as far as i am aware it is true
the CPU temp i have seen on P4 and AMD systems differ greatly P4 ~ 30-40 AMD
~50-70 C

P4's TPS (heh heh) Thermal overload system is currently the best there is
if you have a P4 running Quake 3 then yank the heatsink off the CPU actually
underclocks itself practically instantly till it maintains a stable temp
(frame rate drops from 180 to 4)
AMD lets the smoke out in the same circumastance

Toms hardware has a set of demo's of this and you can see the AMD chips
almost catch fire

Celeries and the like just warm up a little then freeze up no cooking.
overall intel is much better from a thermal stand point. AMD (last i
checked) dont have thermal diodes on the CPU them selves and rely on the
motherboad manufacturees to put a diode on the MBO under the CPU then use
the bios to shutdown in the event of thermal overload.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell McMahon" <apptech@PARADISE.NET.NZ>
To: <PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 4:19 PM
Subject: [EE]: Erroneous PC cpu operating temperature claims


> In private correspondence, re claims about AMD versus Intel PC CPU
operating
> temperatures,  Rod wrote
>
> > Have trouble believing there is much difference between I and AMD ...
>
> It's garbage.
>
> (Someone had written)
> >> ... , but did you know that with the fan/heatsink off an AMD
> >> Palomino runs at 5680F and an AMD Athlon 1400 it run at 6980F! If the
fan
> >> fails that leaves only the heatsink to dissipate all that heat.
>
> >> In comparison, the Intel Pentium 4 2Ghz runs at 840F and the Intel
> Pentium
> >> III 1Ghz runs at 1000F with the fan/heatsink off.
>
> ALL modern processors draw extremely high currents at low voltage.
> Haven't looked up requirements but probably 20A plus plus at 1.5 to 3
volts.
>
> Even 20 watts (below any of above) on an unheatsunk chip will fry it vvv
> quickly.
>
> It may be that Intel's cpu's have a little more thermal mass than AMDs
which
> may allow them to survive for a few more seconds totally unheatsunk. (But
an
> eg  Celeron 1700 looks pretty minimal in any sort of mass to me).
>
> Just possibly Intel's heatsinks are superior and without a fan they run
> cooler.
> But even then the temperatures they claim are bunk.
> 84 F = 27C
> The heatsink on the Celeron 1700 I installed a few days ago runs
annoyingly
> hot with VERY large Intel heatsink and fan. I'd say around 50C !
>
> Anyone here have any REAL figures?
>
>
>
>         Russell McMahon
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
> mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu