 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Specs:
>
> Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83GHz 12MB L2 Cache
> GIGABYTE GA-EP45C-UD3R
> Galaxy 95TGE8HUFEXX GeForce 9500 GT 1GB
> 2 GB DDR3 1600 Memory
>
> Nice, yes? :-D
>
Why so low memory?
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Specs:
>
> Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83GHz 12MB L2 Cache
> GIGABYTE GA-EP45C-UD3R
> Galaxy 95TGE8HUFEXX GeForce 9500 GT 1GB
> 2 GB DDR3 1600 Memory
>
> Nice, yes? :-D
Eh, not bad.
The server I just sent back had *two* quad-core Xeons in it, 3GHz each,
and 8GB of RAM. Only £3,000, IIRC. ;-)
OTOH, no GeForce. ;-)
Two questions:
- Why the GeForce 9-series? Price, or...?
- Why only 2GB RAM? (I can't believe I'm actually saying that out loud...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Two questions:
> - Why the GeForce 9-series? Price, or...?
Mostly price... Though, I'm not much of a gamer, either, so I don't need
the latest super-fast display.
> - Why only 2GB RAM? (I can't believe I'm actually saying that out loud...)
Not quite ready to run a 64-bit OS, don't need the extra memory. I've
seen very little appreciable gain with more than 2GB of ram, and memory
is easily upgradeable later.
Hard drives will be transferred from my old machine, 1TB worth of SATA
drives. Should be plenty for the moment.
And the display adapter is something that can easily be upgraded later
as well.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> - Why the GeForce 9-series? Price, or...?
>
> Mostly price... Though, I'm not much of a gamer, either, so I don't need
> the latest super-fast display.
Oh, well, if you don't need 3D graphics, then you don't need 3D
graphics. ;-)
>> - Why only 2GB RAM? (I can't believe I'm actually saying that out
>> loud...)
>
> Not quite ready to run a 64-bit OS, don't need the extra memory. I've
> seen very little appreciable gain with more than 2GB of ram, and memory
> is easily upgradeable later.
OK, fair enough.
My laptop is running Vista 32-bit. (Interesting manufacturing choice...)
But that came with 3GB of RAM, which I have upgraded to 4GB. (No, I
didn't really notice any difference. But RAM is cheap ATM.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> - Why the GeForce 9-series? Price, or...?
>>
>> Mostly price... Though, I'm not much of a gamer, either, so I don't
>> need the latest super-fast display.
>
> Oh, well, if you don't need 3D graphics, then you don't need 3D
> graphics. ;-)
>
Then again, I could get the PCIe-16 version of the card I have in my
machine now, a Radeon 3850 .. which according to a benchmark I was just
looking at outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce 9500 by quite a bit.
>>> - Why only 2GB RAM? (I can't believe I'm actually saying that out
>>> loud...)
>>
>> Not quite ready to run a 64-bit OS, don't need the extra memory. I've
>> seen very little appreciable gain with more than 2GB of ram, and
>> memory is easily upgradeable later.
>
> OK, fair enough.
>
> My laptop is running Vista 32-bit. (Interesting manufacturing choice...)
> But that came with 3GB of RAM, which I have upgraded to 4GB. (No, I
> didn't really notice any difference. But RAM is cheap ATM.)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> - Why only 2GB RAM? (I can't believe I'm actually saying that out loud...)
I remember one day, way back when, at the time we got some new PCs in
our office. The machines were much faster than the machines they
replaced, and yet I saw fit to predict that "one day someone will be
using this machine and say, 'I am sick of this slow piece of 100MHz
garbage.' "
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> using this machine and say, 'I am sick of this slow piece of 100MHz
> garbage.' "
Yeah. I fondly remember trying to get the first versions of pre-compiled
Linux to boot on my brand new "Server class 90MHz" machine.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> I remember one day, way back when, at the time we got some new PCs in
> our office. The machines were much faster than the machines they
> replaced, and yet I saw fit to predict that "one day someone will be
> using this machine and say, 'I am sick of this slow piece of 100MHz
> garbage.' "
Curiously, the enormous speed at which "sufficient" computing power
was increasing has slowed down a lot.
If you bought the top-of-the-line, brand new Intel processor in 1995,
by 2000 it was hopelessly outdated and slow, and you couldn't play almost
any new games with it.
However, if you bought eg. a top-of-the-line Pentium4 in 2004, nowadays
in 2009 you can still play most new games just fine (assuming you upgrade
your graphics card, of course), and it's still rather competitive in speed
for most applications. Granted, it's in no way at the top anymore, but the
difference between these last 5 years is significantly smaller than the
difference between eg. 1995 and 2000.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> I remember one day, way back when, at the time we got some new PCs in
> our office. The machines were much faster than the machines they
> replaced, and yet I saw fit to predict that "one day someone will be
> using this machine and say, 'I am sick of this slow piece of 100MHz
> garbage.' "
Heh... I'm saying that about my 2.4ghz p4, now.. :/
Of course with a 4-core chip, anything that runs parallel now, should
really benefit. That and lately my processor seems slower and slower,
but I'm not exactly sure why.
For example, this flash game runs slowly enough that it's unplayable on
my home PC, but my office PC, which has the same CPU speed, but is a
Core 2 Duo runs it fine. I can't figure out why my processor seems to be
slowing down, though.
http://www.intuitiongames.com/effing-hail/
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Heh... I'm saying that about my 2.4ghz p4, now.. :/
Sorry.... 2.6ghz
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> For example, this flash game runs slowly enough that it's unplayable on
> my home PC, but my office PC, which has the same CPU speed, but is a
> Core 2 Duo runs it fine. I can't figure out why my processor seems to be
> slowing down, though.
Which OS are you using? If Windows, what kind of maintenance do you
perform on it? For example, have you checked what programs start themselves
at startup? Have you tried defragmenters, registry and disk clenup, and
other such things? (And of course virus and adware scanning should be
rather obvious.)
Have you checked your CPU temperature? Does the CPU fan tend to run much
faster nowadays than years ago? Assuming it's working properly, of course.
(A relatively remote, although plausible, explanation for real, rather than
perceived, slowdowns is that the P4 and newer processors actually decrease
their own clockrate if they become dangerously overheated. However, usually
you should notice this long before it happens, as the CPU fan will start
spinning like mad. Assuming it's working properly, of course.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Which OS are you using? If Windows, what kind of maintenance do you
> perform on it? For example, have you checked what programs start themselves
> at startup? Have you tried defragmenters, registry and disk clenup, and
> other such things? (And of course virus and adware scanning should be
> rather obvious.)
>
Vista ... and yeah, I'm pretty anal about system maintenance. I watch
CPU usage very closely. I do have an errant task from the printer
sometimes that I have to kill. My startup apps are generally things I
want running/ need running.
> Have you checked your CPU temperature? Does the CPU fan tend to run much
> faster nowadays than years ago? Assuming it's working properly, of course.
> (A relatively remote, although plausible, explanation for real, rather than
> perceived, slowdowns is that the P4 and newer processors actually decrease
> their own clockrate if they become dangerously overheated. However, usually
> you should notice this long before it happens, as the CPU fan will start
> spinning like mad. Assuming it's working properly, of course.)
>
I did this last night, in fact, while running a CPU intensive program,
and sure enough, my CPU was running at 78°C O.o So, it may indeed be
throttling. The fan is running fine, though the heatsink was clogged
with dust, cleaned that out, No change in temp. I'm wondering if I need
new heatsink goop at this point
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Heh... I'm saying that about my 2.4ghz p4, now.. :/
....
> but my office PC, which has the same CPU speed, but is a
> Core 2 Duo runs it fine.
A single core from the Core 2 architecture (Core 2 Solo?) is significantly
faster than a single core from the P4 architecture, even at the same clock
speed.
....Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I did this last night, in fact, while running a CPU intensive program, and
> sure enough, my CPU was running at 78°C O.o So, it may indeed be
> throttling. The fan is running fine, though the heatsink was clogged with
> dust, cleaned that out, No change in temp. I'm wondering if I need new
> heatsink goop at this point
Check in Control Panel -> System for the clock rate, it should say something
like "E8500 @ 3.16 GHz 3.17 GHz". One of those numbers is the "name" of the
processor, the other is the actual clock speed at that instant. If the CPU
is throttling then one of the numbers will be lower.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> A single core from the Core 2 architecture (Core 2 Solo?) is significantly
> faster than a single core from the P4 architecture, even at the same clock
> speed.
Yes, by a long way IIRC.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> A single core from the Core 2 architecture (Core 2 Solo?) is
>> significantly
>> faster than a single core from the P4 architecture, even at the same
>> clock
>> speed.
>
> Yes, by a long way IIRC.
>
>
Interesting ... I figured it was multiple cores giving it its speed.
But, I suppose as technology improves ..
In that case a Core2 Quad should be a screamer. Then I can sit back and
impatiently wait for 3.7 to become a final release :-D
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Interesting ... I figured it was multiple cores giving it its speed.
> But, I suppose as technology improves ..
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> A single core from the Core 2 architecture (Core 2 Solo?) is
>>> significantly
>>> faster than a single core from the P4 architecture, even at the same
>>> clock
>>> speed.
>>
>> Yes, by a long way IIRC.
>
> Interesting ... I figured it was multiple cores giving it its speed.
> But, I suppose as technology improves ..
According to PassMark, a 3.00 GHz Pentium IV is rated at about 479 "pass
marks", while an Intel Core 2 Duo at only 1.86 GHz is rated at 1,220
pass marks. In other words, 2.563x faster. Now, it's 2x faster because
it's dual-core, but what about the other 56%?
The Core 2 architecture has a faster FSB (so the CPU spends less time
waiting around for data to arrive from RAM), bigger caches (so there's
fewer cache misses => less time waiting around for data), better branch
prediction (=> fewer pipeline stalls), more execution units (=> it can
execute more instructions simultaneously - assuming the program in
question is amenable to it)... it all adds up.
> In that case a Core2 Quad should be a screamer. Then I can sit back and
> impatiently wait for 3.7 to become a final release :-D
What do you have? Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83 GHz? That's rated at 4,160 pass
marks.
(Bearing in mind that Pass Mark is a synthetic benchmark which measures
CPU performance under idellic conditions... But even if you assume all
your programs are single-threaded, divide pass marks by 4 gives you
1,040 pass marks, which is still 2.17x the Pentium IV above.)
Source:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
>
> I did this last night, in fact, while running a CPU intensive program,
> and sure enough, my CPU was running at 78°C O.o So, it may indeed be
> throttling. The fan is running fine, though the heatsink was clogged
> with dust, cleaned that out, No change in temp. I'm wondering if I need
> new heatsink goop at this point
>
So, I bought a new heatsink from the local computer shop. It took the
guy 15 minutes of rummaging around in the back to find one to fit my
ancient system. Installed it.
It lowered the temperature. From 78°C to 74°C under load :-/
CRAP.
I was poking around my PC last night, and noticed the air from the case
was pretty hot. (Seriously, I could use this thing in the winter to keep
my feet warm...) Reading on the monitoring app is around 39°C.
Wonder what would change if I ran the case open. I lose the fan in the
case side, but maybe it'll give me adequate ventilation.
If I can just keep this thing from driving me bonkers (or possibly
failing due to thermal stress) until I build the new one (BTW, I think
I'm going to start with 4GB of DDR3 instead of 2GB... Might as
well....Memory is cheap)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> It lowered the temperature. From 78°C to 74°C under load :-/
>
> CRAP.
Oh, that's pretty sweet. :-D
> Wonder what would change if I ran the case open. I lose the fan in the
> case side, but maybe it'll give me adequate ventilation.
I'm told this tends to screw up the ventilation rather than help it. YMMV.
You might try taking a can of compressed air to it and just trying to
blow some dust out of it. (The PSU in particular tends to trap that
stuff very efficiently...)
> If I can just keep this thing from driving me bonkers (or possibly
> failing due to thermal stress) until I build the new one (BTW, I think
> I'm going to start with 4GB of DDR3 instead of 2GB... Might as
> well....Memory is cheap)
Indeed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> So, I bought a new heatsink from the local computer shop. It took the guy
> 15 minutes of rummaging around in the back to find one to fit my ancient
> system. Installed it.
>
> It lowered the temperature. From 78°C to 74°C under load :-/
>
> CRAP.
Why crap? You nicely proved that your CPU is not throttling itself to avoid
going over 78 degrees...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> It lowered the temperature. From 78°C to 74°C under load :-/
>>
>> CRAP.
>
> Why crap? You nicely proved that your CPU is not throttling itself to
> avoid going over 78 degrees...
Yyyyeah, because now my system is running at a balmy 74° instead of a
scorching 78°
It does seem to run somewhat faster, now, though. Still waaay too hot
for my comfort, though. Maybe I'll bolt a peltier cooler on the case fan ;)
Fun fact: The screws to the heatsink mount can back out and loosen over
time. I only discovered this after I installed the new heatsink and
fired up the computer, only to have it shut itself down in the middle of
POST! After a few cycles of this and the occasional BIOS complaint that
overclocking failed (huh? I've never overclocked my system...) I finally
ripped of the new heatsink and noticed the screws were rather loose.
Thankfully, Intel processors will shut down the system if they get hot
enough to start a fire.
The good news is when it's sitting idle, it runs around 50°C
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> (Bearing in mind that Pass Mark is a synthetic benchmark which measures
> CPU performance under idellic conditions... But even if you assume all
> your programs are single-threaded, divide pass marks by 4 gives you
> 1,040 pass marks, which is still 2.17x the Pentium IV above.)
2.55x faster for single threaded :) based on the Passmark for my 2.6ghz
P4.. Nice :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83GHz 12MB L2 Cache
Tom's Hardware has some good advice on how to cool it down.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/253233-28-intel-core-quad-q9550-temperature
HTH.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (Bearing in mind that Pass Mark is a synthetic benchmark which
>> measures CPU performance under idellic conditions... But even if you
>> assume all your programs are single-threaded, divide pass marks by 4
>> gives you 1,040 pass marks, which is still 2.17x the Pentium IV above.)
>
> 2.55x faster for single threaded :) based on the Passmark for my 2.6ghz
> P4.. Nice :)
Ever notice that the P4 reached almost 4 GHz... and no processor since
has ever been that fast? ;-)
Apparently it's really hard to go any faster than that for some reason.
So then AMD and Intel spent a while trying to make their CPUs go faster
at the same clock speed. (IIRC, that's roughly when this 64-bit
nonesense started happening.) And then once they'd done everything they
could with that, they started adding more cores.
Assuming that sometimes soon people will start writing programs that
actually utilise more than one core... (The Haskell people seriously
believe this to be THE killer feature of Haskell. We'll see...)
I suspect the future is NUMA. Adding more cores per chip just means that
there's even less memory bandwidth available per core... (Notice that
GPUs are NUMA.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Apparently it's really hard to go any faster than that for some reason.
One might suspect the speed of light.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Apparently it's really hard to go any faster than that for some reason.
>
> One might suspect the speed of light.
I'd suspect either heat or signal interference, personally... but I'm
not an Engineer. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Apparently it's really hard to go any faster than that for some reason.
>>
>> One might suspect the speed of light.
>
> I'd suspect either heat or signal interference, personally... but I'm
> not an Engineer. ;-)
Could be that too, but 4GHz is only 7.5cm in a vacuum, so on silicon I'd
expect significantly less.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> So, I bought a new heatsink from the local computer shop. It took the
>> guy 15 minutes of rummaging around in the back to find one to fit my
>> ancient system. Installed it.
>>
>> It lowered the temperature. From 78°C to 74°C under load :-/
>>
>> CRAP.
>
> Why crap? You nicely proved that your CPU is not throttling itself to
> avoid going over 78 degrees...
>
>
Actually, I just proved it is throttling itself:
Ran a short CPU intensive task, then opened up the intel CPUID tool,
which reports the processor speed.
Expected Processor Frequency: 2.60 GHz
Reported Processor Frequency: 1.99 GHz
Expected System Bus Frequency: 800 MHz
Reported System Bus Frequency: 613 MHz
Yeah.. It's throttling alright.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> Apparently it's really hard to go any faster than that for some reason.
>>>
>>> One might suspect the speed of light.
>>
>> I'd suspect either heat or signal interference, personally... but I'm
>> not an Engineer. ;-)
>
> Could be that too, but 4GHz is only 7.5cm in a vacuum, so on silicon I'd
> expect significantly less.
How the hell do you even know that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yyyyeah, because now my system is running at a balmy 74° instead of a
> scorching 78°
Those temperatures aren't that hot, I had a P3 system that ran around
similar temperatures, I had the BIOS alarm set at 85 and it went off
sometimes during the summer. IIRC CPUs can work up to 90 or 100 degrees.
> It does seem to run somewhat faster, now, though. Still waaay too hot for
> my comfort, though. Maybe I'll bolt a peltier cooler on the case fan ;)
Really it shouldn't need all that if you are not overclocking. Assuming you
bought the correct heatsink and fan for the CPU you shouldn't be anywhere
near the maximum temperature. Maybe the temperature reading is wrong for
some reason?
> Fun fact: The screws to the heatsink mount can back out and loosen over
> time. I only discovered this after I installed the new heatsink and fired
> up the computer, only to have it shut itself down in the middle of POST!
> After a few cycles of this and the occasional BIOS complaint that
> overclocking failed (huh? I've never overclocked my system...) I finally
> ripped of the new heatsink and noticed the screws were rather loose.
Did you check in the BIOS that the bus, CPU frequencies and voltages are all
set correctly?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Could be that too, but 4GHz is only 7.5cm in a vacuum, so on silicon I'd
>> expect significantly less.
>
> How the hell do you even know that?
Google "c/4GHz"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> Those temperatures aren't that hot, I had a P3 system that ran around
> similar temperatures, I had the BIOS alarm set at 85 and it went off
> sometimes during the summer. IIRC CPUs can work up to 90 or 100 degrees.
>
AFAIK that depends on the CPU and where the heat sensor is actually
located. The surface tends to be pretty heavily cooled, so the nearer
the surface the sensor is, the less it shows on the same core
temperature. These days there's also lot of stuff that can care of the
heat - at least multiple cores (not in the case of P4, but on newer
ones) and caches.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> AFAIK that depends on the CPU and where the heat sensor is actually
> located.
I thought all modern CPUs had the sensor actually on the CPU die, presumably
in an intelligent place to best detect when the CPU was getting too hot.
Maybe I'm wrong on that though, I know in the old days the sensor was on the
motherboard, so you'd get huge variations from PC to PC, even with the same
case and CPU.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> I thought all modern CPUs had the sensor actually on the CPU die,
> presumably in an intelligent place to best detect when the CPU was
> getting too hot. Maybe I'm wrong on that though, I know in the old days
> the sensor was on the motherboard, so you'd get huge variations from PC
> to PC, even with the same case and CPU.
>
Yes, at least it's on the CPU itself nowadays, I dunno the exact
location of the sensor of each chip. But especially with multiplying
cores, increasing caches etc the heat generation might be unbalanced
(eg. 1 core runs at 100%, other one idles), which makes the sensor
unbalanced (no matter where it actually is), resulting in a point that
has more heat than at the sensor, so the tolerances need to be higher. 1
core of dual-core processor ain't enough to fire up the proc when the
fan is running, but if the fan is controlled by a sensor not right
beside that particular core, there needs to be more tolerance for the
heat (eg. the core is 90°C, the sensor says 70°C and the fan checks
"ooh, 70, I'd better get running" instead of waiting for the 90).
This is all just my thinking, not scientifically proven, but I think
Intel has given a moment to think the throttling temperatures :).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Provided the cores are on the same die, you won't have much temperature
difference. Maybe a few degrees. Silicon is a pretty good thermal conductor.
It's about a quarter that of copper at 75°C
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Provided the cores are on the same die, you won't have much temperature
> difference. Maybe a few degrees. Silicon is a pretty good thermal
> conductor.
A CPU die is *really* thin though, that severely reduces the thermal
conduction between cores...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Provided the cores are on the same die, you won't have much temperature
>> difference. Maybe a few degrees. Silicon is a pretty good thermal
>> conductor.
>
> A CPU die is *really* thin though, that severely reduces the thermal
> conduction between cores...
AFAIK, Core 2 Quad is a dual-die solution.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> A CPU die is *really* thin though, that severely reduces the thermal
>> conduction between cores...
>
> AFAIK, Core 2 Quad is a dual-die solution.
Even more thermal resistance between cores then.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> How the hell do you even know that?
What do you mean? c is 300,000 m/s. Divide that by 4,000,000,000.
I don't know what the speed inside a chip is, but I'd guess around 40%-75%.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> >> Apparently it's really hard to go any faster than that for some reason.
> >
> > One might suspect the speed of light.
>
> I'd suspect either heat or signal interference, personally... but I'm
> not an Engineer. ;-)
Given that using "extreme" cooling solutions, overclockers have reached core
frequency of 7GHz with stable operation, I'd say it's everything to do with
heat :)
....Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> Apparently it's really hard to go any faster than that for some reason.
>>> One might suspect the speed of light.
>> I'd suspect either heat or signal interference, personally... but I'm
>> not an Engineer. ;-)
>
> Given that using "extreme" cooling solutions, overclockers have reached core
> frequency of 7GHz with stable operation, I'd say it's everything to do with
> heat :)
Who the hell has liquid nitrogen laying around?!
(Other than my employer, that is...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> Who the hell has liquid nitrogen laying around?!
>
> (Other than my employer, that is...)
I'm sure this'll piss off the phone company, but ... I mean, they leave
those huge flasks of LN2 all over the place around here ...
Nitrogen wants to be free... ;)
* Note: I do not condone stealing liquid nitrogen from the phone
company. Bad, bad stuff... you could cause a major phone outage. They
use that stuff to keep their fiber optic lines cool.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Nitrogen wants to be free... ;)
Nitrogen wants to be gaseous. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Nitrogen wants to be gaseous. :-P
And free!
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Nitrogen wants to be gaseous. :-P
>
> And free!
Actually it's diatomic. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> Nitrogen wants to be gaseous. :-P
>>
>> And free!
>
> Actually it's diatomic. :-P
<Blasts vast quantities of ionising radiation through sample>
Now it's free :-D
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Actually it's diatomic. :-P
Not free as in chemically, free as in beer! :-D
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> <Blasts vast quantities of ionising radiation through sample>
> Now it's free :-D
And wanting a partner, I suppose...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Actually it's diatomic. :-P
>
> Not free as in chemically, free as in beer! :-D
<Morpheous>You think that's AIR you're breathing?</Morpheous>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
