Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 18:42:39 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2003 at 21:35:25, Matt Taylor wrote: >On February 21, 2003 at 21:25:23, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>On February 21, 2003 at 20:59:40, Matt Taylor wrote: >> >>>On February 21, 2003 at 14:55:16, Aaron Gordon wrote: >>> >>>>On February 21, 2003 at 09:47:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 21, 2003 at 08:27:55, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 21, 2003 at 04:42:21, Charles Worthington wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>I am certainly no expert on cpu design and waht you say makes perfect sense from >>>>>>>an economic standpoint. >>>>>> >>>>>>Please explain this to Bob then, because he seems to think it's madness. When, >>>>>>in reality, it is simple economic principle, and widely known as such. >>>>>> >>>>>>But, if todays chips were honestly capable of a stable >>>>>>>4GHz frequency then you could clock them there with no additional cooling >>>>>>>required. I do not doubt that todays chips can be taken to 3.2 GHz or perhaps >>>>>>>even 3.3 GHz and maintain stability but intel has a safety margin built into the >>>>>>>upper end chips to insure reliable performance. But even with little knowledge >>>>>>>of processor design I would have to say that Bob's argument makes more sense >>>>>>>from a logical standpoint. Intel would_love_to produce 4GHz Xeons today that >>>>>>>operate at low temperatures...problem is they simply can't do it. At least in my >>>>>>>humble opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm not saying that the current chips they sell are capable of 4GHz operation, >>>>>>in any way, shape, or form. I'm saying that Intel, if it wanted, _could_ >>>>>>release chips that were capable of such thing. But right now, there's just >>>>>>absolutely no reason for them to do it. For one thing, Intel doesn't want the >>>>>>P4 Xeons to be _too_ fast if it can help it, because they don't want to eat into >>>>>>Itanium sales. >>>>> >>>>>That logic is circular. They can make faster xeons but they can't make faster >>>>>Itaniums??? >>>> >>>>This may be true. Intel actually is going to wait a while before they release a >>>>faster P4 and most likely the reason I'm going to suggest is why they may not be >>>>producing faster Itaniums. Right now the P4-3.06GHz is 110 watts, this is a >>>>*LOT* of heat for a heatsink and fan to cope with. Intel has to figure some >>>>people that haven't a clue about cooling will take their new dell/gateway/etc >>>>and stuff it under their desk, let papers pile up infront of the vents, etc. >>>>Never clean the dust out and whatnot. This will most likely result in a cpu temp >>>>of at or over 70C with the regular Intel heatsink/fan. Imagine if they dropped a >>>>P4-3.2 to 3.4ghz into the market? You'd be hitting cpu temps that'd fry the chip >>>>in those situations. >>>> >>>>About the Itanium, it's even hotter. I saw the Itanium 800, Itanium-2 800, 900, >>>>1GHz all listed as 130 watts. This is pretty insane as is. I don't know how the >>>>Itanium servers are put together but some of them probably have liquid cooling. >>>>If not then you're going to have MAJOR problems with ANY heatsink today. They >>>>need to get the wattages down a LOT before they can ramp the clock speeds up. >>> >>>Intel plans at least a 3.2 GHz by June. I want to say they're hitting 3.6 GHz by >>>June. I don't remember. >>> >>>60 W is "pretty insane" compared to the 486 I have on my desk. I used to leave >>>the case off, and it always felt like the CPU was naked sitting there with no >>>heatsink and fan. I looked up the wattage at one point; it's under 1 W. >>> >>>I remember a side project my Dad worked on when I was younger. Our garage door >>>controller fried during an electrical surge, so he decided to build his own. >>>After he built it, he discovered thermal issues with some of the components, so >>>we flattened a penny and attached it for a heatsink. Obviously the heatsinks we >>>use on modern processors are much more sophisticated, but I think the cooling >>>solutions will improve to meet demand. >>> >>>-Matt >> >>That'd me we'll all be going liquid soon then. Heatsinks can only get so >>big/bulky. If you get TOO big it'd just be in the way, cause the PC to be too >>heavy (imagine a 30lbs copper heatsink..), etc. Liquid cooling is quiet, >>reliable if done properly and not heavy at all, especially if you use an inline >>system and small radiator. > >I wouldn't doubt it. Some vendors are already selling prebuilt PCs with liquid >coolers. Some of their appeal lies in overclocking, but a lot comes from users >who want their PC to be silent. > >>What I think would be neat would be a mini freon compressor.. :) If you can >>cascade two very small compressors and vent the heat out of the back that'd >>probably be the perfect solution for years & years to come. Have some sort of >>thermostat to monitor the cpu temp, perhaps keep it at a constant 75F. I'll be >>doing something similar but with much larger compressors (2-3hp each) and I >>won't be limiting the temperature at all.. =) > >Freon lines running through the PCB... > >Transmeta's solution has merit. > >-Matt One problem you'll probably see is some people running propane through their freon systems, replacing the r134a. :) Amperage did that, thats the guy with the P4-3.06 @ 4GHz. Imagine if you smoke cigarettes and end up having a leak.. :P
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.