In private correspondence, re claims about AMD versus Intel PC CPU operating
temperatures, Rod wrote
> Have trouble believing there is much difference between I and AMD ...
(Someone had written)
>> ... , but did you know that with the fan/heatsink off an AMD
>> Palomino runs at 5680F and an AMD Athlon 1400 it run at 6980F! If the fan
>> fails that leaves only the heatsink to dissipate all that heat.
>> In comparison, the Intel Pentium 4 2Ghz runs at 840F and the Intel
>> III 1Ghz runs at 1000F with the fan/heatsink off.
ALL modern processors draw extremely high currents at low voltage.
Haven't looked up requirements but probably 20A plus plus at 1.5 to 3 volts.
Even 20 watts (below any of above) on an unheatsunk chip will fry it vvv
It may be that Intel's cpu's have a little more thermal mass than AMDs which
may allow them to survive for a few more seconds totally unheatsunk. (But an
eg Celeron 1700 looks pretty minimal in any sort of mass to me).
Just possibly Intel's heatsinks are superior and without a fan they run
But even then the temperatures they claim are bunk.
84 F = 27C
The heatsink on the Celeron 1700 I installed a few days ago runs annoyingly
hot with VERY large Intel heatsink and fan. I'd say around 50C !
The last time I played with this it was P3 vs. K6. The K6s ran cooler. At
the time CPU dissipation ran at about 70W for AMD and 85W for Intel. The
heatsink temperature was to stay below 72C or so (65C was a safe target
but most people would prefer 55C at up to 40C ambient). Neither CPU would
survive the lack of a fan for more than a few minutes, but depending on
computing load, the heating varies very much (10:1). Both CPUs run
lukewarm w/o heatsink at idle load on several OSes (but not on W95 which
did not use the halt cycle at the time). Testing must be done with equal
computational load. There are programs for this and tests published at
that hardware site (tomshardware ?), and in some computer mags.
Now they have thermal shutdown in the bios so the meltdowns that used to
happen cannot happen anymore.
In general comparing temperatures like this is comparing apples with
oranges since the cache sizes etc vary greatly between chips, plus there
are chips of different technology (feature size - eg. 0.15u, 0.12u etc) on
the market, and all these things affect power consumptio. The lower
feature size lowers capacitance and with that power. More transistors
raise the power requirements. Usually for chips of the same technology and
cache size etc AMD draws less power by 10-20%. I think that this comes
from their being usually 2nd in the market with a specific product which
allows for greater optimisation, and from using smaller acches in general.
I do not know if it is true now.
I know for sure that certain models of K6 run significantly hotter than
others, although they have lower clocks. This is one of the technology
jumps probably. E.g. a 233MHz K6 would run hotter than a newer 450MHz one.
The temperature figures in your quoted posting are probably from a reentry
vehicle's outer surfaces or from inside a plasma torch. If you try to
arbitrarily place decimal points in them to get more reasonable figures
(eg 84.x instead of 84xx then the Intel cpu temp would be more like 100.0F
which would be above the 84.xx for the AMD - but this is just a guess).
1000F is about 500 deg. C and at that temperature only some special
downhole parts might work (nuvistors etc), certainly no cpu you can buy
Does anybody know of any "Hardware Monitor" software (Win2000)
for motherboard with I845AD chipset? I wanna know CPU (Cel1700)
temperature under full load. I've searched MB manufactures'
sites and have found nothing for Win2000. The bloody Celeron1700
creature dissipates too much power when converting big (300Mb)
.wav files to .mp3.
If I had known Cel1700 was made of 0.18 micron and held only 128K
cache, I'd better chose Celeron1400 - 0.13 micron and 256 cache for
Heck with DDR memory; I suspect overall app speed would be pretty
close for both CPUs.
I know Some Like Hot, but I feel more comfortable with cool things.
Can't use AMD - have had (Is it grammatically correct?) bad
experience with motherboards based on non-Intel chipsets.
Russell McMahon wrote:
> Just possibly Intel's heatsinks are superior and without a fan
> they run cooler. But even then the temperatures they claim are
> bunk. 84 F = 27C The heatsink on the Celeron 1700 I installed
> a few days ago runs annoyingly hot with VERY large Intel heatsink
> and fan. I'd say around 50C !
Thank you, Kyrre.
Have downloaded and launched MBM5 just now.
Russel, it works.
Without CPU load:
Board sensor 27C
(MB BIOS value when restarting 27C)
CPU sensors 27C
(MB BIOS value when restarting 30C)
CPU at full load after 30 min (task manager 100%):
Board sensor 29C
CPU sensors 45C
Home temperature 18C.
(Usually 24C - today's technical isues)
CPU Fan (Intel's) speed from ~3400 to ~3550.
Kyrre Aalerud wrote:
> Your best bet is MBM5
> It supports most chipsets and sensors on the market.
> Go to http://mbm.livewiredev.com and have a look/download.
> > Does anybody know of any "Hardware Monitor" software (Win2000)
> > for motherboard with I845AD chipset? I wanna know CPU (Cel1700)
> > temperature under full load. I've searched MB manufactures'
> > sites and have found nothing for Win2000. The bloody Celeron1700
> > creature dissipates too much power when converting big (300Mb)
> > .wav files to .mp3.
> > Russell McMahon wrote:
> > > Just possibly Intel's heatsinks are superior and without a fan
> > > they run cooler. But even then the temperatures they claim are
> > > bunk. 84 F = 27C The heatsink on the Celeron 1700 I installed
> > > a few days ago runs annoyingly hot with VERY large Intel heatsink
> > > and fan. I'd say around 50C !