Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:18:51 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
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. The one I have seen looks somewhat like my dell xeon 2.8. Heatsink about 4-5" tall made of solid copper, with fans and ducting to make sure the air flows right through the sinks...
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.