AMD X2 Processors - hotter than single-core?
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
-
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:58 pm
AMD X2 Processors - hotter than single-core?
I'm looking at cooling an AMD Athlon X2 4200+ with a Thermalright XP-90 and some kind of quiet 92mm fan on it. Perhaps a L1BX panaflo or a Delta tri-blade fan from Sidewinder, on a channel of an MCubed T-Balancer. Does this sound reasonable or do you think that the fan will constantly run fast? At issue here seems to be the question: do AMD's dual-core processors have significantly increased or excessive thermal output when compared to a single-core processor (i.e. a dual-core 3800+ vs a single-core 3800+)?
TDP numbers provided by AMD are typicially higher than the actual heat the CPU will dissappate. Those TDP numbers represents the worst case scenario where the CPU is operating under full load for a prolong period of time.
Intel's TDP numbers are different. They represent moderate to high CPU load of 75% for a prolong period of time.
Officially the Thermalright is only rated up to the Athlon 64 3200+. My advice would be run the fan at full speed, note the temperature of the CPU after running something like CPUBurn for 5 minutes. If it's seems resonable continue to run for another 5 or 10 minutes just in case the CPU has not reached it's maximum temp.
If you are comfortable with the temp, then lower the fan speed a little bit and check the temp after 5 or 10 minutes of CPUBrun. Continue to do this until your are comfortable with the noise, or the temperature is too high for yor liking.
Too much work? Then I suggest getting a HSF that is rated for at least the A64 X2 4200+.
Intel's TDP numbers are different. They represent moderate to high CPU load of 75% for a prolong period of time.
Officially the Thermalright is only rated up to the Athlon 64 3200+. My advice would be run the fan at full speed, note the temperature of the CPU after running something like CPUBurn for 5 minutes. If it's seems resonable continue to run for another 5 or 10 minutes just in case the CPU has not reached it's maximum temp.
If you are comfortable with the temp, then lower the fan speed a little bit and check the temp after 5 or 10 minutes of CPUBrun. Continue to do this until your are comfortable with the noise, or the temperature is too high for yor liking.
Too much work? Then I suggest getting a HSF that is rated for at least the A64 X2 4200+.
My rig stays quiet (as far as I am concerned) no matter how hard I push it. The heatsink you have is better than the one I have according to the reviews published here. Since the highest temp I have seen is 25C over ambient temp with the max fan speed of 1200rpm your rig should stay a lot cooler and a lot quieter than mine.
-Quikkie
-Quikkie
Why an XP90? The XP 120 is more efficient,and the Ninja is even more so. Some do run X2's passive with a Ninja,with a nearby case exhaust. Others attach a 120mm at 500-700 rpm. More powerful procs if all 90nm chips,will run hotter AMD's official specs are very general. In reality,a 3000 Venice will run cooler + less watts than a 3500,but AMD lists one TDP for the whole Venice series. It would be interesting to see a chart of real world relative heat covering the AMD 64 stuff from palermo's up through the x2's.
-
- Posts: 1608
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:02 pm
- Location: United States
Eh no? That's heat, not powerTibors wrote:McBanjo,
It looks like the numbers you quote are the TDP numbers from AMD. If you look around in these forums and other places on the web, then you'll find they have no real relationship with the actual power consumption of the chips.
Yep, 89W doesn't meen it's always 89W but 0-89W. 75% isn't really any usefull since you want to be sure the cooler can handle the cpu even in worst case scenario.stupid wrote:TDP numbers provided by AMD are typicially higher than the actual heat the CPU will dissappate. Those TDP numbers represents the worst case scenario where the CPU is operating under full load for a prolong period of time.
75% is probibly more realistic tho what a normal user generally max hits.
-
- Patron of SPCR
- Posts: 2674
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 6:07 am
- Location: Houten, The Netherlands, Europe
McBanjo,
You obviously didn't do the looking around I advised you to do. The TDP numbers are absolute and complete bogus. It is physically impossible that the Winchester core generates the same amount of heat for all the different MHz variations that were availlable. Still that was what the TDP numbers were saying. And as other people already pointed out the difference between the power consumed and the heat emited by a CPU is negligable.
You obviously didn't do the looking around I advised you to do. The TDP numbers are absolute and complete bogus. It is physically impossible that the Winchester core generates the same amount of heat for all the different MHz variations that were availlable. Still that was what the TDP numbers were saying. And as other people already pointed out the difference between the power consumed and the heat emited by a CPU is negligable.
-
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:58 pm
Before you buy the XP-90, read this thread. The new stock cooler of dual cores seems to perform really well. Check it's performance before you buy the heatsink. You may find it's performance well enough and they the only thing you need at most is a fan swap.
Edit: just to summarize the madshrimps article, which can be found from that thread. When XP-90 and AMDs new 4-heatpipe stock heatsinks were both tested with the same stock fan that came with amd cooler, their temperatures were on par! Test was run with dual core opteron 165 overclocked to 2.4 and 2.6ghz and running dual prime95 stable...
Edit: just to summarize the madshrimps article, which can be found from that thread. When XP-90 and AMDs new 4-heatpipe stock heatsinks were both tested with the same stock fan that came with amd cooler, their temperatures were on par! Test was run with dual core opteron 165 overclocked to 2.4 and 2.6ghz and running dual prime95 stable...