1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Should intel be sued?

Discussion in 'Overclocking' started by Rich, Dec 22, 2004.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Not sure if I know my subject well enough to really be mentioning this but
    it appears that, after scrolling through messages in this group, there are
    many ppl who are concerned about the high heats being generated from their
    Prescotts, and problems associated with those high heats...mainly stability.
    Computer corporations and affiliates getting into legal binds is not new.
    Fujitsu recently had a litigation against them for manufacturing and
    releasing defective drives.
    IBM had the "M-wave" issue back in the nineties.
    Now it appears maybe Intel should be looked at.
    Judging from the temps we are seeing in here, although overclocked, the
    readings are higher than they've ever been. These prescotts run extremely
    hot even at normal settings! When does the heat start to become a fire risk,
    much less the thought of losing valuable data?
    Just a thought.....
     
    Rich, Dec 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Erm, no, not really. But you do get brownie points for trying. ;-)
    Not sure where you get the idea that stability is an issue. To the best of
    my knowledge there has only been *one* solitary thread here where the guy
    couldn't get the processor stable at stock speeds, and I'm afraid one
    specimen doesn't make a case, especially when we don't know the full detail
    about it. It could simply be that that particular user had done something
    wrong or that one of the components in the system concerned was faulty.
    Of course. However, to trip Intel up in this case, you'd have to prove
    they'd done something wrong. Unfortunately selling a bloated, power-hungry,
    inefficient CPU design is not in itself illegal provided said CPU satisfies
    its published specifications, which Prescott does.
    Your point being? Fujitsu got in trouble because they sold drives that
    *didn't* satisfy their published (MTBF) specification. Prescott's heat
    output isn't a defect, it's a design feature, albeit an undesirable one. The
    thermal design power figures are published by Intel, so you can't claim it
    to be a fault.
    On what grounds? You've got no claim on product description or fitness for
    purpose grounds, so unless Prescotts suddenly start failing in large number,
    you don't have a leg to stand on.
    Er, you can't form a legally grounded argument from anecdotal evidence
    gained from people who run stuff outside the manufacturer's recommended
    specification.
    Of course they are, but this is hardly something you can blame on the
    Prescott, or indeed single out Intel for. Component counts and power inputs
    have been on an upward curve ever since the 8086. Don't forget that until
    the 486 came out, X86 CPU's didn't usually need a heatsink at all, while AMD
    have also had big problems with the .9u fab process.
    Yes, and they're supplied with a heatsink designed to dissipate that amount
    of power, along with a very specific set of installation
    criteria/instructions, so your argument, in legal terms, is moot.
    PMSL, are you serious? The fastest Prescotts consume 110W, are buried
    underneath a large metal heatsink, inside a metal case, and are equipped
    with a couple of layers of electronic overheat protection. There's less fire
    risk there than there is in something like an incandescent lightbulb.
    Again you have no argument. At default speeds, Prescotts are stable. If
    you're talking about overclocked CPU's, they all get unstable if you push
    them too far...
    Exactly.
    --


    Richard Hopkins
    Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
    (replace .nospam with .com in reply address)

    The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
    Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
     
    Richard Hopkins, Dec 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rich

    ElJerid Guest

    Nevertheless, behind those thoughts, another fact starts to appear. With
    actual technology, the cpu manufacturers seem to have reached a speed
    barrier. There has been a time that every twelve months, the cpu frequency
    was +/- doubled, and there was no visible limit to this trend. Since a few
    months however we are hanging around 3 GHz. Sometimes a little higher, but
    in "unconfortable' circumstances. If you want to run the actual highest
    speeds, you will have to add some esoteric cooling systems and a lot of
    fans. Your PC has become a microwave. The total system power consumption
    will raise from an average of 60 W to more than 300 W. Imagine the waste in
    an office with more than 200 or 300 systems. But what about the resulting
    floor productivity uncrease? The answer is simple: zero.
    Even if we have a look to benchmarks, it appers that the latest super PC's
    are only a few percents faster than the previous generation (I mean f.ex. a
    P4 at +/- 2.8 Ghz with a i865PE chipset).
    This frequency barrier is apparently accepted by Intel and AMD. Intels stops
    (for the moment) the Ghz race and announces to focus on parallel processing
    for their next generation. AMD was the first to change the cpu names that
    included the frequency, and was followed by Intel.
    Technollogy evolves as a staircase. Today we are on the flat part. Wondering
    what will be the next cpu technology that will give a new platform for
    future developments. Press articles reveal some trends, but what will it be?
    Biocomputers? Quantum computers?
     
    ElJerid, Dec 23, 2004
    #3
  4. trend. Since a few months however we are hanging around 3 GHz.
    Went past that at 2.45GHz :)

    Andrew
     
    Andrew Morton, Dec 23, 2004
    #4
  5. Erm, nope. Both IBM (and hence AMD) and Intel have had a few problems
    implementing the .9u process, but there's no barrier. The limitations are as
    much commercial/practical ones as anything else.

    Given that even the cheapest consumer processors are now quick enough to do
    virtually anything most people want to do, the manufacturers are turning
    their development/marketing priorities to other matters - like power
    consumption, size and noise.
    Think you're getting this a little mixed up with Moore's Law, which states
    that transistor count (not clock speed) doubles every couple of years or so.
    Clock speed isn't the best indicator as it ignores the number of
    instructions per clock, which was also on an upward curve until Intel's
    marketing department started interfering in the development of the Pentium 4
    They're not accepting any barrier. In Intel's case they've merely decided
    that in the short term it's less hassle to do multiple core than it is to
    keep developing something that's basically a ****-up. Also don't discount
    the fact that there's a lot of dualism going on between the two companies.
    Neither will flood the market with innovative, expensively designed stuff if
    they don't have to. I'm sure that a big part of the reason AMD's new product
    announcement has slowed down over the last few months is simply because
    Intel's has. Why put it out there when people are buying enough of your
    current stuff?
    Lol, remember all those TV programmes in the 1960's and 70's that went on
    about 21st century houses having their own nuclear fusion reactors,
    commercial space travel to the moon, personal robots and all that stuff?
    Something tells me that the future of home computing is going to take a lot
    longer to arrive than anyone probably thinks.
    --


    Richard Hopkins
    Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
    (replace .nospam with .com in reply address)

    The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
    Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
     
    Richard Hopkins, Dec 24, 2004
    #5
  6. Rich

    ElJerid Guest

    Of course, theycouls always make cpu's faster. But with "tchnological
    barrier" here I mean "make it faster at acceptable power consumption and
    heat development". What you say in fact reinforces this statement.
    And if actually there is perhaps no need for more power, manufacturers have
    always been strong in inventing / creating new needs.
    I attended an Intel presentation two years ago, where a participant asked
    for the need of this still increasing power. At that time the answer was
    that very high speeds (and miniaturisation) should provide the possibility
    of "integrated processors" with build-in high-end graphic processor, sound
    processor, network interface and more. All that at normal temps and with
    lower power consumption, thanks to the higher level of integration. We are
    still far away of those "visions". Talking about barriers (still with actual
    technology and acceptable heat/power) ???
     
    ElJerid, Dec 26, 2004
    #6
  7. For the simple explanation on some stuff, just go to the bottom.

    Quantum Physics is already in development.
    Some of what it might be able to do is control gravity, and also be the
    strongest
    encryption ever to be developed.

    Next Generation CPU's will feature something called "Tri~Gate Tech"
    If I got that right, those should be able to go over the 5 GHz limit.
    10 GHz is very possible.
    Only thing I can think of is that Tri~Gate will be bused 6 Times.
    or act like 3 or 4 CPU's ??
    I'm not really sure @ all for what the Tri~Gate Tech will mean.
    I have only guess's.

    The first Warp engine is also in development.
    Surf around http://www.howthingswork.com to find more info on this.

    Intel Does have a 3.6 GHz CPU by the way.
    It's a 775 LGA (Prescott)
    I saw some1 on this same thread claim that we're still hanging around
    the 3 GHz range.
    3.6 GHz is most definitely getting closer to the 4 GHz mark.
    And as far as I know, there are already prototypes of the Prescott that go
    even faster in GHz.
    I have no idea for "Bandwidth"
    I do figure they have the same number of transistors.
    What r we up to? Something like 15 or 25 Billion?
    that seems about right for some reason.
    The P4 (Northwood) I think has 10 Billion
    And the one I'm typing this on I think is about 6 or 8 Billion.

    He he, I have a good idea on this stuff, but I cant fix a dishwasher.
    That's @ least what them ppl say to me @ work when I ask them
    cant any one of us fix the Dish Washer.
    They act like I couldn't possibly fix the thing.
    Like it would be to hard for me to understand or something.
    There's probably not even 100 transistors in a dish washer.
    And from what I can remember, there's either 2 or 3 relays.
    I figure all it really is, is a simple timing chip, with relays &
    regulators.

    Back to it..

    In simple, look @ everything available on the market,
    then just figure on 200 - 400 MHz more for Prototypes.
    That goes for everything including AMD.

    Denny. ;-) :)
     
    dennis e strausser jr, Dec 30, 2004
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.