First time build gaming and graphic design PC

[DABhand]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

http://www.intel.co.uk/content/dam/d...ower-paper.pdf

*snip*

Why would Thermal be in Wattage, now think about that. In terms of wattage it is Total Desktop Power.

Which is why a GPU will say depending on its type will say it requires TDP of 300W+

Thermal is in Centigrade of Fahrenheit or even Kelvins.

But it was once Total Desktop Power, why they have gone the silly Thermal route doesn't make sense. But hey.

Guess it has been Americanized or something... cause the old fashioned way made sense if you were talking about Wattage you would be talking about Power and not heat usage.

After doing a bit more research, it is not Standard yet for TDP, several companies use Thermal others still use Power references, some now use MPD for maximum powerdraw.

Yeah so, difficult now to talk about something when other companies are playing with acronyms.

[damien c]

Originally Posted by DABhand

Why would Thermal be in Wattage, now think about that. In terms of wattage it is Total Desktop Power.

Which is why a GPU will say depending on its type will say it requires TDP of 300W+

Thermal is in Centigrade of Fahrenheit or even Kelvins.

But it was once Total Desktop Power, why they have gone the silly Thermal route doesn't make sense. But hey.

Guess it has been Americanized or something... cause the old fashioned way made sense if you were talking about Wattage you would be talking about Power and not heat usage.

After doing a bit more research, it is not Standard yet for TDP, several companies use Thermal others still use Power references, some now use MPD for maximum powerdraw.

Yeah so, difficult now to talk about something when other companies are playing with acronyms.

The TDP of a cpu is in watts and measures the amount of heat transferred from the heatspreader to the heatsink, iirc or it's the amount of heat that it will generate that will need to be removed.

If you look at the Waterchillers, they are sold with the ability to remove up to a certain amount of heat from the water and the higher the wattage able to be removed the more you can cool with it.

[DABhand]

Which would contradict a GPU's TDP guideline.

They need to standardise so everyone knows what is going on :P

For years for Cyrix/Intel CPUs it was Total Desktop Power, no idea when they changed to this Thermal Design rubbish :P

Thats the problem with this industry, one company wants to name this and that, another wants this and that. None of them get together to decide call something that can be used globally, over all manufacturers.

Either way Qas was wrong, several i5 and i7s have a max TDP of 140W. Similar to the E5s also.

But I think you would agree, who would buy something to be told about thermal dissipation from CPU to Heatsink... kinda weird.

Its like how you don't talk about back EMF when selling Appliances, you tell them what Amp fuse you will require to be put in the plug :P

Makes more sense to tell people that you will require this amount of Wattage to run the board+CPU without any other devices, then they can figure what wattage they need by adding things.

Nvidia do it that way with their GPUs, when they mention their TDPs, which would be contradictory as said if it was based on CPU heat dissipation.

Yeah im ranting now :P

Basically they have to standardize terms better

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by DABhand

Either way Qas was wrong, several i5 and i7s have a max TDP of 140W. Similar to the E5s also.

No, you're wrong.

Once again, you ought to read your own advice and not be a hypocrite:

First point:

Had you read properly you would have known I did not at any point state there are no i7's with a TDP of 140w. Please read again:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Wrong on both counts. i7s are typically 47-88w, not 140.

This was in direct response to your own post:

Originally Posted by DABhand

Xeons do 90-150W TDP per CPU, compared to an I7s typical 140W TDP.

Perhaps you should have

Originally Posted by DABhand

actually took the time the read instead of reading a bit and then ranting, you would have found it.

Or, again, follow your own blooming advice:

Originally Posted by DABhand

Please do read the full conversation first

and

Originally Posted by DABhand

you only talk about the previous post, but never the posts in a whole conversation. So you end up replying about something that is now a larger conversation, but you only talk about the last few sentences.

Second point:

As I clearly stated, i7s are typically 47-88w. As per the list of current-gen i7s on Intel's website:

http://ark.intel.com/products/family...rocessors#@All

You will see 27 out of 49 processors, i.e. more than half, are between 47w and 88w.

Perhaps you should have:

Originally Posted by DABhand

look up stuff first before you reply to people, because you made yourself look silly.

Third point:

I said nothing about i5's, you made that up on the spot - and as usual you're wrong again. There are no i5s in existence that have a TDP of 140w.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icroprocessors

Again, perhaps you should have:

Originally Posted by DABhand

look up stuff first before you reply to people, because you made yourself look silly.

---------- Post added at 15:29 ---------- Previous post was at 15:23 ----------

Originally Posted by DABhand

Which would contradict a GPU's TDP guideline.

Wrong. GPUs makers do not publish TDP guidelines to consumers. Usually the are not known to the public at all.

Originally Posted by DABhand

For years for Cyrix/Intel CPUs it was Total Desktop Power, no idea when they changed to this Thermal Design rubbish :P

Once again, wrong, and totally made up.

You're just getting desperate now and twisting anything remotely related to 'power' into made up lies. Despite, of course, completely failing to understand the very basics of the word 'power':

---------- Post added at 15:30 ---------- Previous post was at 15:29 ----------

Originally Posted by DABhand

Why would Thermal be in Wattage, now think about that. In terms of wattage it is Total Desktop Power.

So you're calling Intel, who invented the term, and are clearly describing the term on their own website, on the same page where they publish TDP figures, to be lying about their own specifications?

Originally Posted by DABhand

Which is why a GPU will say depending on its type will say it requires TDP of 300W+

Again, made up rubbish. GPUs do not say anything about any 'required TDP'

Originally Posted by DABhand

Thermal is in Centigrade of Fahrenheit or even Kelvins.

Thermal Design Power, which you clearly fail to grasp, is measured in the standard SI unit for 'power'. The SI unit for power is ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28physics%29

Originally Posted by DABhand

But it was once Total Desktop Power, why they have gone the silly Thermal route doesn't make sense. But hey.

Nope, you just made this up and are pretending otherwise. There are only 12 results on the whole internet for the term "Total Desktop Power" compared to half a million for "Thermal Design Power".

Most of them I'll bet are just like you - confused, or just plain wrong.

[DABhand]

As for backtracking, no, over the years it has been different between manufacturers, like AMD uses ACP instead of TDP (but until 2006 it would refer to TDP as total Desktop Power to measure the power drain on the system - you can even look that up). And as said others have used MPD.

Now here is the thing Intel introduced Thermal Design Power with its Core Duo 2s in 2006 (They have re-classified Pentium III's up to Core Duo 2s their new TDP rating since then), that is the first time Intel ever used TDP in regards to Thermal Design... Now what was it called before that?

Hmmmm..

Not to mention when Intel tried to introduce SDP to the fray. I will let you look that one up.

Now for years, before 2006... CPUs were not measured in thermal dissipation but total power drain on systems. Ergo Total Desktop Power was a thing.

As for i7s having a max 140W TDP that is true. Some have 95W, some have 150W max.. but average is 130-140W, but the i7 2011s (haswells) are mostly 140W max. Again that is checkable.

Infact I will make it easier for you....

Find me the TDP for Pentium 1 or 2s.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by DABhand

They have a max TDP of 140W. What you have is the minimum TDP in those charts from Intel.

Again, rubbish, lies, and coverups. TDP by definition is already the maximum. Again, please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

Originally Posted by DABhand

And as said others have used MPD.

MDP and TDP are completely different things. Don't try to confuse people with imaginary associations that do not exist.

Originally Posted by DABhand

As for i7s having a max 140W TDP that is true. Some have 95W, some have 150W max.. but average is 130-140W, but the i7 2011s (haswells) are mostly 140W max. Again that is checkable.

More backtracking and coverups. Nobody ever suggested Haswell-E CPUs or LGA2011 platforms, they are clearly outside of the OPs price range and not at all relevant. The vast majority of i7s are not LGA2011 and therefore not typically 140W. Less than 2% of people have the processors you mention.

Your desperate clutching at straws is getting more pathetic with each and every post.

[DABhand]

I have moved the discussion to another topic

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/19...-tdp-saga.html

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by DABhand

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/intel...s-15mb-cache-r - max TDP 140w

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/intel...-e-lane-20mb-c - max TDP 140w

just in case you say it was a Scan thing

http://www.ebuyer.com/661535-intel-c...bx80648i75820k - 140W

http://www.ebuyer.com/538141-intel-c...bx80633i74960x - 130W

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

More backtracking and coverups. Nobody ever suggested Haswell-E CPUs or LGA2011 platforms, they are clearly outside of the OPs price range and not at all relevant. The vast majority of i7s are not LGA2011 and therefore not typically 140W. Less than 2% of people have the processors you mention.

Originally Posted by DABhand

And you have not answered my question what was the TDP for any pentium 1 or 2

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Your desperate clutching at straws is getting more pathetic with each and every post.

[Gavin78]

Cyrix CPU now your going back a few years sure I had one of these that ran at 233mhz....what a pile of crap that was. I sent it back to the shop.

I'm sure my friends P75 at the time ran faster lol