How much use can a processor take?

[somedaypilot]

So I use fair use wizard to encode movies, and I noticed that it keeps my processor at a high level for a long time. I was wondering what modern processors can take in terms of what load for how long. I have an AMD Athlon II X2 rated at 3.2 GHz, and I don't overclock. I'm not too worried as they are designed to hold up to gaming, but I was curious as to what the physical limitations of the technology are. Is it something where if you have competent cooling you could run it at max for its lifetime, or is there a practical limit?

[hintss]

my logic is as follows:

1. it makes heat
2. heat lowers lifetime

but, if you have decent cooling, it shouldn't be a problem.

[Solt]

There is a lifetime, but it is longer than that of the motherboard in most cases.

Heat in itself is not a problem. The problem is that the temperature changes, causing expansion and contraction which over time could cause the development of cracks and eventually cause breakage. Newer technology is making this worse by cramming more and more transistors into the same area, meaning the components are smaller and thus mechanically weaker.

It's actually one of the limitations preventing us from making huger strides with the number of transistors.

[Carnildo]

There are two effects that cause a CPU to fail:

1) Electromigration. The force of electrons moving through the material can actually dislodge atoms, causing the wires within the CPU to erode and the dopants making up the transistors to move out of place. The hotter the CPU runs and the higher the voltage it runs at, the faster electromigration happens; CPU designers can slow down electromigration by changing the materials and designs of CPUs.

2) Thermal fatigue and crack propagation. As the CPU heats up and cools down, the stresses from thermal expansion cause irregularities on the edge of the CPU die turn into microscopic cracks. Over time, those cracks grow until eventually one of them crosses something critical. The more often the CPU changes temperature, the faster the cracks grow.

Both of these take a very long time to break the typical CPU: I've heard number on the order of 10-20 years for a CPU with typical usage. Even in the worst case I've heard of (overclocked, overvolted Northwood Pentium IVs, aka. Sudden Northwood Death Syndrome), electromigration failure took on the order of a year.

[Game_boy]

Server CPUs (Opteron, Xeon) are rated for >10 years 24x7 operation under full load (so you can RMA if it doesn't). If you're concerned then get one of those. Realistically though, any modern desktop CPU will last that long and outlive the rest of your PC even under than workload.

Since you're running at stock you are nowhere near the tolerances that will noticeably limit lifetime.

[Endless Mike]

Both of these take a very long time to break the typical CPU: I've heard number on the order of 10-20 years for a CPU with typical usage. Even in the worst case I've heard of (overclocked, overvolted Northwood Pentium IVs, aka. Sudden Northwood Death Syndrome), electromigration failure took on the order of a year.

At least it kept you warm in the winter.

[ubel]

Both of these take a very long time to break the typical CPU: I've heard number on the order of 10-20 years for a CPU with typical usage. Even in the worst case I've heard of (overclocked, overvolted Northwood Pentium IVs, aka. Sudden Northwood Death Syndrome), electromigration failure took on the order of a year.

At least it kept you warm in the winter.

I wish I could laugh at this.. being a pot and all though makes that a bit difficult.

[_Big_Mac_]

If you're not overclocking, you should be fine with running 100% load 24/7 for years (even on non-server CPUs). Don't worry about it.

[FrancovS]

There is a lifetime, but it is longer than that of the motherboard in most cases.

Heat in itself is not a problem. The problem is that the temperature changes, causing expansion and contraction.

Wait, wait. So, in theory, I could increase the lifetime of a processor by keeping it hotter than usual when idle? This also applies to other components?

[Carnildo]

There is a lifetime, but it is longer than that of the motherboard in most cases.

Heat in itself is not a problem. The problem is that the temperature changes, causing expansion and contraction.

Wait, wait. So, in theory, I could increase the lifetime of a processor by keeping it hotter than usual when idle? This also applies to other components?

What you'll be doing is speeding up electromigration failure while slowing thermal fatigue failure. It's anybody's guess as to whether this will increase the lifetime of the processor.

[Sero]

I'd assume by undervolting (and underclocking, if necessary) a processor, you could extend it's lifepsan. But yeah, realistically, there's really no telling how much effect any processor life-extending technique might have and ultimately it's probably not worth it in any case, given the expected life span of a processor.

[Carnildo]

Undervolting and underclocking will help with both failure modes: the lower peak temperature will reduce electromigration, and the smaller temperature swings will slow thermal fatigue.

[L337R3dN3k]

The reasons for failure and the 10 - 20 year lifespan have been well and correctly covered here. Having done stupid levels of overclocking, though, I can tell you processors can take a lot of abuse.

I had a Thunderbird core Athlon that ran stock at something like 1050 Mhz. After 4 or 5 years of use, I decided to get more use out of it by overclocking the thing. Note I had a Thermaltake Volcano 6cu+, so not only was my rig air cooled but it was very ineffective air cooling by modern standards. The longer I had that thing OC'd, the more willing I was to push it further. I was prepared to replace it, after all.

I found the upper limit was 1795 Mhz. At roughly 75% faster than stock, my machine was no longer stable and I had to back off. Still, I was able to run it at 1600 Mhz completely stable. It would idle around 78 - 79C and, under extended load, would climb to 84 - 88C. I used it this way for an additional 3 years.

During that 3 years, I experienced an entertaining power supply failure. I kinda wondered why my computer was suddenly unstable and kept resetting, but Linux was not writing any diagnostic information to the logs. The third time it locked up, I went into the BIOS to check the system health. Before I could figure out what it meant that my CPU temperature was no longer registering, the display flickered from 0C to 99C and back again. Oops. I guess the BIOS couldn't display triple digit CPU temps. The next thing I noticed was that the voltages were WAY too high. A new power supply, and the thing fired right up.

I never managed to kill that CPU. It saw a total of 8 years of heavy daily use. It saw massive overclocking, insane temperatures, and a voltage surge that should have fried it. Eventually I gave up, built a new computer, and set that old thing aside. It sat on a shelf for a few months before I thought of a new use for it. I went to plug it in, and found that the motherboard had died. Yes, the motherboard will die first.

On a related note, if anyone has a socket A motherboard they are willing to part with, send me a PM. Especially if the board has good overclocking support.

[archeleus]

Not a problem since you'll be changing your processor to a new improved version in less than 5 years.

[Carnildo]

I had a Thunderbird core Athlon that ran stock at something like 1050 Mhz. After 4 or 5 years of use, I decided to get more use out of it by overclocking the thing. Note I had a Thermaltake Volcano 6cu+, so not only was my rig air cooled but it was very ineffective air cooling by modern standards. The longer I had that thing OC'd, the more willing I was to push it further. I was prepared to replace it, after all.

I found the upper limit was 1795 Mhz. At roughly 75% faster than stock, my machine was no longer stable and I had to back off. Still, I was able to run it at 1600 Mhz completely stable. It would idle around 78 - 79C and, under extended load, would climb to 84 - 88C. I used it this way for an additional 3 years.

Got a writeup on how you did it (hardware choice, multiplier/FSB combo, unlocking technique, and other relevant info)? That's a better overclock than any air, peltier, or phase-change system I've heard of, and approaching the abilities of the liquid-nitrogen guys.

[Kromix]

Spoiler:

The reasons for failure and the 10 - 20 year lifespan have been well and correctly covered here. Having done stupid levels of overclocking, though, I can tell you processors can take a lot of abuse.

I had a Thunderbird core Athlon that ran stock at something like 1050 Mhz. After 4 or 5 years of use, I decided to get more use out of it by overclocking the thing. Note I had a Thermaltake Volcano 6cu+, so not only was my rig air cooled but it was very ineffective air cooling by modern standards. The longer I had that thing OC'd, the more willing I was to push it further. I was prepared to replace it, after all.

I found the upper limit was 1795 Mhz. At roughly 75% faster than stock, my machine was no longer stable and I had to back off. Still, I was able to run it at 1600 Mhz completely stable. It would idle around 78 - 79C and, under extended load, would climb to 84 - 88C. I used it this way for an additional 3 years.

During that 3 years, I experienced an entertaining power supply failure. I kinda wondered why my computer was suddenly unstable and kept resetting, but Linux was not writing any diagnostic information to the logs. The third time it locked up, I went into the BIOS to check the system health. Before I could figure out what it meant that my CPU temperature was no longer registering, the display flickered from 0C to 99C and back again. Oops. I guess the BIOS couldn't display triple digit CPU temps. The next thing I noticed was that the voltages were WAY too high. A new power supply, and the thing fired right up.

I never managed to kill that CPU. It saw a total of 8 years of heavy daily use. It saw massive overclocking, insane temperatures, and a voltage surge that should have fried it. Eventually I gave up, built a new computer, and set that old thing aside. It sat on a shelf for a few months before I thought of a new use for it. I went to plug it in, and found that the motherboard had died. Yes, the motherboard will die first.

On a related note, if anyone has a socket A motherboard they are willing to part with, send me a PM. Especially if the board has good overclocking support.

I also would like to acquire a Socket A board for my Athlon XP 2400+ Thoroughbred, the second motherboard on it died in 2008 after obscene overclocking on both boards. lol the processor is still in working condition.