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: herb will who wrote (39171)	5/12/2001 8:45:36 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Herb, sorry you feel tortured, although the "death of a thousand cuts" might be closer than the water torture. But what did you expect? You throw out something that is mis-represented and expect people to fawn over you? Does the PIII have power management? I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is. A thermal diode might be considered thermal management, but it requires BIOS support to do that, and as far as I know, they only beep, buzz, boop or whatever when a certain temperature is exceeded. They don't shut the system down, and if unattended, could fry the processor. Many of the SocketA motherboards have a thermistor under the socket which is used in a similar manner. This approach has been around since the Socket7 days, the PIII just put it on chip. Now it is a better solution than the thermistor, but it is only part of package. Currently, the P4 is the only one with thermal management that can prevent a processor frying without special, off chip support.

To: herb will who wrote (39171)	5/12/2001 10:39:11 AM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Herb: Well, fyo said that he did not think that the Plll had any kind of internal thermal management which of course it does. I may well have been wrong (heck, it's happened before ;)), but a thermal diode - in and of itself - is not thermal management. All I can testify to is that the effect of running a K6 and a PII/PIII without HS/F is the same. They don't run. They crash. They don't fry. -fyo

To: herb will who wrote (39171)	5/12/2001 12:49:13 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Herb, You know I have never been subject to Chinese water torture but I sure am getting a good feel for it around here. I am sorry you feel this way. I don't think anyone responded to your posts in a rude manner. I hope the guy who works for Intel who posted here before (whose name escapes me) would jump in. He may point us to the section of the specs that can prove me, Fyo and combjelly wrong (if we are wrong). But at least between the 3 of us we have a consensus that Piii doesn't have any kind of active thermal management, only a diode that reports the temperature (which can be used for thermal management in BIOS or in the OS - which can be done with Athlon as well). P4 has active thermal management that can slow down the CPU if it starts to overheat (without the need of the intervention of BIOS or OS). One thing I am not entirely clear about is if the thermal management can prevent P4 from frying itself when you run without a heatsink. My read of the spec was that the thermal management cuts the clock speed in half. So the power consumption will go more or less down by 1/2. But can P4 run at half the speed, consuming 1/2 the power, run without a heatsink? I doubt it, especially the faster speed grades. What the thermal management should have is another threshhold, at which the CPU would go even slower, or HALT completely, which would definitely prevent P4 from frying itself. Joe