are you saying that that when MSI slapped 8350 compatibleAccording to MSI, only the 8350 throttles down at stock speed. You can apply full load in every single other AMD processor on that board and it won't throttle down.
With an overclock, yes, you may be correct and it will throttle down, but by overclocking you are exceeding the specification parameters, exactly what AMD did with the 8350.
The entire industry never defined TDP as the maximum power draw, as you can check in AMD, Intel, Sun and IBM technical documentation.
What he said is that he measured 194W more consumption
from iddle state to full load state FOR THE WHOLE SYSTEM but
he didnt measure what was consumed by the CPU and the rest
of the system SEPARATLY , period.
Those who want to discuss the matter should better study some
basic electronics before throwing all the way their lack of knowledge
on this matter.
That s true only for DC as well as for AC if there is zero degree
phase shift between voltage and current , wich is not exactly
the case for PC PSUs.
Did you bother to read the rest of the thread? Where several people analyzed this?
Or let us ask you. Where could the other 70watts go? The motherboard? Without going up in smoke?
You're just making yourself look silly now.
You should take your own advice.
Just joking around. It's only correct for circuits with zero heat loss, so that would be ugh, none, unless we are at 0 degree Kelvin (oh wait!, but then there are other problems :whiste
It a certainity that you need far more courses than me
in this matter....
One with a brain should ask himself if there s is not something
that was not accounted for.
If you had any clue you would have guessed from one of my
previous post that a PC psu can be a reactive load , wich it is
given that the main is first "filtered" by a pair of inductances
before being rectified by a diodes bridge and then filtered by electrochemical capacitors.
With such a load basic measurement instruments are not
capable of giving an accurate measure of the consumed
power since phase angle between current and voltage
is to be taken into account and this mandate something
else than a killawatt to do an accurate probing.
Here what TR used and wich is an adequate instrument.
http://tmi.yokogawa.com/products/di...er-analyzers/wt210wt230-digital-power-meters/
Indeed , had the CPU really consumed that much that it would
either explode or be at very high temp given the thermal
resistance of the stock HSF.
Don't waste your time with him, he's just a banker.
Besides all the insults you keep slinging, you haven't accounted for 70 watts at load that isn't there at idle.
If you really want people to listen to what you're saying, and not write you off as nothing other than a AMD fanboy, you should really drop the attitude.
I explained that the CPU vrms likely eat 20W at least and that as much
as 20% of the measured comsumption can be only apparent due to
cosine phi being below 1.....
Do the maths if you can.
I llk give you yet another clue :
Let s assume that the HSF thermal resistance is 0.3°C/Watt.
If the CPU was to consume 190W the temperature of the heatsink
would be 0.3 X 190 = 57°C above ambiant , wich would yield 77°C
temp for the HSF with 20°C ambiant temp. , but that s not all , there s a thermal resistance between the inner die and the heatsink that is in the vicinity of 0.3°C/Watt at least , so this would push the inner die 57°C above the HSF temp , wich would yield 134°C inner die temperature , yet IDC didnt measure such high temperatures , wich say that the CPU wasnt pulling the 190W otherwise it would had bursted once he runned Linx.
I explained that the CPU vrms likely eat 20W at least and that as much
as 20% of the measured comsumption can be only apparent due to
cosine phi being below 1.....
Do the maths if you can.
I llk give you yet another clue :
Let s assume that the HSF thermal resistance is 0.3°C/Watt.
If the CPU was to consume 190W the temperature of the heatsink
would be 0.3 X 190 = 57°C above ambiant , wich would yield 77°C
temp for the HSF with 20°C ambiant temp. , but that s not all , there s a thermal resistance between the inner die and the heatsink that is in the vicinity of 0.3°C/Watt at least , so this would push the inner die 57°C above the HSF temp , wich would yield 134°C inner die temperature , yet IDC didnt measure such high temperatures , wich say that the CPU wasnt pulling the 190W otherwise it would had bursted once he runned Linx.
In this case,difference between raw CPU power increase and system power increase(what IDC measured on his 8350) is around 20W (20%).There is no denying that under load the SNBe draws a ton of power. However, in absolute numbers, it is actually not as bad as we were afraid it might turn out. 107 Watt measured at the VRM is within the specifications. Arguably, there may be some part of the power that we did not capture with our measuring technique, however, we also looked at system power consumption as measured at the wall and the power increased to 205W peak values for raw CPU loads. That is, we found a 120W increase over the idle power we measured at 83 W. If we look at the numbers more in detail, we see a 100 W raw CPU power increase from idle to load vs. 120W system power increase. Given the fact that if nothing else, the memory alone can easily account for 10-15 W under load, the numbers are extremely consistent with each other.
They measured 115.2W on the VRM when chip was running at 3.9Ghz(1.34Vcore).Well, here we go. Eight integer cores can turn into a veritable furnace, and the caches and four FMACs will add their share to power consumption. Load voltage reached 1.34 as reported by CPUZ 1.58 (@ 3.9 GHz)
*It isn't the PSU because it didn't pull the extra load on an intel RIG
*It isn't the mobo because it is incapable of doing anything that could draw that much power other than feeding the CPU.
P.S It is very easy to make a 2011 chip pull 200W+ can you explain why they don't "bursted". You seem to know everything and understand nothing.
Yeap, i was going to say that if the CPU was using 190W the default Heat-Sink Fan will not be able to cope and the CPU temp would skyrocket.
Clearly the CPU doesn't use 190W but im sure it uses more than 125W running LinX.
Last but not least i explained how the thermal resistances adds
up and how such a high power would destroy the die given
that he used a stock HSF that is not adequate for such high
power dissipation.
People who insist that it s the case have no EE background ,
they just take their wish as a reality since it pour some oil
on their usual flamebaits once AMD is the matter of a debate.
If the CPU actually consumed that much the integrated probes
would had witnessed at least 130°C die temperature....
This is the proof in the pudding. The problem obviously exists. MSI didn't take on the financial burden of characterizing the issue and then creating the work-around for no good reason. But people don't want to hear it, and they won't stand for anyone else who might talk about it. Don't waste your breath.No I haven't. Have you seen the emails from MSI stating the 8350 is exceeding 125W?
IDC has his Doctorate and was a Process Engineer for Texas Instruments.
It's a pretty safe bet to assume he knows what he is doing. He certainly isn't pulling numbers out of thin air as you appear to be doing for your "maths".
You're just digging yourself a deeper hole.
The more power is handled the more the PSU will become a reactive load , things are not linearly translatable in this respect. When low power is extracted the PSU will appear as a quasi resistive and non reactive load...