4 ms·
How do they solve the problem of doubling the component count without reducing the node size also doubling the power consumption and heat generation?
by causality0 2y ago
How do they solve the problem of doubling the component count without reducing the node size also doubling the power consumption and heat generation?
- wmf 2y agoThey don't. You get twice the transistors, twice the power, and more than twice the cost (because the bonding itself costs money). See GPUs where power is increasing from 700 W to 1500 W. Moore's Law without Dennard scaling is kind of meh. You do save on networking because you need fewer servers.
- kaibee 2y agoHow do you get twice the power without the chip gaining a gooey caramel filling?
- wmf 2y agoThat's tricky. For example, AMD bonds more cache on top of their cache but they don't put anything on top of the cores to prevent them from melting.
- wtallis 2y agoI think the current version of their 3D cache does now extend over the cores and not just the cache of the underlying die. The other big factor is that their cache chiplets are built with a fab process and standard cells that cannot tolerate high voltages, so the cores (which are on the same power rail) are constrained to not operate at the extreme end of the voltage/frequency curve where high-end desktop processors sacrifice everything to win a benchmark.
- Manabu-eo 2y agoDark Silicon. Having proportionally less transistors firing at any given time.
- baybal2 2y ago[dead]
- cma 2y agoMore component count often let's you run same perf at lower clock (Nvidia 2000 series mobile chips had more cuda cores and lower clock than desktop and could match it at lower TDP).
- _carbyau_ 2y agoYou are right that geometry suggests a volume(heat generation) to surface area(heat dissipation) issue arising. You clearly don't want to build a sphere of pure compute layers. But with the ability to stack compute layers AND non-compute layers of varying thickness you now can have most any 3D shape you like. There will be adverse effects that distance will have on spacing things out of course. Maybe stack a bunch of compute rings to form a hollow tube with liquid cooling though the middle and outside? Or reverse that and have multiple compute sticks hanging off a baseboard dipping into your cooling vat like some reactor homage. I think liquid cooling will become more commonplace. Early days yet and brighter minds than mine will make things work but I am optimistic for the future!
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- inhumantsar 2y ago> sphere of pure compute layers reminds me of an alastair reynolds novel... anyway, just daydreaming with this, but I wonder if that would be feasible if every layer had fluid channels baked in? maybe oriented so convection does most of the work and submerged in subzero fluid? would have to use a transparent chamber and really complicated looking connections ofc. need to maximize that cool factor
- _carbyau_ 2y agoThe computer layers are incredibly thin. Even having deadweight cooling layers transporting fluid between the computer layers would want minimal thickness. This would require some fancy liquid management. Flow would be important and the slightest hint of a blockage most detrimental. In similar vein to 3D printers being used to print parts to upgrade themselves: "This generation of computing is fantastic for fluid modelling the cooling required for the next generation of computing."
- dehrmann 2y agoI was thinking this, and figured it wasn't viable for CPUs because they're already near the limits be being reasonably air cooled. It's probably good news for RAM and SSDs, though.
- inhumantsar 2y agothe article says that AMD used the process for it's Epyc line though