Do Quad-Core CPU's produce more heat than Dual-Core CPU's?

Track

Distinguished
Jul 4, 2006
1,520
0
19,790
As in, would it be more difficult to overclock a Q6600 to 3.5Ghz than it would be an E6600? And if, how much more difficult?

Thnx!
 

Eviltwin17

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2006
520
0
18,990
as far as overclocking goes i dont think the difference between overclocking a quad core vs a dual core will matter since having the quad core will benefit you more in the near future than a dual core will
 

pshrk

Distinguished
Oct 15, 2006
518
0
18,990
Better check your math... 60C * 150% = 90C not 120C

Also your reasoning is flawed... I don't know if the 50% figure is correct, however producing 50% more heat does not mean that a chip will run 50% hotter. You are not taking several things into account including the ambient air temperature and the heat dissipation properties of the heatsink.
 

Bobsama

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2007
278
0
18,780
Do Quad-Core CPU's produce more heat than Dual-Core CPU's?

They certainly do
maybe around 50% more


50% wauuuuw well then a 60c c2d on load would be a 120c quad on load :roll: thats hotSometimes its not the speed; its the multitasking. I'll be looking at a quad-core when they drop far down... Quad-core will be adopted for gaming, probably as the rest of the industry moves completely to dual-core. You can still game pretty well on a 3-year-old processor; its more about the gaming need a better video card that slows it down.
 

bullaRh

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2006
592
0
18,980
oh yea wrong of me :p i made it %100


i think the stock heatsink is the same as the c2d so it would be the same but i dont think a quad would make %50 more heat than a c2d even tho its twice the cores
 

bullaRh

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2006
592
0
18,980
well same for me when the price is right but quad is the future and with the shrink less watt heat and higher mhz :b its about %40 faster than a c2d in multitasking

thats right but i dont wanna play games on a old processor with a highend graphic card and loose frames because of it =p
 

kye3k1

Distinguished
May 16, 2006
101
0
18,680
Better check your math... 60C * 150% = 90C not 120C

Also your reasoning is flawed... I don't know if the 50% figure is correct, however producing 50% more heat does not mean that a chip will run 50% hotter. You are not taking several things into account including the ambient air temperature and the heat dissipation properties of the heatsink.

I got a load temp of around 50C with my old E6700 now I get 79C with my quad core

and oh yer in core temp it says the thermal barrier for quad is 100C and the 6700 was 70 (I think)
 

darkstar782

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2005
1,375
0
19,280
They produce 100% more heat.

They have 100% more die area, and a 100% higher TDP :p

Core 2 Duo e6700 2.66GHz*2 : 65W TDP

Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66GHz*4 : 130W TDP.

This does not mean that the CPU will go from 50°C to 100°C, apart from anything else you are doubling the number from an arbitrary zero point, wouldn't it make more sense to start from 0°K ? :p

However, 100% increased heat output does not equal 100% increased temps. It is harder to cool a quad core CPU, but with a decent air cooling solution Core 2 Duo is limited more by the maximum voltage you want to put through it than temps in my experience. With water, the higher TDP would not be an issue.