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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Windsock who wrote (135484)	5/18/2001 11:04:07 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Thanks for your comments. You know, I've been on this thread for a few years and as time goes by I just don't feel like wasting the time arguing with someone like him who's only purpose is to bash. What's the point? Guess I'm mellowing... EP

To: Windsock who wrote (135484)	5/18/2001 11:42:42 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Includes a new Thermal Monitor feature that allows motherboards to be cost effectively designed to expected application power usages rather than theoretical maximums. I got this off the Intel site. Apparently, they are plugging clock throttling as a feature. But, what if due to the localized extreme heating, one would have to go to some extreme cooling technique (ie - cool the chip to less than say 40C) to prevent clock throttling. So, the clock throttling would allow the mother board designers to design mother boards with conventional techniques (heat spreader, heat sink and fans) without having to go to some exotic technique. I think all P4 systems to date are designed conventionally. This would agree with the Intel claim but could hardly be called a feature. The truth COULD be that without clock throttling, the chip could fail even if conventional cost effective cooling techniques are used and in fact very unconventional expensive techniques would be needed. How many P4s would be sold under those conditions? That is the issue. Also, since Intel wisely chose to not allow that to happen, then the consequences of the throttling must be known. At this point in time, (with what is currently known), I simply can not blindly accept the possibility that a processor which is priced and touted for its MHz value could possibly clock throttle during the playing of an off the shelf game (Quake3) especially when that game is used to claim superior benchmarking. Much more information is needed on this issue. THE WATSONYOUTH

To: Windsock who wrote (135484)	5/19/2001 1:09:38 AM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Respond to of 186894

From the Intel Site Data Sheet section 7.3: "Thermal Monitor is a feature found in the Pentium 4 processor which allows system designers to design low cost thermal solutions, without compromising system integrity or reliability" The implication here is clear. Without Thermal Monitor, system integrity and reliability could be compromised using low cost thermal solutions. It goes on. "By using a factory-tuned, precision on die thermal sensor, and a fast acting thermal circuit (TCC), the processor, without any aid of any additional software or hardware, can keep the processor die temperature within factory specifications under typical real world operating conditions." The clear implication here is that without the Thermal Monitor, the processor die temperature can NOT be kept within factory specifications under TYPICAL REAL WORLD operating conditions. Intel admits it here but makes it sound like a great technical break thru. Incredible. Just incredible. It gets better. "Thermal Monitor thus allows the processor and system thermal solutions to be designed much closer to power envelopes of real applications, instead of being designed to the much higher maximum theoretical processor power envelopes." This is total BS and is clearly meant to mislead. There is NOTHING theoretical about a maximum power envelope if it requires Intel to use a Thermal Monitor to invoke throttling. It is as real as the system crash you would experience if Thermal Monitor was not employed. A true and honest form of this statement would have been. Thermal Monitor thus allows conventional system thermal solutions that would not be possible given the maximum real power envelopes encountered from real world applications due to the particular design of this processor. Finally... in boldface type Intel stresses: "Automatic mode is required for the processor to operate within specifications and must be enabled via bios." Depending on the extent of this thermal throttling, AMD could and will have an absolute field day with this. It only has to be evident is a few off the shelf parts. Of course, AMD better make sure their parts are not subject to this type of behavior first under identical conditions. I think this issue is far from over. THE WATSONYOUTH

To: Windsock who wrote (135484)	5/19/2001 1:10:17 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: The new solution [from] AMD turns the processor off. So instead of clock throttling you get a system crash. Yes, it's an unexpected event, considered to be well outside any normal operation, and the buyer immediately knows there is a problem. OTOH, unless you have two systems running side by side, Intel's approach hides the fact that 1.3GHZ and 1.7GHZ systems can have the same CPU performance. Every indication is that clock throttling is considered "normal" behavior. Dan