Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (33332)	3/24/2001 10:39:13 PM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Joe: I guess it would be a good idea to define what these states are. My guess is that these are not states but "programs" specifying CPU behaviour. If Andreas is right about the granularity of the CPU changes to be down to 1 MHz, there are far more states. If you add to it the changes of voltages, you have even more states. Andreas and I are, as far as I can tell, in complete agreement on the definition of "what these states are". I certainly leave room for the possibility that I have just misunderstood what I've read of the 6 / 32 states ;). However, I clearly remember some AMD guy talking about how PowerNow! was better than SpeedStep, because PowerNow! had 6 throttle levels (with 32 to be introduced), whereas SpeedStep only had 2. This was quite a while ago, and as I've mentioned, I was unable to find a link to anything like that :( IMO the changes of just the multiplier would be good enough. Isn't changing FSB also messing with PCI and AGP cards? That's why I included the FSB+X option. Basically, there are two ways of getting around the problem you mention: - Using the memory bus clock for PCI and AGP. - Using FSB+X for PowerNow! states. The latter is already used in a FSB = MEMCLOCK+X in some Athlon (KT133) motherboards today. -fyo

To: Joe NYC who wrote (33332)	3/25/2001 12:27:29 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Comment on PowerNow2 - Still catching up to the 550 posts you guys wrote in the last 2 days, but here's my impression of PowerNow2. 1. I don't believe the 200 ms. switching time and suspect it's 200 microseconds. Someone might have used "ms" as an incorrect abbreviation and I wouldn't trust any marketing types to know the difference. 2. Additional MHz rates may be obtained by rapidly switching the divider. LIke "divide by 10 for 16 cycles then divide by 11 for 32 cycles." Just about any average clock cycles per second could be obtained and the power consumption would be proprotional to the average frequency. 3. As an alternative to (2), if the CPU is switching randomly dozens of times a second, then the frequency displayed by an LED averaging over, say 1/10 second, could be displaying just about anything. Petz