Bulldozer coming 19/09/2011
- Thread starter wotevajjjj
- Start date
alienware
Banned
Indeed.
It's funny really. Heat has always been the enemy. Yet, with Sandy, it doesn't seem to matter how cool you can keep it. Well, without going into the extreme cooling.
It might just be that water cooling will be replaced by a predecessor. This.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cooling/2010/07/20/hailea-hc-500a-water-chiller-review/1
Which is a sub ambient cooler. Basically not only does it circulate and pump the fluid but it chills it too.
Obviously right now it does have drawbacks. It's quite noisy and expensive. Once refined however it will be the way forward IMO.
It's funny really. Heat has always been the enemy. Yet, with Sandy, it doesn't seem to matter how cool you can keep it. Well, without going into the extreme cooling.
It might just be that water cooling will be replaced by a predecessor. This.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cooling/2010/07/20/hailea-hc-500a-water-chiller-review/1
Which is a sub ambient cooler. Basically not only does it circulate and pump the fluid but it chills it too.
Obviously right now it does have drawbacks. It's quite noisy and expensive. Once refined however it will be the way forward IMO.
alienware
Banned
It would definitely happen as more are sold. Same with everything really, when they begin to get produced in large numbers the price comes down. Even as it stands (£400 IIRC) it's not terrible. I mean, it's basically a pump, reservoir (I think.. would need to read more) and air conditioner all in one
I tell you what, though, it's a massive chunk cheaper than Asetek's vapochill from the early 2000s.
Ed. OK so you still need a pump and a res. So it's not terrible but yeah, not cheap
I tell you what, though, it's a massive chunk cheaper than Asetek's vapochill from the early 2000s.
Ed. OK so you still need a pump and a res. So it's not terrible but yeah, not cheap
ruthless_villain
New member
back to water cooling... as TTL said its the extra bit of bling.... so even if it aint worth it anymore it still looks ******* awesome unlike a certain massive beige air cooler
*sniggers* So when should we schedule our boot for the arse at Scan that configured that WC arrangement.
Another one of those gravity-defying designs.
Anyways... back on the OP. Still waiting on actual benchmarks, not alleged leaks to see what the Bulldozer architecture can do. Just like the transition from Nehalem to Sandy Bridge, I'll be here to wait and watch.
SmoulderingCircuits
New member
You can always disable cores on an 8 core, you can't add them on to a quad.
I do wonder why AMD don't allow to make the OS recognise two cores as one core, inverse hyperthreading, so that the power of both cores can be instucted as a single thread in applications that don't use many threads; if they can hyperthread to put more workers on the table for multithreaded apps surely they can concentrate workers into less more powerful units for single threaded or dual threaded apps?
SmoulderingCircuits
New member
Another idea, why don't they make hybrid rads? Use a large heatsink as the primary rad and then have some of the heatpipes leading away to a water rad? It would reduce the heat pumped into a loop while at the same time increasing overclock headroom.
SmoulderingCircuits
New member
There's off topic, then there's elabourating
SmoulderingCircuits
New member
Indeed. I know it was mentioned that the NH cools so well due to its massive size. I won't deny or debate that, I totally agree.
However, most coolers look the same. There is bound to be other ways of getting them down in size with amazing performance. GPUs run hotter than CPUs. Look what Nvidia's vapour chamber did for the 5 series. And that was some tiny little thing. Imagine that was the size of say, the dark rock pro, cooling a CPU that is way cooler than any GPU.
But there are always walls. Obviously as voltages decrease then heat will decrease with it.. I mean from what I can gather the Ivy will run on 3/4 of a voltThat's friggin insane !
Heat is, and always was the enemy.. Right up until something craps out through just not being able to go further. I've seen a GPU for example go from 700 odd mhz to 1ghz, then refuse to go higher. And it's not down to heat at all, simply that the technology won't let it go any further.
For all we know, with the unpredictability of overclocking, Intel could deceive us by well running Ivy Bridge at 0.75v and then you overclock by say 300Mhz and you're at 1.1v then add a Ghz and at the old 1.35 mark area - though this is unlikely given Intel's track record. AMD may even do the same with Bulldozer.
As for the earlier point about AMD being foolish to release desktop CPUs outperforming their server counterparts, don't forget these will have fairly advanced hyperthreading which those current-gen servers do not
For the higher extremes watercooling is still required on Sandy Bridge.
If you want you're chip to last more than a few months that is.
If you want you're chip to last more than a few months that is.
That would have to be built into the chip itself. It's not for the OS to decide merging cores together. Anyway with effectively splitting a thread across two or more cores to complete it quicker your more likely to incur errors I imagine. It'd be less efficient so consume more power. It's more producive to come up with an architecture that has a higher Instructions Per Cycle (IPC) per core then your keeping the multi-threaded ability.
Without going sub-zero I don't think water gets much more out of the SB. I built a rig with a 2500k running @ 4.8GHz on 1.38V and temps on IBT were only 70'C in P95 low 60's thats with a Thermolab BARAM with 2x120 fans. So still has more in it. The chip will probably max before the cooling does.
I recon it's not going to be too long before chips start popping with some people running 1.45V+ running 5GHz plus. WC may increase longevity of the chips but not increasing OC potential by much. Not like in the days of the Core 2 Duos.
Anyway we digress
dugdiamond
New member
^ and also
programming does not work like that!!!
it is not down to the threads that are available, BUT, more down to the amount of IRQs pushed on the CPU's registry stack.
this is something that modern programmers fail to realise (bad teachings) - only those that have an understanding for assembly language programming could understand this.
...and also why modern apps crash and BSOD, due to memory bleeding and CPU bottle-necking.
IMHO, modern .NET languages should be banned. every programmer should be taught ANSI-C as standard (no OOP - just pure realtime coding)
