Hot Stuff

[Cricket]

Kentsfield survives tropical torture test

Sounds like the new Intel Quad Core processors run pretty hot. A Core 2 Extreme QX6700 running at a stock speed of 2.66GHz idled at 72C while in the BIOS using the stock Intel HSF. Hit 81C during benchmarks. Sounds like watercooling will become mainstream soon.

Four cores are better than two

We take a close look at an AMD 4x4 box

Cricket

[HAL9000]

That really doesn't surprise me at all... 4 cores crammed onto one tiny die, bound to produce a lotta heat.

[TallTravel]

Originally Posted by HAL9000 That really doesn't surprise me at all... 4 cores crammed onto one tiny die, bound to produce a lotta heat.

That's been an issue with multiple processors for decades, PC's or not. Silly me, I would have thought Intel and AMD would have this figured out already.

[David M]

Why don't they make them physically larger to increase the amount of surface area which can be used to dissipate the heat? Of course this would require a new type of larger socket....so whats holding them up if they want to go take CPU's to new level? So make them the size of a credit card...why not? Must they remain the same size forever? The more surface area you have the better it is for dissipating heat...why are they not thinking along these lines? Are they just going to keep cramming more cores into the same sized CPU casing?

[blue60007]

I decide to make the best of Singapore's year-round hot and humid weather, perfect for sauna-style steaming, in my notoriously poorly-ventilated lab room, and turn off the airconditioning - letting the hapless QX6700 hang on for dear life at 35 Celsius room temperature on that Intel bundle heat sink, and yet overclocking it for a good measure?

I think most CPU's would run extremely hot under those conditions, but even then, Quad cores do put out twice as much power as E6600 (since it is two of them slapped together).

[Cricket]

Oh, his room was 95F! Okay, that would account for higher CPU and system temps.

Cricket

[rspassey]

Originally Posted by David M Why don't they make them physically larger to increase the amount of surface area which can be used to dissipate the heat? Of course this would require a new type of larger socket....so whats holding them up if they want to go take CPU's to new level? So make them the size of a credit card...why not? Must they remain the same size forever? The more surface area you have the better it is for dissipating heat...why are they not thinking along these lines? Are they just going to keep cramming more cores into the same sized CPU casing?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but small is a) cheaper to produce after the technology is developed, and b) faster because of less distance between things.

[Mr.Ferrari]

Thats why im skipping on these Kents.
They are basically just a way to say Intel got there first. Anybody who wishes to buy these things is either
1. Impulsive-Gotta have it all
2. Has alotta $$

The quad core to get is Yorkfield. The TRUE quad.

@David, its not exactly that simple, architecture changes require new platforms and dies. If they were to keep with such large cpu's we would be spending thousands for just a simple single core. And whats inside the actual die are a series of transistors, more space just means more transistors, more transistors means more heat and electricity. By using less and less costs are cut, TDP lowered, and power consumption halved.


Like others have mentioned, they are just literally 2 conroe dies stuck together. They have twice the TDP, twice the heat and almost twice the cost.

Yorkfield is coming out in Q3 of '07 and is gonna be on a new 45nm platform with better tweaks. It willl definately be the one worth it for people interested in that kinda power.

[blue60007]

Originally Posted by Cricket Oh, his room was 95F! Okay, that would account for higher CPU and system temps. Cricket

Yeah, I thought what your were saying sounded a little funny. They put out twice the power, but no more than the previous Netburst based Extreme Edition CPU's, and they didn't run that hot.

I did see a few benchmarks showing quite a bit more muscle in a few apps (like video encoding), apps that are heavily multithreaded. I guess if you're heavily into those things, and faster video encoding means more $$ for your business, I could see one of these being worth it. Otherwise, it's not worth it to the average user. Not until games becoming heavily multithreaded (offloading physics to one core, gameplay, etc to other cores) which I hear is supposed to happen within the next couple of years. By then, they should have the CPU's Mr. Ferrari mentioned out and I'm sure they'll bring these down to the mainstream level. $1000 CPU's certainly aren't mainstream, and neither is the $800 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad they plan on bring out later.

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by blue60007 $1000 CPU's certainly aren't mainstream,

I remember when the 1GHz PIII was first introduced, retail price was around $1300...and people were buying them! I waited a year and got mine for $215.

Cricket

[The_YongGrand]

Originally Posted by Cricket I remember when the 1GHz PIII was first introduced, retail price was around $1300...and people were buying them! I waited a year and got mine for $215. Cricket

That's why I never buy newly released processors yet. Some guys back in one of a tech-forum in my place said that he wanna get a Quad-Core and he wanna blow up his 5000 dollars just for an Alan Wake game. Well, I rather wait it until the prices become lower (or lowest). Or it's matured.

I got most of my computers cheap because not of discounts, but when they reached maturity.

[newbuilder14]

I wonder what the max temp for one of those is. Anyway, I read in PC World the quad core wasn't better than the dual core for most tasks, or did not beat it in WorldBench unless I'm mitaken.

[HAL9000]

That's because a lot of apps and games aren't written to take advantage of a quad core yet... but that didn't stop people from going 64 bit... so this shouldn't have any effect either.

[David M]

When I start seeing more games written for the Quad-core and written for 64 bits....thats when I build my next computer.

[blue60007]

Originally Posted by Cricket I remember when the 1GHz PIII was first introduced, retail price was around $1300...and people were buying them! I waited a year and got mine for $215. Cricket

Wow, well, I guess both these processors are groundbreaking... (broke 1 GHz and first quad core).

[TallTravel]

Originally Posted by HAL9000 That's because a lot of apps and games aren't written to take advantage of a quad core yet... but that didn't stop people from going 64 bit... so this shouldn't have any effect either.

That's interesting Hal. Are there any professional game software developers on this forum? Or mainly just users? It seems like a lot of tech support people are here, but I don't see that many posts from developers.

I recall seeing the same thing written about the first dual processors, the first 386's, 486's, etc. It is an ongoing effort to write something which is actually written for that processor or set of processors.

[blue60007]

I read in an article an interesting point. It usually takes a couple years for developers to create games (especially when coding your own engine). A couple of years ago, dual core processors did not exist so it's kinda hard to program games for dual core when it wasn't even a reality. A couple of years from now, games should be able to use quad cores...cause if they start now, they'll have quad cores to work with.