TDP list for Intel chipsets
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
TDP list for Intel chipsets
All numbers are maximum TDP taken from Intel.
IOH:
X58: 24.1 W
MCH:
(Note: Idle Power is based on a typical part in system booted to Windows OS with no background applications running.)
X48: 26.5 W, 12.3 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
P45: 22 W, 9 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
G45: 24 W, 9 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
P43: 22 W, 9 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
G43: 24 W, 9 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
X38: 26.5 W, 12.3 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
P35: 16 W, 5.9 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
G35: 28 W, 11 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
Q35: 15 W, 6.5 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
G33: 14.5 W, 5.75 W, with 333 MHz FSB
P31: 15.5 W, 7.6 W idle, with 266 MHz FSB
G31: 15.5 W, 7.4 W idle, with 266 MHz FSB
G965: 28 W, 13 W idle
Q963: 28 W, 13 W idle
Q965: 28 W, 11 W idle
P965: 19 W, 10 W idle
975X: 13.5 W
955X: 13.5 W
945G: 22.2 W
945GZ: 22.2 W
945P: 15.2 W
945PL: 15.2 W
925XE: 13.3 W
925X: 12.3 W
915G: 16.3 W
915GV: 16.3 W
915GL: 16.3 W
910GL: 16.3 W
875P: 10.1 W
865G: 12.9 W
865GV: 12.6 W
865PE: 11.3 W
865P: 10.3 W
845GE: 6.3 W
845PE: 5.6 W
ICH:
ICH10: 4.5 W
ICH9: 4.0 W
ICH8: 4.1 W
ICH7: 3.3 W
ICH6: 3.8 W
ICH5: 2.4 W
ICH4: 2.2 W
IOH:
X58: 24.1 W
MCH:
(Note: Idle Power is based on a typical part in system booted to Windows OS with no background applications running.)
X48: 26.5 W, 12.3 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
P45: 22 W, 9 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
G45: 24 W, 9 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
P43: 22 W, 9 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
G43: 24 W, 9 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
X38: 26.5 W, 12.3 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
P35: 16 W, 5.9 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
G35: 28 W, 11 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
Q35: 15 W, 6.5 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
G33: 14.5 W, 5.75 W, with 333 MHz FSB
P31: 15.5 W, 7.6 W idle, with 266 MHz FSB
G31: 15.5 W, 7.4 W idle, with 266 MHz FSB
G965: 28 W, 13 W idle
Q963: 28 W, 13 W idle
Q965: 28 W, 11 W idle
P965: 19 W, 10 W idle
975X: 13.5 W
955X: 13.5 W
945G: 22.2 W
945GZ: 22.2 W
945P: 15.2 W
945PL: 15.2 W
925XE: 13.3 W
925X: 12.3 W
915G: 16.3 W
915GV: 16.3 W
915GL: 16.3 W
910GL: 16.3 W
875P: 10.1 W
865G: 12.9 W
865GV: 12.6 W
865PE: 11.3 W
865P: 10.3 W
845GE: 6.3 W
845PE: 5.6 W
ICH:
ICH10: 4.5 W
ICH9: 4.0 W
ICH8: 4.1 W
ICH7: 3.3 W
ICH6: 3.8 W
ICH5: 2.4 W
ICH4: 2.2 W
Last edited by Mats on Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:49 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Re: TDP list for Intel chipsets
I never would have guessed that after reading this:Mats wrote: MCH:
P965: 19 W
975X: 13.5 W
ICH:
ICH8: 4.1 W
ICH7: 3.3 W
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2855
Moral of the story: Reality and theory don't always align.
Re: TDP list for Intel chipsets
The "reality" you're talking about is far from perfect to draw any conclusions from. That 975X board have an additional RAID controller which the P965 doesn't have. I'd like to see more mobos tested, but then again, the average 975X mobo have more components than the average P965.pyogenes wrote:Moral of the story: Reality and theory don't always align.
You simply can't draw any useful conclusions between the power draw of P965 and 975X when the biggest difference in the test is 3.8 W.
BTW the P965 uses 10 W in idle in Windows XP.
Yeah, I had to do it the hard way. Not that it was hard though, and certainly not one for each chipset. Some docs covers 4 or more chipsets, the doc titles says it all. I think it was 14 documents plus one for each ICH.MikeC wrote:Where exactly did you get the numbers from tho? Did you dig into each and every tech doc for each and every chipset?
The TDP is found in every "Intel® xxx Chipset Family Thermal Mechanical Design Guidelines" doc, under the "Technical Documents" tab for each chipset. It is listed in the table of contents, and is usually found somewhere in pages 10 - 17. Here is the doc for the 965/963 series for instance (page 14).
Last edited by Mats on Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 1809
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
- Location: At Home
28W is a lot to cool passively and if you look at the Asus P5B-VM which uses the G965, it doesn’t have a very large (passive) heatsink on the Northbridge. Not a good board for over-clocking I would surmise.
An extra 9W maximum for an IGP isn’t so much when you consider that an entry level GPU typically consumes 9W or more at idle; G965 has a TDP 9W more than the P965.
An extra 9W maximum for an IGP isn’t so much when you consider that an entry level GPU typically consumes 9W or more at idle; G965 has a TDP 9W more than the P965.
Re: TDP list for Intel chipsets
I think you misunderstood me (my fault for being facetious in my post rather than elaborating on my line of thought). The intent of my comment is perfectly in alignment with your response - there's too many other factors involved to make an assumption about motherboard based on chipset (or vice versa).Mats wrote:The "reality" you're talking about is far from perfect to draw any conclusions from. That 975X board have an additional RAID controller which the P965 doesn't have. I'd like to see more mobos tested, but then again, the average 975X mobo have more components than the average P965.pyogenes wrote:Moral of the story: Reality and theory don't always align.
You simply can't draw any useful conclusions between the power draw of P965 and 975X when the biggest difference in the test is 3.8 W.
BTW the P965 uses 10 W in idle in Windows XP.
In hindsight, I realize you originally posted the information to give guidance for chipset cooling solutions, not commenting on motherboards as a whole (which is what I was responding about)
Remember that these numbers are more useful when discussing chip cooling rather than estimate mobo power consumption. Two different mobos with the same chipsets can have different power consumption. The power consumption also depends on MCH clock speed (like cmthomson mentioned), choice of components (and additional controllers like RAID), etc.
You have to understand how the mobo works, check this block diagram.mimwdv wrote:Does anyone know if turning off options in the BIOS also cuts of power to them? ie if I was to turn of my second SATA controller would it save me any power?
It probably will lower power consumption in the ICH, most likely not in the MCH since it won't transfer any data from the ICH to the CPU for that SATA channel since it's unused.
According to page 11 in this doc, the ICH uses 3.3 W when 4 untis (3 HD's in RAID and 1 optical drive) are connected,
and 3.7 W when 6 units (4 HD's in RAID and 2 optical drive) are connected.
Disabling devices in BIOS may affect boot time though.
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 1809
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
- Location: At Home
Intel has a chipset for embedded systems or SFF systems that has a TDP of 2.3W and supports Atom – SCH US15W.
Panasonic has a Toughbook UMPC using the chipset with an Atom Z520 – Toughbook CF-U1 UMPC. 4.3W for the CPU + Chipset is starting to look good.
Panasonic has a Toughbook UMPC using the chipset with an Atom Z520 – Toughbook CF-U1 UMPC. 4.3W for the CPU + Chipset is starting to look good.
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:35 am
- Location: Chicago, Ill., USA
- Contact:
Please add the 945GSE at 6 watts (+3.3 for the ICH7M)
http://ark.intel.com/chipset.aspx?familyID=35553
Total of 11.8W for the Intel Atom N270 + 945GSE and ICH7M (Acer Aspire One, EEEPC901+/Box, Wind, Wind PC)
http://ark.intel.com/chipset.aspx?familyID=35553
Total of 11.8W for the Intel Atom N270 + 945GSE and ICH7M (Acer Aspire One, EEEPC901+/Box, Wind, Wind PC)
Intel's power numbers are meaningless without their notes. The P35 numbers are higher than the G33 because of the power required to run a discrete card PCIe interface. The P35/G33/Q35/Q33 are all the same chip. If you use them the same way, they use the same amount of power. Intel even points this out:Mats wrote:I was about to add the Q35 and the Q33, but the lower FSB made it a bit confusing, and probably the reason for lower power draw compared to G33.
I will probably add them later on.
So, all the 3-series chips are really 16 W TDP.Intel wrote: 5. Max Idle data is measured on 82P35 MCH for Energy Star when an external graphics card is installed in a system wherein this card must support L0s /L1 ASPM.
6. When an external graphics card is installed in a system with the Intel 82G33, 82Q33 or 82Q35, the TDP for these parts will assume the worst possible PCI Express design and consume as much as 82P35 TDG (16.0 W)
I vote no for including numbers from embedded low power chipsets like the 945GSE unless you can get those in retail motherboards. The 945GSE only has a single DDR2 channel and no PCIe x16 to power.
And why the 945GSE when all the other versions of the 945GM have dual channel DDR2 for 1W TDP more?
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:35 am
- Location: Chicago, Ill., USA
- Contact:
One more that may be of interest: Q45: 17 W Max TDP, Idle (C1/C2): 6 W, Idle (C3/C4): 4.7 W.
I'm confused about the discrepancies between the P, Q, and G series (other than the P not having integrated video).
Now, why with P45 vs G45 is there no difference in idle TDP? And why did TDP go up from the P35 to P45? My understanding is that there weren't too many features added and there was a process shrink.
Anecdotal information: I believe the Q35 does in fact have fairly low idle power consumption. I built my fileserver using an Intel Q35 board with an E5200. I used my Kill-A-Watt, and let it run for over a week. The machine averaged about 118 W AC. Then I rebuilt it, changing only the motherboard and processor to the Gigabyte GA-MA74GM-S2 motherboard and 4850e. I'm at about five days (not quite a week yet), but I've averaged 117 W AC on this setup. Virtually the same.
Given that SPCR found the GA-MA74GM-S2 to have one of the best idle power draws, I'd say that the Q35+E5200 is practically an equal.
I'm confused about the discrepancies between the P, Q, and G series (other than the P not having integrated video).
I sort of understand, but not really.QuietOC wrote:Intel's power numbers are meaningless without their notes. The P35 numbers are higher than the G33 because of the power required to run a discrete card PCIe interface. The P35/G33/Q35/Q33 are all the same chip. If you use them the same way, they use the same amount of power.
I added the Q45 line. Intuitively, the P series should have lower TDP in general due to lack of video. And looking at the P35 vs G35 case, this is true. Q35 throws it all for a loop though.Mats wrote: P35: 16 W, 5.9 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
G35: 28 W, 11 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
Q35: 15 W, 6.5 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
P45: 22 W, 9 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
G45: 24 W, 9 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
Q45: 17 W, 4.7/6W idle
Now, why with P45 vs G45 is there no difference in idle TDP? And why did TDP go up from the P35 to P45? My understanding is that there weren't too many features added and there was a process shrink.
Anecdotal information: I believe the Q35 does in fact have fairly low idle power consumption. I built my fileserver using an Intel Q35 board with an E5200. I used my Kill-A-Watt, and let it run for over a week. The machine averaged about 118 W AC. Then I rebuilt it, changing only the motherboard and processor to the Gigabyte GA-MA74GM-S2 motherboard and 4850e. I'm at about five days (not quite a week yet), but I've averaged 117 W AC on this setup. Virtually the same.
Given that SPCR found the GA-MA74GM-S2 to have one of the best idle power draws, I'd say that the Q35+E5200 is practically an equal.
The integrated video circuits are still present in the P versions and still use current. Adding a external PCIe video card additionally loads the Northbridge. So, the TDP is actually higher for the G33/P35 with a video card than when using the IGP. G35 is not the same chip as G33/P35, it is more like the G45 which is a much more complicated IGP than the GMA 3100 in the G33/P35.matt_garman wrote:I'm confused about the discrepancies between the P, Q, and G series (other than the P not having integrated video).
I sort of understand, but not really.
P45=G45 sort of a die shrunk G35
P35=G33=Q33=Q35 (=G31/P31?)
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:35 am
- Location: Chicago, Ill., USA
- Contact:
Why don't they disable the IGP circuits in the P-series chips?QuietOC wrote:The integrated video circuits are still present in the P versions and still use current. Adding a external PCIe video card additionally loads the Northbridge. So, the TDP is actually higher for the G33/P35 with a video card than when using the IGP. G35 is not the same chip as G33/P35, it is more like the G45 which is a much more complicated IGP than the GMA 3100 in the G33/P35.
It makes a lot more sense for me to look at it that way.QuietOC wrote:P45=G45 sort of a die shrunk G35
P35=G33=Q33=Q35 (=G31/P31?)
The Q45 still looks like the odd one out, though. I'm tempted to do another motherboard swap, and compare the Q45 to the Q35 and AMD 740G I've already tested.
X58: TDP 24.1 W, idle 8.5 W
Source, p 13.
US15W (new Atom chipset): TDP 2.3W, idle unspecified*
Source, p 423.
* With a Z530, it is said to idle at 5 W, as per a number of manufacturers.
Source, p 13.
US15W (new Atom chipset): TDP 2.3W, idle unspecified*
Source, p 423.
* With a Z530, it is said to idle at 5 W, as per a number of manufacturers.