Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 17:59:40 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. 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
This page took 0.01 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.