I've been having overheating issues (as some may remember) and I'm looking to get a new CPU/mobo. I'm kinda confused about Thermal Design Power (TDP), though, and it's effect on overall heat issues. Based on Wikipedia, the thermal design power represents the maximum amount of power the cooling system in a computer is required to dissipate. In layman's terms, I assume that means the higher the TDP, the hotter the CPU will get.

The Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Wolfdale 3.0GHz is 65w TDP.
The Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83GHz is 95w TDP.
The Intel Core i5 750 Lynnfield 2.66GHz and the Intel Core i7 860 Lynnfield 2.8GHz are 95w TDP.
My current AMD chip is 125w TDP

Given my freak overheating issues, would a higher TDP be a bad idea for me? Obviously any of these is lower than my current bundle of joy, but I figured I'd ask for clarification anyway.

Or am I completely missing the meaning of TDP...?

Its all relative to the frequency of your CPU. The reason I can run my E2140 at 3.2GHz, a 100% overclock, is due to the Artic 7 Freezer Pro cooler with Arctic Silver 5 thermal compound. The Q9550 can do 3.8GHz but it needs something heavy duty like a Prolimitec Megahalem on it to take it. The Mega could probably cool my E2140@stock passively (no fan).

If you want me to give you a CPU/mobo recommendation, just give me a price.

I sorta have my eyes set on an EVGA nForce 790i with G.SKILL 2x2GB DDR3 RAM, and either the E8400 or Q9550.

My budget is pretty low, so I'm looking for cheap but powerful and things that work with what I have.

EDIT:
So my question still stands, am I right in assuming that higher TDP chips generally run hotter?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 23 2009, 8:08 am by DevliN.

Yes, 125 W is hotter than 95 W. Here's frostytech's review methodology for heatsinks, I find it quite scientific. TDP isn't the actual power going through the chip, just what it's rated at, after all P=IE. If you undervolt the processor, it will use less power, and consequently, generate less heat. Smaller transistors also generate less heat, which is why 65 nm tech is much better than 90 nm tech (which your AMD is probably a Windsor isn't it? They've always ran hot). Even though you probably knew all this, it's still fyi for anyone else wondering.

The charts there also have a temperature relative to ambient. For intel "processors" they test the heatsink at 150W and 85W. The 150W is typically significantly hotter than the 85W. While most intel processors run at less than 65 W now, quad cores and such will run much higher. If you still have problems with overheating, simply underclock the processor, which will decrease the current running through it.

They claim that the Intel stock processor isn't bad at all (it's #5 on the low profile/quiet list). I'm inclined to believe them. I'm just wondering when we'll get a diamond heat sink. 10 kW/mK lol.

If you're set on buying DDR3 RAM you're set on wasting money. The performance gains are not worth the money. I really can't tell you how wrong your choices are here.

I'd recommend a DFI LP DK P45 and 2x2GB G.Skill DDR2 1066, easily found on Newegg.

Just so you know, NV is basically out of the motherboard business thanks to a licensing dispute with Intel. I really can't say anything good about the later (after 680i) nForce chipset either as their failure rates, (google it) were unreasonably high.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 24 2009, 3:11 am by Excalibur.

Don't you need DDR3 Ram for i5 and i7? I was thinking more about how if I got it now, I wouldn't need to get it down the line.

Thats a socket 775 mobo. And anyway, dual channel DDR3 isn't worth it, it never has been.

Look, I said it before, I'll say it again:
DDR3, i5/i7 sockets, and all their shit, are not worth it.

I know it's a socket 775. I meant if I wanted to salvage my RAM for future use. My assumption was that basically all newer mobo/CPUs are gonna need DDR3.

Any one of them worth having is going to have triple channel DDR3 and that's a dual kit, 2 sticks.

I'm going to make one last post here:
IT IS A BAD IDEA.

No OS is really built to handle those processors properly yet, not to mention dual channel DDR3 was never that amazing of an advancement anyway, just go with your usual, and while newer mobos will require DDR3, many are transitional and can take both, and I would go with an older one anyway. The type of RAM used doesn't usually effect what CPU you're going to have to use, you can easily swap a P4 between RD, SD, DDR, DDR2, and I'd assume DDR3 RAM(If any computer has a socket for a P4 and DDR3 slots), I think it only really matters at the motherboard level, the CPU doesn't have to be made to work with a specific RAM. (Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on newer computer components)

AM3 on the other hand can take ddr2 or 3, and has a future. The new Propus Athlon looks awesome for $100. In fact, I may buy one if DFI will let me. However, I don't subscribe to the build for the future policy. Build for the now. LGA 775 is the way to go with either an E8500 or a Q9550.