mobile chip hotter and hotter since core 2 duo time?

Im the only one that realised that?


The older core 2 duo-quad chip where cooler than the current i7 i mean 25 35w tdp and extreme was 45w


And almost all current gaming laptop run at about 80-100c i dont find that safe

They are selling chip that for sure are going to die if used 24/7 or they fry the mobo


What your thought about that

 

The old Core 2 Quad (like Q9000) was also crap in terms of performance. I never noticed my 920XM in my Alienware M17x R2 got super super hot, the GPUs definitely heated up. Heatsink technology hasn't really progressed alot in....10 years, still the same design. But performance is easily 2-5x than older Core 2 days.

 

a core 2 quad is about a i3 so yea they where crap but even then they where top of the line cold.. and was on par with desktop or almost.. Now i7 4700hq vs desktop chip is like 25 50% less powerfull... can compete with my fx 6300 125$ vs a 400$ mobile chip still but uh even gtx 765m that is 65w tdp is colder than the i7 idk what wrong

 

It's because we were taught anything over 80 degrees is dangerous. That's probably still the case for AMD chips (don't know what their TJmax is nowadays).

But Intel chips can work at 80-100 degrees without problems, and motherboards are designed with high temperature components (tantalum capacitors can withstand 150+ degrees, for example) - not to mention that the solder used will only melt at 200+ degrees.

Sure, laptop manufacturers could use some better heatsinks, but if they're within spec, it's good enough for them.

Basically, higher temperatures is the new normal.

 

amd say 60c and shutdown is at 90 100 i think

 

Still i find that insanely hot... even the die size go down (Nm) idk will see in 3-4 years if these chip are still running

 

I think you forget there is more cache, the clock speeds are higher with turbo, etc. Nm shrinkage allows higher clock speeds to be attained while maintaining the same thermal profile. Remember the good (bad) old days of 130W Pentium 4's.

 

And pentium D awesome heater :laugh:

 

Not always. Ivy bridge runs hotter than Sandy, 90nm P4's ran A LOT hotter than 130nm P4's too.

 

They do run hotter, but contain a lot more transistors. Core 2 Quad had about 820M transistors on a 214mm^2 die. Haswell quad has about 1.4B on a 177mm^2 die.

So that's about 70% more transistors on a die 15% smaller with four times the raw performance in the same TDP.

 

IB had TIM problems. Also, they were essentially the same processors as SNB with higher clock frequencies. And they didn't run a whole lot hotter than SNB.

The 90nm P4s had a HUGE clock speed upgrade over 130nm P4s. So increased heat output is understandable.

 

so who think that 90c is safe?

 

Ivy Bridge doesn't have a heatspreader on laptops, so it isn't that. Going to the smaller process didn't help anything power-consumption / heat wise.

Clock for clock, Prescott (90nm) consumed a lot more power than Northwood (130nm). Also the difference in max clock speed was 3.46 vs 3.8Ghz.

 

The manufacturers. We run CPU's near max temps in industrial apps all day, every day. Not a problem as long as it is withing spec it will be fine.

 

The manufacturers! I know Intel does a very extensive set of modelling and testing on every CPU & chipset. We are OK running CPU's near max temps in industrial apps all day, every day. Not a problem, as long as it is within spec it will be fine.

 

As long as it is within spec and the cooling system can handle it...is it a huge concern?

 

Mobile IVB didn't have heat problems. They ran hotter by a few degrees but they also ran faster.

Yes exactly my point. The fastest Prescott ran at 3.8. The fastest Northwood ran at 3.4. Top that off with more than double the transistors on a Prescott die. It is bound to run hotter.

The point I and someone else who mentioned process node was trying to get across is that reducing only fabrication process reduces the heat produced. However, if you add more transistors or increase clock speed/voltage, then you cannot use the same equation anymore.

 

Also, on top of adding more transistors and increasing clocks, there is also the fact that the die area has been getting smaller at the same TDP. The smaller the surface area through the heat goes, the higher the temperature of said surface (in this case, the CPU die area making contact with the HSF assembly) will be for the same amount of heat generated. That is also one reason why each core i generation is slightly hotter than the previous one at the same TDP.

90 C is still 15 C below the throttle temperature and 15 C is an awful lot of thermal headroom. It may not seem that way because the number isn't that big, but it is.

Changes in the materials used in making the CPU, yes it's still a lot of silicon, but it's not only that can also help having CPUs that can withstand higher temperatures for longer periods of time.

There is a lot more to what constitutes a safe operating temperature for a CPU and the amount of heat generated than the lithography process scale.

 

I didn't say mobile ivy bridge had heat problems. Just that going to a smaller process didn't help with heat.

Clock for clock performance didn't increase, but clock for clock heat output went up. Your explanation?