Question Are PC's cooler nowadays?

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
Define cool? Everyone has their own opinion as to what's cool or not. My personal tastes run towards a clean, minimalist look so while I'm not opposed to the giant twin towers, I prefer the looks of aios. And that goes for decent ambient lighting too, not the masses of rgb/argb fans many like.

So are modern designs 'cooler'? I guess in a way they can be, but mostly it's in the eye of the beholder.
 
Reactions: pricelessppp

rubix_1011

Contributing Writer
Moderator
Is the term 'cooler' used as an expression of aesthetics or in terms of thermal output?

1) Designs have become more modern with lighting effects and themed designs to match hardware

2) PCs run cooler (in terms of thermal output) in recent years due to efficiencies and lowering power consumption. Using less power = less heat produced
 
This is the cooling section people. The question is relating to temperatures, not aesthetics.

The question should be answered fairly in terms of wattage, not necessarily temperatures. And no, while you get WAYYY more performance per watt nowadays, wattage hasn't really gone down. In fact it's gone up.
 
Reactions: pricelessppp

rubix_1011

Contributing Writer
Moderator
Tell that to the more recent Nvidia GPUs. Check TDPs of flagship graphics cards now and 5-8 years ago.

Also, how many 75-90w CPUs classified as enthusiast desktop processors were there 10 years ago? None. Those were all 130-150w parts.
 
GTX480 (2010) = 250W TDP
RTX2080Ti = 250W TDP (300W average card power draw)
Hard to compare the cards exactly since hardly anyone back in 2010 was testing the power draw of just the GPU.
Also the term TDP has no accepted standard.

What would you classify as an "enthusiast desktop processor" today?
Threadripper 2950X? (180W "TDP")
i9-9820X? (165W "TDP")
 

rubix_1011

Contributing Writer
Moderator
For those CPUs, You are speaking of High End Desktop, basically workstation replacements (i9 and Threadripper) They are typically categorized as such. This was traditionally bridged by Xeon workstation and lower-end server processors in the past.

I am speaking of the i7/i5 and Ryzen 5/7 models that are normally lower than 100w parts.
 
Fair enough. But, were the AMD FX9590 (220W TDP) or the FX8350 (125W TDP) "workstation replacement" tier CPUs?

Ryzen 2700X (105W TDP) draws ~115W under full load at stock clocks.
The i7-9700K (95W TDP) draws ~125W under full load at stock clocks.
The i9-9900K (95W TDP) draws ~165W under full load at stock clocks.
 
Last edited:

DMAN999

Respectable
Herald
I have an i7-870 (95W) based rig I used as an HTPC that definitely runs hotter than my Ryzen 7 3700x (65W) rig.
The i7-870 idled in the mid to high 30's and my 3700x idles at 29-32c (ambient temp 21-22c).
Under load, the i7-870 maxed out around 80-85c and the 3700x never seems to exceed 62c even while running a current game while streaming to two 1080P TV's or when encoding videos (unless I'm running a stress test).

And obviously my 3700x is miles ahead of the i7-870 as far as performance goes.
 
See, that's the problem with talking about TEMPS. That's completely dependent on the CPU cooler, case airflow, is the GPU dumping it's heat into the case (I can't imagine both systems use the same GPU).
I don't even want to get into AMD temp sensor inaccuracies.

Watts is a measurement of power. Power which needs to be dissipated as heat. Watts vs Watts (not even TDP) is the only apples-to-apples comparison.
 
Reactions: DMAN999

DMAN999

Respectable
Herald
I agree this is definitely Not an apples to apples comparison.
But it is a comparison of a 2010 vs 2019 build.
They were both in the same case (I transferred my old I-7 to a different case) so case airflow is nearly identical.
Both have an aftermarket cooler, the i7 has a CM Hyper N520 92mm dual fan cooler and the 3700x has an Arctic 33 eSports Edition 120mm dual fan cooler.

GPU:
i7-870 rig: Gigabyte HD6850 OC (dual fan)
3700x rig: MSI GTX 1660 Ti Armor OC (dual fan)
Both idle around 32 to 34c and max out around 60 to 62c.

So I'd say it is a pretty valid comparison for the OPs purposes.
 
Last edited:

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
Had one of them too, lol. In a Dell, so only the heatsink fan and a shroud to exhaust, no exhaust fan. But it was a far larger heatsink than what I had on the PIII and ran somewhat cooler overall, even if heat output was greater.
 

RodroX

Upstanding
Aug 4, 2019
335
95
290
10
Im not sure if PCs run cooler per se, but what Im sure is that the "cooling industry" has avanced a lot in the last 10 years.

You have access to pretty quiet fans even at high speed and way better at moving air at high preasure, AIO liquid cooling is a common thing now, and theres more.
Heatpipes are a common thing even in really cheap coolers like the snowman (~17 bucks, shipped included, on aliexpress for a cooler that have the same performance, if not a bit better than an Hyper 212 EVO).

And yes, smaller fabrication nodes allows to get better eficiency and more performance, you don't always need more speed (and voltage and heat) to get better results. And this not only apply to PC CPUs, this benefit console, smartphones cpus too.

Then again all the hardware in the world is not enough if the software can't keep the track.

Not soo long ago the only way to get good performance while performing a heavy demanding task was more voltage, more heat and higher frecuency. Today, with software slowly turning into the use of threads, frecuency is becoming the second part on a two man show.

Anyways, thats my 2 cents.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Sep 4, 2019
16
0
10
0
Is the term 'cooler' used as an expression of aesthetics or in terms of thermal output?

1) Designs have become more modern with lighting effects and themed designs to match hardware

2) PCs run cooler (in terms of thermal output) in recent years due to efficiencies and lowering power consumption. Using less power = less heat produced
Thermal output.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS