Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Prescott Heat Issues...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 25, 2003 2:29:06 PM

OK with all this talk about the heat output/draw issue i decided to check about. According to <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/images/cpu_hi..." target="_new">This</A>, its virtually impossible for the Scotty to generate that much heat at its introduction. Less V-core voltage, smaller gates, and transitors as well as less leakage and resistence due to the new 0.09u manufactureing process. Its literally impossible unless Intel moved to 32bit ALU's in the Scotty. Which is odd since the Tejas was to have that as its "BIG" thing.

-Jeremy

:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5341387" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm=1400777" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 

More about : prescott heat issues

July 25, 2003 2:53:12 PM

I'd like to know one thing: where is all this heat coming from, if the damned beast is 90nm-tech based? It can't be the extra cache, or the new Xeon would have heat problems too. What is it? <A HREF="http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2003_04_20_Looking_a..." target="_new">Chip-architect</A> has a map of Prescott's die... Apparently, prescott is also a tad bigger, which should ease heat issues a bit. I'll read the whole thing in detail to check for big die differences between northwood and prescott...

Well, it is still very possible that prescott's heat issues are only rumors. We should wait for review sites to give their "verdict" on that. I think it's very likely that this is not true, but that's just me.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 25, 2003 3:04:50 PM

That does it. I'm buying a Prescott from Intel. I'll let you guys know about heat!!!!
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
July 25, 2003 7:54:50 PM

I'm telling you, it's only AMD fanboys trying to desperatly save AMD by making Intel look bad in their upcoming CPU. It's inevitable! Prescott will be a new evolutionary CPU both in terms of features/performance AND physical advancements! (process technologies added)

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=purple><b>The official Tom's Hardware Guide Forums Photo Album, click here to contribute!</font color=purple></b></A>
July 25, 2003 9:37:27 PM

I've been waiting how long now for hammer to be released. I bought Intel P4 2.4c. At least I did not have to wait all most 2 years for this CPU.
July 26, 2003 1:44:08 AM

prescott should be a big step forward.. but tejas now thats what I'm talking about..... going to be sweet
July 26, 2003 3:00:05 AM

You said it. Intel plans on 2nd half of 2004 for Tejas. Do you buy Prescott or Tejas?
July 26, 2003 9:35:38 AM

yeah i plan on buying a casino on the moon in late 2004.... i know wanna buy some stock in it.
July 26, 2003 9:37:21 AM

this PRESCOTT rumour was not started or supported by any so call AMD FAN BOYS

why is it when something negative about INTEL comes out... its always FAKE FUD MADE UP BY AMD FAN BOYS

if this was about AMD... u would accpet it as gospel truth
July 26, 2003 12:04:14 PM

I smell a "fanboy" burning
July 26, 2003 12:17:51 PM

He's been burning for a long time. Lets send him to the moon. Since that's where he wants to go.
July 26, 2003 2:40:35 PM

Oh, it's possible. Anything is possible. And despite people ragging on theinquirer.net, their sources are actually pretty good. Their moles are legendary.

(BTW, your chart seems a little inaccurate. It's failing to actually list max power draw for the Intel chips, just "thermal design power.")

Even if it's true, though, I personally doubt Intel would release some fry baby of a core, especially when they're not in any desperate second-place crunch against AMD. The most we'd see of it would be the Prescott core getting held up a bit while Intel makes some revisions. And honestly, I've pretty much come to expect any new core to be late by at least a year. So it went with Athlon, with Northwood, with Hammer, and I suppose now with Prescott. Early roadmaps are just far too optimistic.

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
July 26, 2003 2:53:19 PM

On the issue of heat, is this why Abit went with a new cooling system on their mainboard Max3? I have read that it undoubtably is going to support the Prescott, are they gearing up for heat issues?
July 26, 2003 4:37:58 PM

In my opinion... more transistors = more heat. Obviously that's not the only problem, probably more like how often the transistors are used. Then there's volts and amps at the end of it all.

I wouldn't be too surprised if the next chip from intel is a bit hotter than the latest. Based on the history of processors, faster means more heat. There have only been attempts to "slow down" how much heat is produced but not much effort in design power-efficient processors (for desktop cpus). By "slow down" I mean that they try to get the heat to a level that will allow the processor to run without extremely expensive cooling solutions.

Here's a good page with a lot of information about the electrical specifications and estimated heat disipation of processors including the latest available processors:
http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm
July 26, 2003 4:48:38 PM

You're right, prescott is supposed to have something like 100+ million transistors (NW has half that amount, as far as I know.) The high heat dissipation probably also means - if the engineers at Intel did their work respectably - good overall processor performance. But that's just speculation, of course...

BTW, very interesting link you've got there (<A HREF="http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm" target="_new">clicky</A>). Wow, Itanium 1.5Ghz lists as 107W and up to 100 amps of current... The processor is a powerhouse anyway...

Well, anyway, if those rumors turn out to be true and Prescott does have heat issues, then I hope it can deliver at least excellent performance. (kind of have the feeling it will, anyway... :smile: )

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 26, 2003 4:57:37 PM

A jap website give more accurate number.

As i say they are speaking of the 3.6GHZ and a MAX power consumation of 103 watt and a typical power consumation of 90 there is the trouble normaly the typical power is at 75% of the max as you say but presccott seem to be at 90%.Can be releate to massive SMT test

In any case the this power consumation is support by mothersboards as it power consumation is lower that actual 3.2 GHZ NW-C.

If is true and not solve (((the chip could have been a old sample))) the 4ghz barrier will have to be cross on grantsdale.

The possibility of any trouble on the new 90NM process that be relate to so much stuff.90 NM node new gate lenght new dielectrique new wafer size lack of experience on 300mm wafer.

I have hard time believe this rumor as Dothan been accelerate.I have also not able to know if there were speaking of Thermal desigh guide or else

I dont like french test<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by juin on 07/26/03 01:26 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 26, 2003 6:27:58 PM

Would it be too naive to consider that, because Prescott's typical power consumption is 90% of its max consumption versus 75% in NW, it utilizes its available resouces (i.e. transistors and so on) much better? Maybe they improved HT.

Wouldn't that mean that the processor itself might also be considerably faster than NW? Just wild guessing here, correct me if I'm wrong.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 26, 2003 7:18:10 PM

because of the delayed release of prescott because of market conditions, I think intel would have had additional time to work with any heat issues and also because of the already lengthy delay, I'd put my money on it being released fairly soon.. asuuming amd maintains their release date (fingers crossed)
July 26, 2003 7:31:52 PM

When all is said and done, I want to know how this heat is going to be dissipated. The 3.6Ghz Prescott will be at over 100W, which pretty much means you can't use the computer in a small room in my town at least, but what about noise?

I have a very hard time with my 19" monitor and my 1 Ghz T-bird. My room is small and my air conditioning isn't very good. The room heats up to temperatures that make me sweat. At least it isn't noisy though.

Any news on the cooling solution for the Prescott?

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=38..." target="_new"><font color=red>dhlucke's system</font color=red></A>

<font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> <font color=red>BLESS</font color=red> <font color=blue>AMERICA</font color=blue>
July 26, 2003 8:01:49 PM

While I would usually agree on new process issues, Intel is just NOT THAT clumsy. Yes their early batches could be hot, but it's a new process, which significantly reduces power and heat usually. It also features extra process technologies for leak prevention and such. It just beats me if it reaches 100W like that.
Forgot, but what was the 3.2GHZ Power Consumption? THGC didn't seem to have it on their chart.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=purple><b>The official Tom's Hardware Guide Forums Photo Album, click here to contribute!</font color=purple></b></A>
July 26, 2003 8:18:25 PM

So, how can the 3.2 be at 100W as some claimed?

In fact, why should a 3.4 be at 100W when its voltage will go down to ~1.2V, with refined process?
If anything, it might run very hot at first due to the new process, but extreme power consumption? I just can't believe it yet.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=purple><b>The official Tom's Hardware Guide Forums Photo Album, click here to contribute!</font color=purple></b></A>
July 26, 2003 8:40:07 PM

I agree, intel spends hundreds of millions on thermal research.. they're not idiots
July 26, 2003 8:57:32 PM

I don't see it as such a stretch. I'm pretty sure the 3.2 was in the 80's and what I've read is that the 3.6 will be in the 100's.

I haven't seen anyone claim that the 3.2 is 100W.

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=38..." target="_new"><font color=red>dhlucke's system</font color=red></A>

<font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> <font color=red>BLESS</font color=red> <font color=blue>AMERICA</font color=blue>
July 26, 2003 9:01:05 PM

Look at the link in the first post. It looks like the 3.2 Ghz Northwood is at 82W.

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=38..." target="_new"><font color=red>dhlucke's system</font color=red></A>

<font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> <font color=red>BLESS</font color=red> <font color=blue>AMERICA</font color=blue>
July 26, 2003 9:18:09 PM

Quote:
I agree, intel spends hundreds of millions on thermal research.. they're not idiots

Well, even if they have a problem, they have like two and a half months to enhance the process. Two and a half months is not a short while - even more so if you consider the amount of money flowing into research in the mean time.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 26, 2003 9:41:19 PM

Since your air conditioning is not that great. Why not put a big fan in front of your case. That should help with the cooling.
July 26, 2003 9:43:21 PM

I'll take some of that flowing money for my account. The heck with research.
July 26, 2003 9:56:47 PM

Quote:
I haven't seen anyone claim that the 3.2 is 100W.

The max theoretical power draw for the 3.2 Northwood is somewhat over 100W. The 82W or whatever is "thermal design power."

But of course, the 100W max is "theoretical," which means it's rarely ever reached and never stays at that level for long. Using HyperThreading brings typical power consumption rather closer to max though.

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
July 27, 2003 12:15:19 AM

The PC runs fine. All the heat has to go somewhere though. In my previous place I had the PC in a large room so I never noticeced the heat being blown out, but in my present situation it's noticable. I have heat coming from the CPU, the Videocard, and the monitor mainly of course. It easily heats up my room. There's no way I could tollerate any more heat from the PC.

What I've ended up doing towards the end of the day is opening up the window and blowing a household fan on the monitor towards the window. It keeps the temps in the room down a few degrees. I only wish I could use that fan to blow on me instead of the damn monitor though.

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=38..." target="_new"><font color=red>dhlucke's system</font color=red></A>

<font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> <font color=red>BLESS</font color=red> <font color=blue>AMERICA</font color=blue>
July 27, 2003 2:50:37 AM

That would help blowing it on you to cool you off.
July 27, 2003 2:51:44 AM

Just think with all that heat it puts out. You save on your heating bill during the winter.
July 28, 2003 3:57:01 AM

FYI,

it has not been confirmed whether that PC Watch article got it's info based on an old sample, or a recent leaks from Intel. Supposedly, Prescott is said to have a TDP of 103W at 3.6Ghz. This is 15% higher than Intel's original expectations. Of course, as others have mentioned, Prescott's TDP is around 90% of MAX heat output. This implies that not only has HT been improved, but the efficiency of the core overall. Also, many believe that this increased heat output is due to leakage. There is a great debate at Ace's going on about this. The one thing wrong with this argument is that Prescott samples have been running around at 3.2GHz since last November. And, IIRC, Intel demoed Prescott @ 4Ghz at IDF. Even if this leakage problem exists, Intel has probably found a solution. This no doubt ties in with the fact that Intel recently switched to a different low-k dielectric supplier.

- - -
"... In the semiconductor industry, it's good to be paranoid ..." - [Andy Grove]</font color=green>
July 28, 2003 11:52:30 AM

Excellent information you've got there, Dark_Archonis. Indeed, I recall that Prescotts have been circulating for a long while now...

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 28, 2003 8:17:15 PM

I knew Dark wouldn't run away like that. He'd get a kick out of every time THGC has something wrong about Intel...
Pop, he appears. Pop, he disappears.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>The sexiest website ever, guaranteed XXX!!!</font color=blue></b></A> :wink:
July 29, 2003 5:53:25 AM

I'm still waiting for you to answer me in that thread where you threw a fit.

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=38..." target="_new"><font color=red>dhlucke's system</font color=red></A>

<font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> <font color=red>BLESS</font color=red> <font color=blue>AMERICA</font color=blue>
July 29, 2003 6:58:06 PM

HAHA! I wanted to direct yer attention to his presence. Was worried you weren't checking this thread out though.

LOL DH, you really do fight till the end to get an answer! :wink: Love that!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>The sexiest website ever, guaranteed XXX!!!</font color=blue></b></A> :wink:
July 30, 2003 1:36:41 AM

I think we will see all copper Intel heatsinks. Either that or an increase in fan size to 80/92mm and thin fin designs.

People seem to forget that just because it will use a new smaller die size doesnt necessarily mean it will run cooler.
e.g. TbredA/DDR2/Nvidia 5800 ultra.

Smaller die = more heat per unit area
more transistors = more heat
higher Mhz = more heat

And before i get labled a FANBOY. I hope it isnt the case. Though im not holding my breath.

<b>Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
July 30, 2003 3:24:21 AM

And also, I dont think intel release figues for Maximum thermal output, which is different from nominal max output . So there is variability in there too.

<b>Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
July 30, 2003 3:34:24 AM

Heat with Emermax new 660 watt Psu we'll be all set now.
July 30, 2003 8:22:32 AM

Thanx. glad u noticed. I like it too.

<b>Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
July 30, 2003 4:29:53 PM

(Not answering to anyone in particular, just clicking on last thread.)

One thing to remember too is that Scotty has more cache. If I remember correctly (someone please point out if I'm wrong) the cache not only takes up a lot of the increase in the transistor count, but also in the increase in thermal output (because cache gates are used tons more often than logic gates and are so tightly packed). And this is the reason why the CPU utilization and TDP is much closer to the theoretical max in Scotty than in Woody. It's not so much because of better processor utilization as just increasing the amount of the most frequently accessed part: cache memory. So if anything that's why Scotty would be so hot.

I mean I could be wrong, but I don't think so. **shrug**

"<i>Let's see what <b>Paragraph 84-B</b> has to say about it.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030724" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
July 30, 2003 6:20:44 PM

the only thing about that theory is then wouldn't the xeon's with 4mb caches be unmanagably hot?
July 30, 2003 7:16:43 PM

yes... and what about the 1MB L3 Xeon?...

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 30, 2003 7:26:26 PM

dont the xeons use l3 cache? Isn't L3 cache off die? So it would not effect cpu temps as much as if all the cache was manufactuered right on the cpu core...although it does add some heat....

3 386DX-25's...12 volts...glue some ln2 and a wicked amount of overclocking and you get a willamantee minus 36 pins, 33.75 million transistors and a couple hundred mhz... :cool:
July 30, 2003 11:56:55 PM

True. Offdie cant be counted, as such.
And cache utilisation would use more juice as well.

<b>Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
July 31, 2003 2:09:36 AM

Scotty will have 1 MB of cache when it's released.
August 3, 2003 7:34:28 AM

not answering to anyone in particular, but several people,

dhlucke, In all honesty, I do not remember that argument. If you could dig it up, or refresh my memory, I would gladly repsond.

slvr_phoenix, you're wrong with regards to cache. Cache actually does not output that much heat, which is why Intel added 2MB of L2 cache to Dothan. The reason is that the heat/performance ratio of cache is great. Cache is not used as much as the execution units, and on the P4, the trace cache contributes a large portion of the entire cache thermal output. Cache takes a lot of die space, since so many transistors are needed for cache. Thus, cache dissipates heat relatively easily since it's spread out over a large area. When there is a process shrink, the cache still remains comparatively less dense, then say, the execution (logic) units. As I mentioned before, a large part of Prescott's thermal output is coming from leakage. Alot of people at other forums seem to have agreed that this is indeed the case. And, as that Intel employee over at Anand mentioned, the bigger challenge is cooling the CPU.

I have always stated that a CPU's thermal output is only half of the whole story. The other half is the efficiency of the CPU/HSF to move that heat away from the die efficiently. P4's output more heat than comparable Athlons, yet the P4's usually run at a lower idle temperature. This is a combination of the IHS, efficient HSF, and the fact that the P4 actually idles properly, unlike the Athlon. I forget what the exact problem is, but Athlons run at high temperatrues even when idling, IIRC, due to some idling command that the Athlon does not correctly recognize and execute. This is similar to a HALT or SLEEP state/command.

Eden, I'm shocked as to how little you've changed. You've gone from an overenthusiastic AMD fan, to an overenthusiastic Intel fan. Either way, you stretch the truth no matter which side of the fence you're on.

Quote:
<i>Originally written by Eden</i>
Prescott will be a new evolutionary CPU both in terms of features/performance AND physical advancements! (process technologies added)

You <i>actually</i> have the guts to call me a fanatical Intel preacher, and yet you make comments like these? I mean, Even I myself would not go so far as to make a comment like that. It's as though you believe Prescott will be the best thing since sliced bread.

Quote:
<i>Originally written by Eden</i>
While I would usually agree on new process issues, Intel is just NOT THAT clumsy. Yes their early batches could be hot, but it's a new process, which significantly reduces power and heat usually. It also features extra process technologies for leak prevention and such. It just beats me if it reaches 100W like that.
Forgot, but what was the 3.2GHZ Power Consumption? THGC didn't seem to have it on their chart.

Do you fail to ignore the fact the Prescott will be more dense, have a smaller die, AND use a larger percentage of CPU resources than Northwood? Leakage is a big problem at 90nm. Heck, scaling is not the issue here. For Intel, it's leakage. AMD is using SOI for scaling primarly, since otherwise the "cobbled together" K8 core would not be able to scale much past 2ghz. Reduced power consumption is more like a convenient feature for AMD, rather than a necessity at this point. Also, Intel 90nm process really has nothing to prevent leakage. Strained silicon does not prevent leakage; all it does is increase electron mobility resulting in faster transistors, and clock speeds. Rather, I would say that Strained Silicon actually increases leakage somewhat. I'm willing to bet that Intel may introduce it's Terahertz and Tri-gate transistors early.

- - -
"... In the semiconductor industry, it's good to be paranoid ..." - [Andy Grove]</font color=green>


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Dark_Archonis on 08/03/03 03:39 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 3, 2003 8:23:45 PM

Quote:
Either way, you stretch the truth no matter which side of the fence you're on.

Spare me how you always judged everyone and thought you were the right person. I could very well right now link you to what you said once in your "departing and sad thread", but I am a fair player and will leave that in the past for now, unless you provoke me to. And for someone who drops by once per millenia to post "correction" facts, you sure do have nerves to judge. I just love talking about you indeed, because it only reminds me of the wussy who couldn't stand fanboys, who preached Intel so much. Of course I like to get on your back. I'd gladly get off soon though, depending on how you are willing to react.

Quote:
You actually have the guts to call me a fanatical Intel preacher, and yet you make comments like these? I mean, Even I myself would not go so far as to make a comment like that. It's as though you believe Prescott will be the best thing since sliced bread.

One quote of mine does not equal the myriad of quotes you did for Intel my good bud.
Additionally I say this with all due honesty, that Prescott is a great evolution with much better process technologies. Where is it not that much?
It will easily scale to 5GHZ, no doubt, it has even more future-proof features, improved HT and others.
It has new features and HAS new process advancements (the PHYSICAL claim I said). So, why am I being overenthusiastic? I know it has trouble lately, but I'll be damned if one extra stepping won't turn it into a real player.
Please, lest we forget, you were far worse. You were literally traumatized by AMD fanboys.

Quote:
Do you fail to ignore the fact the Prescott will be more dense, have a smaller die, AND use a larger percentage of CPU resources than Northwood?

Smaller die? Any proof so far? It will after all have an extra 512KB L2, alone cache takes a great amount of space. THEN it has extra Trace Cache space, and possibly extra L1. Furthermore HT is refined, and new instructions are introduced. Frankly if its die is not that of NW or closely by, I'd be surprised.
I realize it will use a higher percentage. However being a 0.09m component at 1.2V, the process technologies should have alleviated most heat problems. I would assume it would churn out 70W at 3.4GHZ, not more. I didn't expect that a higher utilisation of ressources meant ~30W more. Heck, just WHAT ARE those extra resources? I know HT will be refined, but it still has 6 pipes, nothing more nothing less, it's a matter of using them more often. The cache as you explained, is not that heat expensive.

I used to strongly believe in both Intel and AMD. But recently AMD's doings have done nothing to show me they are willing to remain in the desktop game (I could care less about them later on if they do fail at desktop performance and no longer compete there but rather in servers, just like I could care less for Sun's achievements, as server CPUs don't matter to me, Opteron or SPARC or whatever). Opteron is doing great selling to supercomputer labs. I believe it is their lifeline really. Athlon 64, is simply NOT going to save them. No matter how much better it is, it won't. It is not future-proof in any way, both feature-wise and Physically-wise. And you of all, I'd expect to have learned that.
Nonetheless, that doesn't mean I am completely leaving out hope for AMD. Few weeks ago I stated it's their end for sure, after hearing about their losses. But reading about Opteron's recent acquisitions by supercomputer labs, and some possible speed limits broken, I have slightly more faith. Doesn't mean I think AMD will bash Intel out. What I believe in my heart is that AMD is not anymore as good as before, and while I will keep hope, I simply won't look at their products for future-proofness any soon. So that means Prescott or Tejas for me, very likely so. (not to mention the ridiculous 3 sockets introduced in one year for A64)
As a trick question, suppose that the planets aligned on Sept. 23rd, and Athlon 64's performance is monstruous, able to beat Prescott by 10% or more, would you buy the AMD system? In fact, suppose AMD's reign continued for a few more model grades. Would you?
Guess you see why I am more enthusiastic about Intel, all the while without being biased
--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>The sexiest website ever, guaranteed XXX!!!</font color=blue></b></A> :wink:
PS: New sexy users' sites now added! :smile: <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 08/03/03 04:27 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
!