r9 360, does not need extra power from psu... Could this mean efficiency

[Techhog]

Wait what?

How can 99% of that 20% be converted into heat?, that's the most inefficient PC I've ever heard of, that just doesn't sound right.

 

 

 

 

Wait a minute, how can you come up with "the 3570K uses around 40W more under load", when you're actually measuring the entire PC? and seeing the difference between idle and load values?

Add to that that you may know the power consumption of the mobo alone and figure out the real idle power consumption of the CPU, and add a few watts just to be sure, but not 40W.

I said "around," since it's primarily the CPU being loaded in this case. Either way, it would be in the ballpark of 30-40W since the other components in this configuration would barely use more power. The HDD or SSD would still  be idle, there's no dedicated GPU, the motherboard is negligible, and the RAM isn't going to add much either. So... yeah. 30-40W seems right. Definitely not less than 25W.

[GoldSrc]

A processor doesn't create any physical work, if it was 100 % efficient, it would consume no power at all. A cpu consuming any power at all is inefficient.

 

The way I understand it, the transistor leaks power while it's switching. That's why it consumes less power at idle, it isn't switching (for the most part), and why it uses more power when overclocked, it switches more often in the same time period, and it leaks more per clock when the voltage is higher.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that it will turn 99% of the energy into heat, the CPU would be hot all the time.

[GoldSrc]

I said "around," since it's primarily the CPU being loaded in this case. Either way, it would be in the ballpark of 30-40W since the other components in this configuration would barely use more power. The HDD or SSD would still  be idle, there's no dedicated GPU, the motherboard is negligible, and the RAM isn't going to add much either. So... yeah. 30-40W seems right. Definitely not less than 25W.

Well, let's say I agree with you, since this thread got a bit off topic and better leave it here.

[sgloux3470]

If your CPU consumes 147watts of electricity - It will emit 147 watts of heat.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

 

Wouldn't a small amount of watts be used for the fans?

[Megahurt]

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that it will turn 99% of the energy into heat, the CPU would be hot all the time.

It is hot all of the time, how hot depends on how much power it draws in. It draws 10 watts of electricity, it exhausts ~ 10 watts of heat, it draws 100 watts of electricity, it exhausts ~ 100 watts of heat. Electrical resistance converts current passing through it into heat at a rate of ~ 100%.

 

If you measured the CPU's temperature, would could probably guess the power it uses from the temperature above ambient, and the temperature above ambient from the power it uses.

 

Let's say ambient is 20 °C and your cpu at time "A" is running at 30°C (10°C above ambient) and at time "B" it is running at 40°C (20°C above ambient), then you could guess that in time B it using using twice the power of when it was in time A (assuming cooling stays the same).

[GoldSrc]

It is hot all of the time, how hot depends on how much power it draws in. It draws 10 watts of electricity, it exhausts ~ 10 watts of heat, it draws 100 watts of electricity, it exhausts ~ 100 watts of heat. Electrical resistance converts current passing through it into heat at a rate of ~ 100%.

 

If you measured the CPU's temperature, would could probably guess the power it uses from the temperature above ambient, and the temperature above ambient from the power it uses.

 

Let's say ambient is 20 °C and your cpu at time "A" is running at 30°C (10°C above ambient) and at time "B" it is running at 40°C (20°C above ambient), then you could guess that in time B it using using twice the power of when it was in time A (assuming cooling stays the same).

I think I know what you mean, but the work done while using that energy is not 1%, if you want to say that 99% is turned into heat.

Sure, it looks like that, but work is being done is not all just using energy to turn in into heat, if you remove the work, then yeah almost all is turned into heat.

[Megahurt]

I think I know what you mean, but the work done while using that energy is not 1%, if you want to say that 99% is turned into heat.

Sure, it looks like that, but work is being done is not all just using energy to turn in into heat, if you remove the work, then yeah almost all is turned into heat.

Look up how transistors work, there are no mobile parts, no mouvement, there is no physical work being done.

[GoldSrc]

Look up how transistors work, there are no mobile parts, no mouvement, there is no physical work being done.

I know transistors have no moving parts, but that doesn't mean they can't do work.

The thing is, they heat because they are doing something, an audio amplifier will get hot if you use it to amplify something, it wont heat as much just by keeping in on.

[Megahurt]

I know transistors have no moving parts, but that doesn't mean they can't do work.

The thing is, they heat because they are doing something, an audio amplifier will get hot if you use it to amplify something, it wont heat as much just by keeping in on.

An amplifier doesn't produce work, the speaker does, the energy used by the amplifier is wasted as heat. If you substract the energy that goes out to the speaker from the energy that goes in the amplifier, you get the energy that the amplifier "uses", and it's mostly heat.

[GoldSrc]

An amplifier doesn't produce work, the speaker does.

That's way wrong, the amplifier drives the speaker, that's the work the amplifier do.

The speaker alone does nothing, it needs something that drives it.

That would be like saying, an internal combustion engine doesn't produce work, the tires do.

[Cheddle]

An amplifier doesn't produce work, the speaker does, the energy used by the amplifier is wasted as heat. If you substract the energy that goes out to the speaker from the energy that goes in the amplifier, you get the energy that the amplifier "uses", and it's mostly heat.

 

+1

 

That's way wrong, the amplifier drives the speaker, that's the work the amplifier do.

The speaker alone does nothing, it needs something that drives it.

That would be like saying, an internal combustion engine doesn't produce work, the tires do.

 

that's just debating semantics... you know what hes talking about. the speaker is where the energy leaves the system, a system that otherwise only looses energy to heat (and lights etc...)

[GoldSrc]

that's just debating semantics... you know what hes talking about. the speaker is where the energy leaves the system, a system that otherwise only looses energy to heat (and lights etc...)

 

Amplifiers don't work with pixie dust you know that, the amplifier is doing the work to drive the speaker, no amplifier = the speaker does nothing.

[Cheddle]

Amplifiers don't work with pixie dust you know that, the amplifier is doing the work to drive the speaker, no amplifier = the speaker does nothing.

 

sigh

 

Ill propose this to you - You have an amplifier drawing electrical energy from the wall outlet. We call the energy from this wall socket to be contributing positively to "energy in the system".

 

Describe to me the exact places that the "energy in the system" exits the system, and as what type of energy. you have already mentioned thermal energy exiting the system as leaking from the transistors.

 

I challenge you to account for all the energy without pointing out that a large portion of this energy leaves the system via the speaker cone as kinetic energy.

 

overall you are arguing that transistors do the work, not the speaker... work is effort made towards an outcome so truthfully you could argue that both the heat loss and speaker movement are "work". In this thread we are debating how a transistor uses energy, totally off topic....

 

Given an integrated circuit has no moving parts and no chemical reactions the only way it can "use" energy is to turn electrical energy into thermal energy, with a slight and almost immeasurable amount of energy lost as it vibrates nearby magnetic surfaces, leaking energy as kinetic energy as it does so... "Coils" do this and that's why you hear coilwhine...

 

The only energy a transistor "consumes" is leaked as heat. is the simple point of view.

 

I have built an amplifier from raw components and designed my own circuits, I have only ever done this as a hobbyist though I do know more than the average hobbyist does about physics.

 

Im out - too off topic

[GoldSrc]

sigh

 

Ill propose this to you - You have an amplifier drawing electrical energy from the wall outlet. We call the energy from this wall socket to be contributing positively to "energy in the system".

 

Describe to me the exact places that the "energy in the system" exits the system, and as what type of energy. you have already mentioned thermal energy exiting the system as leaking from the transistors.

 

I challenge you to account for all the energy without pointing out that a large portion of this energy leaves the system via the speaker cone as kinetic energy.

 

overall you are arguing that transistors do the work, not the speaker... work is effort made towards an outcome so truthfully you could argue that both the heat loss and speaker movement are "work". In this thread we are debating how a transistor uses energy, totally off topic....

 

Given an integrated circuit has no moving parts and no chemical reactions the only way it can "use" energy is to turn electrical energy into thermal energy, with a slight and almost immeasurable amount of energy lost as it vibrates nearby magnetic surfaces, leaking energy as kinetic energy as it does so... "Coils" do this and that's why you hear coilwhine...

 

The only energy a transistor "consumes" is leaked as heat. is the simple point of view.

 

I have built an amplifier from raw components and designed my own circuits, I have only ever done this as a hobbyist though I do know more than the average hobbyist does about physics.

 

That is correct, but, not all the energy is turned into heat, it looks like it does, but most of it is used to do work, in this case, driving the speaker.

Now, how about we leave this here?, this has been off topic for too long, if this were on General Discussion then we could easily continue, I don't see a reason to do so here.

[Tim Drake]

To everyone trying to disagree with the TDP thing, please run a game with GPU Zs sensor tab open. This is what were talking about.

[Sintezza]

[Megahurt]

That's way wrong, the amplifier drives the speaker, that's the work the amplifier do.

The speaker alone does nothing, it needs something that drives it.

That would be like saying, an internal combustion engine doesn't produce work, the tires do.

The amplifier has a function, but that does not mean it produces work. In this case, it would be the same as a power supply in a PC, it is used to send power to other components, and there is a certain amount of energy that is being wasted as heat in the process.

 

I'm done, I feel like I'm just repeating myself, this is guetting nowhere, enough off topic.

 

As to OP, I'm hoping AMD did some improvements on their gpu and they are not simple rebrands, a version 2.0 of the same gpu. If the rumors are true, and fiji is about as fast as the Titan X at 300W, then it isn't too far from the 250W of the Titan and amd made great improvement in efficiency, hope some of those efficiency improvements thrickle down to the rebrands.

[marldorthegreat]

So they are just abandoning hte R7 nomenclature alltogether? Why do they keep using the R9 then?

r7 350, r7 340