why hotter?

nokiaXP · 10-15-02, 10:28 AM

i want to know why amd thunderbirds hotter than athlon?

The Coolest · 10-15-02, 10:41 AM

the way that the AthlonXP is constructed differs than the way that the tbirds are constructed, that's the major difference betwin the two is heat dessipation, also the XP is using an Organic packaging which doesn't hold much heat, while the tbird, using a ceramic packaging can store much more heat. Also the core of the XP is bigger and the power dissipation (the power that the CPU uses to run) is smaller. when the power (Watts) divided by the chip surface area is smaller the CPU will run cooler like: the Tbirds surface area is 117mm², while the XP is about 128mm², now if you take Tbird 1400 and AthlonXP 1600+ (1400Mhz) and their heat dissipation,
the tbird has 72Watts of heat to dissipate in an area of 117mm², while the XP has 63 watts to dissipate in an area of 128mm².
so watts per square mm is like this: XP = 63/128 = 0.492w/mm², while the tbird = 72/117 = 0.615w/mm².

That's why the tbird are hotter.

ShadowFolder · 10-16-02, 08:30 PM

who r u the coolest? amd engineer?

10-15-02, 10:28 AM	Thread Starter #1
nokiaXP Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: malaysia	why hotter? i want to know why amd thunderbirds hotter than athlon?
	QUOTE Thanks

10-15-02, 10:41 AM	#2
The Coolest Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Tel Aviv, Israel	the way that the AthlonXP is constructed differs than the way that the tbirds are constructed, that's the major difference betwin the two is heat dessipation, also the XP is using an Organic packaging which doesn't hold much heat, while the tbird, using a ceramic packaging can store much more heat. Also the core of the XP is bigger and the power dissipation (the power that the CPU uses to run) is smaller. when the power (Watts) divided by the chip surface area is smaller the CPU will run cooler like: the Tbirds surface area is 117mm², while the XP is about 128mm², now if you take Tbird 1400 and AthlonXP 1600+ (1400Mhz) and their heat dissipation, the tbird has 72Watts of heat to dissipate in an area of 117mm², while the XP has 63 watts to dissipate in an area of 128mm². so watts per square mm is like this: XP = 63/128 = 0.492w/mm², while the tbird = 72/117 = 0.615w/mm². That's why the tbird are hotter. __________________ "<The_Coolest> You can't unwaste wasted CPU cycles" - Start FOLDing now! Main rig: Core i7 2600K 3.4GHz @ 4.5GHz (Scythe Mugen2) / Mobo: Biostar TP67XE / SSD: Crucial M4 128GB (+ HDDs) / GPU: HD5450 or 8800 Ultra / Mem: 4x4GB DDR3-1600 G.Skill 4GBXL RipJaws X - 16GB total / PSU: Seasonic S12II 620W. Secondary rig: Core i3 540 3.06GHz @ Stock / Mobo: MSI H55M-ED55 / GPU: Integrated / Mem: 2x2GB DDR3-1600 G.Skill 4GBRL RipJaws - 4GB total / PSU: FSP ATX350-PNR 350W. Core Temp - Accurate temperature monitor for Intel's Core/Core 2 and AMD64 processors Heatware
	QUOTE Thanks

10-16-02, 08:30 PM	#3
ShadowFolder Member Join Date: Aug 2002	who r u the coolest? amd engineer?
	QUOTE Thanks

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

why hotter?

Internet Services

Website Development

Tech Hardware