3 ms·

> Maybe you can address the observation it's addressed. it's literally on the first line of the comment you're replying to. > limited cooling options and aga

> Maybe you can address the observation it's addressed. it's literally on the first line of the comment you're replying to. > limited cooling options and again, you can't just 'cool away' leakage currents, that's not how it works, that's not how any of this works.

Symmetry 8y ago
If you mean "they have less cache on board, less cores, different integrated gpu; they don't support higher frequency ddr and they have limits on the memory bandwidth" then no, that doesn't address the point. Intel does have different chips with all of those changed. But they also have SKUs with all of those the same but different power budgets and different frequencies. And really things like cache barely use any power at all in the overall context of the chip. SRAM, especially the 8T SRAM Intel uses, is very efficient. > you can't just 'cool away' leakage currents You certainly can, the leakage current is going to be proportional to (1-e^(-qV/KT)) so better leakage will tend to go down exponentially at lower temperatures. Yes, I know what you actually meant and you're still wrong there because if you have better cooling you can accept more leakage, meaning you can use a process with a lower threshold voltage and accept the larger amount of leakage current that results.
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  > if you have better cooling you can accept more leakage again, no, better cooling stave off the thermal runway effect. you can think of it as generating less leakage per voltage unit, which is quite the opposite as accepting more leakage. higher operating voltage allows for accepting more leakage. and there's still no indication that cooling a specific chip design (because we're not talking about chips in general here) would prevent thermal issue within the chip, because you can only work on reducing the average surface temperature opposite to the pins - or, you can't just pick a single part of the argument and disprove it in isolation, because the whole thermal issue is not a premise, but ties in the whole claim of "we could just make this chip run with cooling at it'll beat down intels" - which they cannot, because you can't just cool away leakage currents, the chip has to be meant to be cooled and to be run with higher voltage at design phase.

Symmetry 8y ago

If you mean "they have less cache on board, less cores, different integrated gpu; they don't support higher frequency ddr and they have limits on the memory bandwidth" then no, that doesn't address the point. Intel does have different chips with all of those changed. But they also have SKUs with all of those the same but different power budgets and different frequencies. And really things like cache barely use any power at all in the overall context of the chip. SRAM, especially the 8T SRAM Intel uses, is very efficient. > you can't just 'cool away' leakage currents You certainly can, the leakage current is going to be proportional to (1-e^(-qV/KT)) so better leakage will tend to go down exponentially at lower temperatures. Yes, I know what you actually meant and you're still wrong there because if you have better cooling you can accept more leakage, meaning you can use a process with a lower threshold voltage and accept the larger amount of leakage current that results.

LoSboccacc 8y ago
> if you have better cooling you can accept more leakage again, no, better cooling stave off the thermal runway effect. you can think of it as generating less leakage per voltage unit, which is quite the opposite as accepting more leakage. higher operating voltage allows for accepting more leakage. and there's still no indication that cooling a specific chip design (because we're not talking about chips in general here) would prevent thermal issue within the chip, because you can only work on reducing the average surface temperature opposite to the pins - or, you can't just pick a single part of the argument and disprove it in isolation, because the whole thermal issue is not a premise, but ties in the whole claim of "we could just make this chip run with cooling at it'll beat down intels" - which they cannot, because you can't just cool away leakage currents, the chip has to be meant to be cooled and to be run with higher voltage at design phase.