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

why does a cpu get hot?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
In general, heat is a form of energy (E). The rate of change of energy per unit time (t) is power (P). The unit of energy is Joule, the unit of time is second, and the unit of power is Watt.

P = E / t

Back to CPU, question is how P is generated and related to the CPU voltage and CPU frequency This post attempts to give the technical details. Warning, long post.

Originally posted by hitechjb1
In the past, CPU frequency (MHz) roughly doubled for each generation of technology (180 nm, 130 nm). For 90, 65 nm and beyond, it would be harder and harder to achieve such trend due to the leakage current component which will surpass the active current component, ..., as possibly explained below.


How does leakage current slow down future generations of chips

In the past twenty years, chip manufacturers had a relatively easy time by doubling the CPU frequency every two to three years by shrinking the dimension (feature size) of transistors and wires inside a chip.

There are two main components of electric current inside a chip:

- active current: the "good" component that does logic computations by charging and discharging the internal capacitors of transistors and wires via the internal transistor switches

- leakage current: the "bad" component that is not computation related, and leaks through the transistors from supply voltage to ground, and dissipates as HEAT

E.g. a Tbred B 1700+ at rated 1.5 V, 1.47 GHz, draws about 30 A which is higher than the current of a typical house circuit breaker (which is typically 20-30A). When it is overclocked to 2.5 GHz, 1.9 V, it would draw about 65 A at full load which is more than 2-3 times the current of a house circuit breaker !!!

Historically, active current is the major current in a chip, so when more power is put in, the chip can run faster and does more computation.

From 90 nm, 65 nm and beyond, due to the smaller transistor channel length and thinner transistor oxide thickness, the leakage current increases at a faster rate and will surpass the active current. As a consequence, even when more power is put in, the chip frequency would increase at a slower pace than heat increase, the chip speed would level off due to heat. This is one of the major hurdle for silicon scaling to 90, 65 nm and beyond.

What is channel length
Originally posted by hitechjb1
...

As the transistor size (channel length) of future generations of silicon chips are scaled down to, e.g., 90, 65, 45, ... nano-meter (nm) (e.g. Hammers are 90/130 nm SOI, TBred B is 130 nm, Palomino is 180 nm), the supply voltage, transistor channel length and threshold voltage will be lowered accordingly. Even the supply voltage is lower, the transistors run faster, both current and power density also increase (actual trend). As the transistors are scaled down, logic gate delay decreases, both the active power density (W/cm^2) and the passive leakage power density (from both gate and subthreshold leakage) increase.

The passive leakage current component increases at an even faster pace than the active current, posing problems on cooling and power dissipation for future generations of chips. If this trend continues, the high passive, standby leakage current will lead to high power drawn and high idle CPU temperature, compared to today's CPU, even when the system is idle and the CPU is not under heavy load.

...
What is channel length of a MOS transistor (page 14)
For details about channel length variation and overclocking:
Lower voltage, shorter transistor channel length, lower transistor threshold voltage and Tbred B 1700+/1800+DLT3C (page 15)

Originally posted by hitechjb1
Relationship of clock frequency, die temperature, power and voltage (update)

As far as voltage Vcore, clock and die temperatue relationship, a chip (CPU) can be modeled as a capacitor C and a resistor R in parallel driven by Vcore. C models the useful active power to substain the computation by charging and discharging 100 millions of internal capacitors (from coupling between transistors, wires and silicon substrate). R models the wasted leakage power through the internal current paths through the dozens millions of transistors.

If the die temp is kept low enough, in theory, todays XP and P4 can be clocked as high as 3 GHz, 4 GHz. The power (the C component) going into the chip to run the clock at a frequency f and Vcore V is given by

P_active = C V^2 f

And this can go on to 3-4 GHz if the die is kept below certain temp. Most of the power are used to power the clock faster as Vcore is increased.

But in reality, for any cooling used, air, water, vapor, liquid nitrogen, ..., the die temperature will eventually increase as Vcore increases due to leakage current which heats up the chip. Though at a different rate depends on what cooling is used. The leakage current is small at low temp, and increases with temp increases and also at a faster rate as temp increases. The power that heats up the chip (the R component) is given by

P_leak = V^2 / R

From my experiment with the TB B 1700+ DLT3C, when die temp reaches around 40C, the chip leakage current begins to increase at a faster pace, and heats up the chip more, as well as due to the higher active power component P_active. Once this starts, any Vcore increase will heat up the chip at a faster pace. The exact Vcore when this occurs varies from chip to chip (100-200 mV difference), it depends on certain properties and characteristics ("gene") of how a particular CPU was born in silicon. :)

P = P_active + P_leak = CV^2 f + V^2 / R

After passing that temperature threshold, the portion P_leak going into heating the chip (the R component) will become larger and larger, as Vcore is increased. The additional power supplied to the CPU will be wasted as P_leak instead of going into the useful P_active. In other word, the useful P_active to power the chip faster (the C component) will increase at a diminishing rate. And the chip is just being heat up, and in turn slow down the chip, and cannot be clocked faster any more.

...
For details (about how to compute power, ...):
Relationship of clock, die temperature and Vcore (update)
- What is the active power of a CPU at frequency f and voltage V
- How to estimate CPU static and active power
- Effect of die temperature on CPU clock frequency at a given Vcore
(page 13)


More about leakage current and leakage power

In a silicon chip, the lowest part is silicon substrate on which 10-100 millions of transistors are deposited (current technology). Above the transistors are 100's millions wire segments in the form of multilayer grid. The metal wires are for getting power from outside, signals in and out the chip, and passing signal around the chip to the transistors.

The bulk of the silicon substrate is connected and typically grounded. Such silicon structure is usually called bulk silicon. This is what silicon chip in the past and down to 130 nm silicon chips are like. Currents are also leaked through the transistors to the substrate.

From 90 nm and down (some 130 nm are SOI), most of the silicon chips have the silicon body insulated from the substrate, hence the name silicon on insulator (SOI). So the leakage currents through transistors to the substrate are significantly reduced. This is the good part.

BUT the bad news is, ..., the main part of the leakage current in bulk silicon and SOI is due to the internal leakage current through the 10-100 millions transistors. Transistors have p- and n-type. Inside a chip, between the power supply (VDD) and ground, there are 10's millions of transitor paths, made up of some p- and some n-type, and leakage current are constantly flowing through those paths. This is called leakage current, or OFF current (since ideally the path should be off). So the leakage power can be written as V^2 / R, V is voltage (typically VDD), R respresents the equivalent resistance of all those leakage path. In older generation of silicon, these leakage paths and leakage current are relatively small and had not been an issue.

As transistors are getting smaller and smaller (90, 65, 45 nm), and transistor gate oxide thinner and thinner, these leakage currents are getting larger and larger (relative to the normal active current used for switching). And as described in the last post, the "wasteful" leakage current will be larger than the "useful" active current, unless something can be done. So the power for computation relative to leakage power is getting smaller for each generation, and frequency gain per generation will be leveling off.


What is active power

active power = C V^2 f?

C is the equivalent capacitance of a chip (CPU) for power modeling, V is the voltage (Vcore), f is the frequency.

Inside a chip, there are 10-100 millions of transistors, almost everyone functions as a logic switch. Logically, all these transistors switch according to the flow of instructions, logic commands and logic functions, .... Electrically, each of these transistors charges or discharges some capacitor(s) that are connected to them. At full load, a large % of these 10-100 millions transistors are charging and discharging capacitors. For those that are charging, useful active power given by Cload V^2 f is dissipated for performing logic computation. Cload is the capacitance loading to a transistor.

So the total active power C V^2 f is the sum total of those 10-100 million active power. And C is the equivalent capacitance for the chip, the equivalent sum total of the small Cload's. What it means is that, more active power is needed to run faster (higher f).
 
Last edited:
If anyone is interested in how transistors work (pretty basic description) check out this intel page here.

Look for the Terahertz transistor discussion at the bottom of the page.

dippy_skoodlez - its hard to compare Prescott and Northwood/A64 voltages because they are made on a different process. Process shrinks should result in decreased voltage needed to induce electron flow between the transistor source and drain because these features are closer together. More than likely, Intel wanted the voltages in Prescotts to be around 1.25 to decrease heat dissipation, but had to increase the voltage to get better bin splits. The side effect of this is greatly increased heat.
 
I would say that Intels run hotter. They use a lot less voltage than AMDs(and thats a REALLY good thing) and they come out to about the same temperature. Take a computer, swap the motherboard and processor, AMD and Intel, with similar heatsinks, they will both be running the same temps, but the Intel will be doing so with even less voltage. I'm talking about Northwoods here.
 
tom10167 said:
I would say that Intels run hotter. They use a lot less voltage than AMDs(and thats a REALLY good thing) and they come out to about the same temperature. Take a computer, swap the motherboard and processor, AMD and Intel, with similar heatsinks, they will both be running the same temps, but the Intel will be doing so with even less voltage. I'm talking about Northwoods here.

Voltage is really dependant on architecture, it might require a certain voltage to drive a certain number of transistors and capacitors, but the current drawn when looking at XPs in comparison to Pentiums are quite different, due to the voltages - power is voltage x current, and as both have a similar power rating the current is proportional to the voltage, its overall power consumption and efficiency that effects CPU temperature.
 
They are switching from 0 to 1's much faster the at "idle" thus the trnasistors generate heat and when they switch give electricity a chance to get by and make heat also. That is why.
 
amd has always run hotter than intels, and they have a poor design, if you take the heatsink and fan off of an amd is fried the chip and usually your mobo, take it off a p2, p3, or p4 and the chip just shuts down once it reaches a certain temp, saving your mobo and the chip. amd now offers that feature on their new chips but still, they run hot as crap. with a few versions of their chips they have the exact same architecture as the other versions of the chip, all that is different is that they run at a higher frequency. even the slowest of their processors run at higher voltages than they are truely designed to handle. but hey amd is cheap and if you are in to overclocking go for it, its easier and cheaper to replace, but personally im willing to pay more for an intel.
 
Freddie said:
Good read, i would say that AMD's run hotter but they are also stable and happy at higher temps.

JacK9579 said:
amd has always run hotter than intels, and they have a poor design, if you take the heatsink and fan off of an amd is fried the chip and usually your mobo, take it off a p2, p3, or p4 and the chip just shuts down once it reaches a certain temp, saving your mobo and the chip. amd now offers that feature on their new chips but still, they run hot as crap. with a few versions of their chips they have the exact same architecture as the other versions of the chip, all that is different is that they run at a higher frequency. even the slowest of their processors run at higher voltages than they are truely designed to handle. but hey amd is cheap and if you are in to overclocking go for it, its easier and cheaper to replace, but personally im willing to pay more for an intel.[/B]

Yeah right... of course AMD runs hotter...

WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE LISTEN FOR A CHANGE, HOW CAN YOU SAY SUCH STUPID COMMENTS?????????

Fanboys.....nooo couldn't be...
 
JacK9579 said:
amd has always run hotter than intels, and they have a poor design, if you take the heatsink and fan off of an amd is fried the chip and usually your mobo, take it off a p2, p3, or p4 and the chip just shuts down once it reaches a certain temp, saving your mobo and the chip. amd now offers that feature on their new chips but still, they run hot as crap. with a few versions of their chips they have the exact same architecture as the other versions of the chip, all that is different is that they run at a higher frequency. even the slowest of their processors run at higher voltages than they are truely designed to handle. but hey amd is cheap and if you are in to overclocking go for it, its easier and cheaper to replace, but personally im willing to pay more for an intel.

OMG what a load of ..... :eek:

My AMD rig runs 36c under full load with a 600Mhz overclock. Whats yours run?
 
JacK9579 said:
amd has always run hotter than intels, and they have a poor design, if you take the heatsink and fan off of an amd is fried the chip and usually your mobo, take it off a p2, p3, or p4 and the chip just shuts down once it reaches a certain temp, saving your mobo and the chip. amd now offers that feature on their new chips but still, they run hot as crap. with a few versions of their chips they have the exact same architecture as the other versions of the chip, all that is different is that they run at a higher frequency. even the slowest of their processors run at higher voltages than they are truely designed to handle. but hey amd is cheap and if you are in to overclocking go for it, its easier and cheaper to replace, but personally im willing to pay more for an intel.

Only P4's have a thermal shutdown at high temps. P2s and P3s will burn themselves out. All northwoods run at the same voltage no matter what the frequency is - just like AXPs.
 
"My AMD rig runs 36c under full load with a 600Mhz overclock. Whats yours run?"

You can't compare through somthing like that.. what if this guy has a Mach2? as you see there can be big differences

Put together a system with: same model heatsink.. like a vantec sp-94.. theres a almost identical AMD and P4 models, top of the line motherboards in both, and everything else the exact same and run them at stock settings. AMD will be hotter. Not that it matters because AMDs also run stable at high temps.
 
KOXC2003 said:
"My AMD rig runs 36c under full load with a 600Mhz overclock. Whats yours run?"

You can't compare through somthing like that.. what if this guy has a Mach2? as you see there can be big differences

Put together a system with: same model heatsink.. like a vantec sp-94.. theres a almost identical AMD and P4 models, top of the line motherboards in both, and everything else the exact same and run them at stock settings. AMD will be hotter. Not that it matters because AMDs also run stable at high temps.

This is because of the heatsink attachment, not the chip itself. P4 heatsinks have a higher clamping pressure on the chip. Increased pressure makes the thermal interface layer thinner, and provides less resistance for heat transfer in P4s. If you look at the heatsink ratings identical heatsinks for socket 478 will always have lower c/w values than for socket A.
 
Ok, back to the original post. Long story short.

To find heat (watts):
W=IV
(watts = current * volts)

The amount of current a processor takes is directly related to the amount of resistence and VCore you put into the CPU. The lower the resistence, the higher the amps (current). The higher the volts, the higher the current. BTW. the formula is volts = current * resistence (or v=ir)

A ballpark figure for current is 50 amps. And if your vcore was 2 volts, your processor would be putting out 100 watts. That would mean it was putting out about the same amount of heat as a 100 watt light bulb.
 
JacK9579 said:
... but hey amd is cheap and if you are in to overclocking go for it, its easier and cheaper to replace, but personally im willing to pay more for an intel.

Does this mean that you're NOT into overclocking, Jack?
Maybe you should be reading UC Forums :p

(Just a joke, mon...)
 
hafa said:


Does this mean that you're NOT into overclocking, Jack?
Maybe you should be reading UC Forums :p

(Just a joke, mon...)


But whats so different between the death rate of P4's and AXP? If you pass 1.9V you better to know what your doing.. other than that, you should be safe. I've had several AXP's now, and Ive went up to 1.95Vcore at one point, and that thing's still kickin in my mom's PC. Hmm.. thermal shutdown maybe? AXP's have had that for a long time now. I have 2 intel CPU's and one Athlon my keychain. 1 celeron, and one PIII. The PIII overheated from overclocking, and I dont have a clue how the celeron died.
 
Wow. i dont think i have seen this much misinformation in awhile. ill try to answer as many of the questions as possible

quick facts about processors

1) P4's generally emit more heat than amd xps

2) The p4 runs cooler than the amd xp because of its much larger die size. (217 mm² vs 80mm2 ) twice the surface area for heat transfer makes it quite obvious why the p4 runs cooler.

3) the amd64 die is much larger than the amd xp die. (193^mm2)
this represents a larger thermal interface.

4) Prescott die size - 112mm^2 (half that of p4.) larger heat output with lower area for heat transfer.

-the downsides of a large die are increases manufacturing cost. (less chips can be made per waffer)


sappo said:
Ok, back to the original post. Long story short.

To find heat (watts):
W=IV
(watts = current * volts)

The amount of current a processor takes is directly related to the amount of resistence and VCore you put into the CPU. The lower the resistence, the higher the amps (current). The higher the volts, the higher the current. BTW. the formula is volts = current * resistence (or v=ir)

A ballpark figure for current is 50 amps. And if your vcore was 2 volts, your processor would be putting out 100 watts. That would mean it was putting out about the same amount of heat as a 100 watt light bulb.

http://www.benchtest.com/calc.html
-use this for finding watts in the future.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/default.asp
-specs of every intel processor.
 
Last edited:
zabomb4163 said:
Wow. i dont think i have seen this much misinformation in awhile.

Yes you're right that a larger die allows for more efficient cooling. If the die is smaller, it's literlly creates a bottleneck. Thus the larger the die is, the better the cooling will work (all other things equal). It's like a magnifiying glass under the sun: the smaller you focus the beam of light, the hotter it gets. There's nothing really ground-breaking there.

However, the amount of watts a processor is putting out (in a given period of time) is still the same, and since that's ultimately what makes the processor "get hot" I stand by everything I said.

Besides, the efficiency at which your processor is cooled basically goes without saying. I doubt we need a thread that "discovers" that better CPU cooling translates into a less hot CPU
 
Back