Joe88 wrote:sysKin wrote:Joe88 wrote:I think thats a total lie about AMD CPU's running cooler then intel
Dude, just check the specs ~ power is there in official specifications.
65nm is not cooler than 90nm - at this point, current leakage becomes significant and offsets any gains from smaller transistor. 65nm's only gain is smaller die size.
Power grows linearly with clock speed, which is why P4 needs more.
I have plenty of specs where AMD run much hotter then intel
yes 65nm is cooler then 90nm
DO YOUR HOMEWORK FIRST
before replaying to stuff you dont know about
And Kariudo thats a big reason why the temps are so different
is that intel have 65nm ?
cable clutter = heat (poor ventalition)
thats why much people ditch the ribbion cables and buy round IDE cables but there SATA now so noty much of a difference.
Also tie down the cables or some people run the in back on mobo plate inside the case.
Again it has been proven by reviews and a lot other tests that 65nm runs way cooler.
OK.
I'm going to jump into this because dwchang hasn't been around lately, probably because he's still working on design/testing for AMD's 65nm and 45nm cores while my company has already delivered our share of the implanters that are actually going to fabricate them.
You are technically correct in a limited sense, but syskin is correct in a general sense because he knows what he's talking about. If you're going to talk smack back, please learn something about semiconductors and chip design before you make yourself look like any more of an idiot.
The reason that Intel's 65nm kit runs so much cooler than their 90nm kit is that Intel made design choices with the Prescott core (P4 90nm) that in retrospect were pretty poor. Because its execution pipeline was 31 stages deep (current generation of AMD and Intel are both down to like 15 IIRC), it handled branch mispredicts very, very badly, and as a result wasted a lot of cycles filling and draining the pipeline. To keep performance up with this, Intel pushed clock speeds ever faster and faster to reduce pipeline-related latency, and the result was the insane power consumption and heat output. The 65nm gear available is derived from the Pentium M, a much more heat-efficient design developed for use in laptops.
There is currently a lot of talk about how Conroe is going to run so much cooler than its AMD equivalents, but the processor isn't actually out in the field yet, so at this point, judgment ought to be reserved. Unless, of course, you have some semiconductor-physics reasons as to why 65nm is innately cooler than 90nm, regardless of design; if this is the case, by all means, post away.
--K
I though it had 2
