Author Topic: CPU Breakdown Debate (Read 2831 times)

.:F3ar0n:. · « **on:** August 11, 2008, 02:44:41 AM »

So Jon (aka Nitro) and I were having a healthy debate tonight (one that lasted until 3:30 this morning) regarding CPU's. Basically the argument boiled down to this. Jon believes that if there was 2 CPU's and 1 was running at 30c and one was running at 40c that the cpu running at a higher temperature would eventually break down and deteriorate faster than the one running at 30c

My argument would be that the overall craftsmanship and quality of the cpu would be the reason why one would die before the other and that the temperature wouldn't have any effect on whether one would die any faster than the other.

Basically my thought processes on the situation is this...both CPU's alike are rated to be able to run 24/7 with stock heatsinks around 60c. So if you have an aftermarket heatsink running lower than the rated temperatures then whether the temps were different by 10c or 20c...as long as they are lower than what they're recommended then there would be no effects whatsoever to the chipset.

Jon's argument breaks down that the CPU at a higher temperature is running at a faster level. Basically the molecules of that higher temp CPU would be operating at a faster rate therefore it would be breaking down the cpu faster vs the one running slower. He made the comparison to a pot of boiling water. Water that boils at 220 and water that boils at 240, the one at 240 is going to evaporate at a faster pace than the one at 220

I came back with that comparison with one of my own. Basically if u have 2 ice cubes and one is at 20 and another at 30...both are going to last forever because they are both below the limits of the temperature needed before they would break down and melt.

Well it's late and I believe I've explained both sides of the argument fairly well. I am holding true to my stand on the situation unless I am proved otherwise. I agreed with him that if there was 2 processors and one was running at 70 and another 60 that the one at 70 would break down faster. But I only believe that because at that temperature, the cpu is well above the temperature limits therefore it starts to slowly break down. I'll be interested to hear the views and opinions on this healthy debate.

nitro237 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 11, 2008, 03:40:37 AM »

For each ten degrees C, chemical reactions double in their speed. This doubling is roughly accurate when referring to leakage currents. Leakage currents represent heat sources and further increase junction (CPU) temperatures. With a CPU you have the following three mechanisms of degradation:

1. Temperature Range: Delta T is a function of ambient and Steady State or equilibrium conditions. Too high a delta T and temperature goes up yielding increased leakage. Ic current flow that will increase junction temperatures and increase the total delta T per cycle. Minimizing the magnitude of Delta T is one of the most important design parameters. The degree by which the CPU etc. increase in temperature beyond ambient is a function of heat sink efficiency and rapidity of heat transfer. In an ideal world the heat sink's temperature equals the junction temperatures.

2. Thermal Cycles: Degradation due to thermal cycling (turning the computer on and off) is one reason there is some validity for 24/7 operation. You have to balance mechanical fatigue against how many Kwh per year are spent running 24/7. Once a critical temperature is reached, leakage currents become a progressively larger and self "feeding" problem.

3. Voltage: When over-volting a CPU, the internal heat generation is considerably greater since increases in voltage normally yield an increase in current flow: Elementary my dear Watson - Volts x Amps equals Watts.

decepticon · « **Reply #2 on:** August 11, 2008, 07:53:29 AM »

A CPU will break down faster at higher temps granted: the two CPU's are identical in manufacturing, and one is running at a higher frequency than the other (which would kind of have to happen since the CPU's would be identical). Now running at a higher frequency would ususally mean that it has a higher voltage running through it, which is a direct cause of dielectric breakdown or electron migration. Heat is a big contributing factor of this phenomenon and heat is generated by more electrons flowing through the processor.

Check out this for more info on electron migration.
http://www.siliconfareast.com/emig.htm

Sorry Fearon, but Nitro is 100% correct on this one.

decepticon · « **Reply #3 on:** August 11, 2008, 08:00:17 AM »

Quote from: F3ar0n on August 11, 2008, 02:44:41 AM

I came back with that comparison with one of my own. Basically if u have 2 ice cubes and one is at 20 and another at 30...both are going to last forever because they are both below the limits of the temperature needed before they would break down and melt.

Your comparison is flawed though. You're dealing with a liquid which has a high freezing temp compared to metal. The only comparison to that would be the opposite: drop a processor into a vat of molten metal @ let's say 5000 degrees F and drop an identical processor into a vat of molten metal @ 4500 degrees F, they both would become molten metal at the same time.

If both processors are running at the same speed but one has a better cooling solution than the other they both are still getting just as hot as one another at the core, just one's heat is being dispersed quicker than the other. The one that is getting 'hotter' will breakdown more quickly, but not by much. And you probably would not see the effects of the breakdown for many many years. And with a temp difference so little, the time difference between breakdowns would be trivial at best.

Dwg115 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 11, 2008, 08:29:11 AM »

I think that debate is retarded since both CPU's should last a long long time to a point where you would throw them away. also your point about the cpu running hotter has to be running faster is wrong. my old athlon64 4000 runs a hell of a lot hotter then my new intel and my intel is overclocked and running faster but cooler.

decepticon · « **Reply #5 on:** August 11, 2008, 08:36:51 AM »

Quote from: Dwg115 on August 11, 2008, 08:29:11 AM

I think that debate is retarded since both CPU's should last a long long time to a point where you would throw them away. also your point about the cpu running hotter has to be running faster is wrong. my old athlon64 4000 runs a hell of a lot hotter then my new intel and my intel is overclocked and running faster but cooler.

The comparison is that both cpu's are identical one just runs hotter. Of course the old athlon64 4000 is gonna run hotter than a new intel (which has a better manufacturing process as well). If that is the case, let's compare a 266mhz P1 to a 3.0ghz C2D quad core.

-Sp()()ge- · « **Reply #6 on:** August 11, 2008, 11:45:02 AM »

As long as your name is not Tibs, this question is not relevant. The processor should not cook and shorten any noticeable life.

Agent4054 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 11, 2008, 11:47:14 AM »

Quote

I dont really care, you're both idiots

Dwg115 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 11, 2008, 11:51:24 AM »

Quote from: decepticon on August 11, 2008, 08:36:51 AM

Quote from: Dwg115 on August 11, 2008, 08:29:11 AM
I think that debate is retarded since both CPU's should last a long long time to a point where you would throw them away. also your point about the cpu running hotter has to be running faster is wrong. my old athlon64 4000 runs a hell of a lot hotter then my new intel and my intel is overclocked and running faster but cooler.

The comparison is that both cpu's are identical one just runs hotter. Of course the old athlon64 4000 is gonna run hotter than a new intel (which has a better manufacturing process as well). If that is the case, let's compare a 266mhz P1 to a 3.0ghz C2D quad core.

what about 2 cpu's that are identical and run at different temps.. that happens to. Some cpu's will overclock better then others even if they're the same.

The Shoctor · « **Reply #9 on:** August 11, 2008, 12:38:55 PM »

The graph you posted is from here. http://www.overclockers.com/tips30/
But see, EVERYTHING breaks down over time. Somethings faster than others. Heat is going to make it faster. But the argument is pointless cause the CPU will out live it's useful life cycle before it breaks down. (If you keep it within normal operating temps.)

decepticon · « **Reply #10 on:** August 11, 2008, 12:51:52 PM »

Heat will make things break down faster......overclocked or not. more heat = more damage on a molecular level.

Bah, my head 'asplode.

sully! · « **Reply #11 on:** August 11, 2008, 01:28:24 PM »

The difference between a 30 and 40 degree processor will never bear any measurable results. It is statistically irrelevant. I have to throw my hat in with F3ar0n on this one along with The Doctor's addendum. I'm not saying heat is irrelevant, but given the parameters of the original assertion, heat (in this case) will not make a noticeable difference in the lifespan of the CPU.

llDayo · « **Reply #12 on:** August 11, 2008, 01:44:55 PM »

If two processors burn out in the woods and no one is around, will anyone care?

_!Rathe!_ · « **Reply #13 on:** August 11, 2008, 01:54:05 PM »

Quote from: llDayo on August 11, 2008, 01:44:55 PM

If two processors burn out in the woods and no one is around, will anyone care?

Depends on what game servers are running on those processors. If it were WoW servers you would have millions of teens crying all night cause they can't raid.

{ShadowWX} · « **Reply #14 on:** August 11, 2008, 02:42:50 PM »

Quote from: decepticon on August 11, 2008, 07:53:29 AM

A CPU will break down faster at higher temps granted: the two CPU's are identical in manufacturing, and one is running at a higher frequency than the other (which would kind of have to happen since the CPU's would be identical). Now running at a higher frequency would ususally mean that it has a higher voltage running through it, which is a direct cause of dielectric breakdown or electron migration. Heat is a big contributing factor of this phenomenon and heat is generated by more electrons flowing through the processor.

Check out this for more info on electron migration.
http://www.siliconfareast.com/emig.htm

Sorry Fearon, but Nitro is 100% correct on this one.

Quote from: Agent4054 on August 11, 2008, 11:47:14 AM

Quote
I don't really care, you're both idiots

I have to agree with both agent and decepticon on this one guys as in A. your both idiots for arguing over something as trivial as 10 degrees Celsius and B. the temperature difference isn't enough to shorten the life span of CPU number 2 by any significant amount.

Poll

Given the arguments below...do u believe that

Author Topic: CPU Breakdown Debate (Read 2831 times)

.:F3ar0n:.

CPU Breakdown Debate

nitro237

Re: CPU Breakdown Debate

decepticon

Re: CPU Breakdown Debate

decepticon

Re: CPU Breakdown Debate

Dwg115

Re: CPU Breakdown Debate

decepticon

Re: CPU Breakdown Debate

-Sp()()ge-

Re: CPU Breakdown Debate

Agent4054

Re: CPU Breakdown Debate

Dwg115

Re: CPU Breakdown Debate

The Shoctor

Re: CPU Breakdown Debate

decepticon

Re: CPU Breakdown Debate

sully!

Re: CPU Breakdown Debate

llDayo

Re: CPU Breakdown Debate

_!Rathe!_

Re: CPU Breakdown Debate

{ShadowWX}

Re: CPU Breakdown Debate