If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
CPU TDP
CPU TDP question:
Why are the e6300, e6400 and e6600 all rated at 65w TDP? As I understand it, the heat output is based on the CPU architecture multiplied by the CPU clock speed and CPU vCore squared (roughly). With these 3 chips (and other CPU families) the only different is their speed (and cache levels), so the heat should be lowest in the 6300, middle in the 6400 and top in the 6600? I expect that the TDP is just a max rating to enable users to select the correct cooler and the slower chips in reality produce less heat than the faster ones, but can someone confirm this? In short, if I take an e6400 and overclock it from its stock 2.16GHz up to the 2.4GHz stock speed of the e6600, then would the heat output match that of a stock e6600? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
CPU TDP
GT wrote:
CPU TDP question: Why are the e6300, e6400 and e6600 all rated at 65w TDP? As I understand it, the heat output is based on the CPU architecture multiplied by the CPU clock speed and CPU vCore squared (roughly). With these 3 chips (and other CPU families) the only different is their speed (and cache levels), so the heat should be lowest in the 6300, middle in the 6400 and top in the 6600? I expect that the TDP is just a max rating to enable users to select the correct cooler and the slower chips in reality produce less heat than the faster ones, but can someone confirm this? In short, if I take an e6400 and overclock it from its stock 2.16GHz up to the 2.4GHz stock speed of the e6600, then would the heat output match that of a stock e6600? CPUs are plopped into "bins", for the purposes of the TDP number. Everything in the same bin, might benefit from the same retail cooler. Say I was looking in the Intel catalog, and saw this. 2.1GHz TDP=65W 2.2GHz TDP=65W 2.3GHz TDP=65W 2.4GHz TDP=89W 2.5GHz TDP=89W What that would tell me, is the one just before the transition, is nearest to being really representative. So the 2.3GHz has a real TDP rating of 65W, while the slower ones don't actually get that hot. The 2.4GHz one is in the next set of bins, and draws much less than 89W. It could be drawing 65W or a little more. But guessing at it, really doesn't tell us what is going on. Measurements are more illuminating. When they include a heatsink fan in the retail CPU box, the first three will come with the same cooler. The last two, will have a slightly beefier cooler. The accuracy and intent of TDP has changed over the years. On my Northwood processors, the actual power might be very close to the TDP. Maybe even a couple watts above it. My Core2 processors are on the low side. I think my 3GHz Core2 65W, might have measured 45W. Another Core2 I've got, measures 36W or so. And that is measured on the ATX12V cable, so the real power as measured at the socket itself, is lower. (Vcore emits some heat, and isn't 100% efficient.) Those measurements are done with something like Prime95 running. For small overclocks, it is probably sufficient to use a simple ratio, or other rule, and assume nothing is going to burn up. If you wanted a more accurate method, you'd 1) Measure the stock consumption like I did. 2) Use FCV**2 equation, to estimate the new power rating. Frequency scaling is directly proportional. Taking the ratio of your two frequencies, I get 1.11x, which means 11 percent more power due to frequency. The voltage term is V_squared. If the original Vcore was 1.3V and to keep the processor stable, you needed 1.35V, then take the ratio of 1.35/1.3 and square the result to get 1.078. That means 7.8% more power, comes from the extra voltage I used in the overclock. Taking both factors into account = 1.11 * 1.078 = 1.197 or close to 20% more power. So if the original power was 40W, and you overclocked with a bit more Vcore (tested for stability and found it necessary), the estimated power would be 40W * 1.2 = 48W roughly. You could then clamp on the ammeter, and verify it. So then the next natural question would be, "is the retail heatsink/fan good enough for 48W ?". No data is available to answer that :-) You can't link the third party coolers Intel buys, to any data. No theta_R is available. We have to assume the cooler is "good enough" in some sense, but we don't know how good. Overclocking does have its limits. The most extreme I've heard of, is overclocking the D 805 to 4GHz. When the increased Vcore is taken into account, power consumption is around 200W. This exceeds the rating of the 2x2 power connector on the motherboard. And has caused foam plastic to melt, in the vicinity of the Vcore regulator. So there are a few overclocks of that nature, where it pays to keep your calculator handy. Smokin good fun... ******* The story on the AMD side is even more puzzling. In that AMD announced some time ago, that it planned to cheat on power numbers. I don't remember the details, and I'm not interested in looking it up :-) That's the problem with TDP, is it is politically charged, and a marketing brownie point. Too much honesty, isn't good for business. Actual measurements are the only way to add realism to the picture. Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
CPU TDP
"Paul" wrote in message
... GT wrote: CPU TDP question: Why are the e6300, e6400 and e6600 all rated at 65w TDP? As I understand it, the heat output is based on the CPU architecture multiplied by the CPU clock speed and CPU vCore squared (roughly). With these 3 chips (and other CPU families) the only different is their speed (and cache levels), so the heat should be lowest in the 6300, middle in the 6400 and top in the 6600? I expect that the TDP is just a max rating to enable users to select the correct cooler and the slower chips in reality produce less heat than the faster ones, but can someone confirm this? In short, if I take an e6400 and overclock it from its stock 2.16GHz up to the 2.4GHz stock speed of the e6600, then would the heat output match that of a stock e6600? CPUs are plopped into "bins", for the purposes of the TDP number. Everything in the same bin, might benefit from the same retail cooler. Say I was looking in the Intel catalog, and saw this. 2.1GHz TDP=65W 2.2GHz TDP=65W 2.3GHz TDP=65W 2.4GHz TDP=89W 2.5GHz TDP=89W What that would tell me, is the one just before the transition, is nearest to being really representative. So the 2.3GHz has a real TDP rating of 65W, while the slower ones don't actually get that hot. The 2.4GHz one is in the next set of bins, and draws much less than 89W. It could be drawing 65W or a little more. But guessing at it, really doesn't tell us what is going on. Measurements are more illuminating. When they include a heatsink fan in the retail CPU box, the first three will come with the same cooler. The last two, will have a slightly beefier cooler. The accuracy and intent of TDP has changed over the years. On my Northwood processors, the actual power might be very close to the TDP. Maybe even a couple watts above it. My Core2 processors are on the low side. I think my 3GHz Core2 65W, might have measured 45W. Another Core2 I've got, measures 36W or so. And that is measured on the ATX12V cable, so the real power as measured at the socket itself, is lower. (Vcore emits some heat, and isn't 100% efficient.) Those measurements are done with something like Prime95 running. For small overclocks, it is probably sufficient to use a simple ratio, or other rule, and assume nothing is going to burn up. If you wanted a more accurate method, you'd 1) Measure the stock consumption like I did. 2) Use FCV**2 equation, to estimate the new power rating. Frequency scaling is directly proportional. Taking the ratio of your two frequencies, I get 1.11x, which means 11 percent more power due to frequency. The voltage term is V_squared. If the original Vcore was 1.3V and to keep the processor stable, you needed 1.35V, then take the ratio of 1.35/1.3 and square the result to get 1.078. That means 7.8% more power, comes from the extra voltage I used in the overclock. Taking both factors into account = 1.11 * 1.078 = 1.197 or close to 20% more power. So if the original power was 40W, and you overclocked with a bit more Vcore (tested for stability and found it necessary), the estimated power would be 40W * 1.2 = 48W roughly. You could then clamp on the ammeter, and verify it. So then the next natural question would be, "is the retail heatsink/fan good enough for 48W ?". No data is available to answer that :-) You can't link the third party coolers Intel buys, to any data. No theta_R is available. We have to assume the cooler is "good enough" in some sense, but we don't know how good. Overclocking does have its limits. The most extreme I've heard of, is overclocking the D 805 to 4GHz. When the increased Vcore is taken into account, power consumption is around 200W. This exceeds the rating of the 2x2 power connector on the motherboard. And has caused foam plastic to melt, in the vicinity of the Vcore regulator. So there are a few overclocks of that nature, where it pays to keep your calculator handy. Smokin good fun... ******* The story on the AMD side is even more puzzling. In that AMD announced some time ago, that it planned to cheat on power numbers. I don't remember the details, and I'm not interested in looking it up :-) That's the problem with TDP, is it is politically charged, and a marketing brownie point. Too much honesty, isn't good for business. Actual measurements are the only way to add realism to the picture. Paul Thanks Paul. I was asking with a view to under-volting and possibly under-clocking for a media centre PC. I have used the formula before to calculate power/heat, but was just wondering about the TDP classification. You have confirmed what I thought - the TDP is just a group thing for a family of processors, the actualy power/heat varies based on vCore and Frequency. Thanks. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
athlon 64 x2 5000+: the last cpu with 65W tdp? | [email protected] | General | 0 | August 29th 07 09:47 PM |
P4M temperature and TDP/watts | [email protected] | General | 3 | April 15th 07 12:23 AM |
Yonah will have four TDP levels | YKhan | General | 21 | October 19th 05 02:43 AM |
Yonah will have four TDP levels | YKhan | Intel | 8 | October 15th 05 02:43 PM |
Intel P4 6xx TDP goes 130W | RusH | General | 2 | January 6th 05 03:37 PM |