View Single Post
Old 02-06-2004, 08:50 AM   #14
I don't know a damn thing
Phalanx28's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 2,228
Originally posted by Kawaiitenshi
Well, actually they _shouldn't_ be (process shrink, lower core voltage)
This is an incorrect assumption. That's a goal, not necessarily a given for process shrinks. Remember, with any die shrink, you're increasing the overall density of the core (also a reason for the added layer, me thinks). And, that means you have a smaller area with which to dissipate heat.

Current leakage is the second factor that plays into the increased heat output. Before the launch, it was rumored that up to 30% of Prescott's heat output was due to leakage. Only Intel knows what the real percentage is here, but Prescott is certainly a step in the wrong direction as far as heat output goes.

Plus, when you factor in all of the elements that kONGO were added to Prescott, they might have been fighting an uphill battle. Though they probably had Prescott on the drawing board for a few years, it's hard not to say that adding 512KB L2 cache to Northwood and a shrink wouldn't have been a not-so-bad idea.

Of couse, there's probably a reason I don't work for Intel.

but rumor says Intel got bitten in the a-s-s by the strained silicon technology -> faster transistors but huge leak currents so at least this revision of Prescott won't be the new C300/P4-2.4 for air cooler masses
SS alone isn't going to help Intel, here. The quicker they move to SOI (FD or SSOI), the better off they're going to be in the heat battle. Leakage will become an even bigger problem down the line.

However, my journey won't even begin with an air cooler and I have a few aces in my sleeves if things get HOT
Water cooling seems to be the minimum requirement for a successful Prescott overclock at the moment. Still, there is a large portion of the enthusiast community (like yourself) that is well-equipped to make the 2.8E a nice overclocking prospect, IMO.

I hope you break 4GHz.