Why people tell that AMD makes more heat than INTEL ?

[Thor_Sevan]

I have a question on AMD and INTEL CPU heat production.
http://www.benchtest.com/calc.html
I looked at that website and here is what it tells:
Athlon XP 2100+ : 72 watts
P4 2.4 ghz : 74.7 = 75 watts

According to this, can we conclude that on the new CPU's, AMD has the coolest product ?

Thor

 

[Adul]

dunno they both run hotten then the cpus of yesteryear. both require large heatsinks to run.

 

[BD231]

I think the heat spreader on the P4 is why people can run low rpm fan's on their Intel processors, either way both processors run way to hot. I hope we see some advances in thermal management sooner or later.

 

[LikeLinus]

Well the first thing is your comparing a CPU that is rated at 2.4ghz vs a 1.7ghz proc

Thats a 700mhz difference. Wouldnt you expect it to run cooler?

If you compair a 1600mhz northwood it's at 60.0watts vs an XP 1900+ (1600mhz) runs at 68.0. So the P4 DOES INDEED run cooler clock for clock vs AMD XP chips.

Edit: I run AMD chips and Intel Chips (mostly AMD, but i use Intel in my server/laptop)..i was just showing you that your "comparison" Wasn't exactly fair.

 

[vm]

I think the p4 can run cooler because you can put a bigger heatsink/fan on it...

 

[paralazarguer]

AMD's processor's are hotter. That can mean a lot of different things. The watts that people provide are very misleading and almost useless. The willamette core was almost twice that of the Athlon XP and the Northwood's .13u core is still larger than the XP's .18u core. What that means is that AMD's slightly larger watts are in a much more concentrated area and its harder to disiapate. This problem is compounded further with the thoroughbred-a and to a lesser extent the Bs. Intel's heatspreader helps the heat from the processor reach more surface area of the heatsink. The copper plating having such good contact with the already large die really helps. I have both a 2.26 and an XP 1700+ and the XP does run much, much, hotter. With the same case cooling, the XP system's case runs hotter (measured with thermometer) and the processor idles hotter and is hotter under load. The XP's heatsink is always very warm to the touch where the intel's heatsink is always cool. One would think that this would indicate that it's not doing its job but the processor is always cool. The Intel's HSF is much much quieter. Other components such as RAM are much hotter in the AMD system to the touch also. I'm not sure why but in my case, the AMD system is a lot hotter than the Intel system.
Edit: What I mean by saying that the ram is hotter is that the hotter air in the case makes the ram warm to the touch, not that the ram is running hotter.

 

[mastertech01]

Well I know this much, I ran my Athlon MP 1600 at default with the largest coolest copper cooling solutions I could find, and they would run you out the room running for more than 3 or 4 hours surfing the net, averaging over 50C. I run my P4 2.53 at 2.85GHz with a simple flower cooler with a quiet running fan, and it runs at 36C surfing the net and its so pleasantly cool in here in comparison and so quiet... unbelievable difference for me. Dont get me wrong, I liked my AMD setup, but it got too uncomfortable even in an airconditioned environment.

 

[Thor_Sevan]

I don't like to compare like that.
I like to compare things for their price and performance ratio.
Lets have a look here:

Athlon XP 1600+ : 63 watts
Athlon XP 1900+ : 68 watts
Athlon XP 2100+ : 72 watts

P4 .18 u
p4 2.0 ghz : 101 watts
P4 .13u
p4 2.0 ghz : 67 watts
P4 2.26 ghz : 72 watts
p4 2.4 ghz : 75 watts

On my part, the 2100+ and the P4 2.4 ghz are +- on the same performance range (overall) while the 2100+ costs much less.
Heat is approximatly the same. So there isn't any tengible difference between the two. Today, clock speed doesn't mean anything anymore. You can have a lower speed CPU working faster than a high speed CPU. You have to measure the performance and heat production separatly. Of course, price ratio is also important.

Of course... we see than intel did a nice improvement on heat by passing from .18 micron to 0.13 micron.

So, we can conclude that the argument of heat is irrelevant anymore. They are pretty the same and AMD on the strong site (personally).

THor

 

[LikeLinus]

<<Other components such as RAM are much hotter in the AMD system to the touch also. I'm not sure why but in my case, the AMD system is a lot hotter than the Intel system.>>

Thats just sounds like complete BS. RAM's temperature would have no connection with the processor that is being used. I mean i could be wrong, but i highly doubt it. No way to prove it though.

The rest of it sounded good though

 

[Thor_Sevan]

Mastertech01, this is something interresting that you are saying.
Uhuh, maybe my sources weren't that great. I am all confused again.
If the core wattage of an AMD and INTEL CPU is the same, the two computers should run at the same EXACT temperature.
Even if one has a higher capacity heatsink, it will only keep the CPU cooler. Maybe we should make more research on that.

Indeed, today CPU's are running too much hot. Damn...

Time to sleep. TOo late, my choice is made of buying an AMD CPU. I just hope it won't cook me up ! heh !

Thor

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: Thor_Sevan
I don't like to compare like that.
I like to compare things for their price and performance ratio.
Lets have a look here:
So, we can conclude that the argument of heat is irrelevant anymore. They are pretty the same and AMD on the strong site (personally).

THor

Ugh, thats just wacky. You're basically saying you just want to manipulate a comparison just so AMD looks good and is "Strong". Did you happen to also help AMD start this shame of a PR system? You have to base the chip on what they are. 1600mhz vs 1600mhz, p4 wins. It's like that down the line. AMD just doesnt have a large enough core and thermal design features to keep it running as cool as Intel chips. That will change in the future, but dont manipulate things just to make it sound good to yourself

If heats so irrelevant, why worry what people say? It's proven though that a P4 can run significantly cooler than an AMD chip. Intel just did a good job at designing the new chips.

If the core wattage of an AMD and INTEL CPU is the same, the two computers should run at the same EXACT temperature.
Even if one has a higher capacity heatsink, it will only keep the CPU cooler. Maybe we should make more research on that.

Not if the heat is concentrated to a core that is very small, as the XP is. Intel uses a larger core which helps spread the heat out and allows better heat dissipation. Its like if you were pumping 80c heat into a 10x10 room with a small vent that releasese heat. Would a room that is 10x10 get hotter quicker and keep heat? or would a room that's 20x20 take more heat to keep at the same temperature, thus dissipating heat easier.

 

[Thor_Sevan]

LikeLinus01,
No, we can't compare like that.
Lets say we have two CPU.
1) AMD 1600 mhz
2) INTEL 1600 mhz
The two CPU have the same wattage, wich means they dissipate the same amount of heat.

Benchmark the two CPU and you will see that the AMD CPU wins. Wich CPU was more efficient ? AMD
Now, lets compare these two:
1) AMD 2100 + 72 watts
2) P4 2.4 Ghz 75 watts

The two have about the same performance/heat ratio while the intel being a little higher priced. We see here that the AMD processor is lower clocked and performs as well as a higher clocked CPU while making as much heat. See ? Wich one if more efficient ?


It's proven though that a P4 can run significantly cooler than an AMD chip

Now, THAT is the part that is interresting. I would like to have more info on that if possible. How can you claim their CPU runs less hot ?
Unfortunatly, I wasn't able to find anymore relevant information about that. Maybe you could help by providing links ?

Thanks

Thor

 

[vm]

He told you why.

the p4 chips are bigger, so it spreads the heat better, which means they run cooler.

 

[Thor_Sevan]

One more thing.
Two CPU'S @ 75 watts (lets say).
One has a small core and the other has a huge core.

1) The core of the small CPU will be (lets say) 60 C. The heaksink will now dissipate that heat in the case at the constant rate of 75 watts. If not, then the CPU will burn because there won't be any stability of energy.

2) The huge core of the second CPU is at 50 C because it has a larger surface area. The heatsink will still deliver heat at 75 watts.

At the end, the two computer cases should be physically at the same temperature. The only difference should be at the core levels.
At least, this is what physic sais. Now, if it is not the case... something else might be playing in the game, wich I don't know.
Links please of why intel systems should run cooler than amd systems !


Thor
EDIT: Ah, ok. It is because of the big core that intel CPU run's cooler. That makes sense. But this don't apply to case temperature though...

 

[paralazarguer]

Yes, it does apply to case temperature. If the heatsink doesn't have enough contact with the CPU it can't remove the heat as quickly. You then have a buildup of heat which is festering around the CPU but not being drawn away by the HSF and then out of the case.

Thats just sounds like complete BS. RAM's temperature would have no connection with the processor that is being used. I mean i could be wrong, but i highly doubt it. No way to prove it though.

The rest of it sounded good though

You obviously misunderstood. What I meant is that the Ram was hotter to the touch because the case temperature was hotter The warmer case air was making the ram hot. Get it?

 

[Telinar]

A watt does not directly reflect the amount of heat a device emits. A watt is a measure of energy used, nothing else.

 

[paralazarguer]

A watt does not directly reflect the amount of heat a device emits. A watt is a measure of energy used, nothing else.

That's correct. The other half of the equasion is how effeciently the heat can be dissipated through contact with a heatsink etc.

 

[paralazarguer]

f the core wattage of an AMD and INTEL CPU is the same, the two computers should run at the same EXACT temperature.
Even if one has a higher capacity heatsink, it will only keep the CPU cooler. Maybe we should make more research on that.

A simple way of explaining it.
You have a metal pad that produces 60watts of heat. This pad is 300 ft by 300 ft. This has a heatsink covering the entire surface with NO FAN.
You have a metal pad that produces 60watts of heat. This pad is only 10mm by 10mm. This has a heatsink covering the entire surface with a 4000RPM fan.
The first pad is barely luke warm to the touch.
The second pad burns your fingerprints off.

 

[paralazarguer]

I tried to explain the case temp thing earlier but it didn't work out so well.
Most people are aware that there is a current in your case. If you have an intake fan in the bottom front and an exhaust fan in the top rear, you will have a current between the two. This also means that there will be some hotspots in the case. Since we are dealing with a "s" shaped stream of air the pockets of air below and above the diagonal ends of the "s" will trap heat. The key to preventing too much heat from being trapped in these hot spots is putting your hot components in the stream of air. The less contact that the processor has with the heatsink due to a smaller core, the less heat will be drawn into the heatsink. This will cause the processor to run hotter. It will also cause the socket that it sits in to be hotter and the air above it. This air will then move to the top front which is a hotspot.
Because not as much heat is being drawn into the heatsink with a smaller die, the fan can't push that heat into the steam of air to be exhaused so it builds up in one of the dead zones in your case. Keep in mind that practically no case is free of dead zones. That would require a fan on every inch of the front and rear. There will always be a place where air doesn't move and heat gathers. The trick is getting heat out of the case by putting it in the path of moving air.
Hope that helps.

 

[CrazySaint]

Originally posted by: Thor_Sevan

On my part, the 2100+ and the P4 2.4 ghz are +- on the same performance range (overall) while the 2100+ costs much less.
THor

Uh, well a Athlon XP 2100+ is on the same overall performance range of a P4 2.0 or P4 2.2GHz CPU, not a P4 2.4.

 

[yakkowarner]

No arguments here about temperatures of processors or RAM or cases. What makes me raise an eyebrow is the story about one processor making an entire room hotter.
One of the reasons people give for the discrepancies in temperature between Athlons and P4's is that, even when they create the same amount of heat, the P4 does a better job dissipating it through the use of heat-spreaders and larger contact area. The premise "same amount of heat", though, means that the total heat in the environment is changed by the same amount for both chips.
So something's wrong:
1) The Athlon does in fact create more heat total, not just more heat relative to its size. (Can two chips at the same wattage create different amounts of heat? Are those numbers reported accurately?)
2) The additional power drawn by cooling equipment in an attempt to cool the chip makes an unrecognizedly large difference.
3) Was mastertech01's experience definitely due just to the processor difference? Were all other variables eliminated?

 

[dowxp]

why do you even care? just let it be. just take it to reality, the heatspreader does its job despite outputting more. experience more than facts. even so, what do you have to gain by proving the p4 is hotter? nothing really? braggin rights? dont see how..

 

[new2pc]

what about 2.53, 2.6 and 2.8? How much heat is generated by these P4s?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
Well I know this much, I ran my Athlon MP 1600 at default with the largest coolest copper cooling solutions I could find, and they would run you out the room running for more than 3 or 4 hours surfing the net, averaging over 50C. I run my P4 2.53 at 2.85GHz with a simple flower cooler with a quiet running fan, and it runs at 36C surfing the net and its so pleasantly cool in here in comparison and so quiet... unbelievable difference for me. Dont get me wrong, I liked my AMD setup, but it got too uncomfortable even in an airconditioned environment.

Put your hand three inches, 7.5 cm, from a 100 watt light bulb and then do the same with a XP 1900+. The light bulb generates much more heat. How could a\any cpu generate enough heat to make an air conditioned room uncomfortable in terms of temperature?

I will do the math to figure out how much energy it would take to raise the temperature of a room by 10 degrees C.

 

[MrBond]

Do the XP's have thermal protection yet? That alone is almost worth buying a p4, you can kill an amd chip from heat, but a p4 will just throttle back. Check out Toms hardware, he did a test (with videos) where they setup an AMD system and a p4 system. Then removed the heatsinks. The amd video is pretty spectacular :Q