Options

Intel Prescott could soak 150 watts

Unknown
edited January 2004 in Science & Tech
What has Intel got in store for us in 2004? Are they now willing to put both feet forward, or are they still committed to playing it safe?[blockquote]Our motherboard contacts in Taiwan tell us they can't understand just why Intel has decided to blaze the trail in 2004. And just in case they're caught short by Chipzilla's apparent recklessness, motherboards they're designing for the middle of the year will support a not-so-cool 150 watts, just in case Intel gets a 3.8GHz Prescott out of the door.
[/blockquote]
[link=http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13421]The full report[/link]
«1

Comments

  • EyesOnlyEyesOnly Sweden New
    edited January 2004
    150 watts!! :shakehead WTG Intel. Hope AMD wont go there.
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Im at breakfast with Intel tomorrow, I shall pose the question to them. IF (big IF) they allow me to publish what the answer is.. Il post it :)
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Punch the rep for me! :)
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Thrax wrote:
    Punch the rep for me! :)

    ;D;D;D
  • madmatmadmat
    edited January 2004
    Here's an article that kind of conflicts with what the enq. is stating... http://www.aceshardware.com/#75000459
  • ketoketo Occupied. Or is it preoccupied? Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Meh. We're enthusiasts. We know how to deal with heat. Bring on the SPEED ;)
  • panzerkwpanzerkw New York City
    edited January 2004
    Cool, I won't need my space heater anymore!
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited January 2004
    And this is a big deal... why? It just means heatpipes, big-ass (that's a technical term, btw...) copper heatsinks with large fans, and MAYBE water cooling will all become fairly mainstream... which is a good thing. :D
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Geeky1 wrote:
    and MAYBE water cooling will all become fairly mainstream... which is a good thing. :D

    I disagree. I don't want my next PC case to cost £200 because it has an integrated watercooling system.

    Yes, it may help Watercooling prices to drop a little, but costs will still spike because of it.
  • BudBud Chesterfield, Va
    edited January 2004
    whats the amd64, amd xp, and p4 watts?
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited January 2004
    P4 >105w
    XP ~ 75w
    A64 = ?
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Barton 3200+ is 60.4w
    Athlon64 (3200+) is 89w
    Pentium 4 3.2ghz is 85w
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    My Barton is currently at 130+ watts =/

    There's no way the Prescott is putting out 150 watts. The chip wouldn't be manufactured if that was the case. Nobody would be able to run it.
  • madmatmadmat
    edited January 2004
    I guess no one even looked at the aces gardware article, next time I guess I won't waste my time.
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    madmat wrote:
    I guess no one even looked at the aces gardware article, next time I guess I won't waste my time.
    Actually.. I read it.. Im goin to pose the question tomorrow and see what response I get... however I feel that as Aces are damn good with this stuff.. they are a better source than the "inq" ;)
  • muddocktormuddocktor
    edited January 2004
    Tbird-1.4G - 72 watts
    Barton 3200 - 76.8 watts
    Athlon 64 FX-51 - 89 watts
    Opteron-246 (2.0GHz) - 84.7 watts
    P4-3.2C (512KB L2) - 82 watts
    P4-3.2C (512KB L2, 2MB L3) - 92.1 watts
    Xeon-3.2 (1MB L3) - 110 watts
    Itanium 2-1.5G (6MB L3) - 130 watts
    Pentium M-1.6G (1MB L2) - 24.5 watts

    All these wattage values are from this page which are derived from the various tech docs from the cpu manufacturers.

    I would find it kind of hard to believe that Intel would be stupid enough to release a P4 that would use more power than even their Itanic stuff. :hair:
  • madmatmadmat
    edited January 2004
    Well, from what I've been able to glean from the bits and pieces available to me, the added pipeline stages are supposed to be what actually lowers the required wattage while allowing the clock speeds to be cranked up a few more notches.
    I don't know if I've misread or just misunderstood what I've read but there might be something to it or there may be more than meets the eye.
    To me it sounds like the source that reported to the inq. (oosp) are either paranoid about what Intel may have up their collective sleaves or they are just the sorts to over engineer.
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited January 2004
    Uh, guys? Your Intel numbers are off, remember? Intel doesn't publish the TDP of their CPUs; they publish the "real world maximum" :rolleyes:

    They did say that the 3.06GHz P4-HT (533) was capable of 105w though; the 3.2GHz & EE are certainly higher than that.
  • MJOMJO Denmark New
    edited January 2004
    To begin with, news leaked that it used approx. 100 Watts.
    Then Intel said, no it use less power.
    And now they appear to use even more power.
    Is the Prescott going to be the heart of a new heating system for our homes?
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    :hrm:
  • MJOMJO Denmark New
    edited January 2004
    LOL Thrax.
    Have you informed Intel of this new market?
    If their Prescott launch is a failure they could go into the furnace business. ;)
    And all the Intel guys said that Athlons were hot, now this is a BBQ.
  • Straight_ManStraight_Man Geeky, in my own way Naples, FL Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    UM, was that Prescott CPU, or CHIPSET including CPU, or board??? Or dissipation in watts, which is heat load SHED ability??? Maybe over 100, but I would not expect over 110 with SOI-- in fact, would expect lower load in watts, typical PSU load (not net CPU draw after stepdown)... Remember, the voltage step-down circuits are NOT 100% effective, so possibly a LOWER voltage could pull that into stepdown to feed what CPU needs, but stepdown can be 80-85% effective if WELL done and less effective if not well done....

    3.8 non-SOI might well be drawing that much from PSU to satisfy stepdown circuitry ineffectiveness in motherboard stepdown circuitry, but I think that is heat shed load limit expressed as watts into CPU that CPU can input and not thermally die (IE it can shed overheat from that draw by design) and not typical usage DRAW.

    John.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    CPU alone, John.
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    I can't say what the wattage will be as Im under NDA :(

    You will just have to wait for a few weeks or so :)
  • panzerkwpanzerkw New York City
    edited January 2004
    Shorty wrote:
    I can't say what the wattage will be as Im under NDA :(

    You will just have to wait for a few weeks or so :)

    #$%&!
  • shwaipshwaip bluffin' with my muffin Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Shorty wrote:
    I can't say what the wattage will be as Im under NDA :(

    You will just have to wait for a few weeks or so :)


    Can you type what it will be? :D
  • madmatmadmat
    edited January 2004
    How about a broad hint, to quote Monty Python, "A nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse, wot wot"
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Shorty wrote:
    I can't say what the wattage will be as Im under NDA :(

    You will just have to wait for a few weeks or so :)

    Kind of, makes the entire thing pretty useless really, doesn't it?
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Not really Enverex. All I will say is don't read into hack journalism. It's proving itself to be wrong (as usual).
  • ketoketo Occupied. Or is it preoccupied? Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    OK let's try and narrow it down....Is it more than 8W and less than 2433W? :vimp:
Sign In or Register to comment.