| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mats
Joined: 26 Dec 2003
Posts: 2722
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:41 am Post subject: 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
Last edited by Mats on Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:49 pm; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
pyogenes
Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 273
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:07 am Post subject: Re: TDP list for Intel chipsets |
|
|
| Mats wrote: |
MCH:
P965: 19 W
975X: 13.5 W
ICH:
ICH8: 4.1 W
ICH7: 3.3 W
|
I never would have guessed that after reading this:
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2855
Moral of the story: Reality and theory don't always align. 
_________________
Joe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mats
Joined: 26 Dec 2003
Posts: 2722
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:59 am Post subject: Re: TDP list for Intel chipsets |
|
|
| pyogenes wrote: | | Moral of the story: Reality and theory don't always align. |
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.
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
b3nbranch
*Lifetime Patron*
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 109
Location: Columbus, Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you add a graphics card, thus disabling on-board graphics,
would a G chip drop to the wattage of a P chipset? (e.g. G965->P965,
945G->945P)
_________________
E7500/Zotac GF9300-I-E/picoPSU-150-XT/4GB DDR2-800/40 GB X-25V SSD/500GB 2.5" Hitachi Travelstar/Ubuntu 9.10 64-bit
My blog ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
autoboy
Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 996
Location: San Jose, California
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Looks like the onboard graphics on the 965 chipset will consume a lot of power. I wonder if they can still be cooled passively. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeC
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 10328
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mats,
This is really good information. Where exactly did you get the numbers from tho? Did you dig into each and every tech doc for each and every chipset? Or is there some big comparison table? I looked briefly but the latter ones I found did not show power...
_________________
Mike Chin,
Editor/Publisher, SPCR
Support SPCR with your donations! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mats
Joined: 26 Dec 2003
Posts: 2722
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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? |
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.
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
smilingcrow
*Lifetime Patron*
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
Posts: 1692
Location: At Home
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mats
Joined: 26 Dec 2003
Posts: 2722
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The tech docs also shows the power consumption for the 96x series in idle while running Windows XP. I'll add that now.
I think the TDP numbers for the newest chipsets will make people reconsider the choice of mobo, especially for HTPCs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mats
Joined: 26 Dec 2003
Posts: 2722
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| autoboy wrote: | | Looks like the onboard graphics on the 965 chipset will consume a lot of power. I wonder if they can still be cooled passively. |
My guess is that it's just like with the nVidia 6100 chipsets, it's possible as long as you don't run games for instance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pyogenes
Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 273
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:27 pm Post subject: Re: TDP list for Intel chipsets |
|
|
| Mats wrote: | | pyogenes wrote: | | Moral of the story: Reality and theory don't always align. |
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.
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. |
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).
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)
_________________
Joe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mats
Joined: 26 Dec 2003
Posts: 2722
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pyogenes:Yeah, I realized that after a while. Not surprising, since English isn't my native language. It happens all the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mats
Joined: 26 Dec 2003
Posts: 2722
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Update: G31, G33, G35, P31, P35 and ICH9 added. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mimwdv
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 109
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey, Mats, thanks for a really useful list for those of us trying to build a seriously low-power system. I was planning on replacing my p965 board for something cheaper to run, but maybe I'll hang onto it after all. 10W ain't so bad! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmthomson
Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 1126
Location: Pleasanton, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course you need to consider overclocking. Almost all ASUS motherboards overclock the MCH by default (in the BIOS it's called "Hyperpath 3"), so by default the north bridges consume more power than the Intel specs.
_________________
Core 2 Duo E8500@405 (3.85 GHz), Asus P5Qdlx, 4GB G.Skill Trident 5-5-5-15@1215, Intel X25M + Samsung HD502HI 500GB, Gigabyte N98TZL GPU@690, Antec P180 case, Antec Phantom 500 PS, Scythe Ninja Rev A CPU HS, Accelero S1 rev2 video HS, 3xNexus + 1 AC PWM 120mm fans <= 600 RPM, AcoustiPack foam, homemade ducts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mats
Joined: 26 Dec 2003
Posts: 2722
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mimwdv
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 109
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
True, I hadn't thought of that. 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?
_________________
Server: E8400 (stock speeds @1.0V)7700-AlCu, Nexus fan|G33M-S2H|:HDs WD 1200BEVS 2x WDEACS 1TB|2xdigital tuners|PW-200-V, 80W brick|Antec NSK1300|
HTPC: X2 4000+ (stock speeds @1.0V|stock cooler, Nexus fan)|M2A-VM HDMI|Seagate 40GB 2.5"|PicoPSU120, 80W brick|Silverstone LC02|DVICO digital tuner| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mats
Joined: 26 Dec 2003
Posts: 2722
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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? |
You have to understand how the mobo works, check this block diagram.
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mats
Joined: 26 Dec 2003
Posts: 2722
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Update: X38, G43, G45, P43, P45, X48 and ICH10 added. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thejamppa
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 3095
Location: Missing in Finnish wilderness, howling to moon with wolf brethren and walking with brother bears
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I never knew that P45 would consume 6W's more than P35. I am glad i went for P35 board with downblowing cooler ^^. Excellent job Mats!!
_________________
Machines of Tortuga | If seeing is believing, how can blind person believe in anything? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
smilingcrow
*Lifetime Patron*
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
Posts: 1692
Location: At Home
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matt_garman
*Lifetime Patron*
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 465
Location: Chicago, Ill., USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I did the exact same research, just didn't bother to post it! 
Anyway, a couple oddball chips to add to the list:
Q35 13.5 W
3210 21.3 W
6702PXH 10.2 W
_________________
my computers (updated December, 2007) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mats
Joined: 26 Dec 2003
Posts: 2722
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daijoubu
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
QuietOC
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 1407
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
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:
| 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) |
So, all the 3-series chips are really 16 W TDP.
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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mats
Joined: 26 Dec 2003
Posts: 2722
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Q35 and X58 added. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matt_garman
*Lifetime Patron*
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 465
Location: Chicago, Ill., USA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
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).
| 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 sort of understand, but not really. 
| 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
|
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.
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.
_________________
my computers (updated December, 2007) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
QuietOC
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 1407
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
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.
P45=G45 sort of a die shrunk G35
P35=G33=Q33=Q35 (=G31/P31?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matt_garman
*Lifetime Patron*
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 465
Location: Chicago, Ill., USA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
Why don't they disable the IGP circuits in the P-series chips?
| QuietOC wrote: | P45=G45 sort of a die shrunk G35
P35=G33=Q33=Q35 (=G31/P31?) |
It makes a lot more sense for me to look at it that way.
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.
_________________
my computers (updated December, 2007) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blue_Sky
Joined: 05 Jun 2007
Posts: 217
Location: Kingston, ON, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
