News Ryzen Burnout? AMD Board Power Cheats May Shorten CPU Lifespan

[bit_user]

That's true all older processor haven't any cooler or just a radiator but take probably less power too due to slower clock. 486 DX2 = 6.3W maximum power listed on cpu-world that was my first computer/processor

I think every 486 I ever saw at least had a heatsink, and a few had heatsink fans.

I don't think my 386 even had a heatsink, though.

I do remember one Pentium (maybe 166, 200, or even 233 MMX) in a Compaq desktop that had a passive heatsink.

That's permit to have an X-Ray view when CPU heating it's just amazing

Are you sure it's not just the bare die he's looking at? That how it seems to me, but I did not listen to the audio.

 

[warnings007]

Are you sure it's not just the bare die he's looking at? That how it seems to me, but I did not listen to the audio.

Ryzen 3 look like that in a notebook : https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaUlawAX0AAJrWN?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
That's a microscope view : https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaOZfMoWAAAM-V8?format=jpg&name=medium
And a true X-ray view : https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaOZfMpWsAA2Xj7?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
Description of X-Ray view but no same processor give you an idea of what you view and can compare with thermal youtube movie : https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaO2AzEWsAErD4h?format=jpg&name=large

 

[NightHawkRMX]

A CPU burn if overheat but all CPU have internal security and just can't burn at all.
But you should ask if an Intel CPU eating almost 300W of power can may be destroy motherboard due to extreme temperature near CPU and VRM who should deliver that.

You have something against AMD actual domination ?


AMD made the FIRST processor who not need any cooler. Tomshardware may be made an article with this movie pretty amazing to view inside CPU like X-Ray with a thermal camera.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDHuurdr67A

Not true. I have ran my celeron laptop mfg in 2017 without a heatsync (die completely exposed) while watching youtube in windows 10. Not a good idea but it ran "fine" and never shut off.

Awhile back cpus usually didnt need heatsyncs.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I still think this issue is not amd specific like the article makes it seem. I still think intel is far worse about it.

Amd CPUs aren't actually drawing a massive amount of power even with this hack.

Even when power draw is read by amp probe (or a kilowatt with otherwise similar systems) which would reflect actual power draw, a cpu like a 3950x in a board with this hack enabled will draw less power than a 10900k with mobo removing limits.

A 10900k can draw nearly 300 or more watts in a board with limits removed.
A 3950x still draws far less power in a board with this hack.

Concider this, with a board that removes power limits, a 10900k can draw nearly double the power per thread than a 3950x with this hack*. I think this alone negates the "its a smaller nm" argument.

*dividing package power consumption by thread count. This does not account for soc but that power draw is marginal and shouldnt skew these numbers much

 

[joeblowsmynose]

I still think this issue is not amd specific like the article makes it seem. I still think intel is far worse about it.

Amd CPUs aren't actually drawing a massive amount of power even with this hack.

Even when power draw is read by amp probe (or a kilowatt with otherwise similar systems) which would reflect actual power draw, a cpu like a 3950x in a board with this hack enabled will draw less power than a 10900k with mobo removing limits.

A 10900k can draw nearly 300 or more watts in a board with limits removed.
A 3950x still draws far less power in a board with this hack.

Concider this, with a board that removes power limits, a 10900k can draw nearly double the power per thread than a 3950x with this hack*. I think this alone negates the "its a smaller nm" argument.

*dividing package power consumption by thread count. This does not account for soc but that power draw is marginal and shouldnt skew these numbers much

Well that should have been somewhat obvious from the get-go, for those who paid attention to the power numbers across a number of Zen2 reviews. (some people on check reviews from their favourite site -- I get that)

As I responded to Terry Laze back there, many reviewers test power consumption at the wall outlet. If there was anything significant to this "under reporting", it would show up as a major discrepancy here vs at the CPU socket numbers.

That said, there is a little bit of discrepancy in this with on the X570 boards -- but that's because the boards themselves are power hogs and add a little bit to the at the wall numbers.