• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

200 watts cooling per square mm costing 1 watt?

C

CTho9305

Elite Member
quotes from here



<< Fortunately, the newest microrefrigerators can now remove 200 watts per square millimeter while consuming only about one watt. >>


Why aren't we seeing these as consumers? The best avaible I've seen are 40mm*40mm, 172 watts, and they consume about 300 watts. Or are the "microrefrigerators" different from peltiers?

another interesting quote from the article:

<< The fluid-cooled human brain, whose dimensions considerably exceed those of any 3-D circuit currently contemplated, dissipates a mere 25 watts; a 2.2-square-centimeter Pentium 4 microprocessor, in contrast, consumes about 80 watts. >>


so we do have soldering-iron brains 😉
edit: I wonder how much power our brains use while sleeping/dreaming vs. awake
 
It is odd that they failed to mention what thermal gradient is needed for the microfridge to remove 200W. I could give you a heatsink that could remove far more than 200W/mm^2 but the only constain was that the CPU had to be at 100,000 degrees.

My guess is that these fridges are far too expensive and experiemental for ordianry cooling.
 
I don't know, giving our brain is the most complicated processor in existence, I am just suprise it 'only' dissipates 25 watts, even though sometimes it only works in 1 MHz, or a 1Ghz (comparatively speaking 😉 )

 


<< I don't know, giving our brain is the most complicated processor in existence, I am just suprise it 'only' dissipates 25 watts, even though sometimes it only works in 1 MHz, or a 1Ghz (comparatively speaking 😉 ) >>


The brain does not have to deal with things like 'leaking' electrons etc. It isn't as scaled down as the average CPU either. Very little electricity is lost.

On a sidenote, I'm currently working on a simulation of the central nervous system. Some early estimates show that in order to simulate (actually recreate) the Human brain, one would need a fast system (bandwidth, bandwidth and more bandwidth, coupled with a fast CPU, SMP is better) and lots of RAM (11-12 GB).
There are still some issues to be addressed though. I just wish those neuroscience and biochemistry physicists would work a bit faster in their research 😉😛
 


<< There are still some issues to be addressed though. I just wish those neuroscience and biochemistry physicists would work a bit faster in their research >>



You mean with faster brain chips 😛 . I thought your stimulation initially would take 4 GB of ram, so I guess it's a bigger load than expected.

You know, bringing the whole the pc to south pole, the heat dissipation wouldn't cost any eletricity at all 😉

Back to the topic, apart from cost reasons, how does this benifit us? Would it allow cpu to scale higher with better coolings?
 


<<

<< There are still some issues to be addressed though. I just wish those neuroscience and biochemistry physicists would work a bit faster in their research >>



You mean with faster brain chips 😛 >>

Hmm... there's an idea. We could upgrade those physicists with more processing power.

{the above is merely yet another sick joke by a sick mind and is to be taken as such 😛)


<< I thought your stimulation initially would take 4 GB of ram, so I guess it's a bigger load than expected. >>

Nah, the first estimates were about 10-11 GB, but adding more buffers does wonders for the memory-usage 😛

The first tests will make use of a neural network of about 100,000-150,000 neurons, though, which will mean less than 350 MB RAM)



<< You know, bringing the whole the pc to south pole, the heat dissipation wouldn't cost any eletricity at all 😉 >>

Yay, playing QuakeIII with temperatures hovering between minus 30 and 80 degrees Celcius 😉😀



<< Back to the topic, apart from cost reasons, how does this benifit us? Would it allow cpu to scale higher with better coolings? >>

Even a better question: why not focus on reducing powerconsumption instead of cooling? With CPUs like the VIA C3, ARM and Crusoe each using less than 10 Watt (yes, I know that the ARM CPU is sluggish at best, but that's beside the point), why do CPUs from Intel and AMD still use 50+ Watt?

Since for example the Crusoe CPU is only slightly slower than a comparable Pentium CPU, it should be possible to reduce powerconsumption in mainstream CPUs, no? Perhaps AMD/Intel should introduce code-morphing as well, coupled with an Altivec-like (or license Altivec) instruction set?

Just some random thoughts 🙂
 
10 gig for a fruit fly brain?!?!

shalmanese - good point.... but I dont konw why the author would have mentioned it at all if it was that severe a temp gradient.
 


<< Since for example the Crusoe CPU is only slightly slower than a comparable Pentium CPU, it should be possible to reduce powerconsumption in mainstream CPUs, no? Perhaps AMD/Intel should introduce code-morphing as well, coupled with an Altivec-like (or license Altivec) instruction set? >>



Different focuses. C3, Crusoe, and the like were designed to dissipate less heat at any cost. Pentium, Athlon, G4 and the like were designed to designed to push the envelope on performance.

As for code-morphing, it's already being done. I think it was PPro or PIII core which first introduced it, Thunderbird followed suit, or something along those line. They're called opcodes. At the heart of today's x86 processors, there's essentially a RISC processor that's getting commands fed from a hardware translator that's getting instructions based on the x86 ISA. Crusoe code-morphs via software (I think) and P4 code-morphs via hardware. I think with IA-64, Intel ditched the code-morphing and basically created a 64-bit RISC processor, not sure.
 


<< Crusoe code-morphs via software (I think) and P4 code-morphs via hardware >>

The Crusoe CPU morphs via software, which has been loaded into RAM from a Flash chip on the mainboard (about 4 MB). It also uses a translation cache to avoid 'morphing' the same piece of code again, meaning that the longer the system is running, the faster it will process commands (till a certain limit, of course).
 
As Shalmanese pointed out, how safe are these fridges? It may be like a mini nuclear bomb, requires other exotic equipment to keep it safe.
 


<< As Shalmanese pointed out, how safe are these fridges? It may be like a mini nuclear bomb, requires other exotic equipment to keep it safe. >>



all the more interesting for overclockers 😉
 
My guess is that if you can sell a 2 ghz processor disappating 100W for $200 and one disappating 30W for $250, most people would got for the $200 one for desktops but the $250 one for laptops, hell mobile processors are almost double the price for not that much less power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top