If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"keith" wrote in message news On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:13:46 +0000, alexi wrote: 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 Dear student Keith with severe deficit of attention, you said: "You assume voltage is a constant; it's not" Yes, I did assume the voltage is constant because it is. It supposed to be a constant for a particular model of a processor, and the mainboard power switcher works hard to maintain this. To maintain the voltage constant regardless of the variable load, AMD uses a four-wire connection and derives the feedback directly from the CPU core. Therefore the voltage is constant at least in first approximation, and if not, it is a small secondary effect which should be neglected especially when trying to resolve such questions as this topic, which is "Who sucks more at 90nm". Second, even if a small voltage change does happen, the voltage gets smaller, therefore the curvature, if any, is opposite to what was drawn in the post I responded to. Third, the leakage is already accounted for in my approximate chart, by means of the offset in both functions. In the same first approximation of course. Forth, if you really need to compare how the power consumption on two generation of processes scales with frequency, you better make all possible efforts to ensure that all essential variables stays the same over the course of experiments, including chips temperature and core Vcc. In any case, you need to learn how to differentiate first-order effects from second-orders effects, and study the subject before making a fool of yourself on a public forum like Usenet. Next time pay attention, "Toto". -aap |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"alexi" wrote:
Dear student Keith with severe deficit of attention, you said: I foresee a flame, in your future. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 02:47:33 +0000, alexi wrote:
"keith" wrote in message news On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:13:46 +0000, alexi wrote: 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 Dear student Keith with severe deficit of attention, you said: Kidz. Cannot read and will never listen. Dear yutz, I've been in this business likely longer than you've been around. You're so wrong I cannot count the ways, but what the hell, your kind is easy meat. "You assume voltage is a constant; it's not" Indeed. It is *NOT*. Yes, I did assume the voltage is constant because it is. You're ignorant too. It may have been a constant a dozen years ago, and perhaps even five. It certainly isn't today. Nothing is a constant. It supposed to be a constant for a particular model of a processor, Define "model". Hell, even the frequency of a particular "model" is fixed (ignoring power-saving features, of which you obviously are clueless) which makes your asinine graph even sillier (can you say *point?*). Your simpleton formula ignores all reality. (see: leakage) and the mainboard power switcher works hard to maintain this. To maintain the voltage constant regardless of the variable load, AMD uses a four-wire connection and derives the feedback directly from the CPU core. Therefore the voltage is constant at least in first approximation, and if not, it is a small secondary effect which should be neglected especially when trying to resolve such questions as this topic, which is "Who sucks more at 90nm". You really ought to argue with somone who hasn't been here. You simply don't have a clue. Ok, I'll be nice and let you show your wonderous experience; how do *you* arrive at your wonderous graph for a *SINGLE* model of processor? ....the voltage doesn't vary, please! Second, even if a small voltage change does happen, the voltage gets smaller, therefore the curvature, if any, is opposite to what was drawn in the post I responded to. How the hell do you explain *your* graph? The frequency of your processor is "fixed" too. Third, the leakage is already accounted for in my approximate chart, by means of the offset in both functions. In the same first approximation of course. Bull****. You haven't a clue. Forth, if you really need to compare how the power consumption on two generation of processes scales with frequency, you better make all possible efforts to ensure that all essential variables stays the same over the course of experiments, including chips temperature and core Vcc. *I* need do nothing. I'm not the newb here. I *do* this for a living. You need to listen more and talk less ("what good is ignorance, unless you demonstate it"). In any case, you need to learn how to differentiate first-order effects from second-orders effects, and study the subject before making a fool of yourself on a public forum like Usenet. Oh, my! Next time pay attention, "Toto". Perhaps you want to 'splain your credentials Lucy? (...no don't you'll look even more foolish) -- Keith |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:41:13 -0500, chrisv wrote:
"alexi" wrote: Dear student Keith with severe deficit of attention, you said: I foresee a flame, in your future. Yeah, easy pickin's though. -- Keith |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"chrisv" wrote in message ... "alexi" wrote: Dear student Keith with severe deficit of attention, you said: I foresee a flame, in your future. I'am sorry, I didn't mean to offend one of the senior netizens of this netgroup, just his unwaranted jump on my humble remark sounded so "studentish". Next time I will research the posting history and act accordingly :-) - aap |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 02:48:23 +0000, alexi wrote:
"chrisv" wrote in message ... "alexi" wrote: Dear student Keith with severe deficit of attention, you said: I foresee a flame, in your future. I'am sorry, I didn't mean to offend one of the senior netizens of this netgroup, just his unwaranted jump on my humble remark sounded so "studentish". Next time I will research the posting history and act accordingly :-) No offense taken. We're all here to learn. However, it *is* more interesting to learn from those who actually know something. Perhaps you want to clarify your position? Nah... -- Keith |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"keith" wrote in message news Kidz. Cannot read and will never listen. .... You're ignorant too. It may have been a constant a dozen years ago, and perhaps even five. It certainly isn't today. Nothing is a constant. .... Your simpleton formula ignores all reality. (see: leakage) ..... You really ought to argue with somone who hasn't been here. You simply don't have a clue. ..... Ok, I'll be nice and let you show your wonderous experience; how do *you* arrive at your wonderous graph for a *SINGLE* model of processor? ...the voltage doesn't vary, please! .... Bull****. You haven't a clue. .... *I* need do nothing. I'm not the newb here. I *do* this for a living. You need to listen more and talk less ("what good is ignorance, unless you demonstate it"). .... Oh, my! Perhaps you want to 'splain your credentials Lucy? (...no don't you'll look even more foolish) -- Keith I appreciate your deeply-thought response (summarized above). I think nobody should hit senior netizens and self-taught amateurs, so I will limit myself to humble submission of my credentials, although I do realize it might look foolish: http://home.austin.rr.com/bah/ Have a nice day, - aap |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
keith wrote:
*I* need do nothing. I'm not the newb here. I *do* this for a living. Umm ... shouldn't that be past tense ? "Did" instead of "do" ? Thought I read something quite a while back about your imminent retirement ? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 04:19:21 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:
keith wrote: *I* need do nothing. I'm not the newb here. I *do* this for a living. Umm ... shouldn't that be past tense ? "Did" instead of "do" ? Nope. Still learning new stuff. Thought I read something quite a while back about your imminent retirement ? Not yet. I'm still in there, just crossed the threshold where it's my choice which pocket I want to get paid from. OTOH, another bad winter, after the summer that never happened, might convince me to think again. ...consideration given to good offers. ;-) -- Keith |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
keith wrote:
alexi wrote: Michael Brown wrote: Nadeem wrote: rms wrote: http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417 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. If you've got a few minutes, there's a couple things I'd like clarification on ... My original graph was drawn on the basis that in modern CPUs, nothing is ever so nice as to go bad in only a linear way The only transistor physics I have done is for low frequency and theoretical transistors (and from a physics as opposed to engineering point of view) in which case the power usage is proportional to the switching frequency, all other things remaining equal. Assumimg also that modern CPUs are FET-like instead of bipolar. What actually happens in the *real* world? Assuming voltage remains constant, how non-linear (with respect to frequency) is a transistor in the range that it's typically being pushed in a modern CPU? And what is the main contributor to that non-lineararity? [...] -- Michael Brown www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Athlon64 Spanks P4 in 90nm Power Consumption tests | rms | Overclocking | 22 | October 13th 04 06:22 AM |
my new mobo o/c's great | rockerrock | Overclocking AMD Processors | 9 | June 30th 04 08:17 PM |
Happy Birthday America | SST | Overclocking | 333 | November 27th 03 07:54 PM |
Happy Birthday America | SST | Overclocking AMD Processors | 326 | November 27th 03 07:54 PM |
How can I make motherboard to restart after power loss automatically? | Amiran | General | 1 | September 24th 03 11:35 PM |