I know that this is all getting to be off topic here, but the comments in this thread has brought up a great point that I have wanted tested for a good long while now. I am interested in knowing exactly how much heat cpus give off while operating (idle and under stress). I want actual numbers as to how much overall heat is getting dissipated into the environment. It seems that people don't usually care too much about that and that, along with the fact that it isn't too easy of a thing to measure, means that no one really bothers to test it, but I certainly am interested in the numbers. Gpus too. People say things like "the 290x is a heater". That is great from an anecdotal standpoint, but how about some real numbers. We can look at power draw for each part, but it is really just a guess from there as to how much actual heat is put out. I wish that that were added to reviews. Maybe we can petition Logan or Linus or someone to bother with it at some point.
You make a CPU out to be some kind of device that can generate more heat than the amount of energy that is being put into it.
All CPUs that use 30 watts generate 30 watts of heat, power consumption isn't the same as TDP, no as TDP is a ball park number for a worst case scenario, idling most cpus use around 5-10 watts, or even less, but they still generate heat that is exactly the same watt for watt that gets put into them.
And no, 5960X wont consume more than 140watts full load, the whole system might, but not the CPU. I'd be surprised if it pulled anything close to that.
My 120 watt TDP cpu when ran under 100% load doesn't really use more than 90 watts, even when overclocked 30%.
There are temperature sensors throughout your computer. The data from them is pretty easy to access in linux. In windows there's probably some program that tracks temperatures. It may show up in your BIOS too depending on your motherboard.
The thing is, a CPU is a silicon device. The functionality that we use for computing, is based upon a complex combination of basically passive electronic devices. Those devices basically do nothing else but to convert electrical energy into thermal energy and a very small part of other emissions, like electromagnetic emissions. In the operating range in the application, they don't emit other things other passive components emit, but when pushed outside of the operating range in that application, they could, just like a resistor in an LED array doesn't emit light, but a resistor in a light bulb does, or like a diode in an LED emits light but a diode in a clipping circuit of a preamplifier doesn't (although an LED can perfectly be used as a functional substitute for the non-light-emitting-diode in that circuit).
Only a small part of the electrical energy added into the CPU, comes out in the form of electrical energy, that's the data and control pulses part of the CPU, but most of the electrical energy is converted into heat, because that's how the passive components that make up the active component that is the CPU work. The function that we use of a transistor, is that it converts energy. Without the physics of it, the part would not make sense. It is essential that this physical property exists, because it constitutes the very functional essence of a transistor. Compare it to the predecessor of transistors, the transistor valve. The very function we use is the fact that energy radiates from the emitter inside the bulb. The heat is not loss of energy, it's the manifestation of the physical property that we want from the part. If the filament wouldn't heat up and start emitting, the part would be useless. Silicon is a semi-conductor. It is not a superconductor. That means that it's basically a part with resistance, a part that impedes the flow of electrons. That means that it is a part that converts electrical energy in heat. If silicon wouldn't do that, we would not use it, we would not be able to use it as transistors. So the functionality of the silicon and the heat production, go hand in hand. It is not "loss", it is not "lack of efficiency", it is core functionality. Therefore, there is a direct congruence between the heat a silicon part produces, and the energy it uses, within the normal operational envelope. So TDP and electrical power consumption are not really different things for CPU's.
So the TDP is the total heat energy for which the CPU is designed, it denotes the operating envelope of the CPU. In order to achieve the TDP, techniques will be incorporate into the design to make sure the combined effort of the components that make up the CPU, will not rise above the envelope of the thermal design. The more silicon and passive components (i.e. transistors and some capacitors and resistors) is added, the more the operating conditions will need monitoring and modifying, for instance by reducing the duty cycle, or by increasing the thermal dissipation. The smaller the litho, the higher the thermal density, the more discrete components on die, the higher the thermal density, etc...
So the TDP and the total amount of energy used, are not the same if we take the TDP limiting measures into account, but in designs of about the same generation and heat transfer properties, they are very comparable, and because almost the only functional core feature of the core components that make up a CPU are to convert electrical energy into heat, the total energy consumption and TDP are also about the same within the operational envelope. One of the properties of silicon is that it's really thin, so the heat transfer is actually quite good and efficient. Therefore, if the heat spreader and external heat dissipation of the package are in conformity with the design specifications, there will almost be no difference between the thermal design power and the electrical power consumption of a CPU. If a chip is pushed outside of the normal operating spec, that may change, but that is a non-issue, because the chip is not functional outside of that spec, unless you want to use it as a light bulb filament of course lolz.
+1
The TDP is the maximum power consumption. It's remarkably the same. At full duty cycle, it's fair to say that the total electrical power consumption of a CPU is equal to the TDP of that CPU. It makes no sense at all to say that the TDP is lower than the electrical power consumption by any significant margin.
[35W]
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116776
[80W]
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116907
@tidder23 O ANSWER THE POST... Go with a xeon e3... they are validated for 24/7 use... and its this validation that you need on a 24/7 server...
Now
CLEARLY THERE IS A MISUNDERSTANDING OF TDP vs Total Electrical USE (WATTAGE)
As Mistery Pointed out.. If you want to calculate how much power a CPU uses.. you need to follow some electrical lows.. Voltage * Amperage = wattage... That would be the power draw.. The Thermal Design Power is seperate.. It is more along the watt measure of heat. So to talk about everything said here. Your CPU in a server will run on avg at 80 percent load a lot of the time so the Max TDP is important. You also want a CPU that is validated for server use because Xeons can run in passive cooling mode if the fan fails.. which can happen.
To better disprove everyone here. Mistery is correct with this statement
The 5960X uses roughly 190-200 watts of Electricity at nominal load... (Stock)... which is not the 140watts you all claim its using. A CPU TDP is the amount of HEAT a CPU Cooling DEVICE is REQUIRED TO DISSIPATE. Not the total power in electricity that it uses. Neither is it the maximum heat the CPU uses. There is something called Peak Heat output or Peak power... In which case the CPU would experience possible thermal run away due to it exceeding the TDP. There are often many protektions against this I.E thermal Throttling. @thelonewanderer are you high? The 5960X uses far more electricity than its TDP.. You obviously do not understand silicon devices. I am an ECE.. if you want some sources that you can see where you are wrong at Id gladly get them for you.
@Zoltan Thanks for a in depth talk about it...
But your still wrong here. So I am sorry to correct you
Simply put there is a reason thermal thottling occurs.. too much Heat... The only way this occurs is vastly exceeding the amount of power used by the CPU at full duty... Even if a said cooler is capable of dissipating 140W of heat.. the CPU may exceed this because of higher electrical usage. You also need to consider one more thing
Look all electrical circuits and all devices have there inefficiencies. The heat is a byproduct of this inefficiency. The only way to put out 140W of heat is to consume more than 140W of electricity... otherwise you are saying the silicon device is 100 percent inefficient which could never be the case.. Take a circuits class and they will prove this to you 6 ways from sunday.
I do not know the inefficiencies and thermal charaterstic in depth for the 5960X but I can tell you. From my direct measurement it uses a whole lot mroe electricity than 140 watts while still remaining inside its thermal design power requirements.
If anyone would like to argue. Please state your sources... I will gladly debate back. Clearly a lot of people have a misconception of exactly what TDP is in silicon devices vs total electrical use
As shown here.. Watts vs Time....
*note you can also see the interuppts polling... this repeats every couple seconds...
If the TDP was as high as the electrical power used.. youd have some serious issues guys.. just saying (not to mention violating some physics laws of heat engines and silicon ineffciencies)
Realize that the CPU Does not violate any laws of Physics.. and @MisteryAngel is not saying it takes in more energy then it exerts... which all of you think she said
Total energy in = Total electrical energy out + Waste Heat.... Period.. Thats how it is... Conservation of Energy is still proved correct :P
"Total energy in = Total electrical energy out + Waste Heat...."
Yeah, but where is the energy out going?
The energy going out portion of a cpu is so small you might as well ignore it, as its just the interface in which it talks with other components.
Power in is always going to be slightly higher than the amount of heat that's needed to be dissipated by the heatsink yeah, as some is used by the interface, some is given of as EMI and some is dissipated through the socket and motherboard idly.
I don't want temperature sensors. I know how to read degrees. What I want to know is the actual amount of heat output by the chip which is then dumped into the environment. Heat transfer is measured in watts. Temperature sensors tell me degrees. Not terribly useful in answering my question.
I think that you are misunderstanding MisteryAngel here. She is saying that the 5960x uses more electricity than its TDP, which is what you are saying as well, from what I can tell.
Agree, but how much electrical energy does a CPU put out in relation to the energy it takes in? The main energy output of a silicon device is thermal energy. At sustained full duty cycle, the TDP is high for the specs, like Xeon processors, unlike non-Xeon parts that reduce the duty cycle enormously to meet the TDP. So throughout the operational envelope, it's pretty safe to say that as far as the i7-5960X is concerned, the energy usage and TDP will be pretty much equal don't you think? The TDP will not be significantly lower on any modern CPU, because the electrical energy and emissions that are not thermal energy combined, will be very low in comparison to the total electrical energy input. So silicon is a semi-conductor and not very efficient... there is no better alternative that is marketable in the same way at this point in time sadly.
I do agree that a modern CPU can greatly draw more electrical energy than the TDP it is rated at, but only in bursts, and the duty cycle would have to be reduced radically to compensate. A Xeon part is made to run at full duty cycle for sustained periods of time, basically for 100% of the time, which is why it has a reduced duty cycle but basically the same litho as an extreme edition part. Both will however hit the same average TDP target and will consume the same average electrical energy, and those values will again be almost equal. The Xeon will only permit very short bursts, but will hardly throttle, the extreme edition will maximize the burst-and-throttle action. The application is different. An extreme edition or consumer/gaming SKU is not a good choice for a 24/7 server just because of that. The TDP sets the operational envelope, a Xeon part will fill that with very small standard deviation, an extreme edition (basically the same as a Xeon part but with a different operational program aimed at burst performance instead of constant performance) or lesser quality litho part (i.e. a consumer/gamer version part, basically the same as a corresponding Xeon part but with lesser quality so reduced strain tolerance) will fill that TDP with a very large standard deviation. Over time though, even if they show a difference in peak power consumption, they will not show a significant root mean square power consumption over time, and the wattage of electrical power consumption will be almost exactly the same as the TDP. When the energy consumption is measured, the question is what exactly is being measured. Where are the measuring points on a CPU? That is part of the problem. Another part of the problem, is that all CPU's do not consume electrical energy in the same way, in that some have more functionality than others, and some have power regulators on the die, whereas others have it on the back of the package. So the specification of power consumption is not really useful anyway. It's therefore better to go with the TDP as guideline, as that determines the thermal envelope, and the maximum power envelope at the same time, since the silicon turns electrical power into heat, and it can't produce more heat than the power added, unless it would go exothermal or something.
Again TDP is just heat output.
If the provided video is not good enough, then i give up lol.
okay, guys, the TOTAL energy output of the cpu is equal to the input. however, not all of that energy is included in the TDP, as not all of it becomes thermal energy. a significant portion is still electricity.
@thelonewanderer to complete a circuit.. the energy out goes VIA THE OTHER SIDE.. INPUT OUTPUT ON A CIRCUIT FOR CRY SAKE... anyways... @Zoltan True but What I am merely correcting the misconception. No she did not say it uses more electricity than the TDP totally... It uses more electricity than the tdp but it puts out 140W of that electricity in heate... for cry sake people... geesh. your talking to an Electrical Engineer here.. Who has experience :P
So let me state this
TOTAL ENERGY IN = Electrical Energy Out + Heat Energy out.. PERIOD.. theres no way around it.. Now whether or not the majority of that electricity is dumped into extra heat is a slightly different subject.
@Zoltan Whether or not the majority of that energy goes out in heat.. (which determines TDP) does not affect this fact below... I just wished to point that out...
TOTAL ENERGY IN = Electrical Energy Out + Heat Energy out
LET ME DO THIS A THIRD TIME
TOTAL ENERGY IN = Electrical Energy Out (your processed data) + Heat Energy out (heat: and the average or nominal loss... is your TDP)
Go do some research or hell take a silicon or digital labs class.. then come back and talk to me
exacly :p
I got your back ;)
I also hope it was educational to some folk :)
lol well i give up on it, i provided an explaining video.
Sometimes you just have to let things be :D
You realize that's a self defeating argument, right? If Electrical Energy In= Electrical Energy Out + Heat Energy Out, and the Electrical draw of the CPU is Electrical Energy In - Electrical Energy Out, then the Electrical Draw of the CPU is equal to the Heat Energy Output. Which is actually an accurate approximation, given that CPUs produce negligible amounts of other forms of energy.
That being said, TDP for Intel parts is rated as the required heat dissipation for a "standard" workload, iirc. Obviously a nonstandard workload can push the heat output and energy draw well above that rating.
I'd look at another C2750 board. They're inexpensive(comparably), support ECC ram, and they're designed to be extremely low power. They're basically ideal for your application, which I'm assuming is basically going to be a FreeNAS box running a plex app, because that's essentially what they were designed for. Even if you're skipping FreeNAS and just making a linux box with a bunch of hard drives to run plex, it's still remarkably powerful for a remarkably low power draw. Supermicro makes one with quad ethernet ports too, I believe, at around the same price or cheaper than ASRock.
An i7 or i5 t could work, but they'll still use more energy, they don't support ECC memory which makes good redundancy difficult, and quite frankly the performance from them is wasted in what is basically a NAS build. Using an ATX board instead of mini-ATX or micro-ITX is also kinda shooting yourself in the foot as far as energy use goes.
All that being said, even running 24/7, neither of those builds should make a very noticeable difference in your power bill, since most time will be spent idling.