• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Processor temperatures: AMD vs. Intel...

H

Hard_Rocker

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 27, 2000
Messages
3,629
Building myself a newish PC (ABOUT FREAKING TIME! :D) and I'm trying to decide if I want to run an AMD or Intel processor. My current processor is an AMD Tbird 1.2ghz, and it's been good to me, but it's rather... hot. Very hot. The computer I'm building will be watercooled but it's not going to be a GREAT system, so I'd like to have a processor that runs as cool as possible. Overclocking is not an issue, as processor will be at stock speed.

So basically I'm asking... as a general rule, what will run cooler? AMD (Tbird or newer), or intel (Pentium 4)?

Also if you know of any specific processors that are known for running cool I'd like to know about them.

Thanks for the help. :)
 
the pentium 4 will run cooler

btw whats the point of a watercooling system if you aren't even gonna bother overclocking?
 
I agree with him. The Pentium 4 statistically has lower heat dissipation, but the "C" series is almost specifically created for overclocking. Why not overclock if you are going for water cooling? Seems like a rather unwarranted waste of money, in my opinion.

Dark Assassin
 
The Pentium 4 will run cooler and has better thermal management if it starts to overheat. Go for a 2.8c or 3.0c and overclock it with watercooling or aircooling ither one.
 
Depends on which P4 your talking about. If it's the Northwood they run about the same temps or a little lower than AMD's,but the Prescott on the other hand runs quite toasty. Your old T-bird was a generation of AMD's that were known to run warm, but 35-45C is pretty average temps for XP's now with simple air cooling. My P4 2.4C runs at around 40C, and my XP 2800+ runs around 44C, both idling in the same room.
 
I want a quiet system, and I'm working in a VERY cramped space. I've got about 1.5", MAXIMUM, above the processor with pretty much any motherboard. I could use a 1U HSF but as I'm not sure how much airflow I'll be able to get through the case watercooling is, in my opinion, the only feasible method. :)

Also, I'm going to have to use the Koolance CPU-300-H06 block. Another reason I don't want to overclock, because it's not very good. But it'll do the job for a stock processor. :)
 
Originally posted by tdg
Depends on which P4 your talking about. If it's the Northwood they run about the same temps or a little lower than AMD's,but the Prescott on the other hand runs quite toasty. Your old T-bird was a generation of AMD's that were known to run warm, but 35-45C is pretty average temps for XP's now with simple air cooling. My P4 2.4C runs at around 40C, and my XP 2800+ runs around 44C, both idling in the same room.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I knew the T-birds ran hot, didn't really know the XPs were any better. I kind of stopped paying attention to PC news when I got into cars, oops. ;)

For comparison, what are you using to cool your processors, air? I'm assuming an upgraded (not OEM) HSF?
 
My 3.0c at the moment is running 36-37C stock with the stock Intel heatsink/fan and thermal pad.

I havn't ordered the extra cooling i need to overclock this thing yet but i would imagine all my case fans and larger style case help keep temps down.
 
so I should go with a pentium 4... man, I haven't had an intel processor since my Celeron 366/550. Golden Orb, that's where it's at! :p

Time to head over to the Intel forum for more research...
 
Comparable AMD processors actually have lower power dissipation than their Pentium 4 counterparts, actually.

2600+: 53.7 W
2.6C: 69.0 W
2800+: 53.7 W
2.8C: 69.7 W
3000+: 53.7 W
3.0C: 81.9 W
3200+: 60.4 W
3.2C: 82.0 W

For all it's worth, I don't think that these figures are directly comparable, because Intel and AMD have different testing methodologies. From my experience, I can't say that either processor is especially hot running (in terms of reported temperature), but I would imagine that the Pentium 4 'E' series is troublesome in this regard.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/26237.PDF
http://download.intel.com/design/Pentium4/datashts/29864312.pdf
 
Originally posted by xonik
Comparable AMD processors actually have lower power dissipation than their Pentium 4 counterparts, actually.

2600+: 53.7 W
2.6C: 69.0 W
2800+: 53.7 W
2.8C: 69.7 W
3000+: 53.7 W
3.0C: 81.9 W
3200+: 60.4 W
3.2C: 82.0 W

For all it's worth, I don't think that these figures are directly comparable, because Intel and AMD have different testing methodologies. From my experience, I can't say that either processor is especially hot running (in terms of reported temperature), but I would imagine that the Pentium 4 'E' series is troublesome in this regard.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/26237.PDF
http://download.intel.com/design/Pentium4/datashts/29864312.pdf
Click to expand...

I'm old school, I don't like that "3000+" stuff. I still go by clock speed as "comparable". :p
 
Mobile Athlon :) Low voltage, low temps, designed to be able to take more heat than even a desktop processor. Any reason that wouldn't work?
 
Originally posted by RS3RS
Mobile Athlon :) Low voltage, low temps, designed to be able to take more heat than even a desktop processor. Any reason that wouldn't work?
Click to expand...

Nope, I completely forgot there even WAS a mobile Athlon, and no-one else reminded me. :p
 
Originally posted by RS3RS
Mobile Athlon :) Low voltage, low temps, designed to be able to take more heat than even a desktop processor. Any reason that wouldn't work?
Click to expand...

"Overclocking is not an issue, as processor will be at stock speed."

Thats a pretty good reason there.

Considering even overclocked to 2.4Ghz it only performs about as well as a 2.8c-3.0c stock and the fastest that i know of thats out is the 2800+ at 2.13Ghz, so i wouldn't pick that.
 
Well, it doesn't sound like he's building an extremely high-end system, so a 2800+ might not be too bad. Then again, it might, I don't know what his uses are. They would just be nice for low-heat, plus they are multiplier unlocked, so you can set the FSB at whatever you want and lower the multi to keep it at 2800+ speeds.

Then again, that might make it run hotter... Eh, I dunno, just seemed like a good idea to me
 
I'm replacing a Tbird 1.2ghz system. That's fast enough for me so anything that's faster is fine. I want as little heat as possible as I'll be watercooling with a passive radiator and I'd just prefer to have it as cool as possible. The mobile XP sounds like it'll suit my needs. And if I do ever decide to overclock it it should do nicely from what I'm reading. If my passive system does better than I'm expecting I might just be VERY TEMPTED to overclock it. :D
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
Considering even overclocked to 2.4Ghz it only performs about as well as a 2.8c-3.0c stock and the fastest that i know of thats out is the 2800+ at 2.13Ghz, so i wouldn't pick that.
Click to expand...

Well, for one thing, it's a lot cheaper than a P4. I'm a college student so if I'm paying less that's always a good thing. :) I knew AMD would be cheaper but I didn't know if the heat they produced would be low enough, but then again as I'd mentioned I wasn't even aware there WAS a mobile XP. :)
 
i was like "holy shens" when ppl say p4 runs cooler than Athlons.

Intel's dissipation numbers are 'typical' dissipation wattage while AMD rates theirs at MAXIMUM for the XP series. The A64 series will definitely run cooler of the two and AMD only sets the maximum dissipation for the ENTIRE line of K8 (@.13 micron it is 89W).

the lower end p4z do run cool. but once it got around 3ghz, the numbers jumped quite rapidly. That is why Intel has only currently at 3.4ghz with the EE chips when the intro'd 3.0ghz back in 2002 - pretty slow ramp for the last 1.5 years.

but of coz, Socket A is at the end of the line.
 
If you get an athlon xp mobile get the Barton core 2400+ it's the same Barton core almost as the bad ass OCer the barton non-mobile 2500+, just less voltage at the same speeds. It's almost a guarentee 3200+ OC for less :).

Oh and you're an old schooler so basically the 2400+ runs like a 2.4 ghz cpu. 3200+ is 3.2 ghz.. runs like it, does work like it, just clocked lower with the ALU and FPU clocked lower but the work per clock cranked up all to hell.. it's very effective way of making cpus ... which is why Intel is switching to this style (heard about the Intel cpu-naming changing? yea... they are going AMD style clocks is why. Or at least that's what I heard.)

GL

~Adam
 
AMD XP Mobile 2400 will be a nice choose for you.
Wait.. you're not overclocking?!
nvm..
 
P4 will run cooler than that old 1.2, but will NOT run cooler than a same speed XP.

p4 prescott runs probabily 3x the heat of an XP.
 
Sheesh, NOW you guys chime in. XP Mobile 2400+ sounds like what I want.

Now, here's a question... since you say that the 2400+ would run like a 2.4ghz processor would, what does it run like if I overclock it to (for example) a true 2.4ghz?

Man, I told myself I WOULD NOT overclock this system... maybe just a little bit ;)
 
If you get the mobile you will have to overclock it or your not going to get that hot of performance, especially if your a gamer and play new games like Far Cry and UT2004.

Here is a 2500+ mobile clocked a 2.4Ghz against Pentium 4's and A64's.

In gaming its going to perform about as well as a 3.0c stock and in applications a 2.6c or 2.8c stock.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2004q1/athlonxp-m-2500/index.x?pg=1

In the few floating-point dependent applications out there it will perform real well. But in productivity software it will be noticebly slower.

XP 3200+ 2.2Ghz
XP 3000+ 2.16Ghz
XP 2800+ 2.08Ghz
XP 2600+ 1.9Ghz

Keep in mind this thing is clocked at 2.4Ghz. And according to AMD's rating scale which is suppost to be less then 100Mhz = 200Mhz increase on a P4 for their Athlon XP's then this thing SHOULD be able to perform at least as well as a 3.6Ghz P4 which its nowhere close.

Most high end (2.8c-3.0c) Pentium 4's will overclock to 3.5-3.6Ghz without breaking a sweat on good aircooling and a descent board.

P4 will run cooler than that old 1.2, but will NOT run cooler than a same speed XP.

p4 prescott runs probabily 3x the heat of an XP.
Click to expand...

I would like to know where your coming up with that idea from. Just because they draw more power doesn't mean they run hotter at all. My 3.0c on stock aircooling with a shitty thermal pad is sitting on 36c right now. How many XP 3000+ run at that speed with their stock cooler? I've looked at countless heatsink/fan reviews and on the ones they can use the sink on ither an XP or P4 they usually compare the performance of it on both of them and the XP is always a few degrees celcius hotter if they are the same relative speed.

Plus a Pentium 4 will downclock itself if it ever got too hot. An Athlon XP would just sit there and burn up.

Heat has very little to do with the wattage draw. It has to do with the amount of transistor leakage. The Prescotts transistor leakage is much greater then the P4's currently because of the fact its 90 nano. The A64 would run hotter also if it was on 90 nano despite what AMD may be saying because Intel i'm sure didn't plan for them to be as hot as they turned out to be ither. Chip makers have no idea how hot they are going to run until the first shipment of 90 nano chips come back from the fab. They can speculate all day like Intel did but they have no idea till that day.
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
I would like to know where your coming up with that idea from.
Just because they draw more power doesn't mean they run hotter at all. My 3.0c on stock aircooling with a shitty thermal pad is sitting on 36c right now. How many XP 3000+ run at that speed with their stock cooler? I've looked at countless heatsink/fan reviews and on the ones they can use the sink on ither an XP or P4 they usually compare the performance of it on both of them and the XP is always a few degrees celcius hotter if they are the same relative speed.

Plus a Pentium 4 will downclock itself if it ever got too hot. An Athlon XP would just sit there and burn up.

Heat has very little to do with the wattage draw. It has to do with the amount of transistor leakage. The Prescotts transistor leakage is much greater then the P4's currently because of the fact its 90 nano. The A64 would run hotter also if it was on 90 nano despite what AMD may be saying because Intel i'm sure didn't plan for them to be as hot as they turned out to be ither. Chip makers have no idea how hot they are going to run until the first shipment of 90 nano chips come back from the fab. They can speculate all day like Intel did but they have no idea till that day. [/B]
Click to expand...

the AMD right around the 1.4 were the hottest AMD processors produced. the prescott IS the hottest produced, and it has EVERYTHING to do with power draw. thats why your processor gets hotter when you put more voltage into it.

and an XP doesnt "burn up", theres overheat protection there too ya know. i admit, not as nice as P4's, but people who use AMD usually have the sense to put good cooling on, while P4's are made for poorly vented dells with less than stock heatsinks with 1000 RPM fan.
 
Originally posted by Hard_Rocker
Sheesh, NOW you guys chime in. XP Mobile 2400+ sounds like what I want.

Now, here's a question... since you say that the 2400+ would run like a 2.4ghz processor would, what does it run like if I overclock it to (for example) a true 2.4ghz?

Man, I told myself I WOULD NOT overclock this system... maybe just a little bit ;)
Click to expand...

a true 2.4 is a performance rating of 3600+ as BG said, depends on the app. it averages out to about a 3.2-3.4 P4
 
the AMD right around the 1.4 were the hottest AMD processors produced. the prescott IS the hottest produced, and it has EVERYTHING to do with power draw. thats why your processor gets hotter when you put more voltage into it.
Click to expand...

The wattage draw doesn't have that much to do with it. Its the thermal management of the processor that will translate how hot it gets with that wattage draw. the Prescott draws more wattage yes but it also operates with less voltage then the Northwood.

I dont know how accurate this wattage calculator is for exact specs but is says Barton 3000+ = 75w and Pentium 4 800Mhz = 89w and a 3.0c runs cooler then a 3000+ because i've compared them with people who have Athlon XP's quite a few times and i havn't seen any thorough tests to show otherwise.

http://www.jscustompcs.com/power_supply/
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
I would like to know where your coming up with that idea from. Just because they draw more power doesn't mean they run hotter at all.
Click to expand...
You want to know where that idea came from? These are power DISSIPATION values, not power draw. Dissipation refers to power lost in the form of HEAT. More power converted to heat translates to more heat. More heat translates to a hotter CPU die.
My 3.0c on stock aircooling with a shitty thermal pad is sitting on 36c right now. How many XP 3000+ run at that speed with their stock cooler? I've looked at countless heatsink/fan reviews and on the ones they can use the sink on ither an XP or P4 they usually compare the performance of it on both of them and the XP is always a few degrees celcius hotter if they are the same relative speed.
Click to expand...
You want to know why? The Pentium 4 thermal diode is located on the coolest part of the CPU die.

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article46-page2.html
Plus a Pentium 4 will downclock itself if it ever got too hot. An Athlon XP would just sit there and burn up.
Click to expand...
That's not what we're discussing. We are talking about processors in normal operation.
Heat has very little to do with the wattage draw. It has to do with the amount of transistor leakage.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't have anything to do with wattage draw, per se. It has EVERYTHING to do with power dissipation, though. Transistor leakage alone doesn't cause heat. It's the excess current from this leakage propagating to traces that can't handle the extra current. This effectively makes the trace into a source of resistance, where power will be dissipated.
Prescotts transistor leakage is much greater then the P4's currently because of the fact its 90 nano. The A64 would run hotter also if it was on 90 nano despite what AMD may be saying because Intel i'm sure didn't plan for them to be as hot as they turned out to be ither. Chip makers have no idea how hot they are going to run until the first shipment of 90 nano chips come back from the fab. They can speculate all day like Intel did but they have no idea till that day.
Click to expand...
That's a nice idea, but transistor leakage becomes more and more prevalent as clock frequency increases. It's just too bad that AMD's processors are clocked far lower than Intel's, now isn't it?
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
If you get the mobile you will have to overclock it or your not going to get that hot of performance, especially if your a gamer and play new games like Far Cry and UT2004.
Click to expand...

I dunno if I mentioned it in this thread or another one, but I'm not really a gamer anymore. Grew out of it, I guess... still play CS and UT at times but if my Tbird 1.2 can handle them, I'll be fine with a mobile 2400+, it seems. Basically as long as this new system doesn't end up lower than my current box (tbird 1.2, KT7A-raid, 768mb pc133) then I'm happy. :)
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
If you get the mobile you will have to overclock it or your not going to get that hot of performance, especially if your a gamer and play new games like Far Cry and UT2004.

Click to expand...

why its almost EXACTLY like a 2.4 pentium4. in fact the 2400+ is what, half the cost of a 2.4?
 
In-socket Thermistors

To provide CPU temperature monitoring, socket-A (AMD) motherboards were (are?) equipped with a thermistor (thermal resistor) in the socket beneath the CPU. The thermistor is meant to make contact with the bottom of the CPU casing. It has been shown repeatedly that the results obtained with in-socket thermistors are inaccurate. Temperature variances on different point of the CPU casing surface has been reported to vary as much as 10%, or even more.

Not only is the thermistor temperature not the core temperature, the degree of error changes as temperature rises. For example, the in-socket thermistor reports 35° C but the actual core temperature is 42° C. The error is 7° C. So when the in-socket thermistor reports 50° C, does this mean the core temperature is 57° C? No, it is usually higher, about 59-63° C instead, depending on the particular heatsink. This phenomenon is related to the insulating effect of the casing from the core: the relationship between the temperatures of the casing and the core is nonlinear. Plus there is the effect of secondary heat loss paths that differ with HS and fan position/airflow. Generally, the difference between core diode and in-socket thermistor temps is smaller at lower temperatures and larger at higher temperatures.
Click to expand...

The XP and MP have internal temp diodes but...

The AMD equipped the XP and MP with internal temperature diodes. A good move, considering that even with the move to a smaller 0.13 micron core, the AMD CPUs appear to run hotter than their Intel P4 competitors.

So did the internal temperature diode solve the problem? Well, in midsummer 2002, apparently not.

Driven by the natural desire to support all AMD socket-A processors, many motherboards still sport an in-socket thermistor. This thermistor is used to monitor a CPU that does not have an internal temperature diode. What of those that do? The newest motherboards sport AMD-approved features to monitor the internal temperature diode of AMD processors so-equipped in order to trigger rapid CPU protection shutdown during calamities such as a dislodged heatsink. However, it is not clear that these motherboards provide accurate internal diode temperature data.
Click to expand...

"We removed the calibration procedure for the internal diode in the AMD CPUs as the circuitry and test equipment required to accurately read and interpret the diode's values are subject to severe measurement errors if every aspect of the design and every component are not perfectly optimized. With very few exceptions, the ad-hock systems currently being built to read temperatures from the diode are nonlinear and do not provide reliable nor consistent measurements and cannot be properly calibrated.
Click to expand...

heh

why its almost EXACTLY like a 2.4 pentium4. in fact the 2400+ is what, half the cost of a 2.4?
Click to expand...

Thats because the pipelines aren't running full enough at just 2.4Ghz. The XP has fewer pipelines and can fill at much slower speeds. If the pipes aren't full then your almost running idle compared to what it can actually do and the branch prediction also catches up with you, taking quite a bit longer to empty the pipes at just 2.4Ghz. When you crank it up to 3Ghz and higher that doesn't hold true any more. The 3.0c is clearly faster then even the 3200+.
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
heh
Click to expand...
I see...you've just put yourself in a bind. Now that your claim is that the Athlon XP's thermal monitoring system is unreliable, who are you to make a relative statement regarding the temperatures between the two processor families? What we DO know are power dissipation figures. Compare those and you'll see an obvious advantage to using Athlon XP processors. Not that it'll sway you anyways...
 
Originally posted by xonik
I see...you've just put yourself in a bind. Now that your claim is that the Athlon XP's thermal monitoring system is unreliable, who are you to make a relative statement regarding the temperatures between the two processor families? What we DO know are power dissipation figures. Compare those and you'll see an obvious advantage to using Athlon XP processors. Not that it'll sway you anyways...
Click to expand...

If its unreliable on the Athlon XP i'm sure there is a much greater chance of it being hotter then what its reporting than it is cooler.

Yes but where's the facts that power dissipation is all you need to look at to compare how hot the processors actually run? The t-bird 1.4Ghz had like a maximum power dissipation of 72w and it was one of the hottest micro processors of all time. The barton 3000+'s maximum is 74.3w which is even higher the the 1.4Ghz t-bird. They say the maximum for the 3.06Ghz P4 is +\- 105w so the P4 should run a hell of alot hotter then an Athlon XP and it doesn't. And according to the "poor" thermal readouts of both processors the P4 runs cooler. So i really dont think that power dissipation is giving an accurate look at how they both actually run.

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000365

More power dissipation specs -

http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm
 
I have an xp mobile 2600+. its "stock" speed is 133*15 for ~2ghz.

OC'd to 2.52ghz, it runs about 37-40C at idle on air cooling, and 49C load in prime95.

The last few days, I've been running it at 2.0ghz (but 166*12 at 1.5v). so you can say its slightly OC'd, since I'm running a higher FSB. And it idles at like 30-31C, again, this is on air.

all the new amd motherboards have overheat protection, so that isn't even an issue anymore.

as far as comparitive speed or benchmarks, at 2.52ghz, my system benches 3dmark2001se at 19,365, and 2003 at 6,009 with a radeon 9800pro.

Now, I'll definately say that overall, the p4 is a better performer than the athlonXP, there is no arguing that.

but when you factor in price (less than $100 for an xpm2400 or 2500), you can't beat the mobile xp.
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
...
Click to expand...
Okay, I read the articles. So know your argument is that since both the thermal figures of Athlon XP and the Pentium 4 are questionable, the fact that the Pentium 4's reading is lower in your experience makes it safe to assume that it runs cooler?
 
think of it this way, for the price of a 2.6C P4 you can probably get a 2400 mobile and an NF7-S, proven to be the one of the most reliable OCing socket A mobos out now...
 
Originally posted by retardedchicken
think of it this way, for the price of a 2.6C P4 you can probably get a 2400 mobile and an NF7-S, proven to be the one of the most reliable OCing socket A mobos out now...
Click to expand...

Well it all comes down to how much performance you really want and how big your pocket book is. You can build 2 Pentium 4 + mobo's and 1 Athlon XP + mobo for the price of 1 FX-53 but there are still people that buy them.

2.8c can be had for $187 retail and will overclock to 3.5-3.6Ghz stable.

A 2400+ mobile which will max out at 2.4-2.5Ghz stable will perform about as well as a 3.0c overall.

But yea you will save money going with the 2400+ mobile and sacrifice a little performance. Same goes for buying a 3.2c instead of a FX-51 though except you save a whole lot more money lol.
 
Originally posted by specter554
You ask and Anandtech answers.
Click to expand...

Nice article. Funny how it just came out today lol. Pretty much their saying what reads hotter may not actually be hotter and vice versa so we as consumers really have no idea other then how stable the system is.

In looking at temperature increase in percentage, there isn't much point in ordering the graph. We don't even know what's better here. A small increase could mean that your processor doesn't draw that much more power under load, or it could mean that your architecture is inefficient in saving power when idle. We thought that these numbers were interesting though, so we included them.
Click to expand...

From the graphs it sorta looks like the P4 is cooler idle than the XP but hotter under load. One explanation for that COULD be that the P4 has better thermal management to conserve power at idle and requires more power under load because of the more extensive architecture such as 20 pipelines and Hyper Threading and so forth plus the fact it is running at alot higher clock speed.

I found this part of the article interesting though.

From our data, it doesn't seem that Prescott is really that much hotter than Northwood. Like we mentioned earlier, though, heat output and our temperature measurements might not scale at the same rate. In other words, since Northwood is cooler than Prescott, our thermistor might be getting cooled even more by the fan. This could mean that Prescott and Northwood are even closer in total heat dissipation than in our temperature measurements. We are always working on ways to better collect this information, but hopefully what we have seen has been helpful.

There is, of course, a temperature increase in Prescott though. But where did it come from? Prescott has about three times the number of transistors as Northwood (due to pipeline increases, the addition of 64bit functionality, and (not least) a doubling of the L2 cache). Prescott is fabbed on a 90 nanometer process rather than the 130 nanometer process of Northwood, which means that Prescott will have a higher power density.
Click to expand...

Looks like Prescott may not turn out to be as hot as everyone thought and with a few revisions along with the new BTX form factor and boards that are actually built around Prescott instead of Northwoods with LGA 775 it could stay right at reasonable temps even at high clock speeds.

We asked Intel what (if any) effect actually using the 64bit extensions in Prescott would have on temperature, and we were told that it shouldn't have a significant impact on heat. Intel indicated that with the right 64bit application running we might see Prescott draw 2 or 3 more watts of power. Enabling and using the 64bit extensions will use parts of the chip that can currently remain happily disabled. Hopefully Intel will be right when they say that turning on this feature won't impact heat too much. Of course, we'll be there to test it out as soon as we can get ahold of a 64bit enabled chip.
Click to expand...

Looking forward to when Prescott debuts with EM64T :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top