It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:27 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:20 am
Posts: 2
Location: Auckland
Good stuff!

Anyone knows where to get idle power consumptions for CPUs? This way we'd have to complete picture. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:54 am
Posts: 138
Location: Braga, Portugal
To start off, check here (page 14) for all the x4x series TDP. I was trying to compare the G31 and the G41 for a new low power build (hopefully when the E3200 arrives, which seems to be a WICKED low power part - and nobody has even undervolted it yet... hehehe).

Anyway, if the thread starter wants to update it with this information (newer than G41 chipsets seem to have low power states below standard idle), go right ahead.

matt_garman wrote:
I'm confused about the discrepancies between the P, Q, and G series (other than the P not having integrated video).

In short:

P series - IGP disabled (not really, it only lacks IGP output, but whatever...)
G series - consumer level IGP-enabled chipsets. Differences between the various G series MCHs generally have to do with IGP speeds (not usually public, btw), video decoding capabilities and maximum addressable memory.
Q series - business-oriented IGP-enabled chipsets. Same comments made for the G series apply here. It seems the Q series have an embedded TPM module.

The G41/G43/G45 trio is somewhat different, since some features are absent from the G41, which seems to be a completely different MCH from the other two... G41 is PCIe 1.1, the other two are PCIe 2.0, and G41 oddly seems to support full video hardware decode (something G43 can't), if this Wikipedia page is to be relied upon...

Hope this helps.

Cheers.

Miguel



P.S.: I know this is kind of OT, but I'd appreciate input on cheap Intel-based motherboards with low power draw and cheap. Right now I'm thinking Gigabyte's GA-G31M-ES2L, which is dirt cheap where I live, but I'm wondering if I could do better. Q45-based boards are like 80% more expensive... PM me, please, I don't want to derail the thread)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:30 am
Posts: 352
Location: Moldova, exUSSR
My honoured G31-M7 Biostar is gone down today. I did nothing for that. Well, maybe this happened due to lack of air convection -- board got overheat, but this was so sudden... The GMCH now is getting very hot (so as its supplying module), also emits buzzing sound, and the board draws a lot of current from PSU, and CPU is getting hot too, so it is totally dead, absolutely lifeless, and I should look for a replacement :)

I like Biostar BIOS, got not a problem with the board, so I want to buy again this vendor. The only question it is which GMCH to prefer, G41, or old-time G31? If you look into the G31 link, there are only 2 phase VRM on board. How do you think, is it good for low power build or not?

G41 or G31, anyway?

_________________
G2020 2.9GHz, Gigabyte GA-B75N, D9PFJ 2x4Gb @DDR3-1333 1.2V, Samsung 840 Pro 128Gb + HM321HI 320Gb, TS8XDVDRW-K, Foxconn RS-233 FX-250T, Samsung 910T. Idles (w/o display): AC 18W


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:54 am
Posts: 138
Location: Braga, Portugal
Ksanderash wrote:
My honoured G31-M7 Biostar is gone down today.

My deepest condolences on the loss.

TBH, that premature death can at least partially be attributed to the cooling method (or lack thereof). If I understood correctly, you were running that board with only the PSU fan active, right?

Well Intel designed the VRM specs (and probably just about any VRM complying to Intel's design guide will mimic this behavior) so they are cooled by the CPU heatsink/fan combo. That's why Intel always supplies top-down stock coolers. The MCH cooling also depends at least partially on the air that blows from the CPU heatsink.

In short, letting the system run like it was, without some serious vents in place can easily drive VRM/MOSFET/MCH temps to VERY uncomfortable values, and severely decrease component lifetime.

My suggestion would be to keep at least a low spinning fan over the CPU/VRM/MCH area, to keep air flowing. Or take the time to create an air vent/guide that draws air from the VRM, memory slot, MCH and CPU areas and delivers it to the PSU. And, with a little luck, the fan sound won't amplify in there, and your sound profile won't change.

Ksanderash wrote:
G41 or G31, anyway?

The only tangible differences between the G31 and G41 chipsets are memory support (G41 actually supports DDR3, and there is a board in the market with that configuration :shock:...), maximum addressable memory (4GB/8GB) and TDP (about 10W MORE for the G41). Everything else is basically the same.

So, unless you actually need the extra memory, I'd say G31.

Cheers.

Miguel


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:30 am
Posts: 352
Location: Moldova, exUSSR
Miguel
Well, I had a fan on CPU, cause it's E6300(2.8GHz). Btw, it fryed too, but I have warranty on it ) And I can swear there was about 50~54Cº temp reading of internal GMCH probe due to complete system idleness. Maybe the death was caused by my experiments... Who knows. But that was a sudden death.

I'm typing this text on my girl's PC. It is E5200 + Biostar GF7100P-M7S, and I can say that it runs pretty cool and silent.

Does anybody know TDP for Nvidia integrated single-chip solutions, e.g. GeForce 7100 / NF630i? Is it more economic than G31 by overall (incl. ICH) current consumption? I'm kind in doubt now... Single DDR channel on Nvidia doesn't really scare me.

_________________
G2020 2.9GHz, Gigabyte GA-B75N, D9PFJ 2x4Gb @DDR3-1333 1.2V, Samsung 840 Pro 128Gb + HM321HI 320Gb, TS8XDVDRW-K, Foxconn RS-233 FX-250T, Samsung 910T. Idles (w/o display): AC 18W


Last edited by Ksanderash on Sun Sep 27, 2009 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 12:43 pm 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 1:59 am
Posts: 1630
Location: Portugal
This bit-tech article should give you a general idea. A lot less than a G35 chipset.

_________________
Fractal Define R4 | Corsair AX750 | MSI Z97 Gaming 5 | Intel Core i7 4770K w/TRUE 120 Rev. C | 16GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-1866 | Sapphire HD 7970 3GB GHz Edition w/Arctic Accelero Xtreme IV 280(X) | Crucial m4 128GB + Crucial MX100 512GB + WD Blue 1TB + WD Red 4TB | JVC HA-RX900 | Dell U2312HM + BenQ G2400WD | Asus Echelon Mechanical Keyboard | Logitech G400s


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:54 am
Posts: 138
Location: Braga, Portugal
Ksanderash wrote:
Maybe the death was caused by my experiments... Who knows. But that was a sudden death.

Well, you could always have gotten a lemon. A slow one showing its bitterness, but a lemon just the same... lol

Ksanderash wrote:
Does anybody know TDP for Nvidia integrated single-chip solutions, e.g. GeForce 7100 / NF630i?

AFAIK, NVIDIA doesn't publish TDP ratings for their chipsets.

rpsgc's article link is interesting. You can't really extrapolate any decent power consumption from there, since the boards are so different, but it does seem it's very power-friendly. Probably even around G31 values.

Just keep in mind, when choosing a 7xx0i-based motherboard, to make sure you get one with full ACPI implementation. Zotac's mini-ITX 71x0i board lacked proper S3 support, for one. Also, since Ethernet is embedded on the chipset, keep in mind that you'll have to make sure you're getting the 7xx0-630i versions for Gigabit network, and so far I haven't seen any motherboards based on the 7050-630i, only 7050-610i. AND the 7100-630i is usually more expensive than a G31-based board... :?

Hope this helps.

Cheers.

Miguel


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:15 pm
Posts: 11
Location: the Netherlands
Max TDP for the latest Intel socket 1156 chipsets H55, H57 and Q57 is 5.2 / 5.2 / 5.1W Of course, they moved a lot of functionality into the CPU (max TDP around 73W), but still.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 12:04 am
Posts: 162
Location: Finland
update for P55 and H55 would be nice to see


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TDP list for Intel chipsets
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:54 am
Posts: 138
Location: Braga, Portugal
As usual, this is all taken from Intel documentation, specifically here on pages 7 and 13 here on page 318 and here on page 264.

Keep in mind, though, that current "chipsets" for anything Core-based (except for Socket 1366, obviously) are basically Southbridges, so power requirements have dropped like a heavy stone (though prices have risen like helium...), so don't gasp when you read these.

PCH:

P55: 1.7W (idle), 4.7W (load)
H55: 2.2W (idle), 5.2W (load)
H57: 2.2W (idle), 5.2W (load)
Q57: 2.2W (idle), 5.1W (load)

PM55: 3.5W
HM55: 3.5W
HM57: 3.5W
QM57: 3.5W
QS57: 3.4W

NM10: 2.1W (Nettop version)
NM10: 1.5W (Netbook version)

So, at least on the desktop front, we continue seeing increasing power draw from the Southbridge component (remember the P55 is basically an ICH10R, not much has changed from it; and the "H" and "Q" variants basically add FDI to the P55 infrastructure). Luckily, though, idle states are present, and those power figures are not that bad, especially because the last time an Intel Southbridge had that kind of figures the year was 2003...

I believe these figures are correct, and are based on the documents listed above. But if something is off, do tell me, especially on the desktop chips, since the document is rather vague (it only refers to "Home", "Office" and "Performance", not the specific chip names).

Hope this helps you guys.

Miguel


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
I notice that a lot of Intel mid-range i5 CPU's have embedded GPU support (including all the dual cores). What are the CPU inefficiencies (watts, and temps) of using a dedicated GPU instead (please disregard the watts, and temps of the dedicated GPU, as I am only interested in knowing about the Intel CPU itself if the embedded GPU is not being used).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:54 am
Posts: 138
Location: Braga, Portugal
m0002a wrote:
I am only interested in knowing about the Intel CPU itself if the embedded GPU is not being used).

While I can't really answer your question, as only probably Intel engineers know the answer to that one, here's an "educated guess":

At least up to G45, and AFAIK, Intel IGPs didn't actually have an "off" mode. They were part of the MCH, and that piece of hardware didn't have advanced capabilities like current CPUs, which shut down unused parts of themselves. So, you could only have them enabled, with video output on, or enabled, with video output off.

With Clarkdale/Arrandale, Intel basically only moved the whole MCH to the CPU PCB (apart from the known upgrades made to the IGP engine), but most of the stuff remained the same. So I'm not sure if the new IGPs are able to shut down entirely, but if I had to guess I'd say "no".

In short, you probably loose 5 to 10W of power by having a dedicated GPU on an IGP-enabled CPU, compared to IGP CPU only. But that's basically a guesstimate.

Hope this helps, in any case.

Cheers.

Miguel


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TDP list for Intel chipsets
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 1:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:30 am
Posts: 352
Location: Moldova, exUSSR
Can't find Intel® BD82B75 PCH thermal information pdf, but they say that TDP max is 6.7W. I have a MSI board on this chip, and it idles AC 25W or so, with SSD onboard )

_________________
G2020 2.9GHz, Gigabyte GA-B75N, D9PFJ 2x4Gb @DDR3-1333 1.2V, Samsung 840 Pro 128Gb + HM321HI 320Gb, TS8XDVDRW-K, Foxconn RS-233 FX-250T, Samsung 910T. Idles (w/o display): AC 18W


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TDP list for Intel chipsets
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:06 pm
Posts: 3395
Location: US
the forthcoming Haswell chipset may change this landscape:
viewtopic.php?p=562561#p562561

_________________
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"Aristotle calls man the rational animal. All my life I have been seeking evidence to confirm this" Bertrand Russell
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TDP list for Intel chipsets
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:30 am
Posts: 352
Location: Moldova, exUSSR
"Panther Point" Thermal Mechanical Specifications and Design Guidelines (pdf)

Chips covered in this document:
• Intel® Z77 Express Chipset
• Intel® Z75 Express Chipset
• Intel® H77 Express Chipset
• Intel® B75 Express Chipset
• Intel® Q77 Express Chipset
• Intel® Q75 Express Chipset
• Intel® C216 Chipset

ces wrote:
the forthcoming Haswell chipset may change this landscape:
viewtopic.php?p=562561#p562561
Yep, very good news for all silence maniacs :D

EDIT: all Panther-Point in a table

_________________
G2020 2.9GHz, Gigabyte GA-B75N, D9PFJ 2x4Gb @DDR3-1333 1.2V, Samsung 840 Pro 128Gb + HM321HI 320Gb, TS8XDVDRW-K, Foxconn RS-233 FX-250T, Samsung 910T. Idles (w/o display): AC 18W


Last edited by Ksanderash on Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TDP list for Intel chipsets ( Lynx Point )
PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 5:39 pm
Posts: 13
Summary from http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/37530/Lynx-Point

Lynx Point ( Haswell )

Product Name Status Embedded Max TDP Chipset
Intel® DH82Z87 PCH Launched No 4.1 W Z87
Intel® DH82QM87 PCH Launched Yes 2.7 W QM87
Intel® DH82Q87 PCH Launched Yes 4.1 W Q87
Intel® DH82Q85 PCH Launched No 4.1 W Q85
Intel® DH82HM87 PCH Launched No 2.7 W HM87
Intel® DH82HM86 PCH Launched Yes 2.7 W HM86
Intel® DH82H87 PCH Launched No 4.1 W H87
Intel® DH82H81 PCH Launched Yes 4.1 W H81
Intel® DH82C226 PCH Launched Yes N/A w C226
Intel® DH82C224 PCH Launched No N/A w C224
Intel® DH82C222 PCH Launched No N/A w C222
Intel® DH82B85 PCH Launched No 4.1 W B85

_________________
Lian-li PC60, Nexus 300, a7n8x-deluxe,AthlonXP 2.4, Barracuda IV, Passive GF2, Papst 8412NGL@7v . "He only had blank lines to say, but he said them in a witty and stylish way"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TDP list for Intel chipsets
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:37 am
Posts: 91
Location: Youngstown, OH
4.1 watts for z87. I see why they are really skimping out on motherboard heatsinks for a lot of boards now, they just barely need any dissipation. What process are the z87 chipsets made on? Does intel always do 2 nodes back for the chipset so 45nm? Maybe at the 14nm shrink and with a chipset at 32nm they can get it under 2 watts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TDP list for Intel chipsets
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:54 am
Posts: 138
Location: Braga, Portugal
laststop wrote:
I see why they are really skimping out on motherboard heatsinks for a lot of boards now, they just barely need any dissipation.

That's because the PCH is not really a "chipset" anymore, it's just the equivalent of the Southbridge of the days gone by. Since the Northbridge was "absorbed" into the CPU die (first the memory controller, then the IGP, too), the only thing missing is I/O handling.

And even that is slowly going the way of the dodo: Haswell already integrates some functions that were previously available either on the Southbridge or on external chips, and I believe I remember reading Intel is working on an Atom SoC (for next year, or so). It's just a matter of time before Southbridges will be mostly PCIe lane multiplexers...

laststop wrote:
What process are the z87 chipsets made on? Does intel always do 2 nodes back for the chipset so 45nm? Maybe at the 14nm shrink and with a chipset at 32nm they can get it under 2 watts.

Hmm, I think Intel has been slowly moving to a "-1 node" on chipsets, so they can hit parity for Atom CPUs (which are also on "-1 node"), and then move everything, or at least on low-power parts, to node parity with desktop parts. If memory serves me right, I believe that should be happening rather soon, too.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group