New pc

Walker34

Hi,
I finally took the plunge today, and after hovering over the Dabs "Order Now" button for a few weeks........clicked it.
I got an Intel i7 2700k,Gigabyte Z77X-UD3, and 1x8gigs of 1600 ddr3 Total bill was for €509 which is a good deal i.m.h.o. I have all the other bits, so its an upgrade rather than a new build.

The 3770K just did not seem worth the additional cost and risk. Fine they have shrunk the die from 32 to 22 nano meter .......but so what, how does this benefit me when there is less space to dissipate the heat, and anything above 4.8ghz oc is pushing it with the 3770k. I see cinebench score of 9.25 on stock for the 37770k and 10.5 on OC for the 2700k. The 10% Ivy Bridge differential seems to disappear when you overclock the Sandy Bridge to 5.4ghz......... on Cinebench at least.

Procrastastudy

Walker34 wrote: »

Hi,
I finally took the plunge today, and after hovering over the Dabs "Order Now" button for a few weeks........clicked it.
I got an Intel i7 2700k,Gigabyte Z77X-UD3, and 1x8gigs of 1600 ddr3 Total bill was for €509 which is a good deal i.m.h.o. I have all the other bits, so its an upgrade rather than a new build.

The 3770K just did not seem worth the additional cost and risk. Fine they have shrunk the die from 32 to 22 nano meter .......but so what, how does this benefit me when there is less space to dissipate the heat, and anything above 4.8ghz oc is pushing it with the 3770k. I see cinebench score of 9.25 on stock for the 37770k and 10.5 on OC for the 2700k. The 10% Ivy Bridge differential seems to disappear when you overclock the Sandy Bridge to 5.4ghz......... on Cinebench at least.

Very much depends on the rest of the system and what it's going to be used for.

The heat dissipation issues are different to what you've described. The actual issue is how intel have replaced the flux solder with some crappy thermal paste. IMO this was done deliberately as shrinking the MP would have resulted in a cooler chip. This would have seen people hit mad over clocks and blow everything else they manufacture out of the water. I wont be doing it now but when the CPU is reaching EOL - I'll be pulling the heat spreader off and rectifying that issue.

Walker34

"The actual issue is how intel have replaced the flux solder with some crappy thermal paste"

This sounds suspiciously similar to the initial explanation given for the xbox360 rrod,.............. and that aside, CPUs generate heat as a consequence of their electrical activity and when you reduce the area/physical volume of the processor then it is logical that the processor will get hotter for the same or a higher cycle rate .....it basic thermodynamics.

Procrastastudy

Walker34 wrote: »

"The actual issue is how intel have replaced the flux solder with some crappy thermal paste"

This sounds suspiciously similar to the initial explanation given for the xbox360 rrod,.............. and that aside, CPUs generate heat as a consequence of their electrical activity and when you reduce the area/physical volume of the processor then it is logical that the processor will get hotter for the same or a higher cycle rate .....it basic thermodynamics.

Well thats not what been happening on ever processor die shrink since I dunno when - they've alway ran cooler than the previous generation.

If you're thinking of shrinking the actual area - that has happened as well as the iGPUs have started to take up more room but the shrinking of the manufacturing process should mean less heat.

sink

Walker34 wrote: »

"The actual issue is how intel have replaced the flux solder with some crappy thermal paste"

This sounds suspiciously similar to the initial explanation given for the xbox360 rrod,.............. and that aside, CPUs generate heat as a consequence of their electrical activity and when you reduce the area/physical volume of the processor then it is logical that the processor will get hotter for the same or a higher cycle rate .....it basic thermodynamics.

You've got that backwards. The heat is purely the result of electrical resistance, the die shrink shortens the distance between transistors and therefore the resistance encountered allowing for lower voltages and reduced heat.

Procrastastudy

Sorry Sink mis-read

Walker34

Cant accept any of that as rational.......This from Mr Moor his self......

"His bold prediction, popularly known as Moore's Law, states that the number of transistors on a chip will double approximately every two years.

Intel, which has maintained this pace for decades, uses this golden rule as both a guiding principle and a springboard for technological advancement, driving the expansion of functions on a chip at a lower cost per function and lower power per transistor by introducing and using new materials and transistor structures.

The announcement of the historic Intel® 22nm 3-D Tri-Gate transistor technology assures us that the promise of Moore’s Law will continue to be fulfilled."

And that law has been reflected rigidly since 1958..........how chips could possibly be getting cooler defies logic seeing as the switching of said transistors is the prime source of the heat.

sink

Walker34 wrote: »

Cant accept any of that as rational.......This from Mr Moor his self......

"His bold prediction, popularly known as Moore's Law, states that the number of transistors on a chip will double approximately every two years.

Intel, which has maintained this pace for decades, uses this golden rule as both a guiding principle and a springboard for technological advancement, driving the expansion of functions on a chip at a lower cost per function and lower power per transistor by introducing and using new materials and transistor structures.

The announcement of the historic Intel® 22nm 3-D Tri-Gate transistor technology assures us that the promise of Moore’s Law will continue to be fulfilled."

And that law has been reflected rigidly since 1958..........how chips could possibly be getting cooler defies logic seeing as the switching of said transistors is the prime source of the heat.

No Joule heating is the primary source of heat. Joule heating is the result of electrical resistance. Electrical resistance can be thought of as similar to friction in the way it impedes electrons and causes the conductor to heat up. Joule heating is what causes the element in your kettle to heat up and the filament in a incandescent bulb to glow white hot.

Walker34

sink wrote: »

No Joule heating is the primary source of heat. Joule heating is the result of electrical resistance. Electrical resistance can be thought of as similar to friction in the way it impedes electrons and causes the conductor to heat up. Joule heating is what causes the element in your kettle to heat up and the filament in a incandescent bulb to glow white hot.

The previous argument still stands.............double the number of transistors every two years doubles the amount of heat creating elements, and that is why we have gone from simple fans in the 80s to liquid cooling in the last few years years.......double the switches equals more conductors means more heat being generated......deflecting the discussion by introducing Joule heating ,which is more relevant to power transmission/distribution systems than micro-electronics is .........unhelpful.

Procrastastudy

Walker34 wrote: »

The previous argument still stands.............double the number of transistors every two years doubles the amount of heat creating elements, and that is why we have gone from simple fans in the 80s to liquid cooling in the last few years years.......double the switches equals more conductors means more heat being generated.

I'm pretty sure the spinny thing that comes in the box is a fan......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Sarz91

Walker34 wrote: »

......and that is why we have gone from simple fans in the 80s to liquid cooling in the last few years years.

I'm sorry but what? That's like saying that "There has been a rise in the amount of cancer patients worldwide that's why you've seen the progression from chemotherapy to an actual cure in recent times." Had they been able to implement the technology sooner they would have.

The reason IB runs hotter than SB is because IB's stock voltage is generally lower than that of SB. To overclock it way up to 4.9GHz, you have to bump up the voltage. In fact you have to add more voltage to an Ivy Bridge processor than a Sandy Bridge processor to reach that level. Greater voltage = greater power consumption which generally means more heat.

At stock it's not that they run hotter, per say, its the fact that its the same amount of heat in a smaller area which in turn is harder to cool and thus there is a build up of heat. Surely this could have been posted in the hardware thread as I fail to see a point to it at all as a stand alone.

Walker34

Now its really gone from the sublime to the ridiculous with a "cure for cancer" being introduced.............processors have being growing exponentially (Moors Law) in complexity since 1958 and consequently they produce more heat.......without the need for chemo therapy. The increased heat is as a result of the doubling of the density of transistors on the chips every two years. Overclocking always requires bumping up the voltage......its not just peculiar to IB it goes for SB and previous chips also.....e.g. Q9450 Quad core.

Sarz91

Walker34 wrote: »

Now its really gone from the sublime to the ridiculous with a "cure for cancer" being introduced.............processors have being growing exponentially (Moors Law) in complexity since 1958 and consequently they produce more heat.......without the need for chemo therapy. The increased heat is as a result of the doubling of the density of transistors on the chips every two years. Overclocking always requires bumping up the voltage......its not just peculiar to IB it goes for SB and previous chips also.....e.g. Q9450 Quad core.

Maybe you should spend more time learning to read and less time trying to act so intelligent. It's clear from what you posted that you understood absolutely nothing from my previous post. Where did I say that SB doesn't require a bump in voltage to OC?

BTW: The chemotherapy thing was supposed to be ridiculous. It was made as a comparison to the nonsense you were talking about. So publicly denouncing it as ridiculous is to denounce your own point as ridiculous.;)

seklly

Hi Walker, there's an interesting article from 2009 linked below which would address some of your queries. From the parts I've quoted you can see that while transistors do generate heat, this heat is only a small proportion of the overall heat generated by the processor with the majority being generated by the interconnects. There are major design advances in this area which is allowing for cooler chips.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/materials/better-computing-through-cpu-cooling/0

IEEE Article wrote:

Electronic circuits contain many sources of heat, including the millions and even billions of transistors that are routinely packed into modern ICs as well as the interconnects—the labyrinthine connections linking these components together.

IEEE Article wrote:

according to ITRS projections, within the next five years, up to 80 percent of microprocessor power will be consumed by interconnect wiring in regions of the chips that are particularly difficult to cool.