intel i5/i7 temp vs amd

[wdeydwondrer]

So looking over the web and reading a lot of different things. My goal with my upgrade to i5/i7/comparable xeon is mainly to reduce heat in my room. The power efficiency and performance boost is a plus.

That said, I see a ton of material on max temps the chips can handle with some showing the i7 going to 105c before breaking. AMD is more along the lines of 65c before death.

Here's my question. Which cpu (intel or amd) will actually produce less heat. How my thinking is that if my current amd runs at 55c full load and a new i7 were to run at 65c full load, wouldn't the i7 be producing more heat? Or does the amount of heat actually produced and expelled into the room work different than just what the cpu temp is showing?

 

[munkle]

The more cores and faster the cpu then the more heat it is going to produce. If you want low heat then you could get an atom mobo but performance would be pretty bad. Your best bet is intel here for low heat dump.

You didn't say which processor you have, if its anything recent you could simply lower the clock speed to reduce the heat output. Amd isn't what you are wanting to get for reduced heat output. It doesn't matter how hot the cpu is when it runs, what matters is how much of that heat is being dumped into your room. The higher the TDP the more heat is usually being dumped in your room to keep the processor cool. Say your current amd is a 120w TDP while the intel is 95W TDP, the cooler the amd runs the more heat is being dumped in your room, if the intel is running hotter it means it is retaining heat and not putting it into your room, if both are the same temp then amd cpu had to dump more heat into your room to get there.

The cpu temp is only just how hot the processor is, not how much energy it is using or home much heat is actually being removed and put into the air.

 

[drescherjm]

Which cpu (intel or amd) will actually produce less heat.

Intel by a large margin.

How my thinking is that if my current amd runs at 55c full load and a new i7 were to run at 65c full load, wouldn't the i7 be producing more heat?

Remember that heat and temperature are different things. Think of this I have a 40W soldering iron that has its tip at 600F+ however it uses less power than my i7 thus it dumps less heat into the room than the CPU even though the CPU's temp is no where near 600F.

 

[GiGaBiTe]

AMD FX 8xxx parts have a 125W TDP and are known to pull up to 200W on peak loads. The FX 9xxx can pull well over 300W under some loads.

On the other hand, most Intel parts in the Haswell line top out at 88W and only go up to 140-150W under peak loads. If you want even lower, you can go for an S series part for a 65W TDP at the sacrifice of a few hundred MHz.

Not all of that wattage will result in waste heat, but the higher wattage will result in more heat being produced and exhausted into the room. If you want a CPU that produces the least amount of heat while still having some oomph, I'd get an Intel S series processor.

Remember that heat and temperature are different things. Think of this I have a 40W soldering iron that has its tip at 600F+ however it uses less power than my i7 thus it dumps less heat into the room than the CPU even though the CPU's temp is no where near 600F.

This analogy doesn't really work. A soldering iron won't heat up a room because it doesn't have a heatsink and fan blowing the heat off the iron. If you ran an i7 without a heatsink and let it cook, it wouldn't heat up a room either because all of the heat would still be trapped in the die and heat spreader.

On the other hand, if you put a heatsink and fan on the soldering iron, it'd produce more heat than a CPU since most of the energy going into the iron goes into the heating element to produce heat, not a useful computational load like a CPU.

 

[Nenu]

Intel are definitely lower power for the performance and can perform better full stop.

You can often reduce the voltage at stock speed, reducing the power used by a fair margin. Underclocking will yield even lower voltage requirements.
(Power used is proportional to the square of voltage, so a small change in voltage is a larger change in power)

And the better the cooling, the more voltage can be reduced for the same CPU speed.

ps
the temperature at which they crap out is irrelevant because you wont ever get remotely close to that unless you have seriously bad cooling.

 

[drescherjm]

On the other hand, if you put a heatsink and fan on the soldering iron, it'd produce more heat than a CPU since most of the energy going into the iron goes into the heating element to produce heat, not a useful computational load like a CPU.

Nearly all of the computational load will give off the energy as heat.

 

[silk186]

alternatively to an s cpu you can get a k and under volt it

 

[Tsumi]

AMD FX 8xxx parts have a 125W TDP and are known to pull up to 200W on peak loads. The FX 9xxx can pull well over 300W under some loads.

On the other hand, most Intel parts in the Haswell line top out at 88W and only go up to 140-150W under peak loads. If you want even lower, you can go for an S series part for a 65W TDP at the sacrifice of a few hundred MHz.

Not all of that wattage will result in waste heat, but the higher wattage will result in more heat being produced and exhausted into the room. If you want a CPU that produces the least amount of heat while still having some oomph, I'd get an Intel S series processor.



This analogy doesn't really work. A soldering iron won't heat up a room because it doesn't have a heatsink and fan blowing the heat off the iron. If you ran an i7 without a heatsink and let it cook, it wouldn't heat up a room either because all of the heat would still be trapped in the die and heat spreader.

On the other hand, if you put a heatsink and fan on the soldering iron, it'd produce more heat than a CPU since most of the energy going into the iron goes into the heating element to produce heat, not a useful computational load like a CPU.

Compute isn't energy. It's a state. It's like being at your house vs being at the grocery store. It's two different positional states. You expend energy going from one state to the other, but you don't regain that energy by reversing what state you're in. You can make the process of going between states more efficient, but that's just reducing overall power consumption.

A 40w soldering iron will heat up a room less than a 80w CPU because it's using less watts even though it has a higher temperature. Simple physics.

 

[wdeydwondrer]

Sorry, I'm running an 8320 close to a 9590. Cooling it with a Kraken x61, 280mm rad. Runs at 55c at full load but the cooler is putting out enough heat to make the rad uncomfortably hot to touch, lol.

So the number I'm more referring to is the tdp of the chip (or wattage?) rather than just the temp it's running at? Is there any way to figure out what my tdp is currently at since I'm overclocking the snot out of it?

While I do want less heat production, I'm not wanting to downclock whatever I do get as I'll be doing a ton of encoding and don't want to lose the performance. Just right now the amount of heat this chip is outputting is actually overpowering my ac to the point I need to get a window unit to help :/ Heated up my room to 80f in the middle of winter w/out the heater running.

 

[GiGaBiTe]

A 40w soldering iron will heat up a room less than a 80w CPU because it's using less watts even though it has a higher temperature. Simple physics.

An 80W TDP CPU doesn't always pull 80W, but a 40W soldering iron will always pull 40W.

Over time the soldering iron will produce more heat because the power usage is constant. CPUs have varying loads and in most circumstances aren't tacked over to max load 24/7.

So the number I'm more referring to is the tdp of the chip (or wattage?) rather than just the temp it's running at? Is there any way to figure out what my tdp is currently at since I'm overclocking the snot out of it?

The thermal design power is the number you want to look at when selecting a CPU if you're concerned about power usage and heat production. TDP is usually defined as the maximum power draw under a nominal load, but the CPU can still exceed this limit under peak loads. But if you overclock, you can toss this number out the window because it's going to be higher.

If you want to see the wattage your system is drawing, you can get one of those kill-a-watts and plug your whole PC in to see the power usage. To see just the CPUs power usage, you can try using HW Monitor, but that isn't known to be accurate.

While I do want less heat production, I'm not wanting to downclock whatever I do get as I'll be doing a ton of encoding and don't want to lose the performance. Just right now the amount of heat this chip is outputting is actually overpowering my ac to the point I need to get a window unit to help :/ Heated up my room to 80f in the middle of winter w/out the heater running.

Intel CPUs are far more efficient per clock and per watt than AMD processors. Even if you get one of the S series parts, it's not going to be a slouch from losing a few hundred MHz. And assuming you got a normal part and overclocked it to the moon, it'd still use less power than the AMD part.

 

[Elios]

even intels top end stuff is around 90w vs 150w or more on the AMD side

my 4790k reports as 88w tdp part thats a ton of performance for not much power
even if you run it stock 3.8 w/ 4Ghz turbo is nice the chip will 4Ghz on stock voltage too avg-ing around 90w

 

[wdeydwondrer]

So basically the conclusion here is that the temp of the chip itself is just monitored to maintain safe conditions (for the chip) and doesn't have a bit to do with heat produced.

Looking at the tdp of the amd 9 chips and my own specs for voltage and speed, I'm guessing my tdp is in the 250w range or better while I'm encoding. Intel would drop that to 90ish.

So I'm looking at possibly the same chip temp, but the heat being expelled would be about half?

 

[Elios]

So basically the conclusion here is that the temp of the chip itself is just monitored to maintain safe conditions (for the chip) and doesn't have a bit to do with heat produced.

Looking at the tdp of the amd 9 chips and my own specs for voltage and speed, I'm guessing my tdp is in the 250w range or better while I'm encoding. Intel would drop that to 90ish.

So I'm looking at possibly the same chip temp, but the heat being expelled would be about half?

yes if not lower temps as well

my overclocked 4790k never gets over much 70c and tops out at ~100w at 4.6Ghz
idle temps float around 30c and ~20w

 

[primetime]

So basically the conclusion here is that the temp of the chip itself is just monitored to maintain safe conditions (for the chip) and doesn't have a bit to do with heat produced.

Looking at the tdp of the amd 9 chips and my own specs for voltage and speed, I'm guessing my tdp is in the 250w range or better while I'm encoding. Intel would drop that to 90ish.

So I'm looking at possibly the same chip temp, but the heat being expelled would be about half?

possibly close to that area.........Have you considered trying to channel the heat thru some type of duckwork then out the window? This would be beneficial even with an intel system in my opinion.....media encoding just works a cpu at 100% so there's going to be a fair amount of heat unless you sacrifice performance and therefor would take longer

Those portable ac's come with a duck work designed to channel the heat created out the window instead of blowing into the room....if you could some how just purchase that part of the system or build your own.....then in the winter just use it as a heater again
kinda like this.....if you were crafty enough im sure you could build your own

 

[wdeydwondrer]

Where are you seeing the wattage just the chip is pulling? Guy above said that HW monitor isn't acurate

 

[Elios]

Where are you seeing the wattage just the chip is pulling? Guy above said that HW monitor isn't acurate

AIDA and yes wile not 100% accurate it is a good guess

 

[defaultluser]

So the number I'm more referring to is the tdp of the chip (or wattage?) rather than just the temp it's running at? Is there any way to figure out what my tdp is currently at since I'm overclocking the snot out of it?

Yes. The dynamic power of a processor = Capacitive load (fixed) * Frequency * Voltage^2

Roughly:

TDP = C * F * V^2

So, since only the frequency and voltage change:

Overclocked TDP = Stock TDP * (Overclocked Frequency/Stock Frequency) * (Overclcoked Voltage^2/Stock Voltage^2)

If you can compute the frequency and voltage delta between stock and overclocked, you can multiply that by the base TDP to get the estimated overclocked TDP.

If you can give me the frequency and voltages both load and stock, I can do the calculation for you.

 

[cyclone3d]

Sorry, I'm running an 8320 close to a 9590. Cooling it with a Kraken x61, 280mm rad. Runs at 55c at full load but the cooler is putting out enough heat to make the rad uncomfortably hot to touch, lol.

So the number I'm more referring to is the tdp of the chip (or wattage?) rather than just the temp it's running at? Is there any way to figure out what my tdp is currently at since I'm overclocking the snot out of it?

While I do want less heat production, I'm not wanting to downclock whatever I do get as I'll be doing a ton of encoding and don't want to lose the performance. Just right now the amount of heat this chip is outputting is actually overpowering my ac to the point I need to get a window unit to help :/ Heated up my room to 80f in the middle of winter w/out the heater running.

Unless you are running at mini-split system, which I am guessing you are not, it is not "overpowering" your A/C unit.

All you would have to do to compensate to even out the temperature is close the vents in other rooms part way so that you get more air in that room.

After looking up the way the efficiency of central A/C units vs window units is calculated, I found out that the efficiency numbers of central A/C units is a complete scam.

They calculate the efficiency of central A/C units at a light load with a temp of 80 inside and 82 outside.

EER is calculated by running at 80 inside and 95 outside at full speed and is what is normally found on window and portable units

So even if you have a super high SEER rating, the efficiency could absolutely tank at higher loads and the mfg could still advertise it as being as high efficiency unit.

When doing my research, I found a few comments where people that have been A/C technicians for years have gone to only using window units in order to save a decent amount of money in electricity over central A/C units.

And I can attest to this as well. For the past few years I have only been using window units. Not only can you set each room to whatever temp you want, it ends up saving me over $100 each month vs a stupid central A/C unit.. and to top it off, the window units cool the house a lot better overall.

 

[primetime]

Unless you are running at mini-split system, which I am guessing you are not, it is not "overpowering" your A/C unit.

All you would have to do to compensate to even out the temperature is close the vents in other rooms part way so that you get more air in that room.

After looking up the way the efficiency of central A/C units vs window units is calculated, I found out that the efficiency numbers of central A/C units is a complete scam.

They calculate the efficiency of central A/C units at a light load with a temp of 80 inside and 82 outside.

EER is calculated by running at 80 inside and 95 outside at full speed and is what is normally found on window and portable units

So even if you have a super high SEER rating, the efficiency could absolutely tank at higher loads and the mfg could still advertise it as being as high efficiency unit.

When doing my research, I found a few comments where people that have been A/C technicians for years have gone to only using window units in order to save a decent amount of money in electricity over central A/C units.

And I can attest to this as well. For the past few years I have only been using window units. Not only can you set each room to whatever temp you want, it ends up saving me over $100 each month vs a stupid central A/C unit.. and to top it off, the window units cool the house a lot better overall.

very interesting....i bet the sound can be a bit noisy but considering some houses the air never seems to be able to turn off till after dark....i actually can believe this

 

[primetime]

Hears a thought that at least makes sense to me.....over all the cpu's made with the most modern smaller Manufacturing Tech will get the most done for the least amount of power and heat...probably a very over simplified logic but i bet all the 22nm Intel cpus will be in the same general ballpark. Also keep in mind the more powerful faster cpus that are likely hotter will only run at possibly half the time, assuming you were doing a set amount of videos a day. Just this fact alone makes this discussion in my mind a little beside the point, since the faster more cores cpu gets the job done in a fraction of the time. After all when a cpu is idle....even one as old as mine is cold.

 

[wdeydwondrer]

Unless you are running at mini-split system, which I am guessing you are not, it is not "overpowering" your A/C unit.

All you would have to do to compensate to even out the temperature is close the vents in other rooms part way so that you get more air in that room.

While technically true, I'm not overpower/overloading the central air unit, the effect in the particular room is the same. Reducing flow to the rest of the house is rather obviously undesired. Besides, the rate at which this blasted AMD is pumping out heat, I'd need far more turn over in room air than dampening the vents would provide. Adding a window unit was more a conceptual idea than reality as I'm looking at reducing the heat production instead.

Yes. The dynamic power of a processor = Capacitive load (fixed) * Frequency * Voltage^2

Roughly:

TDP = C * F * V^2

So, since only the frequency and voltage change:

Overclocked TDP = Stock TDP * (Overclocked Frequency/Stock Frequency) * (Overclcoked Voltage^2/Stock Voltage^2)

If you can compute the frequency and voltage delta between stock and overclocked, you can multiply that by the base TDP to get the estimated overclocked TDP.

If you can give me the frequency and voltages both load and stock, I can do the calculation for you.

I will have to look up the stock numbers, I will post back after a bit. Thank you!!!

Hears a thought that at least makes sense to me.....over all the cpu's made with the most modern smaller Manufacturing Tech will get the most done for the least amount of power and heat...probably a very over simplified logic but i bet all the 22nm Intel cpus will be in the same general ballpark. Also keep in mind the more powerful faster cpus that are likely hotter will only run at possibly half the time, assuming you were doing a set amount of videos a day. Just this fact alone makes this discussion in my mind a little beside the point, since the faster more cores cpu gets the job done in a fraction of the time. After all when a cpu is idle....even one as old as mine is cold.

While the i7 looks to encode faster, I haven't seen any benches that are showing it doubling the encode performance on my o/c'd 8320, so that point is rather moot. But yes, at idle it's running cool. Issue arises when I run 8-12+ hour encodes and I'm starting to find out the newer games are taxing enough to ramp up the heat and after 4 hours or so of gaming, gets a bit uncomfortable, lol

 

[wdeydwondrer]

Yes. The dynamic power of a processor = Capacitive load (fixed) * Frequency * Voltage^2

Roughly:

TDP = C * F * V^2

So, since only the frequency and voltage change:

Overclocked TDP = Stock TDP * (Overclocked Frequency/Stock Frequency) * (Overclcoked Voltage^2/Stock Voltage^2)

If you can compute the frequency and voltage delta between stock and overclocked, you can multiply that by the base TDP to get the estimated overclocked TDP.

If you can give me the frequency and voltages both load and stock, I can do the calculation for you.

It's the 8320, so I'll use the boost speed for more than 4 cores loaded. 3700 MHz, 1.4125V

Current o/c is 4550 MHz, 1.39vcore

Stock TDP is showing as 125W

 

[primetime]

Issue arises when I run 8-12+ hour encodes

Just out of curiosity, what is giving you that long of a time to encode?

 

[wdeydwondrer]

Typically encoding 4, 2 hour blueray rips, give or take. Have about 400 plus no clue how many dvd that I'm trying to transition over to my plex server for realistic use. Ever tried to figure out where to put several hundred discs in cases???? lmao

 

[defaultluser]

It's the 8320, so I'll use the boost speed for more than 4 cores loaded. 3700 MHz, 1.4125V

Current o/c is 4550 MHz, 1.39vcore

Stock TDP is showing as 125W

I don't have to do the math to know you're not using much more than stock TDP. You increased the frequency (linear), but reduced the voltage, which follows power of two.

But hey, I'll do it.

125w * 4.55/3.7 * (1.39^2)/(1.4125^2) = 148w.

 

[wdeydwondrer]

I tried doing the math and apparently I'm not very good anymore at it, I got 0.95 LOL

So being it's actually not that high from stock tdp, why on earth would it be putting out this much heat? I've actually had a 240 and now a 280 aio cooler on this chip (not great compared to custom loops but should be a step up from air cooling) and the chip temp stayed about the same.

Any clue where to look for why this thing is so hot?

 

[defaultluser]

I tried doing the math and apparently I'm not very good anymore at it, I got 0.95 LOL

So being it's actually not that high from stock tdp, why on earth would it be putting out this much heat? I've actually had a 240 and now a 280 aio cooler on this chip (not great compared to custom loops but should be a step up from air cooling) and the chip temp stayed about the same.

Any clue where to look for why this thing is so hot?

The chip temperature is a factor of how much heat energy it contains, and how small the chip is.

The heat energy radiates out to the surrounding air based upon the temperature differential between the core and the outside air, which means that as your room temperature goes up, the core temperature must go up in order to maintain that rate of energy flow from chip to air.

This is how a heat sink works. Much like there must be a minimum amount of pressure in your water pipe to get water out of your faucet, there must be a large differential in temperature between the core and the outside air to remove the excess heat your processor is generating while you encode videos. And you NEED to remove that excess heat at a high enough rate, or the processor will burn up - hence the reason you spend up to a hundred dollars or more on a fancy water cooler.

So don't be upset that your processor runs at 55c. That's a pretty good temperature for an overclcoked 8-core monster. And don't worry that your radiator is hot to the touch - the excess heat used by your processor to do work has to be:

(1) transferred from the core to the radiator using liquid
(2) and then radiated into the air using thermally conductive surface area and airflow.

This is the first law of thermodynamics: energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.

This means that your processor uses electrical energy to do work trans-coding a video. That energy is converted to waste heat, which will continue to warm up your room AT THE SAME RATE NO MATTER WHAT YOUR PROCESSOR TEMPERATURE IS, or how beefy your watercooler is. Understand now? That waste heat has to go somewhere, and it's warming the room up.

The only way to cool down your room is to:

(1) get a more powerful AC or open more vents, or
(2) buy a more efficient processor that gets more WORK done per unit energy, or
(3) run the water lines outside so your radiator emits heat into the open air. but this may cause your core temperature to rise, depending on how hot is is outside.
(4) move your computer to a bigger room, where the same amount of radiated heat will have a bigger volume of air to dump the heat into.

 

[Elios]

I tried doing the math and apparently I'm not very good anymore at it, I got 0.95 LOL

So being it's actually not that high from stock tdp, why on earth would it be putting out this much heat? I've actually had a 240 and now a 280 aio cooler on this chip (not great compared to custom loops but should be a step up from air cooling) and the chip temp stayed about the same.

Any clue where to look for why this thing is so hot?

ironically ... you made it worse with the better cooler

wile the cpu runs cooler now that has to go somewhere and now thats in to your room

two options
1. lower tdp chip
2. run the AMD chip you have now as hot as you dare by lowering the fan speed on the cooler

 

[drescherjm]

ironically ... you made it worse with the better cooler

wile the cpu runs cooler now that has to go somewhere and now thats in to your room

I do not think the difference is that much. I do not believe the CPU stores a noticeable amount of heat energy compared to what is released into the room.

 

[-Dragon-]

ironically ... you made it worse with the better cooler

wile the cpu runs cooler now that has to go somewhere and now thats in to your room

This isn't how physics works at all.

 

[defaultluser]

ironically ... you made it worse with the better cooler

wile the cpu runs cooler now that has to go somewhere and now thats in to your room

two options
1. lower tdp chip
2. run the AMD chip you have now as hot as you dare by lowering the fan speed on the cooler

I thought I already explained this. The more expensive cooler could bring lower core temperatures, but it's approaching a limit it can't go below because you have to maintain a minimum temperature differential to move waste heat from one location to another.

Option 1 will affect the temperature of his room, but if it's another Piledriver core (same efficiency), he will get less work done in the same span of time. But if he wanted to do that, he could just under-clock his current processor.

Option 2 is you're dreaming. As has already been said: physics doesn't work that way.