Talk:CPU power dissipation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Improvements
This really is an ugly looking article. As earlier comments here have pointed out, no mention as to the operational conditions for the given power consumption figures are given. Are they maximum power dissipation? Mean? Typical? Minimum? The statistics in this article are next to worthless without this. Additionally, the GPU section needs to go away. GPUs are certainly NOT "special-purpose CPUs" despite the unfortunate similarity of the acronym. GPUs are much more akin to stream processors or DSPs. If nobody else wants to pick up the task of cleaning this up some, I'll do it after I finish work on the CPU article. -- uberpenguin 13:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, the article should probably be moved to "CPU power consumption." Electricity isn't "consumed" but electrical power is dissipated due to the flow of electrical energy. -- uberpenguin 13:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
(I agree if it is really the same thing it would be best there - I thought this was related to heat dissipation of CPUs when I first got here - unless someone really knows what TDP is I would guess the would make the same initial assumption - which is not helpful. -- MatthewKarlsen 11:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC) )
It would also be good to find some power dissipation figures for earlier discrete component transistorized computers like the PDPs. What would be cool is to redo the power consumption graph to show a broad range of CPUs' power consumption over a number of years, to show the exponential decrease. -- uberpenguin 13:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The multicolored bars in the graph need work. For me, the big problem is that the coloring of the top of the bar doesn't match the more dominant coloring along the side of the bar nor help in any way to give a 3-D feel to the graph. Visually, it appears more to be two side by side bars than a single bar. -- KarlHallowell 18:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Are the wattage numbers intended to be typical or maximum ones? The entry should make this clear. Tannin 22:55 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
That Wattage numbers are Thermal Design Power, and they have nothing to do with power consumption. They are understimated for intel CPUs, and overstimated for AMD ones. Here there are some power measures: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-x2-3800_3.html
If there really is a difference between TDP and Power Consumption could someone spell it out clearly because atm I can't see the difference. MatthewKarlsen 11:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
On Thermal Design Power: Silent PC Review, shows CPU power consumed by Intel and some AMD CPUs with the PC running Seti@home software. The number-munching required by Seti@home exercises the CPU and the CPU tends to maximum heat and power input conditions. Article roughly correlates Intel CPU consumption to be around 10 to 15% higher than the TDP. It says that AMD's TDP definition is "Thermal Design Power (TDP) is measured under the conditions of TCASE Max, IDD Max, and VDD=VID_VDD, and include all power dissipated on-die from VDD, VDDIO, VLDT, VTT, and VDDA." One's power supply should incorporate CPU power in addition to the TDP. What may also be of interest is what happens to CPU performance when the CPU exceeds the TDP point, since different vendors approach mitigation differently. Intel gradually lowers supply voltages, while increasing currents when TDP is reached.
DonL 22:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Any thoughts on how to improve the formatting of this article? I've added a bit, and have a lot more to do since this article is very lacking in completeness, but before going much further I think it really needs to be cleaned up with consistent formatting of the data, and a better way to display the information instead of such a list-like format, the article will grow to be very "long" once updated. Ideas on how to condense it a bit, but make it complete and keep it functional?
Another formatting issue to me, is how to deal with a CPU that has multiple speeds available, but different voltages and respective power consumption. Example:
CPU 100 MHz, 2 V, 10 W
CPU 150 MHz, 2 V, 15 W
CPU 150 MHz, 1.7 V, 14 W
CPU 200 MHz, 2 V, 20 W
When the second 150 MHz is put in, and there are many CPU's like this, it seems to break up the predictable flow of information, how can we deal with this in a more appealing way? -- MisterTroy 16:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Content out-of-scope
I've read through this article, and it seems that some of the content is just outside of its scope. I mean, this article is about CPU electrical consumption; why, then, is there any mention of peripherals? I say we delete the headings for Hard Disks, PSUs, and Peripherals, to start. The GPU headings should stay, since, as the article mentions, they really are specialized CPUs. -- EagleOne 02:04, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] ATI's Radeon 9700 Pro
I've found some info about ATI GPUs, added to GPU section. The source is:
http://www.challenge.ru/video/HIS9600vs9800Pro.html (in Russian)
[edit] Graph
I have my doubts about the graph at the bottom, or at least about the descriptions. Does a "Pentium 4 Mobile 715" processor exist at all? AFAIK the Pentium M is based on the P3-design and also the Pentium M 715 has a clock frequency of 1.5GHz (as mentioned on this same page), not 2.25GHz.
- It is indeed incorrect, but with no citation or source there's no way to fix it (short of generating a new one). I say scrap it, it's outdated by over two years now. (No X2, no turion, no Core/Core 2, no opteron or xeon. Several of those cpus aren't even available anymore.) Nor does it mention minimum/idle/peak as some review sites do. It's effectively worthless today.
[edit] Add MORE
This article should include much more -- pre-Pentium x86, and current $100-laptop candidate cpus. Current content should be consolidated. 69.87.203.215 21:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
