Options

Intel Prescott - Hot or Not?

Unknown
edited October 2003 in Science & Tech
Intel has said today that 'Prescott' will never exceed 100W of power dissipation, however some sites still claim the chips consume up to 110W and even 120W. There for the debate continues, and Intel shows no signs of being any more open about the 'Prescott's specific thermal properties.

[blockquote]At Intel Developer Forum, company CTO Pat Gelsinger said that 100W was OK for a desktop computer. While he wasn't referring to Prescott directly, his words did seem to confirm the suggestion than Prescott would run rather hotter than its predecessors. [/blockquote]
[link=http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/33436.html]The full report[/link]

Comments

  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Intel continues to lie about the thermal dissipation of their CPUs, propagating the myth that the cooler Athlons run hotter.

    Dicks.
  • Park_7677Park_7677
    agrees

    They won't tell us the real numbers.. so what they say is always lower than what it really is. Thus, them telling us that it's 90-100W.. doesn't mean crap. :rolleyes2
     Missouri Member
    edited October 2003
    agrees

    They won't tell us the real numbers.. so what they say is always lower than what it really is. Thus, them telling us that it's 90-100W.. doesn't mean crap. :rolleyes2
  • Park_7677Park_7677 Missouri Member
    edited October 2003
    That marks the first time the company has come clean and put a precise figure - well, a pair of figures - on the next-generation processor's heat-generating potential.
    That's from the article, but I still don't believe that's the final result. Rather it be Intel heads talking when on the development level it doesn't exist, or them saying it because it's a "potential" number.

    /me doesn't trust Intel

    Ah yes... Here it is. Geeky1 came up with the following formula to figure out a more "real" number for the P4s. I have no doubt that Intel is pulling this again, but I'm sure the formula will be different for the Prescott.


    Pentium 4 Northwood:

    Assumed Real Heat = (105 / 81.8) * (Intel's Number)
    **See image attached for formula applied on many P4s.

    This was formulated on the fact that the P4 3.06 GHz's real heat dissipated was 105W while Intel reported 81.8W. So, the real number is something like 1.2836 times more.

    IF the Prescott's released numbers are close to 78% of the real numbers (like P4s), you could expect 115.5W - 128W of heat. Seems right on par with what everyone is saying ;)
  • edcentricedcentric near Milwaukee, Wisconsin Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    As I recall Intel states power at a 'reference load', not at 100% absolute. And they have the nerve to criticise AMDs PR system.
  • SimGuySimGuy Ottawa, Canada
    edited October 2003
    I'll give you 3 chances to guess what next generation Intel CPU is underneath that BEHEMOTH of a cooler :eek::eek::eek:
    fan1.jpg 153.2K
  • SimGuySimGuy Ottawa, Canada
    edited October 2003
    More shots of Prescott's new "Intel Radial Curved Bifurcated Fin Heatsink" (RCBFH-3), created by Asia Vital Components Company (AVC), the same people who shipped the retail cooler with all P4's.
  • SimGuySimGuy Ottawa, Canada
    edited October 2003
    It's supposed to take up approximately 20% of the damned motherboard space! And I thought the SLK900-U was massive...

    Thrax's Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Tower cooler is smaller than this damned thing!

    //Edit: Note the interesting mount design... looks like they are doing away with the P4 retension mechanism in favour of 4 spaced holes, exactly the same spacing as used in the P4 retension mechanism.
    fan3.jpg 105.2K
  • SimGuySimGuy Ottawa, Canada
    edited October 2003
    A few more prototype AVC RCBFH-3 Coolers :)
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited October 2003
    Is it just the angle of the picture, or is the fan on the heatsink (the fan w/ Intel printed on the label) shaped like airplane wings? Flat on one side, semi-rounded on the other? If so, I wonder why. That would mean lower pressure underneath the fan, so less air is going to be forced into the HS thus reducing the ability to adequately dissipate heat. Oh well. Whatever. It's nearly 3am I gotta get to sleep because I need to be up in a short while. Sleep sucks.
  • SimGuySimGuy Ottawa, Canada
    edited October 2003
    Just the angle my friend. They are all completely round.

    Bed time here too. I've got to be up @ 6:30 AM and it's 4! Gawd, being an insomnic doesn't help matters either! :D
Sign In or Register to comment.