for those with x6's

[Arinoth]

If that was 140w idle and 215w load then i could see 440W load as my calculations were for idle at both

[CMetaphor]

Hurray for fast & loose OCing - Probably not stable.

3.8Ghz @ 1.40v
Idle = 160w
Full CPU load = 290w

... I'm only 0.1v or so and 300-something Mhz shy of TPUs OC and still don't see how it'll draw another 150w MORE.

[Zero82z]

Originally Posted by CMetaphor

Hurray for fast & loose OCing - Probably not stable.

3.8Ghz @ 1.40v
Idle = 160w
Full CPU load = 290w

... I'm only 0.1v or so and 300-something Mhz shy of TPUs OC and still don't see how it'll draw another 150w MORE.

Arinoth already provided the equation that explains it. It was derived by people with much more expertise than you or I. As for your power measurements, there are a number of reasons why you shouldn't put too much faith in them. The power meter in your UPS isn't all that accurate, and you're also measuring total system power consumption which naturally won't increase by as large a factor as just the CPU power consumption.

[CMetaphor]

Then how do they measure cpu-only wattage? And why are my numbers, which are for my whole system, very close to their "cpu-only" numbers? Seriously?

[_dangtx_]

how do you get your numbers?



a few of me giga boards(easy tune or hwatever you call it) would tell ya

what i do is i do a rough calculation of the other components vs a slower(whatever slower cpu i have available)


tpu's are still insane i think/if it was an octo core ok, i guess under uber clocking but hexa core?

and anyone got figures for i7 mad oc wattage numbers?

[Zero82z]

Originally Posted by CMetaphor

Then how do they measure cpu-only wattage? And why are my numbers, which are for my whole system, very close to their "cpu-only" numbers? Seriously?

There are ways to measure the power going directly to the CPU. To be honest, I don't know how TPU gets their measurements. I'm just assuming that they're directly measuring CPU power consumption, but it could be that they are measuring the entire system. Either way, the increases they are seeing are still possible.

[10e]

The increases are possible especially at the point where the chip is seeing massive efficiency drops, and voltage is now converting to heat at a higher rate via leakage. TPU may have hit/passed that point with their particular sample.


I took a look at Guru3d's article, and while by no means definitive they are seeing that at 4.0 Ghz, the total system wattage is 273W at full load with a 5870 card:

Phenom II X6 1055T and 1090T review

What bothers me most, is that they are seeing a 1090T that is only hitting 44 celsius at 4.1Ghz. Very surprising with a crappy Vendetta cooler, compared to the Scythe Katana used by TPU, that was hitting in the 70s. It may be that TPU just gave it too much voltage. I have to read it again at another time.

So yeah it's possible, but without TPU providing numbers at a lower OC, it may be more an anomaly than real world.

[sswilson]

Originally Posted by 10e

The increases are possible especially at the point where the chip is seeing massive efficiency drops, and voltage is now converting to heat at a higher rate via leakage. TPU may have hit/passed that point with their particular sample.


I took a look at Guru3d's article, and while by no means definitive they are seeing that at 4.0 Ghz, the total system wattage is 273W at full load with a 5870 card:

Phenom II X6 1055T and 1090T review

What bothers me most, is that they are seeing a 1090T that is only hitting 44 celsius at 4.1Ghz. Very surprising with a crappy Vendetta cooler, compared to the Scythe Katana used by TPU, that was hitting in the 70s. It may be that TPU just gave it too much voltage. I have to read it again at another time.

So yeah it's possible, but without TPU providing numbers at a lower OC, it may be more an anomaly than real world.

I can speak to this as I've run into it myself. The only monitoring software that appears to be giving reasonably believable temps on the Crosshair IV is the actual ASUS branded software. All other software (including the AMD overdrive software) appears to be reporting around 12c low.

[Zero82z]

Originally Posted by 10e

What bothers me most, is that they are seeing a 1090T that is only hitting 44 celsius at 4.1Ghz. Very surprising with a crappy Vendetta cooler, compared to the Scythe Katana used by TPU, that was hitting in the 70s. It may be that TPU just gave it too much voltage. I have to read it again at another time.

There are issues with the documentation regarding temperature readings with AMD CPUs that can often lead to values that are off by a considerable margin. That could be the cause of the problems here.

[10e]

Originally Posted by sswilson

I can speak to this as I've run into it myself. The only monitoring software that appears to be giving reasonably believable temps on the Crosshair IV is the actual ASUS branded software. All other software (including the AMD overdrive software) appears to be reporting around 12c low.

Originally Posted by Zero82z

There are issues with the documentation regarding temperature readings with AMD CPUs that can often lead to values that are off by a considerable margin. That could be the cause of the problems here.

Thanks guys, nice to know that. I guess I'll decide on one of these 1055T/1090T CPUs in the next few days and figure it out, based on the power consumption. I'm near the limit on that breaker as it is with my barely OC'd 955BE.

Not too worried about heat, as I have a better cooler than the ones listed in these articles, but I don't think my MSI 790FX-GD70 will give me as accurate a representation as the Crosshair IV.