F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop When did intel have overheating CPUs? Compared to AMD?

When did intel have overheating CPUs? Compared to AMD?

When did intel have overheating CPUs? Compared to AMD?

K
karlerik_1999
Member
205
04-22-2016, 08:59 PM
#1
I'm part of a debate with my AMD enthusiast cousin. He sticks to Intel chips that often had overheating issues when pushed to higher speeds. I'm younger, but think Intel faced similar thermal challenges with AMD sometime in the last ten years—especially during overclocking sessions. I wonder if those problems were addressed in the 9th, 10th, or 11th generations. Possibly even earlier. I'm trying to pinpoint the time when Intel struggled more with heat compared to AMD. Overclocking was a big factor. Looking forward!
K
karlerik_1999
04-22-2016, 08:59 PM #1

I'm part of a debate with my AMD enthusiast cousin. He sticks to Intel chips that often had overheating issues when pushed to higher speeds. I'm younger, but think Intel faced similar thermal challenges with AMD sometime in the last ten years—especially during overclocking sessions. I wonder if those problems were addressed in the 9th, 10th, or 11th generations. Possibly even earlier. I'm trying to pinpoint the time when Intel struggled more with heat compared to AMD. Overclocking was a big factor. Looking forward!

K
kaaskotskikker
Posting Freak
795
04-24-2016, 09:37 PM
#2
Since the 9th generation, Intel has faced some thermal issues with their i9 processors, especially when pushed to higher speeds. Before Ryzen, Intel still held an edge, while AMD performed better even at 5.1GHz. Back then, Intel's Pentium D and AMD chips were considered more efficient, as the Pentium D was essentially two P4 chips combined, leading to significant heat and inefficiency.
K
kaaskotskikker
04-24-2016, 09:37 PM #2

Since the 9th generation, Intel has faced some thermal issues with their i9 processors, especially when pushed to higher speeds. Before Ryzen, Intel still held an edge, while AMD performed better even at 5.1GHz. Back then, Intel's Pentium D and AMD chips were considered more efficient, as the Pentium D was essentially two P4 chips combined, leading to significant heat and inefficiency.

S
Sparkgirl15
Junior Member
9
04-26-2016, 05:54 AM
#3
Keep things level headed. If you 2 keep digging trenches, its just going to go on and on and on. There are more to PCs than just "whats better", there's always an argument for something to exists.
S
Sparkgirl15
04-26-2016, 05:54 AM #3

Keep things level headed. If you 2 keep digging trenches, its just going to go on and on and on. There are more to PCs than just "whats better", there's always an argument for something to exists.

Z
Zalkin_V
Member
110
04-28-2016, 07:14 PM
#4
before zen 3 intel was actually more energy efficient, a chip with a 95w limit is still quicker than zen 2, but with zen 3 it's not even close. The focus now for amd is the expected release of zen 4, which is likely to be about a year behind intel's 12th gen. It's also rumored to be around 10% faster than zen 3, and when chips run at maximum performance, power consumption becomes less critical. I hope amd comes up with something strong.
Z
Zalkin_V
04-28-2016, 07:14 PM #4

before zen 3 intel was actually more energy efficient, a chip with a 95w limit is still quicker than zen 2, but with zen 3 it's not even close. The focus now for amd is the expected release of zen 4, which is likely to be about a year behind intel's 12th gen. It's also rumored to be around 10% faster than zen 3, and when chips run at maximum performance, power consumption becomes less critical. I hope amd comes up with something strong.

M
marcusanund
Member
62
05-09-2016, 12:53 PM
#5
Well, my 980 and 980X definitely stand out in the ambient scene. That level goes way back. A 6400+ was also hot, but its thermal ceiling was around 70°C—probably off the mark, though. The Phenom II 980BE was a solid AMD quad-core processor. Then came the FX-9590, which was definitely a hot one... Intel 10900K and the 9590X are also quite warm. High-end chips tend to get hot, which is just the basic idea. It hasn't changed much over the years, I think.
M
marcusanund
05-09-2016, 12:53 PM #5

Well, my 980 and 980X definitely stand out in the ambient scene. That level goes way back. A 6400+ was also hot, but its thermal ceiling was around 70°C—probably off the mark, though. The Phenom II 980BE was a solid AMD quad-core processor. Then came the FX-9590, which was definitely a hot one... Intel 10900K and the 9590X are also quite warm. High-end chips tend to get hot, which is just the basic idea. It hasn't changed much over the years, I think.

T
Tanhu
Member
212
05-11-2016, 07:40 PM
#6
I used x58 for a long time, almost ten years. It generated a lot of heat that you could really feel. My 3770K is the most powerful and latest Intel I’ve ever had, but it doesn’t produce much heat. I’m talking from an overclocked perspective—I don’t use stock, and I don’t believe Zen3 is as powerful as people claim. Those who say Zen3 is hot should improve their cooling.
T
Tanhu
05-11-2016, 07:40 PM #6

I used x58 for a long time, almost ten years. It generated a lot of heat that you could really feel. My 3770K is the most powerful and latest Intel I’ve ever had, but it doesn’t produce much heat. I’m talking from an overclocked perspective—I don’t use stock, and I don’t believe Zen3 is as powerful as people claim. Those who say Zen3 is hot should improve their cooling.