Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [Various] AMD’s Zen Eight Core CPU Delivers Double the Performance of the FX 8350 (Update 2)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Various] AMD’s Zen Eight Core CPU Delivers Double the Performance of the FX 8350 (Update 2) - Page 46

post #451 of 564
Some of you need a physics lesson.
Power Bac G5
(6 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel i7 6950X EVGA GTX 1080 Ti GSkill 32GB 4133Mhz Samsung 960 Pro 1TB 
CoolingMonitor
Corsair H110i ASUS PG278Q 
  hide details  
Reply
Power Bac G5
(6 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel i7 6950X EVGA GTX 1080 Ti GSkill 32GB 4133Mhz Samsung 960 Pro 1TB 
CoolingMonitor
Corsair H110i ASUS PG278Q 
  hide details  
Reply
post #452 of 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

What is causing the extra heat load when you operate a cpu at the same voltages , under the same load, but increase the clockspeed? Resistance? Just curious , sorry so far O.T.

You can't increase clock speed without increasing voltage somewhere.
post #453 of 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by jincuteguy View Post

Because I feel like Intel has a more robust micro architecture and features besides the clock speed, and more reliable. Even for motherboards, I feel like Intel motherboards are more robust, I feel like my money is well spent on Intel side than Amd.

I just feel like Amd cut a corner somewhere to bring down the price compare to Intel and Nvidia.
That's one of the reason why I don't buy Amd video cards either, I always go with Nvidia cards, even though they're more expensive.

are you from Alabama??
My System
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Ryzen 1700 Asrock Taichi x370 Sapphire Nitro 390 G. Skill 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Intel SSD VMs WD Caviar black Kingston Fury x3 Raid 0 Optiar DVD-CD combo 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
AIO Fractal design celsius 360 Windows 10 pro x64 Acer H243H 24" Razer Lycosa 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair TX850 Coolermaster HAF 932 Logitech G502 Razer Vespula 
Audio
Tritton AX51 PRO 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Ryzen 1700 Asrock Taichi x370 Sapphire Nitro 390 G. Skill 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Intel SSD VMs WD Caviar black Kingston Fury x3 Raid 0 Optiar DVD-CD combo 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
AIO Fractal design celsius 360 Windows 10 pro x64 Acer H243H 24" Razer Lycosa 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair TX850 Coolermaster HAF 932 Logitech G502 Razer Vespula 
Audio
Tritton AX51 PRO 
  hide details  
Reply
post #454 of 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by looncraz View Post

Not 100%, actually. I did a *lot* of real-world testing back in the Pentium 3 era with peltiers, heatsinks, heat sources, power consumption, and heat output. CPUs were quite efficient at producing heat from their input power, but were not nearly as efficient as high impedance coil of wire.

This has been many many years (obviously), but I think the 'best' number I had for heat generation from a CPU was about 70%.. overclocked, overvolted, and under multiple types of loads concurrently to fully tax the CPU.

The rest of the energy, I feel, went into outputs or out the grounds or was transformed into another form of radiation that did not interact with the CPU or heatsink to produce heat.

A CPU can 'consume' 100W and put out only 50W of heat, which is precisely why we have to create TDP figures - and why TDP figures from AMD and Intel aren't compatible. AMD CPUs 'leak' more of their current to the ground, which doesn't generate much heat. Intel CPUs put that current through more circuitry, generating more heat, but accomplishing more at the same time - making for more energy efficiency in terms of processing power.
How did you measure CPU power draw? Did you account for transient response/voltage drop/power dissipated in VRM? I really have a hard time believing I/O signals can use tens of watts, and same for RF emission.
1
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 @ 3.6 Gigabyte x58a ud3r Gigabyte GV-R6870C-1GD Mushkin Redline 
Hard DriveOptical DriveMonitorKeyboard
2x 1TB Spinpoint samsung dvd burner Samsung p2370 + Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 930SB WASD keyboards v1 semi custom w/ cherry browns 
PowerCaseMouse
Antec CP-850 Antec P183 CM Storm Spawn 
  hide details  
Reply
1
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 @ 3.6 Gigabyte x58a ud3r Gigabyte GV-R6870C-1GD Mushkin Redline 
Hard DriveOptical DriveMonitorKeyboard
2x 1TB Spinpoint samsung dvd burner Samsung p2370 + Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 930SB WASD keyboards v1 semi custom w/ cherry browns 
PowerCaseMouse
Antec CP-850 Antec P183 CM Storm Spawn 
  hide details  
Reply
post #455 of 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utroz View Post

http://wccftech.com/amd-am4-motherboard-bristol-ridge-apu-spotted/

AM4 spotted...

Much awesomeness.

Very strange board, though, even for a development board.

No visible ATX power connector, USB3 header in center of board... between the SATA connectors... one massive-looking chipset... without any heatsink mounting holes...
post #456 of 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyrwulf View Post

No, processors work in a closed electrical loop. Electricity that is not immediately used is recycled back to the source (PSU). Eventually all electricity generated is turned into heat, but not immediately.

There is no guarantee that the electrons will induce heating, however. All heating within a CPU is joule heating, IIRC, and there is always leakage back to the ground plane, which means less than idealized joule heating.

If the PSU generates heat from the ground plane, that's another story - as we are discussing the CPU only.
post #457 of 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyrwulf View Post

Processors are composed of transistors. Transistors function by inducing electrons to flow in directions they don't want to. Using energy to force such an action is the very definition of work.
No, that is not how transistors work. At all. They don't "force electrons to flow in directions they don't want to". You apply a voltage to the gate of a FET, and its resistance goes from near infinite, to zero. It turns from an insulator, into a near perfect conductor. The electrons flow not because they're being forced to, but because there is now no resistance, when there once was.

You can hook a capacitor up to the gate of a FET, charge it up, and that FET will stay conducting for pretty much forever as long as that capacitor has almost no self discharge. If there was work being done by the transistor to make the electrons flow, this would not be possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by looncraz View Post

Not 100%, actually. I did a *lot* of real-world testing back in the Pentium 3 era with peltiers, heatsinks, heat sources, power consumption, and heat output. CPUs were quite efficient at producing heat from their input power, but were not nearly as efficient as high impedance coil of wire.

This has been many many years (obviously), but I think the 'best' number I had for heat generation from a CPU was about 70%.. overclocked, overvolted, and under multiple types of loads concurrently to fully tax the CPU.

The rest of the energy, I feel, went into outputs or out the grounds or was transformed into another form of radiation that did not interact with the CPU or heatsink to produce heat.
There's a few obvious flaws in your testing, including one glaringly huge one. A lot of the heat generator by the processor will be conducted through the pins, into the CPU socket, into the huge plane of copper that is the motherboard. Another major one is that it's highly unlikely you measured power consumption after the VRM. To do this accurately, you would have to isolate the entire CPU from the motherboard board using some kind of crazy high speed data cable, encase it in a calorimeter or similar device. Then, you'd have to measure the VRM output current and voltage (~1.1v @ 60-90 amps).

Unless you did all of that, your testing is highly flawed.
Quote:
A CPU can 'consume' 100W and put out only 50W of heat, which is precisely why we have to create TDP figures - and why TDP figures from AMD and Intel aren't compatible. AMD CPUs 'leak' more of their current to the ground, which doesn't generate much heat. Intel CPUs put that current through more circuitry, generating more heat, but accomplishing more at the same time - making for more energy efficiency in terms of processing power.
You have a severe misunderstanding of basic electric theory. Any current that leaks to ground WILL generate heat within the chip! Semiconductor leakage creates a virtual resistor to ground. Any current flowing via leakage generates heat within the chip!

What throws your whole argument out, is that AMD literally defines TDP as the maximum power the processor can draw, and that a thermal solution should be capable of dissipating all of that power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMD 
TDP. Thermal Design Power. The thermal design power is the maximum power a processor can draw
for a thermally significant period while running commercially useful software. The constraining
conditions for TDP are specified in the notes in the thermal and power tables.”
Notes:
- TDP is measured under the conditions of all cores operating at CPU COF, Tcase Max, and VDD at
the voltage requested by the processor. TDP includes all power dissipated on-die from VDD,
VDDNB, VDDIO, VLDT, VTT and VDDA.
- The processor thermal solution should be designed to accommodate thermal design power (TDP) at
Tcase,max.

AMD themselves literally say that they measure TDP, by measuring all the power consumed by the various core voltage supply rails. This means that as far as AMD is concerned, all the power consumed by the CPU turns into heat.
Edited by AmericanLoco - 6/5/16 at 9:22pm
post #458 of 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by TranquilTempest View Post

How did you measure CPU power draw? Did you account for transient response/voltage drop/power dissipated in VRM? I really have a hard time believing I/O signals can use tens of watts, and same for RF emission.

Power draw was measured with some fancy equipment I barely knew how to use tongue.gif I was working with a retired Air Force engineer and all of his equipment - and the benefit of his knowledge. I/O and RF would certainly be in the 1W area, combined, but it still shows that 100% conversion to heat is not reality.

The greatest loss of conversion efficiency (to heat) would be to the ground plane - those electrons aren't creating heat in the CPU.
post #459 of 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanLoco View Post

There's a few obvious flaws in your testing, including one glaringly huge one. A lot of the heat generator by the processor will be conducted through the pins, into the CPU socket, into the huge plane of copper that is the motherboard. Another major one is that it's highly unlikely you measured power consumption after the VRM. To do this accurately, you would have to isolate the entire CPU from the motherboard board using some kind of crazy high speed data cable, encase it in a calorimeter or similar device. Then, you'd have to measure the VRM output current and voltage (~1.1v @ 60-90 amps).

Unless you did all of that, your testing is highly flawed.

I alluded to the fact that we did heat-source testing as well. Current was measured from the CPU pins (the board actually had test pads) and we did backplane cooling (the hole thing was wrapped in a pretty crazy looking oil-cooling (yes, oil) setup - not sure of all of the specifics, I didn't setup pretty much any part of the test, I just logged numbers and tried not to screw things up - I was but a Padawan). We ran the rig with two peltiers, more than a few CPUs, several different wires, and even an open flame (propane) to ensure calibration against some documentation my mentor (retired Air Force - very experienced, very very knowledgeable) had.

My payment was a motherboard and CPU thumb.gif And some experience.

Quote:
You have a severe misunderstanding of basic electric theory. Any current that leaks to ground WILL generate heat within the chip! Semiconductor leakage creates a virtual resistor to ground. Any current flowing via leakage generates heat within the chip!

Only if it encounters resistance.
Edited by looncraz - 6/5/16 at 9:34pm
post #460 of 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyrwulf View Post

In response to the OP, that graph is obviously cherry picked to represent a best case scenario. However, it does offer an interesting insight into what precisely AMD has been able to achieve. If Piledriver is your baseline and you set that to 1, you can work from there.

Steamroller: 1*1.1=1.1
Excavator (Cinebench): 1.1*1.05=1.155
Excavator (AotS): 1.1*1.15=1.265
Zen (Cinebench): 1.155*1.4=1.617
Zen (AotS): 1.265*1.55=1.96075

I don't think AMD has ever precisely lied about Zen, what they have done is purposefully used selective truths to obfuscate the real capabilities of Zen.

Last I read, the baseline is Bristol Ridge.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [Various] AMD’s Zen Eight Core CPU Delivers Double the Performance of the FX 8350 (Update 2)