|
coffeetable posted:Yeah, no. What kills chips is electromigration, and the mean time to failure of a conductor due to electromigration has an (approximately) exponential dependence on temperature. If you're a frequent gamer and your games bring your chip up to 90-100C, I wouldn't be surprised if it burns out before the year's done. It's a function of both voltage and heat isn't it? My thinking is that at a given voltage, an increase in temperature may produce an exponential increase of electromigration, decrease the voltage will produce less heat and less Electromigration directly (as it's inherently a function of current / current density). With a lower voltage there is less charge that needs to be moved, and thus, less current. Of course if it's too low the system may become unstable and crash, and they've obviously put all the effort they can into making the stock chip as low voltage while remaining stable for nearly everyone. and lower voltages should produce less heat in the first place, so the whole thing is a combination of voltage and cooling
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
bobfather posted:I did some fiddling around with the only setting I thought might cause an issue, which was the CPU load-line calibration. I was using a fairly aggressive value to compensate for vdroop, but it turns out that setting might have been giving a boost in voltage, perhaps +.05 or so. Changing the setting to be more conservative has resulted in a more reasonable core voltage of 1.280 under full load, for temps of ~70 for all cores under Prime 95. Load-line calibration can put dangerously high voltage to your CPU. Definitely never turn it up to max.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
Miffler posted:Ah, people in the comments mentioning the 300A. What a wonderful creature that was. Pentium-75 at 133 MHz all the way baby.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 11:54
|
|
|
Celeron 366 (SL36C) was my baby in an Abit BM6. Set it at 100mhz FSB and call it a day. I ran that thing at 550 mhz for around 5 years without so much as a hiccup.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 13:34
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Load-line calibration can put dangerously high voltage to your CPU. Definitely never turn it up to max. Don't really need it if you run enough offset.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
I personally feel the practical danger of LLC is overstated with some manufacturers. I've been using it since a Q9550 at, I want to say 4.3GHz on the very board where they first demonstrated that LLC is a violation of the CPU specified voltage delivery and that vdroop is part of how it is intended to work. Going strong (and by that I mean passing whatever stress tests you want to toss at it and never kicking an error in use) five years later. I think the thing to do is to just realize that LLC is basically very quick bursts of higher voltage. So treat LLC as almost identical to but not exactly the same as just raising voltage and don't go nuts with it, especially on Gigabyte motherboards as their power delivery is extremely aggressive. You can get a total lower power delivery over time which in its own small way does extend the life of the chip compared to axing LLC and just upping voltage. I doubt it will be necessary or even particularly germane to future CPU generations, though. Yeah, power delivery components on the motherboard will still be significant, but moving so much of what regulates the operating voltage and all that to a more integrated platform is going to make it less meaningful.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 12:53
|
|
|
Is there some separate thread for the Brian Krzanich election? Or just no interest in discussing it?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Is there some separate thread for the Brian Krzanich election? Or just no interest in discussing it? I guess we're not spergy enough to throw it in its own thread; I saw the news this morning but I don't have a good feel for what that means for the company. I'd be interested in hearing from those more familiar with what's happening with the future now that he's in charge / is he secretly murdering puppies / etc
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Otellini announced he was retiring back in November, oddly timed since he could have gone a couple more years if memory serves. His reasoning was along the lines of there's a Big Decision about the future of Intel that the next CEO will have to live with the consequences of for their entire tenure and he didn't want to make it for them. I no longer work for the company, but I'm still not sure how much of that is public or not so apologies on being vague. I'm a little surprised they went with Krzanich, the incredibly safe choice of promoting the current COO. The very possibility of an outside hire, even if "outside" meant Pat Gelsinger, was really interesting. I think I'm trying to read a lot more into the phrase "open-minded approach to problem solving" than was intended, but he might have tipped his hand on that Big Decision.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
There was buzz yesterday that Intel is considering an acquisition of AMD to form a unified front against ARM, but that's probably just analysts being retarded. I can't imagine AMD management or shareholders going for that given they are about to start making a SHITTON of money from consoles for 5+ years.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Alereon posted:There was buzz yesterday that Intel is considering an acquisition of AMD to form a unified front against ARM, but that's probably just analysts being retarded. I can't imagine AMD management or shareholders going for that given they are about to start making a SHITTON of money from consoles for 5+ years. Also, I thought the reason AMD had an x86 licence was so they could provide an alternate source for the CPUs. Intel and AMD merging would ring all available monopoly bells
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Also, I thought the reason AMD had an x86 licence was so they could provide an alternate source for the CPUs. Intel and AMD merging would ring all available monopoly bells  It definitely would have been a monopoly issue a few years ago, but today Intel could make a compelling argument that ARM provides such strong competition that there's no need to have additional competition within the x86 space.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Alereon posted:I can't imagine AMD management or shareholders going for that given they are about to start making a SHITTON of money from consoles for 5+ years. Consoles aren't huge volumes though. The PS3 shipped 70M over 6 years, Ivybridge shipped 100M in one year. Different margins and continuing engineering support profiles too. Totally agreed on the x86 monopoly/ARM issue though. ARM's in a great position and there have been a few decades of research to abstract away the ISA layer between HLL's and performance. Apple in particular has practical experience swapping out the ISA and complete control of the iOS toolchain. I still think ARM would have huge growing pains if they tried to scale to a billion+ transistors and it isn't a given they could get to today's desktop range without burning up. But a monopoly on x86 isn't worth what it used to be.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:But a monopoly on x86 isn't worth what it used to be. Especially since the huge push to mobile means ARM at this point - I was looking in the stats of a website I'm running with a client, and out of the something like 650,000 visits last month, nearly 60% were classified as mobile - iOS and some form of a billion android devices was 99% of that. And this isn't a site that appeals to someone that is technologically savvy - if anything, it's the opposite. That's nearly triple what it was last year - and Intel isn't selling those chips.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Otellini announced he was retiring back in November, oddly timed since he could have gone a couple more years if memory serves. His reasoning was along the lines of there's a Big Decision about the future of Intel that the next CEO will have to live with the consequences of for their entire tenure and he didn't want to make it for them. I no longer work for the company, but I'm still not sure how much of that is public or not so apologies on being vague. I just assumed that Paul stepping down was do to Intel missing the mobile boat and being really late to the game. That's just me guessing with no actual information or anything. And boring CEO choice where is my stock pop  I'm assuming that picking a guy with TMG experience is an indication of where the company is going and/or what they plan on doing
WhyteRyce fucked around with this message at 22:31 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:I just assumed that Paul stepping down was do to Intel missing the mobile boat and being really late to the game. That's just me guessing with no actual information or anything. quote:I'm assuming that picking a guy with TMG experience is an indication of where the company is going and/or what they plan on doing WhyteRyce posted:And boring CEO choice where is my stock pop
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Gelsinger said he was happy where he was at, so Intel might not have even had the chance http://www.businessinsider.com/pat-gelsinger-says-no-to-intel-ceo-job-2013-3 quote:I’m flattered, of course, to be considered for running such a great company as Intel. But I’m happy in my role at VMware and hope to be doing it for many years to come. quote:There were monumental shifts to correct course there. The board was surely aware of the justifications stretching back to when Xscale was sold off and I don't think they'd hold it against him. It seems like a lot of time was lost just spinning wheels when Anand Chandrasekher was promising phones and a lot of time and opportunity was lost when Atom was just getting minor tweaks here and there. But that's a completely uneducated, uninformed opinion. WhyteRyce fucked around with this message at 23:37 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Consoles aren't huge volumes though. The PS3 shipped 70M over 6 years, Ivybridge shipped 100M in one year. Different margins and continuing engineering support profiles too.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Remember though that AMD is providing the CPU and GPU for both the new XboX and the PS4, as well as the GPU in the WiiU. Without insider information we really can't do much more than speculate safely enough that the console wins will provide them with a much-needed financial buffer; beyond that, ever since the original xBox where nVidia contractually roped Microsoft into buying the then-current video card tech at launch prices for the entire duration of the console, screwing them pretty bad... I dunno, the various party profits on console hardware are a little too malleable to just categorically say that AMD's totes safe now that they're providing the CPUs and GPUs for the two big consoles and the GPU for the little one. Going to make them money? Thank goodness yes. Going to make them rich? Questionable.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
What kind of revenue stream has AMD had going from being the GPU provider in the 360 and Wii? And what was the revenue like when Intel was providing the CPU for the original Xbox?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
I remember reading somewhere (so please take with a grain of salt) that AMD is going to gain a revenue stream yes, but not a particularity large one as they are not making that much per console APU. I doubt, in fact, they will have close to the margins Intel has, but then again that market is in a tailspin. The real boon, aside from actually making money, is having a leg up in the gaming market as code will be optimized for their products and perhaps be HSA compliant. ARM ISA chips have more or less reached "good enough" status in the mobile market. I was astonished with the Exynos in my Note II + Android, it totally blew the doors off the POS dual core atom that now collects dust somewhere in my apartment. Silvermont may help Intel get into the SoC and low end market, but I wonder if Intel can adapt to the sort of razor thin margins that it requires. I don't doubt chipzilla's ability, though I do their acumen. They are awfully late to the game.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
Tech-wise, what would Intel gain from buying AMD? GPU know-how seems like the big thing, but what about on the CPU side?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Toast Museum posted:Tech-wise, what would Intel gain from buying AMD? GPU know-how seems like the big thing, but what about on the CPU side? Basically nothing - anything important is already covered under their cross-licensing agreements.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
Toast Museum posted:Tech-wise, what would Intel gain from buying AMD? GPU know-how seems like the big thing, but what about on the CPU side? How to screw up their per-core performance. I'd love to give AMD a try, but ever since I started building my computers, Intel's had the best bang-for-buck in the enthusiast segment.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
Control over the CPU-GPU HSA, maybe. That's AMD's big push and big hope, yet Haswell having the ability to push a GPU memory-space pointer to the CPU shows that Intel is trying to do the same thing. If Intel had AMD, then Intel could do one, non-segmented HSA for x86. Especially one which conveniently only worked with Iris and Radeon hardware, leaving Nvidia at a disadvantage in the compute space it gets so much money from.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 08:44
|
|
|
Intel - 2012 revenue: $53 billion AMD - 2012 revenue: $5.4 billion ARM Holdings - 2012 revenue: $0.9 billion (Source: Wikipedia, 1 pound = 1.55 dollars) So yeah, Intel needs to totally buy ARM immediately lest they be obliterated in the next 3 months or something. This would not have any negative influence on the market. In other news, Coca Cola just got approval to buy PepsiCo in order to prevent being pushed out of the market by Virgin Cola. I'm not an economist, but if revenue is an indicator of scale, then I'd think Intel and AMD still have no excuse to merge. Maybe in a few years.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 12:24
|
|
|
I think some people fail to realize that ARM doesn't make any of the processors they design; they just license the processors to other companies to make them. One of the reasons why they're so popular is because their licenses are cheap and easy to obtain. In fact, Intel already has a license for an older ARM processor design.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 13:43
|
|
|
^Not sure if that affects the previous argument any, since if ARM only makes their money from licenses like stated here, then I'm guessing they don't pay for costs on mass-production physical development. I'm also under the impression that it's hard to get hard numbers on number of products shipped out to compare in a situation like this, yes?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:^Not sure if that affects the previous argument any, since if ARM only makes their money from licenses like stated here, then I'm guessing they don't pay for costs on mass-production physical development. I'm also under the impression that it's hard to get hard numbers on number of products shipped out to compare in a situation like this, yes? It means that ARM's market cap is not a useful measure of the threat it poses to Intel.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 14:12
|
|
|
Agreed. So then what would we use?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:What kind of revenue stream has AMD had going from being the GPU provider in the 360 and Wii? And what was the revenue like when Intel was providing the CPU for the original Xbox? Direct revenue from these chips might be small, but the name recognition could help push APU laptop sales at retail. Knowing that your potential new machine has the "same" guts as the PS4/new XbOX would possibly sell quite a few machines to the uneducated.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
roadhead posted:Direct revenue from these chips might be small, but the name recognition could help push APU laptop sales at retail. Knowing that your potential new machine has the "same" guts as the PS4/new XbOX would possibly sell quite a few machines to the uneducated. Non-technicals have no goddamn clue what's in their console or laptop or phone or whatever. It's both not something they understand, it's ALSO something they don't give a poo poo about.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
roadhead posted:Direct revenue from these chips might be small, but the name recognition could help push APU laptop sales at retail. Knowing that your potential new machine has the "same" guts as the PS4/new XbOX would possibly sell quite a few machines to the uneducated. ATI had a logo on the Gamecube and I'm not sure anyone cared
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:Agreed. So then what would we use? Market share is the usual metric. We know ARM is a giant threat to Intel thanks to its domination of the mobile/tablet markets which are still growing. We'll see if Silvermont/Haswell let Intel make inroads back, but it looks like this is a repeat of the early AMD competition where Intel got caught napping (here, on power consumption) and is throwing bags of money at catching up.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
I'm clearly extremely young and had no idea what economics even were back in the first big heated AMD/Intel processor match, aside from having watched a Thunderbird Athlon machine put together in front of me back then. So far I've had the Pentium 4's bad heat and IPC, the first dual-cores, and AMD64 swimming around in my head and haven't put them together in context of what was actually happening. e: missing word Sidesaddle Cavalry fucked around with this message at 15:40 on May 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
flavor posted:I'm not an economist, but if revenue is an indicator of scale, then I'd think Intel and AMD still have no excuse to merge. Maybe in a few years. iPhones alone have shipped >250M, iPads >100M. That's dwarfed by the number of Androids. Cell phones are a fraction of the raw count of ARM cores shipping. The margins are a different picture and a core-to-core count isn't great, but the basic picture is that ARM currently dominates mobile and mobile's on the way up. Factory Factory posted:Control over the CPU-GPU HSA, maybe. That's AMD's big push and big hope, yet Haswell having the ability to push a GPU memory-space pointer to the CPU shows that Intel is trying to do the same thing. If Intel had AMD, then Intel could do one, non-segmented HSA for x86. Especially one which conveniently only worked with Iris and Radeon hardware, leaving Nvidia at a disadvantage in the compute space it gets so much money from.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Are newer Intel steppings generally better than older ones as far as TDP and overclockability?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
It's going to be interesting though to see the same thing happen to the phone/tablet market that happened to the PC market. Devices will become "good enough" and upgrade cycles will lengthen and all the tech pundits will yell about the falling sky. Intel will always have a place pushing computing density forward in the datacenter and I'm not so sure that ARM has a place in the datacenter anymore due to the growth and advancement of virtualization. Three years ago I could see the logic of 10 ARM webservers stuffed in a 1U chassis for low cost compute density, but now you could do twice as many on a single 1U R620 with a couple of Xeons and still have capacity left over to do other nonspecialized compute stuff as well.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:It's going to be interesting though to see the same thing happen to the phone/tablet market that happened to the PC market. Devices will become "good enough" and upgrade cycles will lengthen and all the tech pundits will yell about the falling sky. Mobile devices like phones have a bit more attrition due to damage and such than computers do - and they're also viewed as status symbols and fashion accessories. I'd wager we're an incredibly long way out from that being a factor - more on the scale of decades than quarters. bull3964 posted:It's going to be interesting though to see the same thing happen to the phone/tablet market that happened to the PC market. Devices will become "good enough" and upgrade cycles will lengthen and all the tech pundits will yell about the falling sky. I'd wager we're an incredibly long way out from that being a factor - more on the scale of decades than quarters.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
Carriers are also eliminating their early upgrade discounts left and right. Verizon just made the cycle 24 months (the full term of the contact) rather than 20 months. That alone is going to slow down the upgrade cycle quite a bit. No contract and pay as you go also puts a wrench in the whole "get a new device every 1 1/2 years" mindset. Yes, there's some damage attrition, but people are starting to keep phones longer and longer. I got a couple of friends right now that are sitting on 3+ year old smartphones because they are working "good enough" and are waiting for the "next big thing." There is still quite a bit of ways to go though before the market levels out since you have all the developing countries that are seeing massive growth in smartphones, but it will come eventually.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 18:56
|
|