year more than AMD. It's much worse for servers, and on top of that comes costs of AC.

Also, Intel desktops tend to throttle, which means the typical user, who have a rather unsophisticated relationship to hardware, may have a hard time getting sustained performance from Intel.

 

[hans007]

i voted amd hotter. depending on process of course.


a 2.8 ghz prescott on .90nm vs a 2.8 ghz athlon 64 on 90nm latest stepping , the athlon will probably be hotter.

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: hans007
i voted amd hotter. depending on process of course.


a 2.8 ghz prescott on .90nm vs a 2.8 ghz athlon 64 on 90nm latest stepping , the athlon will probably be hotter.

First of all, no matter what, - that is blatant disinformation! Since those CPUs do not have corresponding speed. Clockrate is not speed.

Secondly, you're quite likely to still be wrong.
According to this test, already linked to in this thread, system power consumption for an Intel 630, 3.0GHz is 225W at load, 184W at idle. Corresponding figures for a FX57 are 185W full load and 120W idle.
Given that 600s tend to be cooler than 500s...

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=fx57&page=3&cookie%5Ftest=1

Xbitlabs have tried to isolate CPU power consumption, which results in a very clear picture:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-x2-3800_3.html

"As for the competing solutions from Intel, any comparison here would be absolutely pointless, because all Intel CPUs consume about twice as much as their AMD rivals anyway. "

 

[orangat]

What is especially irksome is that Intel has chosen to hide the max. heat dissipation values from their data sheets and only give 'typical' thermal specs.