Which one puts out more heat: P3 1Ghz (CuMine) or C2 1.5 Ghz (Tualatin) ?

[Yoshi64]

see topic

 

[Spikesoldier]

Ask yourself this: Which one uses more voltage and has a bigger micron process?

 

[MilkPowderR]

1 GHz P3 ---------- Thermal
Design
Power (W)

SL5QV cD0 068A 256K 75 29.0 -- This one's mine, hehe.
SL4C8 cC0 0686 256K 70 26.1
SL4BR cC0 0686 256K 70 26.1
SL48S cB0 0683 256K 70 26.1
SL4BS cC0 0686 256K 70 26.1
SL52R cD0 068A 256K 75 29.0
SL5B3 cD0 068A 256K 75 29.0


1.2 T-Celeron

SL5Y5 SL5XS tA0 06B1 256K 69 29.9 -- This is the one u're talking about.


As you can see, depends on the type of P3 1ghz CPU's the thermal transfer different than the 1.2 Celery Tualatin. The heat/wattage mine puts out is a lot more at this clock speed I have now. Same thing applies to T-Celery 1.2 OC'ed at 1.5Ghz. Ol'man has good knowledge in this and claims that the T-Celery when oc'ed severely, it needs very good cooling as these heat up very high. The higher you OC this jokers the higher the heat being put out. Having smaller micron size and lesser Vcore needed for the T-Celery is what helps it to be OC'ed so much higher than the P3's. P3 1000EB CPU's put out lesser heat than the 1000E's because of smaller clock multiplier. Even though the T-Celeries themselves don't heat as much but because of such high clock multiplier (12x) and ability to OC the hell out, the CPU temp output would be still higher than any P3s. Hope this helps.

 

[Rand]

<< Ask yourself this: Which one uses more voltage and has a bigger micron process? >>



The PIII for both, however it's indisputable that the 1.5GHz Celeron would definitely consume more power and have increased heat production. It's questionable by how much though.



<< P3 1000EB CPU's put out lesser heat than the 1000E's because of smaller clock multiplier. >>



Assuming equivalent clockspeeds and voltage, a lower multiplier in no way equates to putting out less heat.
The type of packaging used, voltage, and the stepping and process improvements over time have created minor variations in power draw throughout the 1GHz Coppermine Pentium III processors but the clock multiplier alone has absolutely no impact whatsoever upon power draw and hence heat production.
Presuming the same packaging, voltage and stepping a Pentium III 1GHz/100MHz FSB will have thermal characteristics identical to PIII 1GHz/133MHz FSB.


It's hard to say as the only Tualatin based Celeron released thus far is at 1.2GHz. And with only one example to draw from it's tough to extrapolate to 1.5GHz.
Still, as a rough guesstimate assuming power draw scales at approximately the same rate as it did on .18u..... I'd estimate that a Celeron 1.5GHz on the same core voltage (1.475V) as the current Tualatin Celeron would be approximately 25% higher power then a Pentium III Coppermine at 1GHz.

Presuming your taking an existing 1.2GHz Celeron and overclocking it to 1.5GHz it's likely you'd have to increase the core voltage to get it there which would in turn disproportionately increase the power draw/heat production.

 

[MilkPowderR]

<<
The type of packaging used, voltage, and the stepping and process improvements over time have created minor variations in power draw throughout the 1GHz Coppermine Pentium III processors but the clock multiplier alone has absolutely no impact whatsoever upon power draw and hence heat production.
Presuming the same packaging, voltage and stepping a Pentium III 1GHz/100MHz FSB will have thermal characteristics identical to PIII 1GHz/133MHz FSB. >>


I see where you're coming from. but as I've listed the Intel P3 CPUs' thermal design power, it clearly states that they are different from each other, those ones with lesser amount of thermal design power are the ones with the **Edited for misprint**133mhz bus rated chips. I didn't say the lower clock multiplier equates to heat/wattage output. I meant it seems to behave that way. Just look at the chart again I've posted.. Here are the URL's

Here1
Here2



<<
It's hard to say as the only Tualatin based Celeron released thus far is at 1.2GHz. And with only one example to draw from it's tough to extrapolate to 1.5GHz.
Still, as a rough guesstimate assuming power draw scales at approximately the same rate as it did on .18u..... I'd estimate that a Celeron 1.5GHz on the same core voltage (1.475V) as the current Tualatin Celeron would be approximately 25% higher power then a Pentium III Coppermine at 1GHz.

Presuming your taking an existing 1.2GHz Celeron and overclocking it to 1.5GHz it's likely you'd have to increase the core voltage to get it there which would in turn disproportionately increase the power draw/heat production. >>


Very well said. You posted this exactly what I had in mind. I agree with ya there. 😀


Update: Sorry about that.. I mis-typed one word so I edited it. it's 133mhz bus above..

 

[Rand]

<< I didn't say the lower clock multiplier equates to heat/wattage output. I meant it seems to behave that way. >>



I understand what your saying now, I can't say as I see any pattern like that though. cB0 and cC0 stepping chips of equivalent clock typically have the same Max. Power Dissipation, unless packaging differs. cD0 chips consistnely consume more power then previous steppings though that's partially due to the increased core voltage.
As far as I can see, when all else is the same the 100MHz FSB variants have identical thermal characteristics to their 133MHz FSB counterparts.



BTW, anyone else notice that Intel's S-Spec page for the PIII is getting slightly out-of date compared to the published information in their technical specifications .pdf's?

Most specifically, their S-Spec sheet is omitting all .18u Coppermine PIII's using the FCPGA2 packaging below 1GHz.

 

[Yoshi64]

thx for the replys