Intel Prescott > 100 W !!?

halcyon · Post by **halcyon** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 12:27 am

This doesn't look good:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10612
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2003 ... gai005.htm

If the figures are right, the power consumption for the upcoming Prescott P4 CPU is 103 W (was supposed to be 83/89W). Tejas is supposed to start at over 100W and probably ramp up from there

I think I'll stop upgrading my CPU at this rate. Dissipating 65+ W quietly is already hard as it is without resorting to really intricate liquid cooling components.

I'm sure all the thermal specs for Intel heatsinks, atx cases, psus and such will be revised soon at this rate.

Looks like we're going to all need that Zalman €1500 heatsink-case combination in a few years AND still put huge amounts of active cooling into our systems :)

I hope this is just the last remnants of a bad trend, until thermal design becomes a number one priority at Intel.

Funny, Apple's dual 2 GHz machine with 47 W / CPU thermal dissipation is starting to look really spiffy compared to what Intel has to offer.

AMD's Opteron at 1.8 GHz is supposed to consume c. 55 W max (not typical), which is half that of the Intel Prescott.

I think the near future is looking somewhat bleak for high-end Intel cpu users requiring quiet cooling.

regards,
Halcyon

lenny · Post by **lenny** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 12:40 am

Good grief! I wonder if the stock HSF is going to include something more exotic than a thermally controlled fan.

I guess one solution to quiet the racket without expensive and exotic parts will be to put the system in the garage

Open a small hole in the wall, and run video, USB and FireWire cables through. Throw in PS/2 mouse and keyboard too if you'd rather not use USB for those. Use USB or FireWire for optical drives. Oh, and I forgot - extension cables for the power button, and for the reset button too for those of us running Windows

nbac · Post by **nbac** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 2:15 am

lenny, I think it was a good idea

Correct me if I'm wrong, but maximum cable length for the
following I/O standards:

USB 1.0/2.0 : 5m
Firewire (IEEE-1394) : 4.5m @ 800Mbps, 100m @ 200Mbps)
DVI-D (LVDS) : At least 15m on copper
Analog VGA : I would say 5m @ 1024x768/85Hz

johtib · Post by **johtib** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 2:29 am

nbac wrote:lenny, I think it was a good idea

Correct me if I'm wrong, but maximum cable length for the
following I/O standards:

USB 1.0/2.0 : 5m
Firewire (IEEE-1394) : 4.5m @ 800Mbps, 100m @ 200Mbps)
DVI-D (LVDS) : At least 15m on copper
Analog VGA : I would say 5m @ 1024x768/85Hz

I might be forced to use an 5m Analog VGA cable to use the same monitor for two computers spread out in the room. Are there better shielded cables to use?

BananFlue · Post by **BananFlue** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 3:16 am

USB 1.0/2.0 : 5m
Firewire (IEEE-1394) : 4.5m @ 800Mbps, 100m @ 200Mbps)
DVI-D (LVDS) : At least 15m on copper
Analog VGA : I would say 5m @ 1024x768/85Hz

USB repeaters as this could be used. Then connected to an usb-hub in the room where the computer needs to be used from.

-Peter

jojo4u · Post by **jojo4u** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 3:23 am

Let's hope that they are able to reduce the leakage current.

Post by **Ralf Hutter** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 5:13 am

The high power comsumption of the Prescott/Tejas is why I decided to go with the Canterwood/P4C now instead of waiting. I may lose some speed and features like PCI-X but I just can't imagime wht it's gonna take to cool those babies quietly......

Gandalf · Post by **Gandalf** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 5:17 am

This: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10678 however is fairly interesting ...
It could just solve part of the problem.

Then again, the real problem is that ludicrous power hogging piece of crap processor!

DryFire · Post by **DryFire** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 5:50 am

Liquid nitrogen anyone?

Gandalf · Post by **Gandalf** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:07 am

DryFire wrote:Liquid nitrogen anyone?

I think I'll pass

.
*boots his 8088* It's good enough for emailing

.

blahblahbloo · Post by **blahblahbloo** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 2:36 pm

lenny wrote:Good grief! I wonder if the stock HSF is going to include something more exotic than a thermally controlled fan.

I guess one solution to quiet the racket without expensive and exotic parts will be to put the system in the garage Open a small hole in the wall, and run video, USB and FireWire cables through. Throw in PS/2 mouse and keyboard too if you'd rather not use USB for those. Use USB or FireWire for optical drives. Oh, and I forgot - extension cables for the power button, and for the reset button too for those of us running Windows

That could be a problem for those of us in Arizona, where ambient garage temperatures can get up to 50C.

blahblahbloo · Post by **blahblahbloo** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 2:44 pm

Perhaps this particular CPU core was named for us Arizonans. There's a city called Prescott, and IIRC it's up in the mountains where it's nice and cool. So if you buy this processor, you'll need to run it in your garage; and if you run it in your garage, you'll need to move to Prescott to get low enough ambient temps.

Post by **MikeC** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 4:38 pm

It's precisely this kind of ridiculous pell-mell drive to higher speed with no regard to thermal / noise issues that makes VIA's C3 look so much "smarter". If the C3 could be ramped up to match the computing power of something like an Athlon 1G, XP1600 or P4-1.6A while keeping the heat down below 20W, it would take a serious bite of the market. If...

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 6:02 pm

Hello:

There is a good discussion of this over at Ace's:

http://www.aceshardware.com/forum?read=105026346#TEXT

dago · Post by **dago** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 12:18 am

MikeC : totally agree with you, but I would prefer to see desktop version of the Intel Pentium M (Banias) ... slowly coming ...

For example, a 1.6 GHz one has approx same performances as a 2.1- 2.2 GHz P4 and only 24W "thermal design power" ... and ultra low voltage version are available, with the 900 at only 7W ...

(see this topic)

but intel is in the "higher the frequency, higher the speed" marketing path. Going to "well, you know, MHz are not everything" would be 180° in the other direction, just like what AMD's doing.

johtib · Post by **johtib** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 12:31 am

MikeC wrote:It's precisely this kind of ridiculous pell-mell drive to higher speed with no regard to thermal / noise issues that makes VIA's C3 look so much "smarter". If the C3 could be ramped up to match the computing power of something like an Athlon 1G, XP1600 or P4-1.6A while keeping the heat down below 20W, it would take a serious bite of the market. If...

Being a frequent visitor at several mini-ITX forums there are rumors of a C3 (or rather the following generation) that will be equiped with a 200 fsb. I don't know how much truth the rumor holds though but it would perhaps finally gives us a C3 with enough performance.

Gandalf · Post by **Gandalf** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 2:09 am

MikeC wrote:It's precisely this kind of ridiculous pell-mell drive to higher speed with no regard to thermal / noise issues that makes VIA's C3 look so much "smarter". If the C3 could be ramped up to match the computing power of something like an Athlon 1G, XP1600 or P4-1.6A while keeping the heat down below 20W, it would take a serious bite of the market. If...

If is indeed the keyword.
For regular pc usage (office work, mp3's, perhaps a few movies) the current C3's suffice just fine. They do however lack the power for games.
The mini-itx platform is *really* intelligent .. I mean they *are* integrating everything and at the same decentralising things away from the CPU (the integrated mpeg-2 decorder for example!).
I wonder how they would in games with a "decent" video card.

johtib · Post by **johtib** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:12 am

Gandalf wrote:If is indeed the keyword.
For regular pc usage (office work, mp3's, perhaps a few movies) the current C3's suffice just fine. They do however lack the power for games.
The mini-itx platform is *really* intelligent .. I mean they *are* integrating everything and at the same decentralising things away from the CPU (the integrated mpeg-2 decorder for example!).
I wonder how they would in games with a "decent" video card.

With a GF4 PCI card (passively cooled) you can play most "older" games (no C&C: Generals etc.), atleast according to those who've tried (which is supricinly few).

Gandalf · Post by **Gandalf** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 5:15 am

I'm aware of that. But PCI cards are considerably slower than AGP cards.
Do the C3's still fit in the P4 sockets?

IMHO it would be a good idea to make C3's AMD socket compatible.

pingu666 · Post by **pingu666** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:49 am

c3 on nf2 mobo. mmmmmmm yeah:D
there socket 370, thats what my 1ghz is anyways:)

jojo4u · Post by **jojo4u** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 2:49 pm

Gandalf wrote:
DryFire wrote:Liquid nitrogen anyone?
*boots his 8088* It's good enough for emailing :P.

It's also faster in booting+writing than your great P4... ;)

I don't look that much at the maximum power dissipation. I am interested in the idle power dissipation since my PC is a office one. If the Prescott is faster per Watt, it's great. But I don't think it's more efficient. The increased cache eats up so much power. There seems to be no disabling of unused areas like in the Pentium M.
The maximum power of can be adjusted by underclocking/-volting. Idle power can't be adjusted. Because of that I still like my Palomino. The larger the structures, the less the idle loss.
It's very sad that Intel doesn't care about energy saving (and AMD too!). I don't know if producing a Pentium M is more energy wasting than producing a Pentium 4. Every chip just has needed over the half of it's whole power when it leaves the fab....

Intel Prescott > 100 W !!?

Intel Prescott > 100 W !!?

Good discussion over at Ace's