-
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.
Itanium's MASSIVE Heat Sink
- Thread starter Viditor
- Start date
epsilon9090
Member
Wow, I can make my breakfast on that thing.
Corporate Thug
Lifer
damn, looks like a super slk
miketheidiot
Lifer
aren't prescots running about 120 watt or so? Thats not a whole lot more power for a chip 4 times the size and with 1.7 billion transistors, compared to 200million or so on prescot.
jamesbond007
Diamond Member
...which is why it appears the design of the heatsink allows it to screw into the motherboard rather than using clip retension mechanisms. 😉
AutomaticErik
Senior member
AMD's dual-core gave off only a little more heat than single. Intel better start shaping up.
IntelUser2000
Elite Member
NO, Montecito does not dissipate 200W, or even near it. It will dissipate at most 100W. Link: http://news.zdnet.com/2102-9584_22-5281908.html
"Overall, Montecito will consume about 20 percent less power than current Itanium 2 chips, Waxman said. "
By the way, the current highest Itanium has 130W max power, while Montecito will have 100. 100W at +2GHz. Link: http://www.realworldtech.com/p...WT100404214638&p=7
That stupid Inquirer article is like saying you have 200W CPU since the heatsink requires 200W.
"Overall, Montecito will consume about 20 percent less power than current Itanium 2 chips, Waxman said. "
By the way, the current highest Itanium has 130W max power, while Montecito will have 100. 100W at +2GHz. Link: http://www.realworldtech.com/p...WT100404214638&p=7
That stupid Inquirer article is like saying you have 200W CPU since the heatsink requires 200W.
I work on the design of the future member of the Itanium product family currently codenamed Montecito. Our heatsinks are smaller than the one that I use on my Pentium 4 (Northwood). We certainly don't have anything remotely close to that pictured on the Inquirer.
As the member named IntelUser2000 pointed out, Montecito's power requirements are actually less than many of the current Itanium products.
As the member named IntelUser2000 pointed out, Montecito's power requirements are actually less than many of the current Itanium products.
AristoV300
Golden Member
and so comes the name Itanic...
Yes, the term "Itanic" does come from The Inquirer. They coined it over 4 years ago - referring of course to the Titanic, a ship that sank on it's maiden voyage. But it's now been 4 years and 4 product launches later and Itanium certainly hasn't sunk. It's making slow and steady progress in the high-end RISC market.
Details on Montecito should start to appear in the press in the next few months. I'll be presenting a paper on an aspect of it at the International Solid State Circuits Conference in San Francisco in a few months.
imported_SLIM
Member
That's system power draw at the wall socket, not the cpu only. It is impressive to look at the delta between idle and load (about 108 watts if I'm remembering correctly). That change in consumption is a better indicator of cpu power thirst and is about equal to the total system power consumption of the 90nm A64 at LOAD.
Back on subject, two points:
1) there is no scale to the pictures of the heatsink making it impossible to guess its actual size
2) the 100-130W TDP is not a maximum power consumption and Intel is well known for not actually giving the maximum power consumption.
Thermalrock
Senior member
yea its total system power. and the 3500+ winchester is freaking awesome 114W whole sytem under load. im so gonna buy that cpu.
1. Whatever it's scale it's not like anything that I have seen anywhere in our test setups.
2. I'm not sure that I agree exactly with this statement, but regardless, it will be the case of Montecito due to the introduction of Foxton technology. You can Google for the limited details that have been released, but there's a mention of it in this Inquirer article that's about 2 months old:
"This 1.72 billion transistor chip may seem like it will suck power like water, especially since it uses Intel's 90nm process. Because of the new Foxton technology, it actually only consumes 100w, 30w less than it's predecessor."
and later:
"Foxton sets the voltage to the minimum level needed to do the desired computing task. If voltage draw or temperature go too high, it will ratchet things down to get to the desired 100w level. It can also do this locally to parts of the chip, not necessarily globally."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
