Waco Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 (edited) This doesn't even make sense. Making the die larger won't help heat get away from the CPU any faster. It'd waste silicon (a lot of it) and make CPUs more expensive for no gain at all. The CPU being tiny doesn't really hurt heat dissipation using normal heat sinks (thanks to heat spreaders). On high-end heat sinks it's sometimes beneficial to remove the IHS to improve heat transmission into the heat sink but more often than not these days it doesn't help (or hurt) anything at all. Smaller processors are required to actually make them go faster. As has been noted wire delays are the enemy of speed. The Pentium 4 had a bunch of pipeline stages that did nothing just to let the signal propagate around the chip because the process wasn't small enough. Edited May 4, 2009 by Waco Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewr05 Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 God damn all you people and your logical thinking! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 God damn all you people and your logical thinking! I had to build a processor simulator this past semester for my architecture class. The prof spent half of the time talking about how the P4 was such a bad design (in terms of future improvements) so I had to say something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kash Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 Well, your professor is right. Netburst sucked Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photonblaster Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 yea, kinda pulling off of what you said, adding more silicon and more transistors would just keep the same "heat production/surface area ratio" and just add more total heat to the equation would it not? Nice extrapolation. I certainly have to agree with you, otherwise I would be saying my first response was full of it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVIYTH0S Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 I had to build a processor simulator this past semester for my architecture class. The prof spent half of the time talking about how the P4 was such a bad design (in terms of future improvements) so I had to say something. My P4 ran at 77C no matter what!! lol I loved the step from that to my e6600, WHAT a difference (I hear my old Preshott is still running today though, it was a good processor despite it's heat output. I sold it to a friend) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 Well, your professor is right. Netburst sucked Definitely...but at the same time I'd rather learn about something that didn't suck. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now