[Various] AMD’s Zen Eight Core CPU Delivers Double the Performance of the FX 8350 (Update 2) - Page 42 - Overclock.net

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #411 of 564 Old 06-05-2016, 12:52 PM
333mhz
 
TranquilTempest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlailScHLAMP View Post

AMD chips dissipate much less power as heat per watt than Intel chips do
Heat dissipation is measured in watts. What you said is like claiming ford cars go faster per MPH.

TranquilTempest is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #412 of 564 Old 06-05-2016, 01:00 PM
AMD Overclocker
 
Kpjoslee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere in US.
Posts: 772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

If Zen is as good as they say it would mean Intel will have to do something about it. I hope people dont go intel if Zen is as good. It does not help the market.

If Zen is as good as rumored, I am buying Zen lol. Ever since Intel core series came out, CPU front has been really boring with lack of proper competition from AMD. This is their last chance.

Kpjoslee is offline  
post #413 of 564 Old 06-05-2016, 01:01 PM
Overclocker
 
FlailScHLAMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: where it is always RANT:30....
Posts: 3,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by TranquilTempest View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlailScHLAMP View Post

AMD chips dissipate much less power as heat per watt than Intel chips do
Heat dissipation is measured in watts. What you said is like claiming ford cars go faster per MPH.

thumb.gif

and your point?

the wattage dissipated from FX chips creates less heat than the wattage dissipated from an Intel chip

therefore, less wattage is actually dissipated into PURE heat.


I said nothing about the efficiency PER watt. in terms of performance, other than imply that intel is limited by while historically AMD CPU run cooler than all recent Intel chips

you merely need to look at the voltage and wattage used, to end up at your temp limit.

so lets say AMD caught up on performance per watt when they already outpace Intel with efficiency of the power used, don't you think intel would be a little bit wary of this?

with the amount of power being pushed though these chips overclocked to have temperatures 20-30* lower under-load under the same cooling conditions than the Intel counter parts?
FlailScHLAMP is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #414 of 564 Old 06-05-2016, 01:21 PM
PC Gamer
 
Fyrwulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Land Of The Free, Home Of The Brave
Posts: 1,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by TranquilTempest View Post

Heat dissipation is measured in watts. What you said is like claiming ford cars go faster per MPH.

He's saying AMD chips output less waste heat per watt of electricity used.
Fyrwulf is offline  
post #415 of 564 Old 06-05-2016, 01:39 PM
 
AmericanLoco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlailScHLAMP View Post

thumb.gif

and your point?

the wattage dissipated from FX chips creates less heat than the wattage dissipated from an Intel chip

therefore, less wattage is actually dissipated into PURE heat.


I said nothing about the efficiency PER watt. in terms of performance, other than imply that intel is limited by while historically AMD CPU run cooler than all recent Intel chips
You're mixing up terminology, which is leading to confusion. You're using the terms "heat" and "temperature" interchangeably, and incorrectly. They are very different terms, with very different meanings. Intel chips do not create "more heat" than AMD chips, quite the opposite actually.

Intel chips run at a higher temperature at a given power. This is because Intel is on a 14nm process. The die is physically smaller, meaning the power density of the chip is higher. It becomes more difficult to remove the heat produced, because there is less area to remove the heat.

When AMD goes to 14nm with smaller, high-power dies, they will run into the same issue. Their temperatures are currently rather low because they're using very large 32nm dies still.
AmericanLoco is offline  
post #416 of 564 Old 06-05-2016, 01:45 PM
 
cssorkinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanLoco View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlailScHLAMP View Post

thumb.gif

and your point?

the wattage dissipated from FX chips creates less heat than the wattage dissipated from an Intel chip

therefore, less wattage is actually dissipated into PURE heat.


I said nothing about the efficiency PER watt. in terms of performance, other than imply that intel is limited by while historically AMD CPU run cooler than all recent Intel chips
You're mixing up terminology, which is leading to confusion. You're using the terms "heat" and "temperature" interchangeably, and incorrectly. They are very different terms, with very different meanings. Intel chips do not create "more heat" than AMD chips, quite the opposite actually.

Intel chips run at a higher temperature at a given power. This is because Intel is on a 14nm process. The die is physically smaller, meaning the power density of the chip is higher. It becomes more difficult to remove the heat produced, because there is less area to remove the heat.

When AMD goes to 14nm with smaller, high-power dies, they will run into the same issue. Their temperatures are currently rather low because they're using very large 32nm dies still.

It's also important to understand that modern AMD and Intel cpu's measure core temperatures much differently.

FX8370E 5839mhz MSI 990FXA GD80 - custom water http://valid.x86.fr/3jk1vz
FX - 9370 @ 5740mhz MSI 990FXA GD-80 with an H-100 proof.gifhttp://valid.canardpc.com/s04jcj
I like MSI motherboards and this is why smile.gif
8350 @ 5.2 ghz on a stock cooler proof.gif PM me! smile.gif
cssorkinman is online now  
post #417 of 564 Old 06-05-2016, 01:54 PM
Overclocker
 
FlailScHLAMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: where it is always RANT:30....
Posts: 3,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanLoco View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlailScHLAMP View Post

thumb.gif

and your point?

the wattage dissipated from FX chips creates less heat than the wattage dissipated from an Intel chip

therefore, less wattage is actually dissipated into PURE heat.


I said nothing about the efficiency PER watt. in terms of performance, other than imply that intel is limited by while historically AMD CPU run cooler than all recent Intel chips
You're mixing up terminology, which is leading to confusion. You're using the terms "heat" and "temperature" interchangeably, and incorrectly. They are very different terms, with very different meanings. Intel chips do not create "more heat" than AMD chips, quite the opposite actually.

Intel chips run at a higher temperature at a given power. This is because Intel is on a 14nm process. The die is physically smaller, meaning the power density of the chip is higher. It becomes more difficult to remove the heat produced, because there is less area to remove the heat.

When AMD goes to 14nm with smaller, high-power dies, they will run into the same issue. Their temperatures are currently rather low because they're using very large 32nm dies still.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanLoco View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlailScHLAMP View Post

thumb.gif

and your point?

the wattage dissipated from FX chips creates less heat than the wattage dissipated from an Intel chip

therefore, less wattage is actually dissipated into PURE heat.


I said nothing about the efficiency PER watt. in terms of performance, other than imply that intel is limited by while historically AMD CPU run cooler than all recent Intel chips
You're mixing up terminology, which is leading to confusion. You're using the terms "heat" and "temperature" interchangeably, and incorrectly. They are very different terms, with very different meanings. Intel chips do not create "more heat" than AMD chips, quite the opposite actually.

Intel chips run at a higher temperature at a given power. This is because Intel is on a 14nm process. The die is physically smaller, meaning the power density of the chip is higher. It becomes more difficult to remove the heat produced, because there is less area to remove the heat.

When AMD goes to 14nm with smaller, high-power dies, they will run into the same issue. Their temperatures are currently rather low because they're using very large 32nm dies still.

not interchangeable, they are directly related.

let me guess you never owned a sandy bridge chip?

32nm chips

95w tdp same 90*+ temp limit.

what i'm talking about isn't new.

these chips use more volts more amps and more watts yet manage to do this at a lower temperature regardless of type of measurement.

(CSS, yes i know intel has an actual thermal diode but do you think AMD'd lab math is THAT off>? come on.. )

if this processes carries on, Intel is legitimately worried about what AMD might be able to do @ 95w


you've got to go back to 45nm to even get close to these aspect of Ohms law, and intels offering on 45nm were not that efficient.. 65w for a dual core 105w for a low clock quad core.
FlailScHLAMP is offline  
post #418 of 564 Old 06-05-2016, 02:30 PM
 
cssorkinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlailScHLAMP View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanLoco View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlailScHLAMP View Post

thumb.gif

and your point?

the wattage dissipated from FX chips creates less heat than the wattage dissipated from an Intel chip

therefore, less wattage is actually dissipated into PURE heat.


I said nothing about the efficiency PER watt. in terms of performance, other than imply that intel is limited by while historically AMD CPU run cooler than all recent Intel chips
You're mixing up terminology, which is leading to confusion. You're using the terms "heat" and "temperature" interchangeably, and incorrectly. They are very different terms, with very different meanings. Intel chips do not create "more heat" than AMD chips, quite the opposite actually.

Intel chips run at a higher temperature at a given power. This is because Intel is on a 14nm process. The die is physically smaller, meaning the power density of the chip is higher. It becomes more difficult to remove the heat produced, because there is less area to remove the heat.

When AMD goes to 14nm with smaller, high-power dies, they will run into the same issue. Their temperatures are currently rather low because they're using very large 32nm dies still.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanLoco View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlailScHLAMP View Post

thumb.gif

and your point?

the wattage dissipated from FX chips creates less heat than the wattage dissipated from an Intel chip

therefore, less wattage is actually dissipated into PURE heat.


I said nothing about the efficiency PER watt. in terms of performance, other than imply that intel is limited by while historically AMD CPU run cooler than all recent Intel chips
You're mixing up terminology, which is leading to confusion. You're using the terms "heat" and "temperature" interchangeably, and incorrectly. They are very different terms, with very different meanings. Intel chips do not create "more heat" than AMD chips, quite the opposite actually.

Intel chips run at a higher temperature at a given power. This is because Intel is on a 14nm process. The die is physically smaller, meaning the power density of the chip is higher. It becomes more difficult to remove the heat produced, because there is less area to remove the heat.

When AMD goes to 14nm with smaller, high-power dies, they will run into the same issue. Their temperatures are currently rather low because they're using very large 32nm dies still.

not interchangeable, they are directly related.

let me guess you never owned a sandy bridge chip?

32nm chips

95w tdp same 90*+ temp limit.

what i'm talking about isn't new.

these chips use more volts more amps and more watts yet manage to do this at a lower temperature regardless of type of measurement.

(CSS, yes i know intel has an actual thermal diode but do you think AMD'd lab math is THAT off>? come on.. )

if this processes carries on, Intel is legitimately worried about what AMD might be able to do @ 95w


you've got to go back to 45nm to even get close to these aspect of Ohms law, and intels offering on 45nm were not that efficient.. 65w for a dual core 105w for a low clock quad core.

It was for the benefit of the fellow that replied.

In the very specific case of my 8370 vs my 4790k, when both are clocked at 4.9ghz, there is very little difference in the amount of watts they consume under full load.

As for heat , the output of my FX's isn't nearly as noticable as it is from my 290X or 780ti.

FX8370E 5839mhz MSI 990FXA GD80 - custom water http://valid.x86.fr/3jk1vz
FX - 9370 @ 5740mhz MSI 990FXA GD-80 with an H-100 proof.gifhttp://valid.canardpc.com/s04jcj
I like MSI motherboards and this is why smile.gif
8350 @ 5.2 ghz on a stock cooler proof.gif PM me! smile.gif
cssorkinman is online now  
post #419 of 564 Old 06-05-2016, 02:36 PM
PC Gamer
 
Fyrwulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Land Of The Free, Home Of The Brave
Posts: 1,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanLoco View Post

Intel chips do not create "more heat" than AMD chips, quite the opposite actually.

Actually, they do. Intel designs are much denser than AMD ones, so naturally they produce more heat in total. On a per transistor level they're probably way more efficient, but that's basically meaningless on a holistic level.
Fyrwulf is offline  
post #420 of 564 Old 06-05-2016, 02:59 PM
333mhz
 
jincuteguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 6
It doesn't matter if Amd new cpu comes close to Intel cpu in terms of performance, I still go for Intel cpus. The only good thing I see is it might bring those Intel cpu prices down a bit.

-=]░▒▓███ [Official] NVIDIA GTX 780 Owner's Club ███▓▒░[=-
jincuteguy is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off