Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 19:01:54 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2003 at 21:56:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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 > > >Old news. Cray did this in the 1970's... I know. However, it has never been on the desktop before. >Newer crays immerse the silicon "blocks" directly into a freon-like material >that is not an electrical conductor (check out the cray 3 for some amazing >stuff). -Matt
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.