TDP of the PowerPC 970 (G5)?

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by Matt T, Jul 26, 2006.

  1. macrumors regular

    Matt T

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    #1
    Sorry if this is in the wrong place; I'm a bit new here.:eek:

    Does anyone know what the maxium and average TDP of the PowerPC 970 (G5) is?
     
  2. macrumors 603

    GimmeSlack12

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco
  3. macrumors G5

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #3
    "Maximum" and "Average" TDP doesn't make any sense.

    TDP stands for "Thermal Design Power". If Intel says a chip has a TDP of 45 Watt (for example), then it means that Apple must design its computers so that they survive and don't die from too much heat, or by destroying the power supply, if the chip uses 45 Watts, 24 hours a day. There is only TDP, there is no average and maximum TDP.
     
  4. macrumors 601

    generik

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    Minitrue
    #4
    Isn't that lower than the Conroe?

    How come the G5 PowerMacs have these huge heatsinks over their CPUs then? I always thought it was because the G5s run so damned hot that they need watercooling.
     
  5. macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #5
    Yeah, that perplexes me as well. The 970 has a reasonable TDP when compared to say the Pentium D. (Even lower with the 970FX.) Yet, we see these massive contraptions to cool them in the Power Mac G5.
     
  6. macrumors 68030

    BlizzardBomb

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Location:
    England
    #6
    970FXs are more efficient that you would think. A 2GHz 970FX G5 consumes 39 watts maximum. My theory was that Apple didn't do a G5 PowerBook to make IBM look bad before they ditched them.

    970FX
     
  7. macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #7

    PowerBook G5s.....if only they would have been released..... *sigh* :D
     
  8. macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #8
    Two things to realize; 1) IBM's TDP numbers are measured differently from Intel's. Max power is usually about 2x TDP for IBMs. 2) the northbridge on the G5 ran pretty hot due to the crazy fast bus.
     
  9. macrumors G5

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #9
    I have never seen the term "TDP" used in any IBM documentation. But I found this IBM webpage

    http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/pa-powerenv/

    which shows the power consumption of a 970FX running at 2.5 GHz is 100 Watt. Power consumption can be reduced significantly by switching the chip to half speed or quarter of the speed and reducing the voltage simultaneously, but at full speed it is 100 Watt average.
     
  10. macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #10

    Well, that helps explain why the PowerPC G5 is one hot running chip. :)
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    #11
    It mainly was to keep the system quiet and in the Quads they finally got thing right... they are very quiet systems for the amount of processing power they contain.
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    #12
    (repost)

    The below lists power consumed by the part, they are not TDP numbers (only part of the power consumed by a chip leaves the chip as heat, heat is what you have to dissipate and is what TDP attempts define).

    PPC 970fx power optimized part (@ 2GHz)
    40W average, 45-50 W max, 23 W throttle back (half frequency)

    PPC 970fx standard part (@ 2GHz)
    48W average, 55-60 W max, 29 W throttle back (half frequency)

    To me this puts the PPC 970fx below the TDP of a Conroe... I would say the TDP for the PPC 970fx (@2Ghz) is around 40 W (if not lower).

    (see section 3.1.5 in this PDF for numbers)
     
  13. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    #13
    TDP is how much heat the cooling system much be able to remove from the system, it makes no statement about much energy the chip uses.
     
  14. macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #14
    Conroe draws more power than the 970FX, but doesn't generate much more heat, and costs so much less than Yonah I'm sure Apple could afford to give the iMac a bigger power supply and it would still be cheaper than using Merom.
     
  15. macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #15
    Hence the power supply issue in the iMac and not the thermal dissipation one. :D
     
  16. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Location:
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    #16
    Most people in this thread seem to be under the assumption that the 65W TDP of Conroe means that the chips have to give off that amount of thermal power. The TDP figure is given for a whole line of CPUs and is used by other manufacturers as a ceiling when they're designing their peripherals. Take the Core 2 Duo E6600 as an example. From the power consumption tests that have been made, it seems to consume less than 50W.

    Here's a nice comparison:

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-shootout_11.html

    Also note that those figures don't take efficiency of the CPU power circuits into account, so real CPU power consumption is even lower.
     
  17. macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #17
    Ah yes, more numbers. Thanks! I like the look of these.
     

Share This Page