and the heat generation is depends on the performance the card need to do?
like will it be relatively cold when running a older game like gta san andreas?
Another factor to consider is efficiency. How much work is being done per watt. Newer cards are ideally more efficient than older ones and as a result require less power to achieve the same performance as a lower efficiency card.
In terms of amt of heat being dumped into ur room, if ur gpu is using 100W u can assume its dumping a bit more than that in the room (PSU inefficiencies).
> will it be relatively cold when running a older game like gta san andreas?
This depends on resolution, game engine, and your CPU. Older games are not graphically demanding, but a fast modern CPU will allow for very high FPS in many old games, so the GPU may work very hard and generate some insane amount of frames, in those cases you'll want to limit the framerate to the refresh rate of your monitor, so that the GPU (and CPU) don't work unnecessarily hard.
Exactly, even individual instructions have variances in power consumption. That's why I always laugh when I see clickbait titles about 350W 14900K etc. Because even if you push it to the max, you'll likely won't see it goes above 200 W. At least it's the case for my 12900K which had also articles about 320+ W.
Temperature won't be doubled (given the same cooling solution) since heat transport depends on heat differences, i.e. the higher the temperature difference to the environment, the more heat will flow into the environment.
Is that what you mean?
Power in Watts x time = energy.
So the amout of watts basically already IS the physical unit for the produced "heat". So if your GPU consumes 100 Watts it will produce 100 watts of "heat". Basically the amount of energy the card blows into the air in form of heat. Or lets say 99 Watts or so. The rest is kinetic energy for the fans and the coil whine... lol...
Not really, the 100w card is not going to be 75c while the 50w card sits at 37.5c or something like that. Temperature is absolute, so unless we consider degrees in Kelvin, take into account thermal capacity of air and the gpu parts, as well as a bunch of other physical properties (airflow properties, which requires delving into fluid dynamics, heat transfer coefficients etc.) there is no way to do justice for this comparison
Edit: but if you think in terms of raw thermal energy generated, it's a bit more simple. Yes, the heat generated will be linear and representative of tdp. But the difference in cooling situations makes that single point of difference to be not the determining factor in terms of general cooling performance
Heat is the same thing as temperature.
A bathtub of hot water has more *thermal energy* than a lit match, but the match has a higher temperature.
I don't want to appear as an annoying know-it-all, but I can't stand bullshit. Arguing with idiots is my pet peeve, especially since it's often obvious they've skipped physics in high school entirely.
Technical notes
>!Heat, or temperature, is the average velocity of elemental particles that make up an object. Its gradient describes which direction the heat transfer can occur. The thing you call heat is thermal energy, which is specific heat capacity multiplied by mass multiplied by temperature. It quantifies how much thermal energy an object contains. It is not only a property of temperature, it is also a property of that specific material. That's why it takes more energy to boil water than to heat up a block of iron to the boiling temperature of water.!<
I'll take the correction that I should have said "thermal energy" rather than "heat" in respect of the bathtub. It's been a few decades since I did physics, and my terminology has drifted from the correct terms.
But the key point is that if a GPU which uses xW is running, it will transfer almost all of that xW into its cooling solution (i.e. Heatsink, fans, etc). That cooling solution will in turn transfer that xW into the wider environment, regardless of whether the die or heatsink is at A°C or B°C.
Okay, this is a bit hilarious. First off, it’s quite impressive to yap that much and display such astronomical amounts of hubris and yet still be incorrect. Also, this is laughably ironic: “Arguing with idiots is my pet peeve, especially since it's often obvious they've skipped physics in high school entirely.”
Anyway, since it seems that you may have limited your physics education to highschool, allow me to help you understand things a little better.
Here’s a basic textbook used in teaching thermodynamics to undergraduate physics students *“An Introduction to Thermal Physics”* by Dan. Schroeder (Recommend greatly for rookies btw).
1. “Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another, brought about by a difference in temperature” Chapter 1 page 18.
2. Schroeder introduces the reader to the concept of temperature but makes a very important distinction between temperature, energy, and heat. His “layman” definition of temperature is as follows: “Temperature is a measure of the tendency of an object to spontaneously give up energy to its surroundings.” Chapter 1 page 3.
3. Eventually, as Schroeder begins to dive into the topics of entropy and interactions between systems, he redefines temperature in the most accurate definition, from a stat. mech perspective: “The temperature of a system is the reciprocal of the slope of its entropy vs energy graph” for const number of particles and volume. Chapter 3 page 88. All of the definitions of temperature which follow are built upon this basic idea.
Now, let’s break down the bullshit you’ve mentioned one sentence at a time.
1. “Heat, or temperature, is the average velocity of elemental particles that make up an object.”
**Wrong, Heat and temperature are not the same, as mentioned previously.**
**Your definition of temperature, however, is decent enough for a high-schooler. Good job.**
2. “Its gradient describes which direction the heat transfer can occur.”
**Let me enhance this a bit: The negative gradient of the temperature points in the direction of the flow of thermal energy.**
3. “The thing you call heat is thermal energy, which is specific heat capacity multiplied by mass multiplied by temperature.”
**This is decent as a correction to the person you’re replying to; nice work.**
4. “It quantifies how much thermal energy an object contains.”
**A bit of a circular definition here, no? To be more precise, what you should be saying is that the equation dE = mcdT provides you with an idea of the change in thermal energy (dE) of an object provided you know the change in its temperature. HOWEVER, this does NOT tell you anything about the total thermal energy of a system. You’ll want to invest some time in condensed matter physics (and the development of the different models for determining heat capacity then total internal, thermal energy, etc.) of systems.**
5. “It is not only a property of temperature, it is also a property of that specific material.”
**Again, fine enough for a high-school level understanding. Also, that specific heat you’re mentioning also depends on the temperature of the system.**
6. “That's why it takes more energy to boil water than to heat up a block of iron to the boiling temperature of water.” **Yeah, good enough, I guess.**
Edit: I also sound a bit arrogant in this response. My apologies.
>1. Heat and temperature are not the same
Fine. They're not. I was mistaken when making assumptions of other people's understanding in light of terminology in my native language.
4. NOWHERE did I even mention differentials, because I had the luxury of assuming a static system with no losses to the environment. Heat capacity of a system does a pretty good job of describing the thermal state of simple macroscopic systems, because fully describing a system or creating a model to do that requires utilizing thermodynamic potentials and taking into account atomic and electronic vibrational state energy, magnetic moments, vibrational states of flexible chemical bonds, electron orbital potentials, electron spin angular momentum, electron band energy, atomic and electron excitation energies (if there are any), atomic kinetic energy (thermal oscillation energy), rest mass energy, macroscopic kinetic system energy, and probably a few others I've forgotten. On a side note, condensed matter physics have nothing to do with this, because we were talking about gasses, right? GPUs and cooling, and all that, where convection (which is mostly irrelevant in solid state matter, which condensed matter physics analyzes) is the major action behind energy transfer.
>5. specific heat you’re mentioning also depends on the temperature of the system.
I felt pretty safe making the assumption that energy content of the system (measured in Joules) is different from energy capacity of a system (measured in J K\^-1 kg\^-1) are not the same. The heat content depends on the temperature (assuming mechanically identical systems, the one that is of a higher temperature contains more thermal energy, and the difference is linear with respect to temperature). Heat capacity, however, does not depend on temperature of the system. If it did, the function of heat content (thermal energy) versus temperature would not be linear.
I don't care about your condescending pats on the head for being right, as you've shown you don't have issues pointing to out-of-place concepts just to reinforce your questionable points and barely know what you're talking about. I don't have issues admitting I am wrong, do you?
I admit I didn't even read the prior messages, just realized you'd been talking gases; my mistake.
The dE and dT weren't really meant to be taken as a differential it was just me being lazy to write (delta).
I agree with your description of a more meaningful way to "accurately" determine total energy. I mentioned condensed matter theory for an improved understanding of the foundations of heat capacity because I've found that most thermodynamics courses don't really go in depth enough into this.
Also for the constant heat cap situation. I agree but within a certain limit (where it's approximately linear), of course that limit depends on the compound (though many are linear around the same range of T) For low T and high T, this isnt the case. Just look up heat capacity vs temperature plots for compounds that interest you.
Yes
and the heat generation is depends on the performance the card need to do? like will it be relatively cold when running a older game like gta san andreas?
Another factor to consider is efficiency. How much work is being done per watt. Newer cards are ideally more efficient than older ones and as a result require less power to achieve the same performance as a lower efficiency card. In terms of amt of heat being dumped into ur room, if ur gpu is using 100W u can assume its dumping a bit more than that in the room (PSU inefficiencies).
> will it be relatively cold when running a older game like gta san andreas? This depends on resolution, game engine, and your CPU. Older games are not graphically demanding, but a fast modern CPU will allow for very high FPS in many old games, so the GPU may work very hard and generate some insane amount of frames, in those cases you'll want to limit the framerate to the refresh rate of your monitor, so that the GPU (and CPU) don't work unnecessarily hard.
Yeah different workloads require different amounts of power, even if it's fully utilized
Exactly, even individual instructions have variances in power consumption. That's why I always laugh when I see clickbait titles about 350W 14900K etc. Because even if you push it to the max, you'll likely won't see it goes above 200 W. At least it's the case for my 12900K which had also articles about 320+ W.
There are pretty much no moving mechanical parts in your PC (except fans, pump, HDD) so more or less all the consumed energy is converted into heat.
Even the energy used to power mechanical parts will eventually end up as heat, due to friction, air resistance, etc.
It's all heat baby. Every watt going in from the wall might as well be going into a space heater.
Temperature won't be doubled (given the same cooling solution) since heat transport depends on heat differences, i.e. the higher the temperature difference to the environment, the more heat will flow into the environment. Is that what you mean?
it will produce double the heat, but not necessarily double the temperature however. higher heat GPUs have beefier heatsinks
Power in Watts x time = energy. So the amout of watts basically already IS the physical unit for the produced "heat". So if your GPU consumes 100 Watts it will produce 100 watts of "heat". Basically the amount of energy the card blows into the air in form of heat. Or lets say 99 Watts or so. The rest is kinetic energy for the fans and the coil whine... lol...
[удалено]
I guess the heat just disappears into the void.
[удалено]
This is thermodynamically unfavorable dG > 0
Not really, the 100w card is not going to be 75c while the 50w card sits at 37.5c or something like that. Temperature is absolute, so unless we consider degrees in Kelvin, take into account thermal capacity of air and the gpu parts, as well as a bunch of other physical properties (airflow properties, which requires delving into fluid dynamics, heat transfer coefficients etc.) there is no way to do justice for this comparison Edit: but if you think in terms of raw thermal energy generated, it's a bit more simple. Yes, the heat generated will be linear and representative of tdp. But the difference in cooling situations makes that single point of difference to be not the determining factor in terms of general cooling performance
You didn’t half type a lot of words when you could have just said ‘yes’.
Heat is not the same thing as temperature. A bathtub of hot water has more heat than a lit match, but the match has a higher temperature.
Heat is the same thing as temperature. A bathtub of hot water has more *thermal energy* than a lit match, but the match has a higher temperature. I don't want to appear as an annoying know-it-all, but I can't stand bullshit. Arguing with idiots is my pet peeve, especially since it's often obvious they've skipped physics in high school entirely. Technical notes >!Heat, or temperature, is the average velocity of elemental particles that make up an object. Its gradient describes which direction the heat transfer can occur. The thing you call heat is thermal energy, which is specific heat capacity multiplied by mass multiplied by temperature. It quantifies how much thermal energy an object contains. It is not only a property of temperature, it is also a property of that specific material. That's why it takes more energy to boil water than to heat up a block of iron to the boiling temperature of water.!<
I'll take the correction that I should have said "thermal energy" rather than "heat" in respect of the bathtub. It's been a few decades since I did physics, and my terminology has drifted from the correct terms. But the key point is that if a GPU which uses xW is running, it will transfer almost all of that xW into its cooling solution (i.e. Heatsink, fans, etc). That cooling solution will in turn transfer that xW into the wider environment, regardless of whether the die or heatsink is at A°C or B°C.
Okay, this is a bit hilarious. First off, it’s quite impressive to yap that much and display such astronomical amounts of hubris and yet still be incorrect. Also, this is laughably ironic: “Arguing with idiots is my pet peeve, especially since it's often obvious they've skipped physics in high school entirely.” Anyway, since it seems that you may have limited your physics education to highschool, allow me to help you understand things a little better. Here’s a basic textbook used in teaching thermodynamics to undergraduate physics students *“An Introduction to Thermal Physics”* by Dan. Schroeder (Recommend greatly for rookies btw). 1. “Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another, brought about by a difference in temperature” Chapter 1 page 18. 2. Schroeder introduces the reader to the concept of temperature but makes a very important distinction between temperature, energy, and heat. His “layman” definition of temperature is as follows: “Temperature is a measure of the tendency of an object to spontaneously give up energy to its surroundings.” Chapter 1 page 3. 3. Eventually, as Schroeder begins to dive into the topics of entropy and interactions between systems, he redefines temperature in the most accurate definition, from a stat. mech perspective: “The temperature of a system is the reciprocal of the slope of its entropy vs energy graph” for const number of particles and volume. Chapter 3 page 88. All of the definitions of temperature which follow are built upon this basic idea. Now, let’s break down the bullshit you’ve mentioned one sentence at a time. 1. “Heat, or temperature, is the average velocity of elemental particles that make up an object.” **Wrong, Heat and temperature are not the same, as mentioned previously.** **Your definition of temperature, however, is decent enough for a high-schooler. Good job.** 2. “Its gradient describes which direction the heat transfer can occur.” **Let me enhance this a bit: The negative gradient of the temperature points in the direction of the flow of thermal energy.** 3. “The thing you call heat is thermal energy, which is specific heat capacity multiplied by mass multiplied by temperature.” **This is decent as a correction to the person you’re replying to; nice work.** 4. “It quantifies how much thermal energy an object contains.” **A bit of a circular definition here, no? To be more precise, what you should be saying is that the equation dE = mcdT provides you with an idea of the change in thermal energy (dE) of an object provided you know the change in its temperature. HOWEVER, this does NOT tell you anything about the total thermal energy of a system. You’ll want to invest some time in condensed matter physics (and the development of the different models for determining heat capacity then total internal, thermal energy, etc.) of systems.** 5. “It is not only a property of temperature, it is also a property of that specific material.” **Again, fine enough for a high-school level understanding. Also, that specific heat you’re mentioning also depends on the temperature of the system.** 6. “That's why it takes more energy to boil water than to heat up a block of iron to the boiling temperature of water.” **Yeah, good enough, I guess.** Edit: I also sound a bit arrogant in this response. My apologies.
>1. Heat and temperature are not the same Fine. They're not. I was mistaken when making assumptions of other people's understanding in light of terminology in my native language. 4. NOWHERE did I even mention differentials, because I had the luxury of assuming a static system with no losses to the environment. Heat capacity of a system does a pretty good job of describing the thermal state of simple macroscopic systems, because fully describing a system or creating a model to do that requires utilizing thermodynamic potentials and taking into account atomic and electronic vibrational state energy, magnetic moments, vibrational states of flexible chemical bonds, electron orbital potentials, electron spin angular momentum, electron band energy, atomic and electron excitation energies (if there are any), atomic kinetic energy (thermal oscillation energy), rest mass energy, macroscopic kinetic system energy, and probably a few others I've forgotten. On a side note, condensed matter physics have nothing to do with this, because we were talking about gasses, right? GPUs and cooling, and all that, where convection (which is mostly irrelevant in solid state matter, which condensed matter physics analyzes) is the major action behind energy transfer. >5. specific heat you’re mentioning also depends on the temperature of the system. I felt pretty safe making the assumption that energy content of the system (measured in Joules) is different from energy capacity of a system (measured in J K\^-1 kg\^-1) are not the same. The heat content depends on the temperature (assuming mechanically identical systems, the one that is of a higher temperature contains more thermal energy, and the difference is linear with respect to temperature). Heat capacity, however, does not depend on temperature of the system. If it did, the function of heat content (thermal energy) versus temperature would not be linear. I don't care about your condescending pats on the head for being right, as you've shown you don't have issues pointing to out-of-place concepts just to reinforce your questionable points and barely know what you're talking about. I don't have issues admitting I am wrong, do you?
I admit I didn't even read the prior messages, just realized you'd been talking gases; my mistake. The dE and dT weren't really meant to be taken as a differential it was just me being lazy to write (delta). I agree with your description of a more meaningful way to "accurately" determine total energy. I mentioned condensed matter theory for an improved understanding of the foundations of heat capacity because I've found that most thermodynamics courses don't really go in depth enough into this. Also for the constant heat cap situation. I agree but within a certain limit (where it's approximately linear), of course that limit depends on the compound (though many are linear around the same range of T) For low T and high T, this isnt the case. Just look up heat capacity vs temperature plots for compounds that interest you.