Core Palomino Vs Tbred

Ufolo · Jul 8, 2002

Which is the most hot??
Thanks

badgers · Jul 8, 2002

bump
I smoked my xp1800 and I need to decide to drop the cash or buy a used paliomino from someone on this board.

is the new core better in some way? I know it used a lower voltage 1.65 and a .13 process.

Advantages in cache pre fetch or other smarter features?

Oni · Jul 8, 2002

yeah, it uses less voltage, but you're still trying to cool a smaller surface than an XP. This increases the cooling challenge.

Titan386 · Jul 8, 2002

The Tbred produces less total heat than the Palomino. However, the die is also smaller. With less cooling surface area, it becomes more difficult to cool effectively. I think, that when the die size is taken into account, the Tbred is actually hotter than the XP.

Ufolo · Jul 8, 2002

Titan386 said:
The Tbred produces less total heat than the Palomino. However, the die is also smaller. With less cooling surface area, it becomes more difficult to cool effectively. I think, that when the die size is taken into account, the Tbred is actually hotter than the XP.

The tbred are hotter than Xp.. but how many degrees?

nikhsub1 · Jul 8, 2002

Ufolo said:
The tbred are hotter than Xp.. but how many degrees?

The T-Bred does NOT run hotter than the Pally, it actually runs slighly cooler. The problem is the die on the T-Bred is almost half the size of the Pally with almost the same amount of heat being generated (slightly less). There lies the problem. As an example, you can cool an area of 1" x 1" much easier than trying to cool an area of 5/8" x 5/8" with almost the same heat output.

Nagorak · Jul 8, 2002

nikhsub1 said:
The T-Bred does NOT run hotter than the Pally, it actually runs slighly cooler. The problem is the die on the T-Bred is almost half the size of the Pally with almost the same amount of heat being generated (slightly less). There lies the problem. As an example, you can cool an area of 1" x 1" much easier than trying to cool an area of 5/8" x 5/8" with almost the same heat output.

Which means the chip will actually run hotter, no? It's producing slightly less heat, but there's drastically less surface area to cool. The end result would be higher temperatures on the chip. In other words, it runs hotter (and CPU temps will reflect that).

However, since it's actually producing less heat, a slightly smaller heatsink can cool it effetively, without going into thermal overload. So, I guess it depends how you look at it.

Ufolo · Jul 8, 2002

nikhsub1 said:
The T-Bred does NOT run hotter than the Pally, it actually runs slighly cooler. The problem is the die on the T-Bred is almost half the size of the Pally with almost the same amount of heat being generated (slightly less). There lies the problem. As an example, you can cool an area of 1" x 1" much easier than trying to cool an area of 5/8" x 5/8" with almost the same heat output.

HERE i see than Xp Tbred are hotter than Xp palomino of 10° degrees .... is true?

nikhsub1 · Jul 8, 2002

Nagorak said:
Which means the chip will actually run hotter, no? It's producing slightly less heat, but there's drastically less surface area to cool. The end result would be higher temperatures on the chip. In other words, it runs hotter (and CPU temps will reflect that).

However, since it's actually producing less heat, a slightly smaller heatsink can cool it effetively, without going into thermal overload. So, I guess it depends how you look at it.

Exactly, it is harder to cool so yes it gets hotter but it puts out less watts of heat. Few, hope that isn't confusing

RangerJoe · Jul 9, 2002

surface area is much better than a lower voltage...id much rather have a 1" x 1" die, but have the chip running at 2 volts...than vise vesa.

amd didnt do a good job on the tbred...they really should have made the die as big..or bigger than the pally

Robert · Jul 9, 2002

With AMD 1800+ @ 1650MHz/1.800v, at Idle 33c & Load 43c.
For the new 2200+ @ 1950MHz/1.700v, at Idle 43c & Load 53c.

Ufolo · Jul 9, 2002

Ufolo · Jul 9, 2002

Robert said:
With AMD 1800+ @ 1650MHz/1.800v, at Idle 33c & Load 43c.
For the new 2200+ @ 1950MHz/1.700v, at Idle 43c & Load 53c.

Whit air cooling?

]-[itman · Jul 9, 2002

Robert said:
With AMD 1800+ @ 1650MHz/1.800v, at Idle 33c & Load 43c.
For the new 2200+ @ 1950MHz/1.700v, at Idle 43c & Load 53c.

That's not a fair comparison considering the tbred is running 300 mhz faster than the pally. You need them at the same speeds, same voltage, and using the same exact system with the same heatsink. That would be the only truly fair comparison. But, such tests have shown that the tbred does run a bit hotter than the pally even though it does output less raw wattage(due to the surface area). The good side is that if you are able to cool the tbred sufficiently, it will scale far beyond the pally's. The pally's hit a brick wall at about 2.1ghz no matter what type of cooling used. The tbreds have gotten to 2.6ghz already. Now, that may not matter to some people since they won't use that extreme of cooling, but the tbreds have performed better than the pally's with good watercooling and have done no worse with air cooling.

OC-Master · Jul 10, 2002

This should help i think
http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=97625

hdj · Jul 10, 2002

RangerJoe said:
amd didnt do a good job on the tbred...they really should have made the die as big..or bigger than the pally

You don't understand that by making the die smaller they can pump out more cpu's per wafer and provide you with a cpu that you can afford.

RangerJoe · Jul 10, 2002

id much rather spend more money on something that will keep my chip cooler...therefore letting it last longer...xp chips were pretty cheap when they came out...amd did a good job with it...

nikhsub1 · Jul 10, 2002

RangerJoe said:
...amd didnt do a good job on the tbred...they really should have made the die as big..or bigger than the pally

No they should have just put a heat spreader on it.

hdj · Jul 10, 2002

Once again: Heatspreader=more materials=more money. The only function a heatspreader (ridiculous name btw) has, is to protect the core from being damaged. It is basically another layer between the heatsink and the die, therefore less efficient at transfering heat.
Can anybody explain how a 'heatspreader' actually spreads heat better than the bottom of a heatsink ?

muddocktor · Jul 10, 2002

hdj said:
Once again: Heatspreader=more materials=more money. The only function a heatspreader (ridiculous name btw) has, is to protect the core from being damaged. It is basically another layer between the heatsink and the die, therefore less efficient at transfering heat.
Can anybody explain how a 'heatspreader' actually spreads heat better than the bottom of a heatsink ?

Very true, just go over in the Intel forum and ask ol' man or some of the others that have been removing the IHS off their Celerons, P3's and P4's. They have noticed a slight but noticeable reduction in heat with the IHS removed.

Core Palomino Vs Tbred

Registered

Member

Oni-ni-Kanab;, Ninja Hippo eater Moderator

Senior Member

Registered

Unoriginal Macho Moderator

Senior Member

Registered

Unoriginal Macho Moderator

All that is Man!

Member

Registered

Registered

Member

Member

All that is Man!

Unoriginal Macho Moderator

Member

Retired

Similar threads