• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

FRONTPAGE Ivy Bridge Temperatures - It's Gettin' Hot in Here

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Hokie if I may.

You have two pieces of metal. The first is a 1/2" steel plate that weighs 400 pounds and the other is a thin 16GA 4" x 4" square that weighs one ounce. Now the square is 1000º and the plate is 200º. The square is hotter and the plate contains more heat energy.
 
I'm starting to see TDP numbers as pretty useless as a measure for power draw.

My CPU has a 125w TDP, i can assure you its using more then that right now.

77w TDP- Ivy vs 95w TDP Sandy, yet its power draw is only 5w less on Ivy

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-23.html

The TDP does not dictate the final power draw, even at factory clocks, I feel increasingly the TDP number is used more as a marketing ploy.

Nobody ever said TDP=Power draw.
 
Core temp shows power used in TDP (which I know is not TDP exactly, but...) with version 1.0 and above.
 
EDIT: Dang this is a busy thread... and Hokie (and others) beat me to it. I'll leave the water analogy for kicks

If Ivy is hotter that means it's wasting more power making heat instead of processing.

I think this was addressed earlier in this thread. I'll do my best to recount it: The temperature is higher, but it is not necessarily a function of "wasting" more energy. As I understand it, it isn't generating more "heat"; that temperature increase is due to the fact that the "heat" generated cannot escape the core fast enough to allow the core to maintain a lower temperature.

I put heat in quotes because there is a difference between heat and temperature that is explained quite well, again, earlier in this thread.

The way I picture what is happening: the "heat" in the core is like water filling a container. The heatsink is like the opening in the container letting water out. The Sandy Bridge opening to let the water out is bigger than the one in Ivy Bridge. So, the Ivy Bridge water container is more "full" than the Sandy Bridge container. Neither of them overflows but the Ivy Bridge is designed to run a little more full so Intel says it's ok.
 
TDP is how much heat the cooling solution needs to be able to dissipate and nothing more. This is rated at stock speeds and voltage.

As far as heat creation that is another ball of fur Frakk and I would tell you to pick up a copy of Giecks. You need more than just applied physics you need to understand material properties and.... Engineering.
 
Cyclops did a nice test on stock settings, then modest OC, comparing original unmodded 3770, then changed the tim out and replaced IHS, then he ran bare die. He removed socket and got good contact with waterblock.

His overclock was modest, so not as high dissipated power as some others, but for OC settings he got:
5C better temps after changing out intels tim
15.7C better temps by running bare die
 
Cyclops did a nice test on stock settings, then modest OC, comparing original unmodded 3770, then changed the tim out and replaced IHS, then he ran bare die. He removed socket and got good contact with waterblock.

His overclock was modest, so not as high dissipated power as some others, but for OC settings he got:
5C better temps after changing out intels tim
15.7C better temps by running bare die

Thanks. I wish I could do that with mine but I cant very well do things like that because it is not representative of what every Joe can do.
 
Core temp shows power used in TDP (which I know is not TDP exactly, but...) with version 1.0 and above.


CoreTemp will never see my rig again as they use Qinstaller, which tries to force install adware junk.
Its not just that i don't want ad aware on my rig, i don't trust it,- again not just because its listed on virus report sites, but also because of the forceful nature in which it installs that stuff, even if you unchecked the first round of adware the second round gives you an option to cancel as its installing, even if you are fast enough to hit cancel it installs it all anyway..... not having it.

Anyway, CPU-Z reads 126w TDP, HWMonitor reads 134w Package, can't give you any more then that :)
 
sorta lost faith in it as a result, i'm a bit fickle like that.

I'm involved with software myself, i know how much work is involved and with that i have been known to use the Donate button on freeware sites, as do a lot of others.

[Edit] i'm to intrigued to know where this is going... so its 124.4w
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    29.9 KB · Views: 89
Last edited:
If we were to dissipate all W of heat then core temps would be 0 would they not?

What I am getting at is if your CPU is reading through your software that it is at 136 TDP it means absolutely nothing. A HSF can dissipate X heat and the CPU uses V x A watts which generates some heat. This heat is not a direct result of V x A. You must consider material properties at an atomic scale, the resistance at temperature and thermal conductivity of all elements involved in the process.

I, for one, dot not have time, patience or the exact design details necessary to work this out nor do I care to.

Just know what TDP is and then separate it from all assumptions because it is really irrelevant unless you are running @ stock.
 
sorta lost faith in it as a result, i'm a bit fickle like that.

I'm involved with software myself, i know how much work is involved and with that i have been known to use the Donate button on freeware sites, as do a lot of others.

[Edit] i to intrigued to know where this is going... so its 124.4w

Do you have an IB?
 
I just wondered because if you had one you could get into this a little deeper.

yeah, i might end up with one if PD flops like BD (unless i can get a new SB at a good price)

I have to say there is no hiding the fact that BD is just no where, my x6 monsters it and that is based on an ancient K8.

PD needs to better my x6 or Intel gets my money when that time comes again. But honestly, from what data is out there, i prefer SB.
 
well with a vcore of 1.28 for 4.4 4.5 my temps are fine 65 under load . much better than my i7 870 @4GHZ. my h80 sounded like a leaf blower when gaming lol . ib @ 4.5 should be fast enuff for 90% people out there . there`s sb-e for the other`s who need more power .
 
sorta lost faith in it as a result, i'm a bit fickle like that.

I'm involved with software myself, i know how much work is involved and with that i have been known to use the Donate button on freeware sites, as do a lot of others.

[Edit] i'm to intrigued to know where this is going... so its 124.4w
You had bet you would be over 125W TDP, I thought you would not be at the clocks listed in your sig. BARELY! :eek: :D
 
Last edited:
EDIT: Dang this is a busy thread... and Hokie (and others) beat me to it. I'll leave the water analogy for kicks

I think this was addressed earlier in this thread. I'll do my best to recount it: The temperature is higher, but it is not necessarily a function of "wasting" more energy. As I understand it, it isn't generating more "heat"; that temperature increase is due to the fact that the "heat" generated cannot escape the core fast enough to allow the core to maintain a lower temperature.

I put heat in quotes because there is a difference between heat and temperature that is explained quite well, again, earlier in this thread.

The way I picture what is happening: the "heat" in the core is like water filling a container. The heatsink is like the opening in the container letting water out. The Sandy Bridge opening to let the water out is bigger than the one in Ivy Bridge. So, the Ivy Bridge water container is more "full" than the Sandy Bridge container. Neither of them overflows but the Ivy Bridge is designed to run a little more full so Intel says it's ok.

Thanks everyone for all the explanations. IMOG made it clear that the TIM was a huge bottle neck in getting rid of the heat from the new Ivy cores (Heat = BTU's, Joules, Calories as expressed in temperature of X amount of mass with X thermal conductive qualities). Thus the build up of higher 'temperatures'. I could ask about the mass of a SB versus the IB (I realize I assumed that they are pretty close) but the real bottom line for me is:

How fast will it go? (compared to the competition {SB and even AMD})
and
How much will it cost? (Thanks for the kill a watt info - real costs)

I was hoping for cooler cores and higher clocks and lower electric usage. This just reminded me to much of the Prescott.

It makes sense from a marketing perspective to use TIM instead of solder. These Ivy's are cheaper to make and in higher demand than Sandy, so why enable huge overclocks right from the start when you can add a bump later by simply changing to solder. It's not like they're under pressure from AMD...

Thanks again - talk to you again in a couple more years...
 
Back