Talk:Thermal design power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-Class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Requested move[edit]

Thermal Design Point → Thermal Design Power – It seems that Thermal Design Power is the most widely-used term (according to Google), even though some sources (for example Intel) are inconsistent in their usage. Also, the cut and paste move referred to by MER-C has in fact been reverted. --Paul1337 00:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~


This might require an administrator to delete the current Thermal Design Power redirect page before renaming Thermal Design Point on top of it. Guy Harris 07:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Earlier comments[edit]

I think that the article needs make clear that a low TDP is good. And that a high TDP is bad. And that a computer with high TDP uses more power, and generates more heat and needs better cooling. If that is true, I dont know much about TDP.

wrong name, should be Thermal Design Power[edit]

The name of the article should be Thermal Design Power! Rename it please. It's wrong. You've invented something. See german Wikipedia: de:Thermal Design Power. -- Erik Streb 02:43, 26. Jun 2006 (CEST)

TDP as the abbreviation for Thermal Design Power, and is used in all documents provided by Intel related to processor thermal specifications, i.e. [1] at page 12 . So this article should be moved. -- 18:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Intel itself seems to be confused over what the correct terminology is, while "Thermal Design Power" gets significantly more Google hits (175,000 vs. 9,950) than "Thermal Design Point", look at this page: [2]. I still agree that the article should be located at Thermal Design Power, though, with a redirect at this page. --Paul1337 23:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Thermal Design Power" gets more Google hits on Intel Web sites than does "Thermal Design Point" (about 17,000 vs. about 39; try both - quoted, to avoid false hits - with ""). Guy Harris 23:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right, that does seem pretty conclusive. --Paul1337 00:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
So, what are you waiting for? Why wasn't it yet renamed? Copy+Paste seems to be much faster. ;) 09:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Waiting for somebody to delete Thermal Design Power, so that we can rename Thermal Design Point to Thermal Design Power, which will preserve its history (as well as leaving behind a redirect at "Thermal Design Point"), rather than cutting and pasting the text from Thermal Design Point into Thermal Design Power and turning Thermal Design Point into a redirect to Thermal Design Power, which won't preserve its history.
I'll see what's involved in asking for a speedy delete of Thermal Design Power so we can do that. Guy Harris 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've requested a speedy delete of Thermal Design Power; hopefully, the move of Thermal Design Point to Thermal Design Power will be considered "non-controversial". (Nobody's voted against it, but not many people have voted for it, either; more votes for the rename might help assure it's considered non-controversial....) Guy Harris 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW, the Core 2 Duo page on the Intel Web site says "Thermal Design Power", if that helps convince anybody who might object to the rename.... Guy Harris 17:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

sub-optimal information:[edit]

"TDP can be defined in different ways by different manufacturers."

Shouldn't that be expanded on?

Additionally, TDPs are often specified for families of processors, with the low-end models using significantly less power than those at the high end of the family.[edit]

This is not always true, because CPU-power-consumption also depends on the quality of the chip (see Leakage#Electronics). So chips are tested, what the highest clock speed is, where the power consumption in the test is lower than the TDP. This is one factor when determining the clock speed, at which the CPU is set (other factors are if the chip works reliable at the desired clock frequency and market driven factors). Also, some newer CPUs use a VID and the Vcore voltage is set individually after testing to the lowest stable voltage at the desired clock speed. A higher Vcore increases power consumption (it is proportional to Vcore², because inceasing the Vcore also increases the current used), so CPUs that need higher v-cores maybe clocked down to stay under the TDP. --MrBurns (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"The dynamic power consumed by a switching circuit is approximately proportional to the square of the voltage"[edit]

No! Even in the source cited, its V^2 *C*f !!! See: and for more!--Test35965 (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

So what are you disagreeing with? V2 is the square of the voltage. -- intgr [talk] 09:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge with CPU power dissipation?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Since TDP is one (perhaps the most common) way to measure that, I'm not sure that two articles are justified. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What's your proposal for the merge direction? CPU power dissipation is a general term, while Thermal design power became a mainstream term thanks to the consumer CPUs market domination; is, for example, POWER8 using TDP ratings at all? To me, it would be more logical to keep these two articles separated, while CPU power dissipation article should be renamed to cover a broader range of integrated circuits used in computers (for example, the same applies to GPUs). — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment: This article should clarify that thermal design power is not, in fact, a way to measure anything. (The TDP is a nominal value; the CPU power dissipation is a measured value -- see real versus nominal value).
While I think both concepts are notable enough to meet Wikipedia requirements for independent articles, they have a lot in common and so I am not opposed to one article covering both topics. I agree that "CPU power dissipation" is the more general term, and so the thermal design power article -- if these articles are merged -- should be merged into the CPU power dissipation article. --DavidCary (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Good point, went ahead and clarified the relation between TDP and real CPU power dissipation. I'd say that the distiction was pretty much already there (for example, as a quotation in one of the references), but not in such a clear way. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.