Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Power Supplies › PSU Requirements for lightweight computer?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PSU Requirements for lightweight computer? - Page 3  

post #21 of 40
The facts are this. Intel's listed Max TDP figure is a figure with no solid physical basis. It's an estimation, with a lot of fudge room. As I've said, it's based on maximum load conditions of a processor running at the maximum VID, and even then it's rounded up with lots of margin for the purpose of lower RMA rates and purposes of liability.

Anyone with any understanding of the industry knows this. You're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Trying to needle me on points of semantics and such nonsense. Perhaps it will make you feel better to drive me to the point of frustration. Kind of like annoying a cat until it leaves the room. Sure, if that's your thing. But don't make definitive statements on something that you know nothing about, especially when it concerns someone else's money. If you care to learn the facts and realities of the computer industry and still feel the need to bug me afterwards then maybe we can have this discussion again. But I doubt you'll feel the need at that point, since you'll find that I'm right.
post #22 of 40
Basically youre making stuff up. What's a Max TDP? Please show one instance of such a spec from intel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus2129 View Post
The facts are this. Intel's listed Max TDP figure is a figure with no solid physical basis. It's an estimation, with a lot of fudge room. As I've said, it's based on maximum load conditions of a processor running at the maximum VID, and even then it's rounded up with lots of margin for the purpose of lower RMA rates and purposes of liability.

Anyone with any understanding of the industry knows this. You're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Trying to needle me on points of semantics and such nonsense. Perhaps it will make you feel better to drive me to the point of frustration. Kind of like annoying a cat until it leaves the room. Sure, if that's your thing. But don't make definitive statements on something that you know nothing about, especially when it concerns someone else's money. If you care to learn the facts and realities of the computer industry and still feel the need to bug me afterwards then maybe we can have this discussion again. But I doubt you'll feel the need at that point, since you'll find that I'm right.
post #23 of 40
post #24 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellonwheelz View Post
Basically youre making stuff up. What's a Max TDP? Please show one instance of such a spec from intel.
Wow dude, someone is trying to explain it to you and you are either to ignorant or to dumb to listen to what they are saying. He is telling you and your acually telling him he is making stuff up? Lol troll is troll
Haf of an 2500K
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I5 2500K MSI GD65 GTX 580 Windforce G Skill ECO 
Hard DriveOSKeyboardPower
64GB A-Data SSD+500GB F3 Win7 Razer Blackwidow 750W Black Edition 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
HAF 932 Razer Deathadder X-Trac Ripper 
  hide details  
Haf of an 2500K
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I5 2500K MSI GD65 GTX 580 Windforce G Skill ECO 
Hard DriveOSKeyboardPower
64GB A-Data SSD+500GB F3 Win7 Razer Blackwidow 750W Black Edition 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
HAF 932 Razer Deathadder X-Trac Ripper 
  hide details  
post #25 of 40
Ok fine max tdp is the same as tdp. I'm wrong on that.
post #26 of 40
Intel is telling you that a cpu can exceed the TDP in maximum power consumption. Yet you claim Intel, has no physical basis for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus2129 View Post
The facts are this. Intel's listed Max TDP figure is a figure with no solid physical basis. It's an estimation, with a lot of fudge room. As I've said, it's based on maximum load conditions of a processor running at the maximum VID, and even then it's rounded up with lots of margin for the purpose of lower RMA rates and purposes of liability.

Anyone with any understanding of the industry knows this. You're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Trying to needle me on points of semantics and such nonsense. Perhaps it will make you feel better to drive me to the point of frustration. Kind of like annoying a cat until it leaves the room. Sure, if that's your thing. But don't make definitive statements on something that you know nothing about, especially when it concerns someone else's money. If you care to learn the facts and realities of the computer industry and still feel the need to bug me afterwards then maybe we can have this discussion again. But I doubt you'll feel the need at that point, since you'll find that I'm right.
post #27 of 40
Stop putting words in my mouth and read what I wrote. Go back to page two and start over.


Nothing you've said or presented in any way contradicts what I've said.
post #28 of 40
What I'm saying is clear. Intel sells chips that can consume power above the TDP. I'm not saying all steppings will, or the lowest in the family. I bought 3 2500k to get the lowest VID. I don't personally expect to be able hit the tdp.

You state that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus2129 View Post
The TDP is the theoretical maximum amount of heat that can be emitted by the chip when under maximum stress, assuming that it is running at the highest specified VID.
Intel clearly states differently and I sent you the pdf where they state it. You seem to think that because you state something thats like evidence.
post #29 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus2129 View Post
I
For an E0 Q9550 running at stock 2.83GHz with a VID of 1.2125V (mine before overclocking), the actual heat put off by the chip under maximum stress might be more like 45-50W; and power consumption around 60-70W (the power not dissipated as heat is either returned to ground or used for signaling).

How exactly is power consumed returned to ground?
post #30 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellonwheelz View Post
What I'm saying is clear. Intel sells chips that can consume power above the TDP. I'm not saying all steppings will, or the lowest in the family. I bought 3 2500k to get the lowest VID. I don't personally expect to be able hit the tdp.

You state that

Intel clearly states differently and I sent you the pdf where they state it. You seem to think that because you state something thats like evidence.
1. Peak consumption: doesn't matter, since it's usually millisecond duration. As Intel states, "not thermally significant", and thus not power significant either.

2. "Virus-like code". I don't know of any examples, except maybe Furmark for GPUs. LinX and IBT are not examples of this, being LINPACK based benchmarks/stress tests that are based on a library developed in the 70s. I don't know much about the internal workings of Prime95 or SuperPI, but I doubt they qualify either. If you think that Intel doesn't take into account some of the most common stress testing tools out there, then I'm afraid you're beyond my help.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hellonwheelz View Post
How exactly is power consumed returned to ground?
Not all of the current is consumed. Some current used in the base charge is not dissipated as heat. I don't know the details, CPU architecture and design not being my specialty, so I'm a little out of my comfort zone there.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Power Supplies
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Power Supplies › PSU Requirements for lightweight computer?