Talk:Thermal Design Power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Requested move

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)

[edit] Survey

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

[edit] Discussion

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)

[edit] Earlier comments

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.

[edit] wrong name, should be Thermal Design Power

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. -- 80.145.147.176 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 "site:intel.com"). 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. ;) 134.30.5.94 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)


[edit] sub-optimal information:

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

Shouldn't that be expanded on?