Question Would keeping a CPU cool provide a tangible benefit to its expected lifetime?

[Exploding PSU]

Imagine if you will two identical CPUs. I don't have any specific CPUs in mind, but let's just call them CPU A and CPU B. They both were installed in systems with the same exact configuration (bar cooling). Both CPUs are used for rendering work, day in and day out, the CPU could spend days or even weeks running heavy loads flatout at 100%....

But here's the difference. CPU A were given adequate (probably too much) cooling. It was strapped to a massive heatsink, high-performance fans, tiny fans to cool the motherboard's VRM, and huge case fans. CPU A spent most of its life hovering at around 60 degrees C. Meanwhile, CPU B were given a more subpar cooling. The cooling was just enough to keep it from throttling or hitting TJ Max, but the CPU still ran much hotter at 90 degrees C with the same load.

Now here's the question. After, say, 5 years of heavy usage, would there be any tangible difference to the performance of those CPUs?? By performance I meant power usage or stability, not just outright "number-crunching" capabilities.

I never seen a CPU fail in my life, but I've heard that a CPU that has been worked hard at high temperature for prolonged period of time might require more power to achieve the same performance and stability, and thus runs hotter. If I were given both CPU A and CPU B 5 years down the line, would I be able to tell the difference between the two? I mean, do CPU really deteriorate with age??

I was asked this question by my friend, and I can't answer it... But it makes me curious. I mean, I've seen computers today still running i5-2500k or i7-2600k in "high-performance" applications. I wonder if those CPUs have lost its performance just like old cars...

 

[Lutfij]

Electronic devices can fail in a second or last nearly a lifetime if they've been treated the right way, electrically and thermally. Yes ofc if you kept thing cooler but didn't push too much power and the power delivery area wasn't overburdened with managing power to said component, they will last longer than one that's unmanaged, has unregulated power run through it and ofc, is kept in a harsh environment.

Bringing those two processors around, they should be retired while in 2022, the board or rams could fail, so it's not just the processor, it's their supporting components as well that needs consideration.

 

[Mr.Spock]

no, in the case of the CPU's you listed - it can be proven by running known benchmarks and some even also verify the accuracy of the calculations e.g. Prime95 for example...

 

[drea.drechsler]

...

Now here's the question. After, say, 5 years of heavy usage, would there be any tangible difference to the performance of those CPUs?? By performance I meant power usage or stability, not just outright "number-crunching" capabilities.

...

Quite simply, heat is the number one factor that degrades all semiconductor devices. This obviously presupposes it's in a properly designed circuit that doesn't over-stress it outside it's safe electrical operating parameters for things such as core voltage.

So with two identical devices, installed and operated identically, the one operated at significantly higher temperature than the other will be the one to fail earlier. The problem with proving this is finding two truly identical devices since we all know of this thing called the "silicon lottery" where one "identical" CPU clocks higher or under-volts lower due to internal silicon differences/flaws imparted during diffusion.

The other problem is how long it can take for this become apparent, especially if operated within mfr's recommended temperature maximums. Even if operated outside their maximums it may take a number of samples to overcome the effects of the "silicon lottery" and establish a statistically valid trend.

The last problem is how to assess when "failure" has happened. Excessive heat leads to degradation due to electron migration. At high temperatures atoms are more easily "pushed" out of position in the tiny conductors in the device. As more and more get pushed out the conductors effectively become resistive which lowers the voltage the circuits inside the device get which in turn makes it unstable.

You can increase voltage to return to stability. But it gets even hotter so then degrades even faster. So you repeat this until it pops the device with excess voltage. That's another failure mode entirely called dielectric breakdown but a failure nonetheless, ultimately brought on by the degradation due to excessive operating temperatures.

So the question is where did it fail...at the final overvoltage that popped it? Or is it when it first lost stability, where most people give up anyway? It may be not many do this but keep in mind you also have the option of lowering clocks to return the device to stability for a further long life. Albeit, at lower performance, but it's not "failed" precisely.

 

[palladin9479]

Ok this is a bit nuanced, it's not just "heat kills electronics", but rather "thermal cycles" kills electronics. Most materials experience expansion when heated up and contraction when cooled down, the more frequently they do this the higher the probability that there will be a material failure that creates a microscopic crack somewhere. Running a CPU at 80~90C for two years straight is better then a CPU going from 30C to 90C once every minute for two years. High temperatures are bad for electronics long term due to thermo resistance but heat cycling is worse.