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: Petz who wrote (239189)	8/22/2007 12:42:32 AM
From: wbmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: in case you didn't realize it, a HIGHER Tcmax is better than a LOWER Tcmax. Sheesh, I thought you at least understood that! Petz, you really need to reread my post. How you could honestly say you've done so, and yet still make such a ridiculous comment is beyond me. To be clear, I obviously agree and know fully well that a higher Tcase max is better, and my post is completely consistent with that. My major problem with your previous post was your fixation on Intel's 120W TDP chips (which at this point is only the 3.0GHz sku), as well as the thermal profile that only applies to 1U form factors (called Thermal Profile B). You claim that I am obfuscating by asking you to consider Thermal Profile A as the common case, but I am merely referring to the spec, which states, "Thermal Profile B (see Figure 6-2; Table 6-5) is indicative of a constrained thermal environment (that is, 1U form factor)." (page 102) download.intel.com Since Thermal Profile B only applies to the 120W part in a 1U config, I would strongly disagree with your comment that Intel's thermal throttling statement was a categorical description of 120W parts: Intel states categorically that a heatsink designed to allow Tcase to reach 70C when dissipating 120w WILL result in "noticeable performance loss due to increased TCC activation [thermal throttling]." Message 23812247 I'm not sure if we've agreed on this point, yet, but assuming we are past that, then I'm left with your comment here: Re: I did my own calculations of required HSF performance in °C/W because AMD and Intel might have different assumptions about the temp inside the server case. Turns out I was right -- Intel uses 40°C and AMD uses 38°C. There's no magic here, but its clear that keeping Tc below 63 to avoid Intel thermal throttling is a lot more difficult than keeping it below 67-72°C. So comparing AMD's SE series parts to Intel's X series parts, AMD is easier to cool. This is something I understood and agreed with in terms of technical correctness, but something I would debate is a large competitive advantage for AMD. If you have a better argument for why you think it is, then we can probably continue this conversation. Otherwise, if this ceases to be a technical debate, and starts turning into another flame war, then I'm really not interested.