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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
Raymond wrote:
"David Maynard" wrote in message ... leaves through your sink only, from the top of the processor. Oh, please do show me the calculations of all this massive heat flux leaving by other means and how much more or less it is for each package. And while you're at it explain why the two identical processors, made on the same process, in identical FC-PGA packages have different thermal output numbers. Because not only do different packages conduct different amounts of heat, the number of pins themselves also can have a small effect on power consumed. That's another reason for the small difference, besides others, on same die, same process, same transistor count, same architecture, same clock. No one said it was huge, just big enough to screw up your silly comparison. For heaven's sake, man, at least TRY to make sense. It's the same number of pins, even between the two packages, and there's absolutely NOTHING different between the two in the exact same package, except the power. You want huge? Consider the 150+% power difference between a clock normalized Dothan and an equivalent Prescott, for which you have no way of accounting, except to throw your hands up in the air and say, "oh there are too many factors, I give up", when it's very obvious that pipeline depth is the main variant and the most likely culprit. It's 'obvious' to you, the oblivious, just as it was 'obvious' to caveman that thunder and lightning came from the gods because they knew of nothing else. But hey, you still think latches and pipelines are a near zero factor in power consumption. So let's see: This is the equation relating pipelines, latches and power, from Srinivasan et al : Total Power = (((degree of clock gating) * (processor frequency) * (dynamic power factor /latch)) + (leakage power factor/latch)) * (total latches) Where, total latches = latches per pipeline stage * number of pipelines And now you've got nothing but the pipeline latches consuming power, eh? Do latches and pipelines seem like a "a spit causing a flood during a tsunami" type of factor to you, still?! Compared to the 90mm leakage problem, yes, because it is. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
"David Maynard" wrote in message ... But hey, you still think latches and pipelines are a near zero factor in power consumption. So let's see: This is the equation relating pipelines, latches and power, from Srinivasan et al : Total Power = (((degree of clock gating) * (processor frequency) * (dynamic power factor /latch)) + (leakage power factor/latch)) * (total latches) Where, total latches = latches per pipeline stage * number of pipelines And now you've got nothing but the pipeline latches consuming power, eh? Not MY equation! Same equation has been used in other studies about power and performance, it's widely cited. For example: http://www.microarch.org/micro36/htm...timumPower.pdf Equation #3 Send the author's an e-mail telling them they're oblivious and not to make such a big deal about "a spit during a tsunami". G |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
Raymond wrote:
"David Maynard" wrote in message ... But hey, you still think latches and pipelines are a near zero factor in power consumption. So let's see: This is the equation relating pipelines, latches and power, from Srinivasan et al : Total Power = (((degree of clock gating) * (processor frequency) * (dynamic power factor /latch)) + (leakage power factor/latch)) * (total latches) Where, total latches = latches per pipeline stage * number of pipelines And now you've got nothing but the pipeline latches consuming power, eh? Not MY equation! Same equation has been used in other studies about power and performance, it's widely cited. For example: http://www.microarch.org/micro36/htm...timumPower.pdf Equation #3 Send the author's an e-mail telling them they're oblivious and not to make such a big deal about "a spit during a tsunami". G LOL. Just for the hell of it I've gone back over this thread to see you changing your tune by the day and I see another very interesting trend. Often a half-dozen of your "facts" will be refuted in one post and if there is *one* that you feel you can defend you try it. You ignore the other corrections as they're right. Some posts that were irrefutable and proved you wrong you've ignored all together. So far the score is: Raymond: 0 Rest of NG: 16 It would seem that Raymond does in fact have a few points that are true and correct but, if you follow the thread back, you'll see that, several posts back, he was arguing *against* them. Once it becomes obvious to even him that he is holding an untenable position he does an about-face without even blinking, taking the other persons point as his own. He is getting deeper and deeper into finding corroborating evidence that support his wildly innacurate statements. He seems to forget that, for every "expert". there is and equal and opposite "expert". He must be spending a lot of time on this, it's obviously very important to him to actually get something right. Sorry, correction: To prove someone wrong. It's a negative thing he's doing, not positive. Really quite interesting study of a personallity. There are probably psychologists out there that would find this interesting. Or not. -- ~Shaun~ |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
"~misfit~" wrote in message ... LOL. Just for the hell of it I've gone back over this thread to see you changing your tune by the day and I see another very interesting trend. Often a half-dozen of your "facts" will be refuted in one post and if there is *one* that you feel you can defend you try it. You ignore the other corrections as they're right. Some posts that were irrefutable and proved you wrong you've ignored all together. So far the score is: Raymond: 0 Rest of NG: 16 It would seem that Raymond does in fact have a few points that are true and correct but, if you follow the thread back, you'll see that, several posts back, he was arguing *against* them. Once it becomes obvious to even him that he is holding an untenable position he does an about-face without even blinking, taking the other persons point as his own. He is getting deeper and deeper into finding corroborating evidence that support his wildly innacurate statements. He seems to forget that, for every "expert". there is and equal and opposite "expert". He must be spending a lot of time on this, it's obviously very important to him to actually get something right. Sorry, correction: To prove someone wrong. It's a negative thing he's doing, not positive. Really quite interesting study of a personallity. There are probably psychologists out there that would find this interesting. Or not. I've not done "an about face" about a single thing here. What I'm sure you're referring to is my position that you can't keep increasing clocks using deeper pipelines. My position on that is the same. You can't! You say it's only because of thermal issues that you can't. Well I just showed that thermal issue are related to pipeline depth. So where is the about face there? The only thing I will admit is that if you have a processor that uses a shallower than optimal pipelines, you can increase the clock with deeper pipelines. But that's not the case with the Pentium 4. Never was! I don't believe that the Pentium 4 is higher clocked because of pipeline depth, never did, and still don't. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
Raymond wrote:
"David Maynard" wrote in message ... But hey, you still think latches and pipelines are a near zero factor in power consumption. So let's see: This is the equation relating pipelines, latches and power, from Srinivasan et al : Total Power = (((degree of clock gating) * (processor frequency) *(dynamic power factor /latch)) + (leakage power factor/latch)) * (total latches) Where, total latches = latches per pipeline stage * number of pipelines And now you've got nothing but the pipeline latches consuming power, eh? Not MY equation! Same equation has been used in other studies about power and performance, it's widely cited. For example: http://www.microarch.org/micro36/htm...timumPower.pdf Equation #3 Send the author's an e-mail telling them they're oblivious and not to make such a big deal about "a spit during a tsunami". G I don't need to email them because they know what they're talking about. It's you who don't and misread it, not to mention misapply it to the discussion. The paper does not say pipeline length causes leakage, as you erroneously claimed, it studies a new definition for 'optimum' pipeline depth by adding power consumption, rather than just raw processing, to the criteria for 'optimum'. In particular, BIPSm/W. That assumes one actually 'cares' about optimizing power consumption, an assumption which might vary depending on whether one is running a notebook on batteries or is plugged into a 1.2KW capable wall outlet. You should have read the opening synopsis. "Clock gating pushes the optimum to deeper pipelines. Surprisingly, as leakage power grows, the optimum is also found to shift to deeper pipelines." The conclusions of the paper directly contradict your claims. In fact, if you look at their calculations you'll see that for one of the workloads the 'performance only' optimum depth was 20 stages which, shazzam, is what the original P4 pipeline was. In another workload type it came out at 22 stages. (note that it varies depending on what type of workload one 'assumes' and what one designs for) But then, as they explicitly say, "Even though we model the complete processor pipeline, we only refer to the stages between decode and execution as the pipeline length" so the numbers are fewer than the total stages of a real processor. So the paper actually supports the increased P4 pipelines rather than your contention. The longer pipelines not only allow a faster clock but are 'raw performance optimal'. It does not address at ALL what causes leakage, the thermal effects on leakage, the effect of die power density, the process and how the transistors are made, nor what the maximum achievable clock might be. Which, unfortunately for you, happens to be where the problem lies. Not to mention you ignore all the assumptions they explicitly list, and there's a ton of them, with not the least being their definition for 'processor' excluding everything, like instruction cache, L2 cache, BUT the (simplified) pipeline so naturally their 'processor power' is pipeline power since it's the only thing they model (because pipeline length is the only thing they're looking to 'optimize' as the title clearly says, "Optimum Power/Performance Pipeline Depth," not "total processor power."). Not to mention it's a minimal, simplified, model to demonstrate their theory, not a complete processor, so your contention that their simplified pipeline model 'power' represents the total power of a real processor made on a real process is nonsensical. And, of course, the primary reason power increases with the longer pipeline is you CLOCK IT FASTER. It's a foregone conclusion in their analysis because things like latch active (per clock) and leakage power (not to mention they simply assume that power variation is due entirely to the latches so power of the calculation logic itself is ignored) are static plug-ins. As they say "This also explains why clock gating pushes the optimum to greater pipeline depths. Clock gating reduces the power for a given performance. Therefore, one can push the pipeline to larger depths..." (because it reduces the effective clock rate on the latches by not clocking each and every one on every clock cycle, assuming one CARES to optimize work done per watt rather than raw performance.) Even worse, for you, read on "However, a particularly interesting case arises if we have complete clock gating on a fine grained scale. The circuits and latches only switch with work changes; to first order, pipelining itself does not lead to additional switching. However, it has previously been shown that pipelining can lead to better performance. This secondary effect can lead to changes in the switching behavior. The net result is that the combined effects, of the increased frequency and reduced clock gating switching with pipelining, become proportional to the performance, (T/NI)-1. The effective switching frequency is proportional to the number of instructions executed per unit time." In other words, in theory, increased pipeline depth, alone, does not result in increased power consumption; it's the MORE WORK per unit of time, I.E. better performance, that a longer pipeline achieves that does. So, regarding that tsunami, your paper says the added latches don't even count for spit. In short, you've done the same thing I previously warned you about: looking for some 'little thing', a phrase, word, 'equation', you think 'looks like' it'll support your foregone conclusion (whatever it happens to be at the moment) without looking to see what's actually said or what it means and, as a result, presented a paper that disproves everything you've contended. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
"David Maynard" wrote in message ... I don't need to email them because they know what they're talking about. It's you who don't and misread it, not to mention misapply it to the discussion. The paper does not say pipeline length causes leakage, as you erroneously claimed, It doesn't need to, it's obvious from the equation it uses. Research papers assume their audience can understand basic equations. You should have read the opening synopsis. "Clock gating pushes the optimum to deeper pipelines. Surprisingly, as leakage power grows, the optimum is also found to shift to deeper pipelines." The conclusions of the paper directly contradict your claims. In fact, if you look at their calculations you'll see that for one of the workloads the 'performance only' optimum depth was 20 stages which, shazzam, is what the original P4 pipeline was. Original Pentium 4??? We're comparing Prescotts here to Dothans. Hello!!! In another workload type it came out at 22 stages. (note that it varies depending on what type of workload one 'assumes' and what one designs for) But then, as they explicitly say, "Even though we model the complete processor pipeline, we only refer to the stages between decode and execution as the pipeline length" so the numbers are fewer than the total stages of a real processor. So the paper actually supports the increased P4 pipelines rather than your contention. The longer pipelines not only allow a faster clock but are 'raw performance optimal'. It does not address at ALL what causes leakage, the thermal effects on leakage, the effect of die power density, the process and how the transistors are made, nor what the maximum achievable clock might be. Which, unfortunately for you, happens to be where the problem lies. I never said that paper did that, just that it uses the equation that does. Nevertheless, the paper does explicitly and conclusively say that pipelines affect power. In Summary: "A theory has been presented of the optimum pipeline depth for a microprocessor taking into account both power and performance. It was found that only one optimal solution exists for this problem and the nature of that solution has been characterized. For some power/performance metrics one finds that the optimum design contains only a single stage in the processor, whereas for other metrics, including the performance only metric, a pipelined design results. Consideration of power in the optimization problem always leads to shorter pipelines than if power were no consideration." Not to mention you ignore all the assumptions they explicitly list, and there's a ton of them, with not the least being their definition for 'processor' excluding everything, like instruction cache, L2 cache, BUT the (simplified) pipeline so naturally their 'processor power' is pipeline power since it's the only thing they model (because pipeline length is the only thing they're looking to 'optimize' as the title clearly says, "Optimum Power/Performance Pipeline Depth," not "total processor power."). Not to mention it's a minimal, simplified, model to demonstrate their theory, not a complete processor, so your contention that their simplified pipeline model 'power' represents the total power of a real processor made on a real process is nonsensical. Assumptions in a modelling equation? You're joking! Of course there are assumptions, all modelling equations make assumptions. And, of course, the primary reason power increases with the longer pipeline is you CLOCK IT FASTER. It's a foregone conclusion in their analysis because things like latch active (per clock) and leakage power (not to mention they simply assume that power variation is due entirely to the latches so power of the calculation logic itself is ignored) are static plug-ins. As they say "This also explains why clock gating pushes the optimum to greater pipeline depths. Clock gating reduces the power for a given performance. Therefore, one can push the pipeline to larger depths..." (because it reduces the effective clock rate on the latches by not clocking each and every one on every clock cycle, assuming one CARES to optimize work done per watt rather than raw performance.) Even worse, for you, read on "However, a particularly interesting case arises if we have complete clock gating on a fine grained scale. The circuits and latches only switch with work changes; to first order, pipelining itself does not lead to additional switching. However, it has previously been shown that pipelining can lead to better performance. This secondary effect can lead to changes in the switching behavior. The net result is that the combined effects, of the increased frequency and reduced clock gating switching with pipelining, become proportional to the performance, (T/NI)-1. The effective switching frequency is proportional to the number of instructions executed per unit time." In other words, in theory, increased pipeline depth, alone, does not result in increased power consumption; it's the MORE WORK per unit of time, I.E. better performance, that a longer pipeline achieves that does. That's in the equation I cited, which you chose to ignore then and say, "it's all about latches, eh?" The point was that latches and pipes are quite important to power, as that equation shows and which the paper also concludes, about which you're still hopelessly in denial. So, regarding that tsunami, your paper says the added latches don't even count for spit. Yeah right! sigh |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
Raymond wrote:
"David Maynard" wrote in message ... I don't need to email them because they know what they're talking about. It's you who don't and misread it, not to mention misapply it to the discussion. The paper does not say pipeline length causes leakage, as you erroneously claimed, It doesn't need to, it's obvious from the equation it uses. Leakage is a plug-in to the equation: You pick what you 'think it is' and go merrily on your way. There are no terms for heat generation, die power density, or any other process characteristic. Research papers assume their audience can understand basic equations. An unfortunate assumption on their part when it came to you reading it. You should have read the opening synopsis. "Clock gating pushes the optimum to deeper pipelines. Surprisingly, as leakage power grows, the optimum is also found to shift to deeper pipelines." The conclusions of the paper directly contradict your claims. In fact, if you look at their calculations you'll see that for one of the workloads the 'performance only' optimum depth was 20 stages which, shazzam, is what the original P4 pipeline was. Original Pentium 4??? We're comparing Prescotts here to Dothans. Hello!!! No, 'we' weren't. The topic was deeper pipelines allowing faster clock rates. You then went merrily dancing off into power dissipation as if it 'proved' something. In another workload type it came out at 22 stages. (note that it varies depending on what type of workload one 'assumes' and what one designs for) But then, as they explicitly say, "Even though we model the complete processor pipeline, we only refer to the stages between decode and execution as the pipeline length" so the numbers are fewer than the total stages of a real processor. So the paper actually supports the increased P4 pipelines rather than your contention. The longer pipelines not only allow a faster clock but are 'raw performance optimal'. It does not address at ALL what causes leakage, the thermal effects on leakage, the effect of die power density, the process and how the transistors are made, nor what the maximum achievable clock might be. Which, unfortunately for you, happens to be where the problem lies. I never said that paper did that, The discussion was whether increased heat generation was solely caused by the mere existence of deeper pipelines (latches), what you think the fallacious Dothan comparison shows, and you offered that paper as 'proof'. It obviously doesn't 'prove' any such thing when it doesn't deal with any of the process issues that determine leakage and power consumption, not to mention it doesn't deal with the power of a 'whole processor' but merely the portion they're concerned with optimizing. But the real kicker, for you, is it's flat out declaration that deeper pipelines do not automatically lead to increased power consumption, in direct contradiction to your claim. just that it uses the equation that does. An equation you made claims about but clearly don't even begin to understand. Nevertheless, the paper does explicitly and conclusively say that pipelines affect power. In Summary: "A theory has been presented of the optimum pipeline depth for a microprocessor taking into account both power and performance. It was found that only one optimal solution exists for this problem and the nature of that solution has been characterized. For some power/performance metrics one finds that the optimum design contains only a single stage in the processor, whereas for other metrics, including the performance only metric, a pipelined design results. Consideration of power in the optimization problem always leads to shorter pipelines than if power were no consideration." Of course pipelines 'affect power" because you use a deeper pipeline for the express purpose of CLOCKING IT FASTER, for better performance, and increased clock rates increase power consumption. And if you give a tinker's dam about power, like in a battery powered notebook, you might want to optimize for power. Otherwise you might want to optimize for raw performance. Not to mention you ignore all the assumptions they explicitly list, and there's a ton of them, with not the least being their definition for 'processor' excluding everything, like instruction cache, L2 cache, BUT the (simplified) pipeline so naturally their 'processor power' is pipeline power since it's the only thing they model (because pipeline length is the only thing they're looking to 'optimize' as the title clearly says, "Optimum Power/Performance Pipeline Depth," not "total processor power."). Not to mention it's a minimal, simplified, model to demonstrate their theory, not a complete processor, so your contention that their simplified pipeline model 'power' represents the total power of a real processor made on a real process is nonsensical. Assumptions in a modelling equation? You're joking! Of course there are assumptions, all modelling equations make assumptions. Quite right, there always are. And since you know that it's doubly egregious of you to ignore every blessed one of them. And, of course, the primary reason power increases with the longer pipeline is you CLOCK IT FASTER. It's a foregone conclusion in their analysis because things like latch active (per clock) and leakage power (not to mention they simply assume that power variation is due entirely to the latches so power of the calculation logic itself is ignored) are static plug-ins. As they say "This also explains why clock gating pushes the optimum to greater pipeline depths. Clock gating reduces the power for a given performance. Therefore, one can push the pipeline to larger depths..." (because it reduces the effective clock rate on the latches by not clocking each and every one on every clock cycle, assuming one CARES to optimize work done per watt rather than raw performance.) Even worse, for you, read on "However, a particularly interesting case arises if we have complete clock gating on a fine grained scale. The circuits and latches only switch with work changes; to first order, pipelining itself does not lead to additional switching. However, it has previously been shown that pipelining can lead to better performance. This secondary effect can lead to changes in the switching behavior. The net result is that the combined effects, of the increased frequency and reduced clock gating switching with pipelining, become proportional to the performance, (T/NI)-1. The effective switching frequency is proportional to the number of instructions executed per unit time." In other words, in theory, increased pipeline depth, alone, does not result in increased power consumption; it's the MORE WORK per unit of time, I.E. better performance, that a longer pipeline achieves that does. That's in the equation I cited, If you see that the equation shows deeper pipelines, in and of themselves, do not necessarily lead to increased power consumption then why did you offer it as 'proof' that the mere existence of deeper pipelines must be the sole cause of increased power consumption? which you chose to ignore then and say, "it's all about latches, eh?" Because that's how you first presented it and was the 'point' you were claiming to make, silly as it was. The point was that latches and pipes are quite important to power, as that equation shows No, it doesn't. It shows that 'power in a pipeline' is "quite important" to 'power in a pipeline', at least within the scope of the bazillion simplifying assumptions made, but it doesn't say a blessed thing about what percentage of overall power consumption that is in a real 'whole' processor made on a real process with real leakage and real thermal characteristics nor does it address what the maximum achievable clock is or, indeed, any of the ridiculous claims you've made, except for flat out declaring your premise that the mere existence of more pipeline stages automatically means more power dissipation to be false. and which the paper also concludes, about which you're still hopelessly in denial. The only thing I deny are your nonsensical conclusions from not understanding the very papers you reference. So, regarding that tsunami, your paper says the added latches don't even count for spit. Yeah right! sigh You now don't believe the paper you, yourself, presented? |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
David Maynard wrote:
Raymond wrote: Original Pentium 4??? We're comparing Prescotts here to Dothans. Hello!!! No, 'we' weren't. Thank you for that David, that was my reaction on first reading that. How he can say that in a thread titled "Another Intel vs AMD Comparison" (Which I believe he started himself) is beyond me. g "Hello!!!" yourself Raymond. Keep it up, I'm getting quite a few laughs out of watching this Raymond character struggle to find articles to refute known facts, then misinterpret them to suit himself (or simply becaue he's out of his depth). :-) -- ~Shaun~ |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
"David Maynard" wrote in message ... Raymond wrote: "David Maynard" wrote in message ... I don't need to email them because they know what they're talking about. It's you who don't and misread it, not to mention misapply it to the discussion. The paper does not say pipeline length causes leakage, as you erroneously claimed, It doesn't need to, it's obvious from the equation it uses. Leakage is a plug-in to the equation: You pick what you 'think it is' and go merrily on your way. There are no terms for heat generation, die power density, or any other process characteristic. Not it isn't. read it. The plug-in is leakage factor not total leakage, ie a leakage/latch factor. More pipeline stages = more latches = more total leakage power! Research papers assume their audience can understand basic equations. An unfortunate assumption on their part when it came to you reading it. The unfortunate assumption applies to you here, obviously. Assumptions in a modelling equation? You're joking! Of course there are assumptions, all modelling equations make assumptions. Quite right, there always are. And since you know that it's doubly egregious of you to ignore every blessed one of them. Well we have a choice, despite the assumptions: 1) an equation that explains most of the discrepancy in power consumption to the comparison I described. 2) your theory: there are too many factors, I give up. Hmmm, tough one. I think I'm going to have to go with #1 here. Sorry! |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
Raymond wrote:
"David Maynard" wrote in message ... Raymond wrote: "David Maynard" wrote in message ... I don't need to email them because they know what they're talking about. It's you who don't and misread it, not to mention misapply it to the discussion. The paper does not say pipeline length causes leakage, as you erroneously claimed, It doesn't need to, it's obvious from the equation it uses. Leakage is a plug-in to the equation: You pick what you 'think it is' and go merrily on your way. There are no terms for heat generation, die power density, or any other process characteristic. Not it isn't. Yes, it is. read it. The plug-in is leakage factor not total leakage, So who said it was total leakage? Not I. ie a leakage/latch factor. Yes, that's the number you plug-in. You pick a number and plug it into the equation. That's why it's called a plug-in. More pipeline stages = more latches = more total leakage power! Why don't you ever read what's written? To repeat what's already up there "There are no terms for heat generation, die power density, or any other process characteristic" which dynamically alter leakage, in the real world. It's a blooming static plug-in. And the latches do not 'cause' leakage; you plug in the number, whatever caused it. Except, unfortunately for the equation, it isn't static. As the paper says in Section 5, "The leakage power was varied between 0% and 90% of the total power dissipation." Pick a number. Plug it in. Have fun. And never mind that, in the real world, it changes with temperature. Not to mention you have idea what to plug in for *any* of the numbers or what portion of the total power in a real processor the equation even deals with. Research papers assume their audience can understand basic equations. An unfortunate assumption on their part when it came to you reading it. The unfortunate assumption applies to you here, obviously. LOL I mean, really, that *is* funny coming from you who's main approach in this discussion is to snip out and ignore every single technical issue. Assumptions in a modelling equation? You're joking! Of course there are assumptions, all modelling equations make assumptions. Quite right, there always are. And since you know that it's doubly egregious of you to ignore every blessed one of them. Well we have a choice, despite the assumptions: 1) an equation that explains most of the discrepancy in power consumption to the comparison I described. That would be great if it weren't for the fact that the equation does no such thing because, just to reiterate a few, the numbers are static plug-ins, it doesn't concern itself with the total power of a complete processor, and it speaks not at all to process issues. 2) your theory: there are too many factors, I give up. Except I never said "too many factors" nor "I give up." I said you ignore all the other factors and had explained to you back at the very beginning of this farce that the main problem was the process and temperature dependent leakage current aggravated by power consumption forming, to some degree, a regenerative leakage-power-temperature-leakage--- feedback loop that beings because you CLOCK IT FASTER. Hmmm, tough one. I think I'm going to have to go with #1 here. Sorry! Well, let's not insult the good folk who wrote that paper by suggesting their excellent research had anything to do with it, especially since their paper contradicts everything you've contended, because it's abundantly clear that nothing written by either man or god could alter your preconceived fallacies. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Laptops, wait for Intel Centrino Core Duo? | Kevin K. Fosler | Dell Computers | 35 | February 15th 06 01:48 AM |
Apple Abandons IBM, Will Use Intel Chips | Sparky Spartacus | Dell Computers | 2 | June 9th 05 07:19 PM |
GA-8IDML and Mobile CPU compatibility | Cuzman | Gigabyte Motherboards | 0 | December 8th 04 01:29 PM |
Advice Please on comparison between Intel Xeon MP 1.5GHz and 2.6GHz+ AMD64 | Neil Hodgkinson | Intel | 7 | July 16th 04 10:53 AM |
Intel chip comparison | NMH | Dell Computers | 2 | June 30th 03 10:49 PM |