AMD Shanghai/Deneb Review Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TL1000S

My answer was about "temps" (numbers) many tend to think is acutal temperatures within a core, from a point on the PCB..etc.

But if you feel like giving answers to something else, that is OK. :)

---

ok, im not sure if i got it right.
you were replying to someone asking about why something is cooler when it has higher volts.
your reply to something to this effect, someone/something mis/assigning figures to an electrical value(resistance) to come up with temps lower than actual. then you add, this why some temps are lower than ambient.
here you were clearly implying that, only way to have lower temp but wiht higher volts is to misassign/misrepresent numbers/values.
to which i replied, its possible to have cooler temp but hgiher volts withouth rigging anything, ONLY i chose to express in formula.
if i misnterpreted anything, sorry. also, sorry fo r bad spelling,english.:up:
edit: also if i may add (just trying to recall whats on my head, not searching or anything), volts doesnt produce heat. its the current that flows through the circuit that does. as current flows, resistance is encountered. when there is resistance, there is friction which in turn generates heat.

well, depends if you say power is watts or power in ampere's.

lets say it like this.
It comsumes more energy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sundancerx

ok, im not sure if i got it right.
you were replying to someone asking about why something is cooler when it has higher volts.
your reply to something to this effect, someone/something mis/assigning figures to an electrical value(resistance) to come up with temps lower than actual. then you add, this why some temps are lower than ambient.
here you were clearly implying that, only way to have lower temp but wiht higher volts is to misassign/misrepresent numbers/values.
to which i replied, its possible to have cooler temp but hgiher volts withouth rigging anything, ONLY i chose to express in formula.
if i misnterpreted anything, sorry. also, sorry fo r bad spelling,english.:up:

---

no he is just saying how the temperature is measured. as electronics heat up the resistance changes so the probe measures the resistance and can tell what the cpu temp is because of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

research before posting. i believe the first leak ever about phenom II was when coolaler reached 4ghz on air and we have seen many others at 4.5ghz on air too.

---

None of which were shown to be truly stable.

Quote:

---

also if you would look at the chips of many people clocked here you would see that even at 3.7ghz it still stays pretty cool. look at all the screens charged and honda guy have posted. many people are reaching 3.5, 3.6ghz on stock volts too so it really isn't that power hungry. i have no clue where hwbox got all of their numbers from but the power consumption seems really far off compared to every other screen we have seen for phenom II so far.

---

Except we've never seen any other power consumption measurements for Phenom II so far. Given hwbox's results, it's far more likely that Phenom II temp sensors are inaccurate, or at best not directly comparable to Intel sensors readings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

None of which were shown to be truly stable.


Except we've never seen any other power consumption measurements for Phenom II so far. Given hwbox's results, it's far more likely that Phenom II temp sensors are inaccurate, or at best not directly comparable to Intel sensors readings.

---

coolaler said that they were stable, im not sure about the other 4.5ghz ones but i doubt any tests were run. and considering that phenom II's temp sensors are the same as phenom I's i doubt they would be inaccurate. now the am3 ones are a different type of sensor so they might be.

The higher the voltage the less Ampere's are recquired to do the same amount of work. It all depends on the ciruit, but more volts does not at all mean that energy consumption has to be higher.

If I needed to do 200watts of work I could use 200amps@1 volt.
I can do the same amount of work with only 133amps if I use 1.5 volts.

Volts x amps =watts. So in the end im still using 200 watts both ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

coolaler said that they were stable, im not sure about the other 4.5ghz ones but i doubt any tests were run. and considering that phenom II's temp sensors are the same as phenom I's i doubt they would be inaccurate. now the am3 ones are a different type of sensor so they might be.

---

The Phenom I's aren't that accurate, or at least they don't measure the same thing that Intel temperature sensors do.

http://forum.xcpus.com/amd/9811-phen...-behavior.html

Is there a way to ignore a users post?.....In a way that their post never pop up as long as you are logged in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sundancerx

edit: also if i may add (just trying to recall whats on my head, not searching or anything), volts doesnt produce heat. its the current that flows through the circuit that does. as current flows, resistance is encountered. when there is resistance, there is friction which in turn generates heat.

---

volts and amps can be converted inbetween each other. they both produce heat. as you know fan controllers use resistors to lower the volts which in turn lowers the fan speed. if you have ever touched one of those resistors they get pretty hot because they produce heat from lowering the volts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

The higher the voltage the less Ampere's are recquired to do the same amount of work. It all depends on the ciruit, but more volts does not at all mean that energy consumption has to be higher.

If I needed to do 200watts of work I could use 200amps@1 volt.
I can do the same amount of work with only 133amps if I use 1.5 volts.

Volts x amps =watts. So in the end im still using 200 watts both ways.

---

i and many others have said this many times already. im not sure if people are forgetting it or what. but just because the volts are higher doesn't mean the power consumption will be higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Throwed

Is there a way to ignore a users post?.....In a way that their post never pop up as long as you are logged in?

---

yea go into your user cp and you can add people from there. who you trying to block? zucker is probably on half of the people's lists in here.

@accord some might not be accurate but that will be obvious when you encounter it. that would be a problem with the cpu not the entire cpu's design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

@accord some might not be accurate but that will be obvious when you encounter it. that would be a problem with the cpu not the entire cpu's design.

---

Why not? Brisbane's thermal sensors were broken at launch, and don't appear to have been fixed. Plenty of early Wolfdales and Yorkfields have stuck sensors.

its just too hard to believe that every single phenom II is broken when there was no problem with the first phenom and the temp sensors are the same now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

its just too hard to believe that every single phenom II is broken when there was no problem with the first phenom and the temp sensors are the same now.

---

The Phenom I temp sensors are not accurate.

I find it ironical that some would believe an Intel temp sensor over AMD's when it was the 45nm Intel's that started the "Real Temp" application's development in the first place.

Are people that quick to forget?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mav451

I find it ironical that some would believe an Intel temp sensor over AMD's when it was the 45nm Intel's that started the "Real Temp" application's development in the first place.

Are people that quick to forget?

---

That came about from an issue of exactly what Tjmax value to use for Wolfdales and Yorkfields due to a lack of documentation, and really still isn't fully settled. On the other hand, it just proves that the Intel sensors shouldn't be used as an absolute temperature reading, only as a guide to as far away the CPU is from throttling and that it shouldn't be compared to temperature readings from different CPU families.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

The Phenom I temp sensors are not accurate.

---

Proof?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macadamia

Proof?

---

Read the link I provided earlier:

http://forum.xcpus.com/amd/9811-phen...-behavior.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macadamia

Proof?

---

that one thread he posted is the proof that all phenoms have a bad temp sensor and are not accurate. the one that is a year old on the old B2 phenoms. that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

that one thread he posted is the proof that all phenoms have a bad temp sensor and are not accurate.

---

Plus the additional info from the writer of Core Temp:

*K10 = Phenom (Agena), Opteron (Barcelona). The K10 reports a temperature value that is relative to a certain predefined value, it doesn't report the actual processor temperature! So take that into consideration.
**CPU Temp is because the Phenom\Opteron (K10) have only one sensor per package, meaning there is only one reading per processor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imsochobo

well, depends if you say power is watts or power in ampere's.

lets say it like this.
It comsumes more energy.

---

i dont get it. anyway, 4 more days, we shall better things to discuss:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

no he is just saying how the temperature is measured. as electronics heat up the resistance changes so the probe measures the resistance and can tell what the cpu temp is because of that.

---

sorry, dont want to drag this on. i understood about the thermistor (did i get this right) being the source of measurement for core temp. what im trying to say is that, he was implying that there has to be wrong about how the core temp is measured inorder to get lower temp even though the voltage is higher. check his comments about core temps being lower than ambient. my point was that, even with accurate core temp measurements, lower temps can still be achieved with higher volts, thus the formula i gave. this is just my point, if it cant be understood, then i rest my case. no need to drag this further. again, sorry if cant express well my message.

i think he thinks power uses the units amps and watts when its watts = volts x amps. since the voltage on phenom II went up you can guarantee the amps went down.

The sensors themselves are fine as far as scaling goes (with a few, rare exceptions), it's just the index that is off - that always has been the issue on both sides of the aisle. Any monkey can index a temp sensor to within 1-2°C by simply changing the offset - whether it be an Intel or AMD chip, doesn't matter. The Coolest put adjustments in the *.ini file specifically for that purpose. If you're going through all the hours to OC your chip and monitor with Core Temp you'd be a fool not to at least glance at Core Temp at stock idle and do a fast comparison between the reading and your (CPU HS/rad) ambient temps to correct for any serious variation. The tool is there, it takes all of 5 seconds to index the sensor - what IS the big issue here? If you don't trust the author to be at least that conscientious (or maybe he just doesn't care because it's a moot point - a view I can relate to!) then you may as well throw out all his data and move on ...

anyone has a good pic of i7 and deneb stock cooler? could be a good indicator of how hot these chips can get.
edit:pic (side by side for good size comparison) or dimension i should say.

The AMD 4-pipe HS far exceeds minimum requirements so I'm not sure that would show much ...