[LZ_Xray]

"This is as designed and meets quality and reliability expectations for parts operating under specified conditions," Intel explained

Source: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...e_temperatures

Ugh. This sounds suspiciously like "we're not trying anymore because we don't have to".

This, to me, is the bad side of AMD backing away from the high end CPU space. I understand Intel's point completely from a cost standpoint, but not on a -K SKU CPU. Charge the extra $50 for a soldered -K CPU and give us an unencumbered enthusiast part, because an unlocked multi and a -K in the name does not an enthusiast part make.

[mjw21a]

They're not backing away, they just can't compete. This is why they're going down the APU path. Convince coders to develop to use GCN and Intel won't keep up.

They can't beat Intel at their own game, so try change the game. It's the only approach in which they have a chance of actually beating Intel. They don't have the $ to try anything else.

[bmwbaxter]

Originally Posted by mjw21a

They're not backing away, they just can't compete. This is why they're going down the APU path. Convince coders to develop to use GCN and Intel won't keep up.

They can't beat Intel at their own game, so try change the game. It's the only approach in which they have a chance of actually beating Intel. They don't have the $ to try anything else.

just hopefully putting all their eggs in this one basket doesn't fail.

[mjw21a]

Fingers crossed eh?

[bmwbaxter]

Indeed! Anything to drive prices down and quality up... but more prices down

[MattNo5ss]

Something I try to keep in mind is that CPUs are designed to run safely up to their TJmax. So, if a CPU has a TJmax of 105C, then running at 40C load versus 100C load doesn't matter to the CPU. In my opinion, we've just become so accustomed to being able to run our CPUs so far from the TJmax (even when OC'd in some cases) that we've forgotten that the CPU doesn't care about temps as long as it's under that TJmax; and we have seemingly decided upon a threshold of when temps are "high" based on what we're used to seeing, and not based on when temps are actually high.

So, as long as CPUs run under their TJmax I'm not concerned about them.

[bmwbaxter]

Does that hold true even when we are putting more volts through them causing us to get closer to TJmax? Not just by a lack of cooling at stock speeds?

[mjw21a]

^^^ Good point. Just make sure that you've a case with decent airflow and you're fine.... To an certain extent anyway. My issue has always been heat buildup in my room during summer. Gaming for 5-6 hours can easily raise room temps by 10C or so. The hotter a chip runs then the more heat I'm exhausting into my room, or is it? I'm curious as to whether this chip actually produces more heat or whether its simply concentrated over a smaller area and therefore wouldn't affect my room temps.....

[Janus67]

The chip itself uses less wattage so it will actually produce less heat despite running hotter than sandy bridge

[bmwbaxter]

Originally Posted by Janus67

The chip itself uses less wattage so it will actually produce less heat despite running hotter than sandy bridge

That still won't matter if the chip reaches its TJmax since the heat has a harder time escaping from the die due to a less than top notch TIM job or solder.

back in my hole I go

[mjw21a]

^^^ It does for the question I was asking.... I wonder though. Is the heat output higher dude to higher electrical resistance with tri gate transistors etc

[LZ_Xray]

Originally Posted by mjw21a

They're not backing away, they just can't compete. This is why they're going down the APU path. Convince coders to develop to use GCN and Intel won't keep up.

They can't beat Intel at their own game, so try change the game. It's the only approach in which they have a chance of actually beating Intel. They don't have the $ to try anything else.

They don't need to change the game, the game is changing whether Intel and AMD like it or not. AMD just acted on that fact before Intel did amazingly enough.

Ten years or so from now us gamers and enthusiasts are going to be the only people that even own desktops in the form factor we recognize today. The mainstream will use mobile devices and HTPC style all-in-ones with something like an APU in them.

[mjw21a]

It will be interesting to see if Intel can manage to come up with a decent programmable GPU architecture without buying out nVidia....

[Brolloks]

Originally Posted by zkAry

Do you have any comments to this test? that place the heat sink directly on the die and find that temperatures are similar. The weakness in their argument is that they equate their die -> paste -> cooler assembly with a die -> solder -> IHS -> paste -> cooler assembly. They don't test Ivy Bridge with a soldered IHS.

These guys did a similar test, looks like the core just runs hot period
http://www.overclock.net/t/1249419/p...ed-without-ihs

[bmwbaxter]

Originally Posted by mjw21a

^^^ It does for the question I was asking.... I wonder though. Is the heat output higher dude to higher electrical resistance with tri gate transistors etc

my bad

The heat output will be less like Janus said since the chip uses less power. the point I was making was about the temps being higher due to the heat that is being produced not being able to get away from the core thus raise core temps.

[diaz]

Originally Posted by mjw21a

^^^ It does for the question I was asking.... I wonder though. Is the heat output higher dude to higher electrical resistance with tri gate transistors etc

No the heat is just higher inside the chip. The heat just doesnt transfer as efficiently so it raises further before it reaches a happy balance. The cooler only sees the 77w of heat to dissipate, so the amount of heat produced is sill less than SB. As lon as power dissipation is lower, heat will also be lower.

[mjw21a]

Cool, not really an issue then. Sounds like these little guys output far less heat than current AMD furnaces like mine

[MattNo5ss]

Also remember that temperature doesn't measure heat.

Originally Posted by bmwbaxter

Does that hold true even when we are putting more volts through them causing us to get closer to TJmax? Not just by a lack of cooling at stock speeds?

When you start increasing volts, you won't be able to determine whether heat or voltage kills the CPU. If heat remains under TJmax while increasing voltage, then since the CPU is operating under max rated temp, voltage or defective chip are the only things left to have killed the CPU. For 24/7 use, I always keep my voltage at or below Intel listed maximum in their datasheets, so I'm always within spec on temps and voltage.

[mjw21a]

Not sure I'm on the same page with you there. I understand that it's harder to pass off heat one these due to greater density and less surface area to disperse the heat, leading to higher internal temperatures..... Is that what you're getting at?

[MattNo5ss]

Heat is energy, temperature (F, C, K) isn't a direct measurement of energy, Joules and Watts (Joules/second) measure heat/energy. Temperature is just a number that relates to average molecular motion.

I'm just saying that higher temperature doesn't necessarily mean more heat.