4 ms·
I was under the impression that heat per transistor is inversely proportional to the size of the die. So it makes sense that reducing the size would be, primari
by duaneb 11y ago
I was under the impression that heat per transistor is inversely proportional to the size of the die. So it makes sense that reducing the size would be, primarily, a heat problem. The GPU adds much, much, much more logic to the CPU, making heat constraints more difficult to deal with.
- agumonkey 11y agoGood point, higher density but also lower voltage, I don't know how these balance each other. http://imgur.com/PD14VtN http://imgur.com/PD14VtN shows how large GPUs can be. As other said, GPU might spend a lot of time in low workload I don't know. And I don't know if have 30% more transistor budget could help heat generation and dissipation...
- duaneb 11y agoI think there are two constraints the GPU would impose on the CPU: 1. Static resource contention—i.e. how many transistors are allocated to a task. 2. Power/Heat contention: assumably the CPU can run at full force without the GPU. When the GPU is also cranking, it's unclear how the processor divvies up the power. Optimally, it would not affect the other, but with so much money going into power management and conservation research vis-a-vis phones, it wouldn't shock me to find that it cut into the CPU significantly: I would suspect the GPU is a much more recognizable piece of quality hardware to most consumers. My Moto E is an impressive, cheap piece of hardware, but still chokes hard on lollipop animations.