http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417

rms

hence the reason why Intel are going to go back to the old P3 design
soon.......

--
From Adam Webb, Overlag

"rms" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:B8e8d.3587$(E-Mail Removed)...
> http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417
>
> rms
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 01/10/2004

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:00:50 +0100, "Adam Webb"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>hence the reason why Intel are going to go back to the old P3 design
>soon.......

Which they're going to have to do an AMD64 for... all over again. The
troubles with Dothan would perhaps indicate that they also have some more
work to do on their process.

>From Adam Webb, Overlag
>
>"rms" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:B8e8d.3587$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417
>>

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

They've amended the results. Not as good as thought. Gets hotter this time.

http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=610

--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at
(E-Mail Removed)
Thanks, robots.

On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:41:44 -0700, "Ed Light" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>
>They've amended the results. Not as good as thought. Gets hotter this time.
>
>http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=610

Hmm.. an overclocked processor runs hotter than one that is not
overclocked...

And they are surprised by the results?!?!

The wonders will never cease..

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Nadeem wrote:
> rms wrote:
>
>> http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417
>>
>> rms
>>
>>
>
> The results sound awful. I wonder what they actually used to measure
> the wattage?

Presumably one of the many household-appliance-power-meter things. There's a
difference between running hot and being power hungry. The Prescott is both
(ie: runs hotter and uses more power than the Northwood), but judging from
these results the 90nm A64's are less power-hungry than the 130nm parts. The
jury appears to still be out on whether it runs hotter or not.

What really needs to be done is for someone (TectReport would be good, since
they already have a 90nm 3500+) to test the chips at a large range of
frequencies and plot the results. If the results look like (view with fixed
width font):

Power
usage
^
| **
| **
| ***
| ****
| **** +
| **** +
| 130nm **** ++
| ***** ++
|***** +++
| +++
| ++++
| +++++
|+++++
| 90nm
|
|
|
+-------------------------------------->
Speed

Then clearly AMD is going to be having the same problem as Intel scaling the
CPUs to higher speeds. Intel's additional problem was that the Prescott
started out being more power hungy even at the far left hand side of the
graph. AMD doesn't have this problem, so may be able to ramp better than
Intel has with the Prescott. The key thing to look at is if the power usage
for 90nm parts ever gets above that of 130nm parts. We now know that at
lower speeds, 90nm parts consume less power. So, if they ever get to the
point of crossing the 130nm part line (as shown in the ascii graph), then
it's fairly likely that they're going to hit the wall quicker than the
130's.

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

rms wrote:

> http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417
>
> rms
>
>

The results sound awful. I wonder what they actually used to measure the
wattage?

Tony Hill <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> And they are surprised by the results?!?!

And the second article is only about CPU temperature, not
power consumption.

Usual braindead journalist stuff...

"Michael Brown" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Zu49d.10657$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Nadeem wrote:
> > rms wrote:
> >
> >> http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417
> >>
> >> rms
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The results sound awful. I wonder what they actually used to measure
> > the wattage?
>
> Presumably one of the many household-appliance-power-meter things. There's
a
> difference between running hot and being power hungry. The Prescott is
both
> (ie: runs hotter and uses more power than the Northwood), but judging from
> these results the 90nm A64's are less power-hungry than the 130nm parts.
The
> jury appears to still be out on whether it runs hotter or not.
>
> What really needs to be done is for someone (TectReport would be good,
since
> they already have a 90nm 3500+) to test the chips at a large range of
> frequencies and plot the results. If the results look like (view with
fixed
> width font):
>
> Power
> usage
> ^
> | **
> | **
> | ***
> | ****
> | **** +
> | **** +
> | 130nm **** ++
> | ***** ++
> |***** +++
> | +++
> | ++++
> | +++++
> |+++++
> | 90nm
> |
> |
> |
> +-------------------------------------->
> Speed

Power consumption of CMOS is _proportional_ to core frequency.
Therefore the chart is likely to be something like this:


Power
^
| **
| ** ++
| **++
| **+
| **
| 90nm +**
| ++**
| ++ **
| ++ **
| ++ **
|++ **
| **
|**
| 130nm
|
|
|
|
|
+------------------------------------------>
0 Speed

Regards
- aap

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:13:46 +0000, alexi wrote:

>
> "Michael Brown" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Zu49d.10657$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Nadeem wrote:
>> > rms wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417
>> >>
>> >> rms
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > The results sound awful. I wonder what they actually used to measure
>> > the wattage?
>>
>> Presumably one of the many household-appliance-power-meter things. There's
> a
>> difference between running hot and being power hungry. The Prescott is
> both
>> (ie: runs hotter and uses more power than the Northwood), but judging from
>> these results the 90nm A64's are less power-hungry than the 130nm parts.
> The
>> jury appears to still be out on whether it runs hotter or not.
>>
>> What really needs to be done is for someone (TectReport would be good,
> since
>> they already have a 90nm 3500+) to test the chips at a large range of
>> frequencies and plot the results. If the results look like (view with
> fixed
>> width font):

<graph snipped>

>
> Power consumption of CMOS is _proportional_ to core frequency.
> Therefore the chart is likely to be something like this:

Not at *all* true. Active power consumption is proportional to frequency
times voltage *squared*. You assume voltage is a constant; it's not. You
also ignore leakage, which is an even higher-order issue, WRT voltage.
We're not in the 20th century, Toto.

> Power
> ^
> | **
> | ** ++
> | **++
> | **+
> | **
> | 90nm +**
> | ++**
> | ++ **
> | ++ **
> | ++ **
> |++ **
> | **
> |**
> | 130nm
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> +------------------------------------------> 0
> Speed

Would it be nice if life were simple again. ...and June had the meal on
the table when the Ward came home...

--
Keith