Topic: Of Proccessers and GHz...

[Nemesis]

Um, my Athlon 1.4GHz that I've been running as my server (used for many D2 Campaigns) have been running nearly non-stop at 65-72 °C for three years

That particular CPU does run hot.  That is because it is an end of line chip and end of line designs tend to be pushed close to their limits.  The Athlon XPs that succeeded it ran much cooler.

[Mr_Tricorder]

That's the same Processor I've been using for nearly five years now and I've never had a problem with it overheating.

[Bonk]

Holy crap! 50-65°C!!!  That is going to self destruct - and fast... The Athlon I run rarely goes over 43°C.  Electronics like body temp. 37.5°C. Which the mainboard seems to hover at.

Um, my Athlon 1.4GHz that I've been running as my server (used for many D2 Campaigns) have been running nearly non-stop at 65-72 °C for three years

Wow, you could cook your dinner on that sucker! Perhaps they're not as heat sensitive as I thought, I always figured the cooler the better though (within limits of course, I'm sure it would slow down at -20 or something crazy like that)

My Athlon server is the XP 2500+ (1.8 GHz) so that is consistent with what Nemesis tell us, it definitely runs much cooler than your 1.4.

[Nemesis]

what Nemesis tell us, it definitely runs much cooler than your 1.4.

I had an Athlon 1.4 ghz from the time they were the fastest Athlon.  I gave it to a friend and late last spring finally upgraded him to an Athlon XP 2100+, which ran cooler by far.  That chip survived for months with the CPU fan running at 1/3 speed before I had access to it to replace the fan.  So I'm speaking from personal experience. 

[Tus-XC]

You know AMD is not the only way to go here especially if price is a consideration. if that is the case go intel, they are much cheaper and more budget friendly (and Nem even you must agree on that)

Not if your going dual core. 

Intel has kludged together 2 cores that were not designed for it into a single package and they run hot.  Once they create a chip designed for multicore from the beginning then that may well change.

The AMD K8 chips were designed for multicore and they run much cooler. 

The designed for / versus kludge and the power consumption/heat issues give AMD the nod in spite of being more costly.

Nem... i was refering to price not about performance (as in budget system).... Sometimes you can't go w/ the best cause well its just too expensive for what you get, expecially if you have to start skimping on other areas in order to stay in budges ya got to read what i'm saying dude

[Nemesis]

You know AMD is not the only way to go here especially if price is a consideration. if that is the case go intel, they are much cheaper and more budget friendly (and Nem even you must agree on that)

Not if your going dual core. 

Intel has kludged together 2 cores that were not designed for it into a single package and they run hot.  Once they create a chip designed for multicore from the beginning then that may well change.

The AMD K8 chips were designed for multicore and they run much cooler. 

The designed for / versus kludge and the power consumption/heat issues give AMD the nod in spite of being more costly.

Nem... i was refering to price not about performance (as in budget system).... Sometimes you can't go w/ the best cause well its just too expensive for what you get, expecially if you have to start skimping on other areas in order to stay in budges ya got to read what i'm saying dude

Sometimes someone actually did read what you wrote and replied correctly.  As I said "Not if your going dual core." 

Right now dual core is not budget and dual core is where AMD absolutely rules.  Intel duals are kludges (at present) and run hot.  Even Intel dual cores are not budget systems for price. If someone were to go dual core now and want to keep the price down I would say stick with the AMD X2 3800+, a powerful chip that is relatively frugal with electricy and therefore runs relatively cool.  Price/performance in dual core is ruled by AMD and in that area Intel should be avoided.

What I didn't say but which was implied by the fact that I explicitly and only referred to the dual cores was that in the non dual core systems Intel was very competitive.  I don't say much about them because I haven't been looking as much at the lower end systems lately and can't make as much in the way of suggestons.  In single core systems that are away from the high end Intel is definitely competitive as long as you watch the heat issues as you go up the scales.

[Tus-XC]

sorry bud, but the prices don't lie

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343+1050716915&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343+50001028+1302820275&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=

Intel has the budget PC atm, amd definatly does not.  I've never been refering to max performance, i've been refering to budget, ie, there is more than a computer than just a processor when you only got 600-800 bucks to spend, amd cannot offer that. What amd owns is performance, but cannot do what intel can do when it comes to cutting price which is why intel has the budget slot...

o btw, i was joking around w/ ya bud on my last remark, nothing serous ment by it just my dry humor sneaking through lol  i've actually been following this pretty well cause in about 6 months i'm upgrading, and the interesting stuff is just getting out there

[Nemesis]

What amd owns is performance, but cannot do what intel can do when it comes to cutting price which is why intel has the budget slot...

The performance end is where the big profits lie.  Intel would rather change places with AMD on which end of the market they "own".

AMD is selling everything they can produce.  They don't have the ability to make as many chips as they could sell (unlike Intel) due to lack of production facilities.  They therefore have to choose where to compete and where to yield the market to Intel.  They target the high profit areas.  Servers, laptops and high end desktops.  The low end chips are often sold below cost so owning that market is expensive to Intel, which is why in the past they allowed AMD to own it (and lose money).  AMD is maximizing their profits to pay off debts and prepare for taking a larger market share as they expand their ability to manufacture CPUS.

With luck when the 3rd party foundry begins kicking out chips (in the midrange I expect) AMD will have a strong presence in all the areas they can make money and can push ahead on making more production facilities quicker (or revamping old ones that can't make current CPUs).

One way AMD can increase capacity is to use fewer transisters per CPU.  Fewer transisters means a higher yield on functional and faster CPUs as well as lower power usage.  It also means smaller chips which results in more chips yielded per wafer.  The obvious way to do that is less memory on the chip (resulting in lower performance).  A less obvious way is to keep the quantity of memory but decrease they number of transistors to make it.  To that end they licensed a new memory technology (link below)

Link to article

The embedded memory is a good fit with AMD, which has moved all its microprocessor production over to SOI manufacturing processes. ISi (Santa Clara, Calif.) has claimed that Z-RAM can achieve five times the density of embedded SRAM, the conventional memory choice for on-chip caches, and twice the density of embedded DRAM.

They could decrease the transistors for memory to 20% and greatly increase their output.  Or they could increase the cache 5 fold for a performance increase.  Alternately they could do a little of both - more cache for servers and high end desktops fewer transistors for the lower end and laptops.  All while increasing market share and decreasing manufacturing costs without a major cash outlay or decreasing profit margins.

This memory technology requires a silicon on insulator process.  Intel does not use that process - AMD does.  So potentially AMD could very substantially increase their output if they can integrate this into their CPUs as they apparently plan.  An advantage that AMD may be able to take that intel cannot without licensing the process technology for SOI from IBM and building new facilities to use it, which means a minimum 2 year gap for AMD to make use of it.

[FPF-DieHard]

Holy crap! 50-65°C!!!  That is going to self destruct - and fast... The Athlon I run rarely goes over 43°C.  Electronics like body temp. 37.5°C. Which the mainboard seems to hover at.

Um, my Athlon 1.4GHz that I've been running as my server (used for many D2 Campaigns) have been running nearly non-stop at 65-72 °C for three years

I use the silent Zalman silent Power supplies, they run hotter but make almost no noise.   My Pentiume M laptop will often run at 72+ °C, but that is okay since it is rated up to 100%.

The new AMDs don't run this hot, it's only a concern for the olders chips, 
Wow, you could cook your dinner on that sucker! Perhaps they're not as heat sensitive as I thought, I always figured the cooler the better though (within limits of course, I'm sure it would slow down at -20 or something crazy like that)

My Athlon server is the XP 2500+ (1.8 GHz) so that is consistent with what Nemesis tell us, it definitely runs much cooler than your 1.4.

[Tus-XC]

nem i never said they weren't losing money, i said that when it comes budget stuff intel has it, nothing more nothing less I have not doubt that intel does not like this position, but i doubt it will stay that way for long (it never has).  sorta like nvidia and ATI, ATI won the bought against nvidias fx series, nvidia wooped them with their 6000 series, one of the biggest peformance jumps to date, now they is pretty much even (nvidia has a slight performance lead last i checked though). to think otherwise (as you have in other posts) is kinda ludicrous

[Tus-XC]

btw nem, low prices may be bad for intel, but they are great for the consumer, in other words we are not argueing here whether or not amd or intel has the budget slot really, or who is losing money because of it, we should be argueing the value for a consumer based upon customer needs (note customer needs, not customer wants), which as i said has intel in there for budget, and amd in there for performance, there is nothing more to argue here cause anything else well would be fan boyish (and i'm hoping i'm avoiding that as well)

[KBFLordKrueg]

System arrived...
Only issue  discovered so far is the fact that many utility programs (winzip, AV, etc) are not compatable with the WINXP pro 64 bit OS software...
This has requred me to download drivers for the 64 bit version from various websites.
Kind of a PITA, but tolerable since I have broadband.

And, I doubt heat is really going to be a issue as this system has a total of 5 cooling fans. 
On my other system (AMD proc.) I could feel the heat just buy touching the case. On the new one, it's run constantly for over 24 hrs now and the case is still cool to the touch. 

[KBF MalaK]

ALWAYS use a power supply that has a cooling fan facing the processor, as well have a case fan that blows out next to the power supply. My current Athlon runs about 50 C and is rock solid (as opposed to 65 c before I installed the case fan).

Holy crap! 50-65°C!!!  That is going to self destruct - and fast... The Athlon I run rarely goes over 43°C.  Electronics like body temp. 37.5°C. Which the mainboard seems to hover at.

ALWAYS use a power supply that has a cooling fan facing the processor, as well have a case fan that blows out next to the power supply.

That might have something to do with it... that is not a good cooling setup in my view, blowing the significant heat of the power supply into the case is just not a good idea.

I use the default power supply configuration with the fan blowing its hot air out, and a chassis fan at the back also blowing air out of the case. This way there is something close to laminar flow from the air intake inlets at the front of the case to the vents at the rear with fans pulling the hot air out of the case. The processor fan is doing the bulk of the cooling for the cpu anyway, you just need to ensure it has a good supply of cool air to pull over the heatsink. Blowing hot air from the power supply into the case is just not a good idea. 

For my main PIII-1000MHz PC I also have the power supply and chassis fans pulling air out of the full tower case at the back. Current stats attached (of course cooler than the Athlon 2500 I run, which is currently in storage, and is usually a few degrees higher in the heat of the summer - these numbers are probably why it has run rock solid for me over 6 years and performs wonderfully):

I think you misunderstood (or maybe I said it wrong) The fan in the power supply FACES the processor but DOES NOT blow onto the chip- it sucks air from the facing side and blows it thru the power supply and out the back of the case, as well as the case fan next to it. As my Athlon used to run at 65 C before the case fan addition it now runs about 50C both are below the AMD spec'd redline of 70C.

Both of my PC's are old by todays standards (AMD Athlon, and P4 (non-HT)) so are the ones I build (Durons) so the new chip data may very well be completely different than what I posted.

Sorry for the confusion.

And LK, I thought you we're building one, not ordering a built one. Just lending some 'experience' as I've cooked my share of chips, as seen cooked one (even bad MB's with fried caps after the processor fans failed).

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

It appears that AMD is bringing the release of the DDR2 chips forward a bit.

AMD has reportedly rescheduled the release of its Socket AM2 platform, bringing forward the launch date from 6 June to 23 May, the better it seems to get as much of a lead on Intel's next-generation architecture processor, 'Conroe', as possible.

While also bringing out cooler chips.

AMD's energy efficient processor family is expected to include dual- and single-core Athlon 64 and Sempron desktop chips with TDPs of 65W and 35W.

Link to 2nd article

The new chips do look to be supporting DDR2 800mhz.

Website Xbit Labs cites a "confidential" AMD document which states: "Performance and mainstream AMD socket AM2 dual-core and single-core processors [are] designed to support DDR2-800 at launch."

[KBFLordKrueg]

ALWAYS use a power supply that has a cooling fan facing the processor, as well have a case fan that blows out next to the power supply. My current Athlon runs about 50 C and is rock solid (as opposed to 65 c before I installed the case fan).

Holy crap! 50-65°C!!!  That is going to self destruct - and fast... The Athlon I run rarely goes over 43°C.  Electronics like body temp. 37.5°C. Which the mainboard seems to hover at.

ALWAYS use a power supply that has a cooling fan facing the processor, as well have a case fan that blows out next to the power supply.

That might have something to do with it... that is not a good cooling setup in my view, blowing the significant heat of the power supply into the case is just not a good idea.

I use the default power supply configuration with the fan blowing its hot air out, and a chassis fan at the back also blowing air out of the case. This way there is something close to laminar flow from the air intake inlets at the front of the case to the vents at the rear with fans pulling the hot air out of the case. The processor fan is doing the bulk of the cooling for the cpu anyway, you just need to ensure it has a good supply of cool air to pull over the heatsink. Blowing hot air from the power supply into the case is just not a good idea. 

For my main PIII-1000MHz PC I also have the power supply and chassis fans pulling air out of the full tower case at the back. Current stats attached (of course cooler than the Athlon 2500 I run, which is currently in storage, and is usually a few degrees higher in the heat of the summer - these numbers are probably why it has run rock solid for me over 6 years and performs wonderfully):

I think you misunderstood (or maybe I said it wrong) The fan in the power supply FACES the processor but DOES NOT blow onto the chip- it sucks air from the facing side and blows it thru the power supply and out the back of the case, as well as the case fan next to it. As my Athlon used to run at 65 C before the case fan addition it now runs about 50C both are below the AMD spec'd redline of 70C.

Both of my PC's are old by todays standards (AMD Athlon, and P4 (non-HT)) so are the ones I build (Durons) so the new chip data may very well be completely different than what I posted.

Sorry for the confusion.

And LK, I thought you we're building one, not ordering a built one. Just lending some 'experience' as I've cooked my share of chips, as seen cooked one (even bad MB's with fried caps after the processor fans failed).

I wish I had the know how to build one, I very briefly toyed with the idea...then I came to my senses. 
Got cooling fans out the arse on this one, btw.
1 blowing out on the pwr supply...another case fan below in pulling air out...an fan directly over the CPU, pulling out, with another side case mounted exhaust fan across from it, a intake fan in the front and a HS fan on the video  card.
Somewhere in here there's a program to monitor all that, just havn't explored the that system throughly yet...

[Mr_Tricorder]

Carefull with those fans.  Sometimes adding fans can hinder air flow isntead of help it.

[Tus-XC]

as long as you set up fans as intake (front of the case for me) and exhaust (rear in my case) you should be fine.  its when they are either both exhaust or both intake you run into problems

[KBFLordKrueg]

Carefull with those fans.  Sometimes adding fans can hinder air flow isntead of help it.

I didn't add anything...that's what the system came with.
It was built for gaming.