Are all Sandy Bridge Laptops CPU's running warm?

I'm posting this here because it may well be a cross manufacturer issue and posting the same thread in all the manufacturer forums here would not collate the data.

I've read that the MBP and also the Dell XPS 15 with Sandy Bridge processors seem to be running quite warm in respect of their processors while under load. Temps in the mid 90c's seem to be regular with occasional peaks to 100c.

The question seems to be whether this is exactly how a Sandy Bridge processor is supposed to operate under load, i.e.

Processor gets an intensive job to act on and as a result bumps up it's Frequency, this raises the internal temps, processor continues to work on job while monitoring internal temps, internal temp hits trigger threshold so processor ramps back frequency, continues to work on job while continuing to monitor temps, temp hits trigger threshold so processor ramps back on frequency, continues to work on job......and so on.

What seems to be the surprise is it would appear, for the laptops mentioned above at least, that trigger temperature seems to be around the mid 90c's before the frequency gets ramped back. This statement is based upon a number of users reporting their temperatures under load being in the mid 90c's and upgrading the thermal paste does not seem to impact the load temps.

Can other users who own Sandy Bridge laptops possibly report their temperatures while also reporting the frequency the machine is operating at. Do you see that the temperature of your laptop stays fairly constant while the processor frequency ratchets back.

Mid 90c's seems high to me for the threshold especially when the desktop version of Sandy Bridge seems to operate at around low to mid 80c's while under load.

All thoughts and comments welcome.

 

It seems the temps are mostly quad cores that run hot.

 

But not that hot. :/

It's because those laptops have poor cooling systems. Go look at the temps on Clevo laptops.

 

I thought you could change the trigger temperature of the Turbo Boost yourself?

10 degrees over a desktop processor doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Will run some tests when I get mine.

 

WOW those temperatures are way too high for a laptop...

 

I take it you never owned a laptop with a Pentium 4 'Mobile' then

 

I did own a Pentium M 735 Laptop ( overclocked to 2,26GHz !!) + ATI - it was never getting THAT hot, even under full load. I mean it was getting much warmer than my current Arrandale but never up to the above mentioned temperatures.

 

The Pentium M was a completely different architecture that was properly designed for mobile use I think.

Before that, they fairly briefly sold some under Pentium 4 Mobile or 4-M or something (they had a few brand names they went through I think?) that were virtually desktop P4 chips stuck in laptops. The Prescott core ones were 88W TDP!!

 

Most of the times a high temperature is fine, there is a real problem when the processor starts throttling becouse then the temps are dangerous. Sure a lower temp is nice and running a high temperature constantly will decrease the life of a cpu. But for the rest it isn't much of a problem.
Having a hot laptop on your lap is another problem ofcourse.

 

I'd say poor cooling, bad thermal paste application, or misaligned heatsink.

My SB CPU (i7-2720QM) with Prime95 runs 75C at max with system managed cooling, and < 70c with max fans. Tmax for the SB CPU's is 100C, so if it runs in the mid to high 90's it's going to throttle back and/or shut down.

I never recall a laptop that ran 100C, that's even high for GPU's even though I have seen some run that hot, but it was within their thermal limits.

 

It also depends if your talking about the Case temperature or the Core temperature. Core temperatures are generally 5/10 degrees higher.

 

My old lappy runs at 80C consistently. 100C easily under load and it'll shut off.

But it's just old/dusty.

 

so...

Sandy Bridge laptops require better cooling systems than the last generation?

I thought they're supposed to be more efficient...

I've also seen discussions through different brands forums on their high temperatures...
I'm looking for a new laptop now, I have an older Core 2 Duo (cheap Dell Inspiron 1525) , which have max temps of around 70 ºC...

 

Put a last gen CPU in a chassis that has insufficient cooling or improperly applied thermal paste and you would get exactly the same problems. Consider that HTWingNut's SB Quad CPU actually runs a few C cooler under load than my last gen i7-820qm did but they are both using a Sager chassis.

I have seen other chassis running that same last gen CPU at 20C hotter than mine as well as slower CPU's running hotter as well.

 

Yes, and it is also because quad cores are being used more and they have a tdp of 45w instead of 35w.

 

This where a lot of manufacturers and consumers will realize ( in the end) that design and performance are more important than looks.

 

Don't hold your breath. The people who haven't already realised that, never will.

 

And you'll always find people that take advantage of those people.

 

I know many disagree with me, but TDP is why I favor the i7-620m and i7-2620m... 35W since they are dual core (4 core if you count HT)...also great for battery life in my Sager But lets not get into the dual vs quad argument again...

 

Actually, the quadcore is quite energy efficient in the new sandy bridge, because cores can be turned off. It's mostly in load where the heat and power are high.

 

With just using the windows desktop (more or less idle), I get 35-37C in a ~22C ambient room. Not sure how that fares with previous gen or other SB quads, but I think it's quite good. With gaming, CPU usually doesn't exceed 65C either. Granted this Sager has separate fans and heatsinks for GPU and CPU which helps.

 

Yeah a 17"+ laptop will always tend to be able to run cooler, just because there's that much more space available like you say.

I've ordered a 13.3", so we'll see how that gets on...

 

The MBP using Intels last gen dual cores also had some thermal issues, so no suprise that the new ones may have something similar.

I actually had a Acer Aspire 1800 (17") with Intel P4 "Mobile" and ATI Mobility Radeon X600 and while it could run a little hot i never had any throttling issues or random shutdowns.
But the cause of death on that notebook was that it started to go apart. D:
Luckily Acer has greatly improved since that time so even their budget builds got somewhat good build quality and proper cooling.

Once i get my Clevo il get some temp measures on it but my guess would be that its cooling solution will be top notch.

 

I'm glad to read this about the MBP.

Now, it is officially off my 'possibly' list for good (in this incarnation).

The Anand article hinted that it was 'a few degrees warmer', but this post verifies both Apple's continuing design deficiencies and Anand's lowering reporting standards (unbiased, to big biz? - not.).

As stated in the first/second replies - this is simply a bad design issue - not an Intel problem.

 

Yep, the Clevo and MSI models don't have any heat issues with sandybridge and higher end GPUs to boot. Apple tends to focus first on how their computer looks then on performance and finally on thermals. I have a 2009 macbook pro... beautiful design, underpowered for the money and that 90 degree angle aluminum edge along the front of the palm rest will slit your wrist open if you dont watch it. Looks great, but in the long run less fulfilling.

 

Sadly, style over function will sell more of your product than the reverse.

 

Apple has always had crappy cooling system designs every since MacBook/MacBook Pro was released.

 

So, Sandy Bridge does produce more heat than Intel's previous line?
Manufacturers haven't adapted their cooling systems, is that it?

Maybe they have fall for the same history I've read that SB is more energy efficient.

 

Agree with all of the above.


But, I still give a moment's thought that they might have changed (for the better!) with each new incarnation of the 'nice to look at but torture to use' MBP line.

Truthfully, the only thing that draws me to them once in a while is the good/great (in comparison) screens they offer. Everything else, starting with OS/x and ending with their price tag is a turnoff.

(And for a photographer, it's understandable why the screen would have such an allure. ).

 

SNB is much more energy efficient in performance per watt than any other CPU has ever been.

Poorly designed cooling systems (or effectively non-existant ones like in the MBP...) are a 'feature' that effectively give you less performance (via throttling), less longetivity and overall, less for your money over the long term.

The reason that the SNB cpu's can get warmer is because they are doing much more work than the previous generation cpu's could do. More work (produced), more power (used), more heat expelled; but at least the same or lower battery drain... for a constant work load.

In other words; if you're converting 1,000's of RAW images daily and you test how long it takes to convert, let's say 100 RAW files on a SNB vs. an older platform, the SNB system will finish faster, use less overall power and be cooler (avg.) than the compared to system.

If however, you simply use the system to convert RAW files continuously 8+ Hrs a day, then it will seem that the SNB system will run hot even if it draws similar or slightly lower power (compared to the older platform) - but it will also convert much, much more RAW files at the end of the day too.

Don't forget the 4/8 core cpu's are meant to produce output: they cannot do that without dissipating some heat.

If the work load is a fixed amount (eg. convert 'X' RAW files): they'll shine in all areas.

If the work load is constant over time (eg. run them flat out for 'X' hrs a day): they may superficially seem 'worse' in some aspects... but in any case there is no denying their superiority when comparing them apples to apples to anything out there.

Bottom line: if you're considering a new system with a goal of producing measurable 'output' from (content, photo/video editing, etc.) - then first start by narrowing down the systems that takes into consideration the proper cooling required. And for the last dozen years for me; this has not included any Apple or Dell products.

 

performance per Watt.

Perfect. Got it. Rep you.

But still, I usually do some hard computations (engineering simulations) and the processor usually is used for several minutes. With Sandy Bridge, probably it will finish faster, but probably still have enough time to get pretty hot. Just like your several images example.

I am looking for a Clevo machine. I have seen good opinions around here, but some bad numbers on their part of the forum...

 

Several minutes on what system? If a SNB based system can half that time (just a guess), then even if it gets hotter (peak) it will still be cooler (avg.).

Don't know Clevo (wouldn't consider one myself...) but what is your price range? And more importantly; what will speed up your simulations? CPU, HDD/SSD, RAM or maybe a 'pro' Video Card (Quadro FX, for example)?

 

It takes several minutes, maybe an hour, on a quad core Q6600. Although, most of the code cannot be parallelized into multi-core processing.

It is a matter of pure processing. You give an input, the simulation will write something to the ram and then will follow processing. It will read and write data on the ram from time to time but it's mainly a cpu-intensive task.

I'm looking for a Clevo, but also have my eyes on Dell XPS 15 and an Asus of similar specs. But these other two are considerably more expensive.

I live in Brazil and around here one find much fewer options for that kind of performance notebooks and the price rises steeply. Clevo (actually, a local Sager-like brand based on Clevo chassis) is the best value I can find.

 

Just gathering my thoughts here...
My application is very cpu-intensive but it uses mostly just one core, so it shouldn't be as hot as those benchmarking tests.
They're quite unreal

 

I have an ASUS N73JQ with with a 1st gen i7 740QM...my friend has an ASUS N73SV with a 2nd gen i7 2630QM...we ran 'core temp' and found there to be no discernable difference in temps between our two notebooks, the Sandy Bridge equipped ASUS ran no cooler, nor did it run any hotter, our temps were pretty similar over extended testing, 35c @idle, 75c under heavy load (give or take a few degrees), i realize this is only anecdotal and not scientific, but i thought it was noteworthy none the less.

 

The last graph is the most interesting: lower power consumption than everything else when it's not doing much, higher when it needs to be, the Turbo Boost stuff is an impressive design. (much better than their older processor stepping tech)

Obviously whether it's provided with adequate cooling by the manufacturer of the laptop is a separate issue...

 

i7 2820QM Idle


i7 2820QM on full load all eight threads active. Heavy testing

 

With how you've described it, I would guess you'll see a massive performance increase over your 4yr old cpu/platform. I wouldn't be surprised if your 1 hr processing time was cut by 2/3's.

With the information you've provided: I would have at least 8GB RAM and the fastest (true) quad core SNB processor you can afford.

The (fastest) quad core is recommended so that even while you're processing, you'll still be able to use the computer for almost anything else you want. (More than twice as fast... ).

The 8GB RAM (16GB seems more in line for the computing power of the SNB cpu/platforms...) is more of balancing the pure hp the cpu has with the amount of work it can consecutively juggle.

('Work' is only done in RAM and CPU... output is stored to disk (or SSD). While previous generation platforms could use 16GB RAM or more, they soon start to feel sluggish and certainly no faster than with 8GB. SNB has enough 'oomph' to support 16GB+ much more effectively than last years systems and if you're building a system to last you awhile, you might as well be getting the full potential out of it from day one).

 

Have no idea what this means, but according to the reviewers it shows the efficiency

 

Cloudfire, link?

 

The last pic? Here
PC Perspective - Intel Core i7-2820QM Mobile Sandy Bridge Performance Review

 

tilleroftheearth: yeah, I expect a huge gain in performance . I look forward to test some parallelizations that (with my current quad-core) don't show much performance improvements. But lets take it aside, as it is kinda complicated


Nice graphs, folks!

Cloudfire, about the second graph of the first post ("Total Notebook Power Consumption"):
How was the test? The very same system? Was it on a laptop? Dedicated GPU?
All those variables (and others) would affect the result.

 

The review was conducted on laptops. They had all IGP and not dedicated GPU. All of them except the 2820QM system had Intel GMA 4500 MHD while 2820QM the new Intel HD 3000. So there is a small difference there.

Here is a link to the review if you want to read it yourself
Intel Core i7-2820QM - Sandy Bridge For Notebook PCs - Intel Sandy Bridge Comes to Laptops! - Legit Reviews

 

Nice.
Power consumption would vary from one laptop model to the other, since cooling depends on its project and different hardware would require different power needs, but I would think the testers tried to keep the systems as similar as the others.

Thanks for the link. I was just going to ask for it

 

Cloudfire

What machine is this please?

If it's the compal in the link we don't know what the setup of the review machine was.

 

Guys

There are a lot of interesting comments here but the reason I posted the thread was to try and find out if the temps under load are only on the MBP and Dell XPS 15 or whether other manufacturer machines also show the same temps under load.

If owners of Sandy Bridge laptops could post their temps under load, the frequency of the machine and the model of machine and processor it would allow all of us to make better informed choices.

Thanks and sorry if it comes over like I'm trying to be the thread police, I just want us all to have the best information available before we pay out our hard earned money.

 

pinsb,

fair point!

But I think you already know the answer.

 

pinsb, i have no idea. Couldn`t find it in the source either. Was more of an objective review i think because most computers will have the same CPU temps while the system temp may change

Here is the link
Intel Core i7-2820QM Mobile Sandy Bridge Processor - HotHardware

 

Again, regardless of TDP it is still hugely impacted by the cooling system. You can have a 45w Quad Core running cooler than a 35w Dual Core if a system does not have well designed cooling.