Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
TDP of the PowerPC 970 (G5)?
- Thread starter Matt T
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
PowerPC 970, 1.8 GHz, 1.3 V, 42 W (TDP)
Google is your friend:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=tdp+of+powerpc+970+processor&btnG=Search
Google is your friend:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=tdp+of+powerpc+970+processor&btnG=Search
Matt T said:Sorry if this is in the wrong place; I'm a bit new here.
Does anyone know what the maxium and average TDP of the PowerPC 970 (G5) is?
"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.
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.generik said:
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.
Catfish_Man said:
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.
(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)
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)
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.
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.