[XS]Just got Phenom II x6 1055T (Retail)

[i found nemo]

How much do I have to dumb this down

hey, we all learn at some point. i'm sure he gets it now tho.

[charged3800z24]

HMM, wow how things get out of control

Any Who, any new test coming?

[OhNoes!]

Snip~.

Thanks, see below.

@OhNoes~.

I appreciate your explanation.

I am aware that a leaky chip would require more voltage to operate at the same clock or frequency, but that is not what my argument is. My argument is about efficiency at utilizing a given power (let's say set in bios) and the resultant heat.

Take 1 board, put a highly leaky chip in there, set voltage to 1.20v. Stress it. Take the chip out, put another less leaky chip in there, repeat the process by setting voltage to 1.20v and stressing that chip also.

My argument is that because of the energy that is being lost through leakage, the leaky, less efficient chip ends up using less power = less heat. The energy that is lost through leakage usually accounts for less heat than if it was actually utilized in the case of the less leaky chip.

In the real world, this translates into less leaky and highly efficient chips with low vids, but hotter temps, and high vid to highly leaky chips that need more voltage same clocks but run cooler at the same voltage. I may be wrong, but in my experience this has always been the norm.

@ Informal: No need to be sour grapes because I called you out in the News Section. Somehow, you always manage to turn forum arguments into a shouting match. You really need to grow up! The two guys I quoted above are examples of good forum etiquette and respect of other members and their opinions, even if they're perceived to be wrong. Some of you guys can learn a thing or two from them.

[stangracin3]

Thanks, see below.

I appreciate your explanation.

I am aware that a leaky chip would require more voltage to operate at the same clock or frequency, but that is not what my argument is. My argument is about efficiency at utilizing a given power (let's say set in bios) and the resultant heat.

Take 1 board, put a highly leaky chip in there, set voltage to 1.20v. Stress it. Take the chip out, put another less leaky chip in there, repeat the process by setting voltage to 1.20v and stressing that chip also.

My argument is that because of the energy that is being lost through leakage, the leaky, less efficient chip ends up using less power = less heat. The energy that is lost through leakage usually accounts for less heat than if it was actually utilized in the case of the less leaky chip.

In the real world, this translates into less leaky and highly efficient chips with low vids, but hotter temps, and high vid to highly leaky chips that need more voltage same clocks but run cooler at the same voltage. I may be wrong, but in my experience this has always been the norm.

@ Informal: No need to be sour grapes because I called you out in the News Section. Somehow, you always manage to turn forum arguments into a shouting match. You really need to grow up! The two guys I quoted above are examples of good forum etiquette and respect of other members and their opinions, even if they're perceived to be wrong. Some of you guys can learn a thing or two from them.

you could learn some by staying out of the amd section where you decided to come troll around in cause the intel section was boring today.

[i found nemo]

.... hyper pi 32m?

[MrMojoZ]

My argument is that because of the energy that is being lost through leakage, the leaky, less efficient chip ends up using less power = less heat. The energy that is lost through leakage usually accounts for less heat than if it was actually utilized in the case of the less leaky chip.

Your argument is flawed. Who else needs to explain this to you?

[MattiasNYC]

because of the energy that is being lost through leakage, the leaky, less efficient chip ends up using less power = less heat.

Your argument is flawed. Who else needs to explain this to you?

Wow, I don't know Jack-sht about chips but even I am astounded!!!

[stangracin3]

Wow, I don't know Jack-sht about chips but even I am astounded!!!

yeah this doesnt take a super genious to figure out..

[Titan7171]

Thanks, see below.


My argument is that because of the energy that is being lost through leakage, the leaky, less efficient chip ends up using less power = less heat. The energy that is lost through leakage usually accounts for less heat than if it was actually utilized in the case of the less leaky chip.

.

using a 140w example lets say a leaky cpu can use up to 100w out of the 140 thats going in, 40w is escaping.

The leakage is similar to resistance........like a lightbulb or toaster that heats up red hot...... this is the left over power that the cpu is not using because it cant. its seeping out and that turns into heat, it doesnt just vanish.

From your perspective, where exactly do you think this energy that the cpu doesnt use go?? What reaction is taking place that gives you the idea that a cpu that cant utilize a certain amount of power is going to be cooler than a cpu that can utilize that same power?

Just because the cpu cant use the power doesnt mean that same power is not causing a reaction in the cpu........the result is heat.

Have a nice day!

[crazydiamond]

dont waste your time Opteron146, this is the same guy that said these chips would be better off with no turbo

i tried to give warning

[Lagg Master]

This is how i look at it.
A CPU is made out of silicon which is an insulator. Which means it resists electrons. When you have current leakage its leaking into the the insulator. So its going to act as a resistor. More current means more watts which is more heat. So the more leaked current the higher the temperature will be.

[Apokalipse]

If a CPU consumes 125W of power, irrespective of whether it's being used more efficiently by the CPU, it doesn't just vanish. It becomes heat.
In some electronic devices, some of it will be converted to light or sound. but in the case of a CPU it will really just be heat.

[Titan7171]

This is how i look at it.
A CPU is made out of silicon which is an insulator. Which means it resists electrons. When you have current leakage its leaking into the the insulator. So its going to act as a resistor. More current means more watts which is more heat. So the more leaked current the higher the temperature will be.

If a CPU consumes 125W of power, irrespective of whether it's being used more efficiently by the CPU, it doesn't just vanish. It becomes heat.
In some electronic devices, some of it will be converted to light or sound. but in the case of a CPU it will really just be heat.

Ummm didnt I say that in my post?

[Apokalipse]

Ummm didnt I say that in my post?

Well yes; but we're trying to explain it so that OhNoes! understands.

[Lagg Master]

Ummm didnt I say that in my post?

Yes, it means i am agreeing with you.

[Titan7171]

Well yes; but we're trying to explain it so that OhNoes! understands.

.....Maybe a popup book of some kind

Yes, it means i am agreeing with you.

[BrokenWall]

Ok guys please stop, i feel like i just took a college class on integrated circuits.

[TheBlueChanell]

It's actually the other way around.

Some impressive numbers indeed. I still think low end bloomfield aka i7 930 would edge it out though. I'm on the fence about building a dedicated media encoding rig and it's between the x6 or the i7 930. It'll all boil down to whichever of these is $200 or lower and how well it competes against the bloomfield. I have a Microcenter near me so I'll be factoring in the fact that I could pick up a i7 930 for $199.99.

The price of an x58 board + i7 930 vs. the price of a 890 board + X6 will probably favor AMD.

That all depends on your Intel board choice though.

I'm definitely picking up a 1090T and 4gb kit of hypers.

[informal]

Your argument is flawed. Who else needs to explain this to you?

One thing that is for sure is that he is a very very confused man when it comes to a thing or two about physics and nobody here has any more patience with him. He sounds a lot like user zucker a while back(now banned),a striking resemblance

[daseto]

Thanks, see below.

I appreciate your explanation.

I am aware that a leaky chip would require more voltage to operate at the same clock or frequency, but that is not what my argument is. My argument is about efficiency at utilizing a given power (let's say set in bios) and the resultant heat.

Take 1 board, put a highly leaky chip in there, set voltage to 1.20v. Stress it. Take the chip out, put another less leaky chip in there, repeat the process by setting voltage to 1.20v and stressing that chip also.

My argument is that because of the energy that is being lost through leakage, the leaky, less efficient chip ends up using less power = less heat. The energy that is lost through leakage usually accounts for less heat than if it was actually utilized in the case of the less leaky chip.

In the real world, this translates into less leaky and highly efficient chips with low vids, but hotter temps, and high vid to highly leaky chips that need more voltage same clocks but run cooler at the same voltage. I may be wrong, but in my experience this has always been the norm.

Efficiency and heat output are not really comparable. And when you say energy lost through leakage, there is no such thing as lost energy, energy doesnt disappear, it changes state. Current leakage turns into either 3 things, heat, light or sound. So you have your real world stuff backwards. A higher leakage chip is less efficient due to the fact that it uses more current to operate at the same cpu vcore voltage, where a low leakage chip is more efficient in the use of current and therefore has less excess heat created.

Think of a trough filled 3/4ths of the way with water, and this will be your low leakage chip. The small plastic boat will be the current. Now when you move the water without touching the boat to get it from one side to the other, you dont spill much water out of the trough, but likely a little. Do the same thing to a high leakage chip with the trough this time full to the brim. The same force used to move the boat makes alot of water spill out. Now each chip no mater what produces some heat, and lets call that a constant to make things simple, 48 ounces. Now all the water on the floor next to the tough is the leakage. The more leakage on the floor, the more heat that chip is going to produce as that water didnt help move the little boats to their destination. Now the low leakage chip doesnt have a lot of water on the floor, lets call it 12 ounces, so the constant heat the chip makes plus the leakage equals 60 ounces. Now the high leakage chip has 36 ounces on the floor, plus the constant 48 ounces is 84 ounces. The more ounces, means more heat.

You got to remember that voltage is only one part of the power equation. What causes leakage is the current that is produced. How do you think a toaster works? It runs on 120volts, yet it draws like 15 amps to produce some near 1000watts of power. You see the wires in the toaster glow red and get damn hot. You run lots of equipment at 120volts, but most run at less amperage. The less amps, the less heat, and the less watts. A 60 watt lightbulb runs at 120volts, but it only draws 1/2 an amp. Compare any light bulb, the lower the watts, the less amps they draw all at the same voltage, 120v. The more amps a lightbulb draws, the brighter the light and the more heat the bulb produces. Just as with light bulbs at a certain point it is hard to determine the diff between light produced, but you can damn sure feel the heat difference.

I dont know how i could be more clearer here. Your argument defys the principles of Physics. High leakage chips leak energy, and that leaked energy is heat. The more energy leaked the hotter that chip will be period.

[ajaidev]

One thing that is for sure is that he is a very very confused man when it comes to a thing or two about physics and nobody here has any more patience with him. He sounds a lot like user zucker a while back(now banned),a striking resemblance

lol zucker was a hoot anyways i really loved how OhNoes! defined low k...

[ajaidev]

Benches that show greater improvements from HT are also the same ones that show greater improvements from extra cores.

But the level of improvement in HT varies a lot and same cant be said with real core. The truth of the matter is share of resources is not always the right way to go.

[accord99]

But the level of improvement in HT varies a lot and same cant be said with real core. The truth of the matter is share of resources is not always the right way to go.

You're not going to get 50% throughput improvement from 2 extra cores from more than a fraction of real world applications either. And Nehalem is not just HT, it also has extremely powerful individual cores.

[Zeus]

Hold up guys, don't just call him stupid.

I have once owned an E8600 that had a very low Vid and was able to make 4.5GHz stable at a rediculous low voltage. On top of this, the chip was very intolerant to voltage and simply froze or bluescreened once give too much.

To me these are signs this chip was very low leakage, no?

Compared to other E8600 chips mine ran rediculously hot, at least 10ºC hotter than any other E8600 with even less cooling and more Vcore applied.

Although i do not have an explanation for it, it was something i experienced myself and i've seen more of this in the Wolfdale thread. I have not seen this behaviour with AMD chips (yet).

I think what applies to AMD chips does not always apply to Intel chips and vice versa.

[ajaidev]

You're not going to get 50% throughput improvement from 2 extra cores from more than a fraction of real world applications either. And Nehalem is not just HT, it also has extremely powerful individual cores.

Yep extremely powerful individual cores is correct but HT is what is used to inflate bench scores and also used in some real heavy app's like video encoding.

But if you compare a OCed i5 750 to a i7 860 one can notice how well HT does. It does not behave like real cores the added performance varies a lot, in some case HT can boost pretty high numbers and in others the added performance is little or even negative.

Hold up guys, don't just call him stupid.

I have once owned an E8600 that had a very low Vid and was able to make 4.5GHz stable at a rediculous low voltage. On top of this, the chip was very intolerant to voltage and simply froze or bluescreened once give too much.

To me these are signs this chip was very low leakage, no?

Compared to other E8600 chips mine ran rediculously hot, at least 10ºC hotter than any other E8600 with even less cooling and more Vcore applied.

Although i do not have an explanation for it, it was something i experienced myself and i've seen more of this in the Wolfdale thread. I have not seen this behaviour with AMD chips (yet).

I think what applies to AMD chips does not always apply to Intel chips and vice versa.

That maybe a low leakage chip but low leakage does not mean it will be hot. Low leakage means better efficiency, suppose 1v is coming and your chip is rated for 1Ghz on 1v but you could do 1.5Ghz at 1v means that your chip has lower leakage and thus better utilization of voltage than what is required by normal chips.

It could be hotter because of some part of Intels manufacturing process or something but it does not compute from a normal point of view.

EDIT: Also high leakage chips are just that they need to dissipate what they take in. High voltage is dissipated from the chip it self and when this happens the environment within the chip gets hot.