Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

On-CPU Peltiers From AMD?

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the speculatoryism dept.

AMD 226

Hack Jandy writes "Remember those people who lived on the edge and put peltiers between their CPU and heatsink (or your favorite beverage)? A peltier is a devices that gets cold on one side and warm on the other when an electrical current passes through it. It looks like there is talk that AMD will actually incorporate some of these devices on the CPU according to Xbitlabs. AMD already incorporates some degree of the peltier effect with it's Silicon on Insulator."

cancel ×

226 comments

Kosher Krimes (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10614847)

Among the top 10 universities, Jews enjoy shocking overrepresentation: Only the California Institute of Technology has an undergraduate Jewish population below 10 percent, and four schools have particularly stark Jewish advantages -- Harvard (30 percent), Yale (23 percent), UPenn (31 percent) and Columbia (25 percent). Keep in mind that, at best estimate, no more than 3 percent of all Americans are Jewish.

ERR.... THAT'S BECAUSE JEWS HAVE A HIGHER IQ. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10614976)

Ye, much higher than your fat burger eating self.

Jews only have a higher IQ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615053)

becuase Jews own all the major testing corporations and know how to score well on the tests

Re:Kosher Krimes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615189)

You forgot Syracuse (33 percent).

pelltier? (5, Funny)

micronix1 (590179) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614851)

dont put it on the wrong way.

woot fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10614852)

yes!!!!! suck it trebeck!

Re:woot fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10614870)

Answer: Some pathetic schmuck.

Question: Who is the fuckstick above me?

Heat (-1, Flamebait)

kdougherty (772195) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614857)

AMD processors are already known for running hotter than most... I'd be more worried about the heat coming from the other side. My case is hot enough as is, no need to add to it.

Re:Heat (5, Informative)

Rosonowski (250492) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614875)

Actually, the funny thing is, this hasn't been true for years. Intel CPUS put out quite a lot more wattage (~90w) compared to AMD's top end silicon, around 70 watts. But it made for a mildly funny joke back when the t-bird was spanking the socket 423 chips.

*BEHEADING is dying (1)

CmdrTaco (troll) (578383) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614981)

It is now official. Headcraft confirms: *BEHEADING is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BEHEADING community when Headcraft confirmed that the total number of executions by *BEHEADING dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all executions worldwide. Coming on the heels of a recent Headcraft survey which plainly states that *BEHEADING has dropped dramatically after the US invasion of Iraq, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BEHEADING is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Ruthless Dictators comprehensive execution test.

You don't need to be a Jailed Dictator [floogie.org] to predict *BEHEADING's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BEHEADING faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BEHEADING because *BEHEADING is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BEHEADING. As many of us are already aware, *BEHEADING continues to lose market share. Rivers of blood no longer flow from headless corpses..

Ruthless dictator *BEHEADING is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core dictators. The sudden and unpleasant deaths of long time *BEHEADING evangelists Uday and Qusay Hussein only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: *BEHEADING is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

*BEHEADING leader Qusay stated that 500,000 Iraqis 'dissappeard' during Saddam's regime. How many of them died by *BEHEADING? Let's see. Executions were generally carried out by hanging, bullet to the head, or *BEHEADING. With *BEHEADING being to most difficult to clean up after, let's conservatively estimate that only 5% of the Iraqis that 'disappeared' were *BEHEADED, so 500,000 / 20 = 25,000 deaths by *BEHEADING during Saddam's regime. Saddam took power in 1979, meaning his regime lasted 24 years. Therefore there were (25,000 / 24) ~ 1041 *BEHEADINGS PER YEAR during Saddam's regime. This is consistent with human rights reports. Since the US invasion, there have been approximately 50 *BEHEADINGS. Therefore there have been (50 / 1.5) ~ 33 *BEHEADINGS PER YEAR after the US invasion. Clearly, the terrorists are not as efficient at *BEHEADING. *BEHEADINGS have dropped 97% in the past 18 months. Clearly *BEHEADING is dying.

Due to the troubles of Saddam's Regime, what with it being gone and everything, massive amounts of *BEHEADING stopped and was taken over by a dismal few but high profile *BEHEADINGs that were carried out by nothing but cowardly terrorists Now *BEHEADING is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BEHEADING has rapidly declined in market share. *BEHEADING is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BEHEADING is to survive at all it will be among terrorist networks. *BEHEADING continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BEHEADING is dying.

Fact: *BEHEADING is dead.

© 2004 CmdrTaco (troll)

Re:Heat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10614880)

get with the times dude. Intel chips have been running hotter for a while now, due to thier need(strategy) to push higher and higher frequencies.

Re:Heat (4, Informative)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614882)

I don't know where you get this information, but the new AMDs are somewhat cooler running that the top end Pentium 4s.

As for heat coming from the other side, that's one of the issues that an on-chip Peltier would alleviate, but presenting a cooler surface to the CPU on the side with the heatsink.

Re:Heat (2, Funny)

slavik1337 (705019) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614885)

*cough* preshott *cough* Finally AMD doesn't have the "hottest" CPU on the market :D Then again, give it until next cores are released ...

Re:Heat (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10614904)

The 1990's called, they want your facts back. If anything, lately its Intels P4 generating more heat overall. Anandtech has a useful article on the issue http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2026 [anandtech.com]

Re:Heat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10614909)

heres a link to todays top end comparison:
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/74 17

Re:Heat (4, Informative)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614977)

As mentioned already, Peltier junctions act as heat pumps. In other words, you put work in to extract heat from the processor, this extra work turning into (you guessed it) even more heat.

While it might contribute to the cooling of the processor, you'll need an even bigger heat-sink and fan stuck on top to dissipate all the extra heat...

(Rant: why can't all processors be like the one in my iBook, designed for power efficiency as well as performance?)

Re:Heat (1)

JDevers (83155) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615042)

They are, just the performance is a hell of a lot higher and so the power usage goes up as well.

Check out the power usage figures on a modern G5...they might be less than a Prescott (so is a curling iron, for that matter), but they aren't much better than an Athlon64.

Re:Heat (4, Informative)

lxt518052 (720422) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615088)

AMD processors are already known for running hotter than most...

Another flamebait. Processors are getting hotter and hotter. Intel used to generally do better in power consumption than AMD. But that period has ended years ago when Willamette core P4 was out. Have you compared the heatsink size of Prescott core P4 and that of AMD64?

I'd be more worried about the heat coming from the other side. My case is hot enough as is, no need to add to it

RTFA. Which "other side" are you talking about?

According to the wikipedia article, peltier effect is "the creation of heat difference from an eletric voltage." Namely, a peltier moves heat from one point to the other with the help of a electric field.

In this case, the peltier moves heat away from one side, the processor, to the other side, the heat sink, and the later then extracts the heat away. It helps conducting heat when the temperature difference between the CPU surface and the heatsink is higher. Although as a semiconductor itself, the peltier also generate heat. That is far less than the heat it takes away from the core and that heat is in effect taken away as well. So I don't know what you mean by "adding heat to it".

wait till... (0, Offtopic)

DirtySnachez (817738) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614862)

How long will it be till coke starts thier new advertising campaign..What 'flavor' cpu do you run???

Re:wait till... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10614927)

what the hell are you talking about.

Re:wait till... (2, Funny)

Wtcher (312395) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615474)

Wait until they integrate peltiers into their drink cans. That would be kind of neat -- self-cooling drinks!

What about reliability? (5, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614865)

The problem with peltier coolers is that if it breaks down, the once cooling surface becomes an insulator. Plus, if the hot side gets too hot, the cooling process breaks down, so anyone using this would have to use a cooler that can draw the heat away as fast as the CPU-side peltier can kick it out, which would probably be another, larger peltier.

I'd rather stick to external cooling systems that I can monitor and replace if necessary.

Re:What about reliability? (5, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614898)

i don't think the realiability is the real issue.

it seems xbitlabs is just.. well.. doing what journalist wannabees like - take some facts and twist them.

for one: YOU DON'T GET MORE -EFFECTIVE- cooling with peltiers. you end up using more power than you would with normal cooling. the total heat output gets _increased_.

unless they(chips) can't work in normal room temps there's not really much point in using peltier cooling in cooling them, except if you somehow manage to get the effect 'for free' or something.

Re:What about reliability? (4, Insightful)

Pyromage (19360) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614978)

The key thing with peltiers is that they just *move* heat. This can be more effective cooling because you can move heat from the CPU core (normally a very small area) to a much larger area. Yes, your net heat is a bit more, but you have a reasonably sized area to cool, which is a much easier problem.

Re:What about reliability? (3, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615075)

peltiers not really at 'effective' at that.

and let's stop here for a minute, simplifiedly.. a 100watt cpu, put some what, 250 watts(? or so) into the peltiering.. then you got 350 watts to get rid of 3 millimeters away from the original source!(you still need water & whatever to get rid of the heat)

with current efficiency it's only useful in extreme situations where you wouldn't mind such waste. it's only useful if you need such low temps for the cpu that you can't attain them otherwise!

it's not just a "bit more". and as for to getting it to a more reasonable area.. that's what heatsinks are for, that's what you would use anyways with the pelt setup to get rid of the heat(or watercooling or whatever, the point is you don't really spread the heat to a larger surface with peltiers).

Re:What about reliability? (1)

John Courtland (585609) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615130)

A 250W peltier is massive. 50W is more reasonable for high end cooling. Remember, the chip does not turn all the power it recieves into heat, so 250W would cool it to beyond where you'd realistically need.

Re:What about reliability? (1)

CTho9305 (264265) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615159)

Actually, a chip does turn all the power it uses into heat. The "useful work" that's done by a CPU is just charges moving around, but eventually it all ends up as heat anyway.

Re:What about reliability? (1)

JDevers (83155) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615463)

Well, ultimately everything gets turned into heat, but to say that 100% of the energy going into the CPU is released as heat is massively inaccurate, actually it violates several laws of physics. If the CPU was capable of turning 100 W of electricity into 100 W of heat while also doing any work at all (much less the very significant work a CPU does) using that initial energy would obviously be rather impossible.

Re:What about reliability? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615339)

haha 50watt peltier for modern high end cooling??

hahahahahaaha.. if you could get away with such it would be quite a bit more popular.

the peltier needs to be able to move all the heat coming from the cpu(and yes it churns out everything as heat pretty much).

Conservation of energy. (4, Insightful)

leathered (780018) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615178)

The key thing with peltiers is that they just *move* heat.

Which is exactly what your domestic refrigerator does, merely moves heat from the inside via the evaporator to the outside to the condenser. In fact heat cannot be destroyed at all (think conversation of energy), merely moved elsewhere.

Re:Conservation of energy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615266)

Ahh, the conversation of energy, that must be the legendary missing fourth rule of thermodynamics, the one where all the scientists were taking lsd and chatting with the energy?

Re:Conservation of energy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615465)

So the "rules" of thermodynamics start at 4?

Re:What about reliability? (2, Interesting)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615241)

It's not a bit more heat. It's a lot more heat.

The only time they're worth it is when you're trying to achieve a temperature below the ambient temperature. Otherwise, it's easier to put a heat spreader on the chip (as AMD and Intel already do) so the contact area with the heat sink is bigger.

These peltiers aren't going to go in any general purpose CPUs as we know them.

Re:What about reliability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615025)

I'm not an expert on this. But I suspect peltier coolers won't break down easily, as it consists of two layers of different metals or semiconductors [wikipedia.org] . it doesn't seem to break more likely than the processor itself. But then again, i'm only a computer nerd.

Re:What about reliability? (1)

CaptnMArk (9003) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615074)

> which would probably be another, larger peltier.

Perhaps this is the solution for Pentium 4 cooling.

It's peltiers all the way down (up).

Re:What about reliability? (2, Insightful)

Cougem (734635) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615179)

Erm, I fail to see how that's an argument. Just because you've got a hot side to cool doesn't mean it's a poor idea. A Prescott processor from Intel runs at an incredible temperature, how's cooling this any different from cooling the warm side of a peltier? Yes, you'll destroy your TEC if your cooling solution fails, but you'd crash before damaging your CPU, and you could apply that argument to any cooling sysyetm - if your CPU fan fails then you'll crash just the same.
Oh and I submitted this story two days ago and had it rejected.*Sigh*

Grammar is never off-topic (1, Informative)

YetAnotherName (168064) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614868)

it's == contraction for "it is": "It's a peltier device."

its == possessive for it: "AMD has a peltier-like effect with its Silicon on Insulator technology."

IT'S (pun intended) NOT THAT HARD, PEOPLE!

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10614905)

what if its just a typo. yur making yourself look like an ass

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10614932)

I think a lot of people mistakenly use the apostrophe in "its" because they were taught that 's is possessive, not because they think "it is" fits in the sentence, though still incorrect.

Jim's coat
Barb's hangnail
It's fur coat

I agree good grammar is never off-topic; however, I give a break to those who don't speak English as their first language. Since this is Slashdot and a globally accessible site, it's hard to tell if the poster's native tongue is English. There is no excuse for people who have spoken English all their lives, however.

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10614956)

I think a lot of people mistakenly use the apostrophe in "its" because they were taught that 's is possessive, not because they think "it is" fits in the sentence, though still incorrect.

The rules for possessive pronouns: there's no apostrophe in "his"; there's no apostrophe in "hers"; there's no apostrophe in "its".

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (1)

CDLI (818500) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615015)

Except for "one's," because it's screwed up.

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615055)

One isn't a proper pronoun...it is just the number one, and we infer that it refers to an individual. So it is one's, two's, three's, etc.

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (1, Funny)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615079)

Since this is Slashdot and a globally accessible site, it's hard to tell if the poster's native tongue is English. There is no excuse for people who have spoken English all their lives, however.
Surely /. has editors in part to tidy up the stories they post? Or does it need to move to an editor/sub-editor model, where the editor decides which stories to post and the sub-editor fixes the grammar and spelling?

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (0)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614939)

Grammar may never be off-topic, but it certainly can be over-rated.

Anyway, onto the story. Peltier devices are cool and hi-tech, but if they fail, they become insulative. If the core is capped by such a device, it is far from certain any auto-throttling mechanism can act fast enough to prevent the core from melting. (Remember those videos of the Athlon blowing up if the heatsink fell off?)

We should stick with air-cooling and multiple-processors, anyhow. And someone needs to write a pervasively multi-threaded OS like BeOS was. (Or technically, is, but hehe.)

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (2, Informative)

Slack3r78 (596506) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615172)

(Remember those videos of the Athlon blowing up if the heatsink fell off?)


You mean before the Athlon had any thermal throttling measures whatsoever? That was the whole point of that video - the P3 would cut off, the P4 would throttle, and the Athlon would just plain burn up.

That video was highly influential in getting AMD to make a thermal cutoff a requirement for a motherboard to be AMD certified. The newer Athlon 64s have thermal throttling circuitry similar to the P4's, as I understand it.

Basically, you completely misinterpreted the video in question. The Athlon burned up because there wasn't any auto-throttling to fail; the Intel solutions performed exactly as they were designed to.

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (0, Offtopic)

dont_think_twice (731805) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615096)

its/it's breaks a fundamental rule of grammar: always use an apostrophy to show posession.

Sometimes exceptions have meanings, but this one is to stupid for me to bother trying to remember. If you (grammar nazis) want me to follow your rules, at least makes the rules logical. Otherwise, I will just ignore them.

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615146)

You meant "too stupid"

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (0, Offtopic)

dont_think_twice (731805) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615255)

You meant "too stupid"

Wow, there is a beautiful sense of irony in making a mistake like that.

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615166)

Oh, that's a good attitude. "I can't remember how to use apostrophes in the 10 most common situations, so I'm just going to use it however I feel like. I certainly don't want to learn to use it correctly. I will criticize those who object to my own incorrect and imprecise usage."

ANY language is a set of rules for combining sounds and/or glyphs to communicate meaning. You don't want to follow the rules? Expect people to misunderstand you and to point out, repeatedly, that you are wrong. It's not their fault, either.

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (0, Flamebait)

dont_think_twice (731805) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615326)

Oh, that's a good attitude. "I can't remember how to use apostrophes in the 10 most common situations, so I'm just going to use it however I feel like. I certainly don't want to learn to use it correctly. I will criticize those who object to my own incorrect and imprecise usage."

I didn't criticize anyone - I just stated how I felt about the spelling of the word its/it's.

ANY language is a set of rules for combining sounds and/or glyphs to communicate meaning. You don't want to follow the rules?

The rules of language are constantly evolving. For instance, the American English convention of putting sentence puncuation inside of quotations is slowly being switched back to the European style, where puncuation goes outside quotations. The European style is clearly superior logically - imagine a programming language designed like the American style:

printf("Hello World)"

It makes no sense.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no problem in understanding. Consider the following sentence:

I put the pen in it's case.

Nobody would read that as:

I put the pen in it is case.

If I am doing technical writing, I use proper grammar. On slashdot, I don't. The purpose in writing is to convey meaning, as you say. I use what I think is the best way to convey meaning. Sometimes, that requires me to violate the "rules" of grammar. I don't feel bad about it at all.

Expect people to misunderstand you and to point out, repeatedly, that you are wrong. It's not their fault, either.

How is it not their fault? Are they obligated to expend their energy to reinforce poorly evolved language constructs? We all make choices, and I choose to write a certain way (or sometimes I am just lazy). If you want to argue about the way I write, that is fine with me. But don't pretend that you have some contractual obligation to compare everything I write with obscure rules, and point out every time I violate them.

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (1)

Erik Hensema (12898) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615486)

If I am doing technical writing, I use proper grammar. On slashdot, I don't. The purpose in writing is to convey meaning, as you say. I use what I think is the best way to convey meaning. Sometimes, that requires me to violate the "rules" of grammar. I don't feel bad about it at all.

Do, however, keep in mind that not everybody reading your text is a native english speaker. They may have trouble reading and understanding syntactically correct english, but you could be making it harder on them when your text is full of errors.

And yes, those non-native speakers would probably make a lot of mistakes when replying to your postings. But at least they've got an excuse.

(I'm dutch, so all spelling errors are non intentional -- being dutch however also means that its and it's translate to complete different words, with distinct pronounciation. Same goes with they're, their and there)

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615265)

its/it's breaks a fundamental rule of grammar: always use an apostrophy to show posession.

Can you provide a reference for that?

Do you think that "his", "her", "my", and "your" need apostrophes to show posession, too?

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (1)

dont_think_twice (731805) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615381)

I am not sure where the official "rules" of English can be found - how about English for Dummies?

Using Apostrophies to Show Possession [dummies.com]

Do you think that "his", "her", "my", and "your" need apostrophes to show posession, too?

These are possesive pronouns, which obey different rules. I don't like it, but that I can live with.

Possessive Pronoun [thefreedictionary.com]

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (1)

npross (564046) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615409)

We should loose the apostrophe!

All the loosers out there who has troubles with my meanings can go too hell.

Re:Grammar is never off-topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615256)

to who It may concern$

your a dumass

Peltiers? (5, Interesting)

polecat_redux (779887) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614877)

I have had limited experience with Peltiers in the context of CPU overclocking, and I must say, my impression was that they're not all they're cracked up to be. Yeah, with a large enough cooler, you can drop the temp of the CPU significantly, but the effect is dependent on your ability to remove the heat from the other side (which is in excess of that given off by the CPU to begin with). A good water-cooling solution works well enough without the need for the extra drop in temp.

Re:Peltiers? (1)

Dr Reducto (665121) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614887)

Yeah, Peltiers are only about 5% efficient at best, which means they generate a whole fuckload more heat than they take away on the cold side. Water-cooled peltiers seem to work out pretty well.

Re:Peltiers? (1)

polecat_redux (779887) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614922)

Water-cooled peltiers seem to work out pretty well.

Yeah, they do. I had such a setup running an Athlon 750 at 950MHz at one point. As I recall, even at close to full load on the CPU, the temp was significantly below ambient. Though, I learned the hard way how important it is to effectively protect the chip against condensation...

Re:Peltiers? (3, Funny)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615006)

Well, the Peltier does accomplish one thing: it covers that unsightly CPU. I made my Macrame peltier (actually, I prefer the term "CPU Cozy") using simple macaroni, construction paper, but decorated with markers and some stickers from the craft shop.

The inside of my case looks much better now. Except that it keeps catching on fire when I play games.

Re:Peltiers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615165)

Please look at this guys signiture before modding him up and giving it a wider audience. Fucking pathetic.

Power... (5, Informative)

PaintyThePirate (682047) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614881)

Just imagine the amount of power required for something like that. Each core of a dual core 65nm CPU will need at least 70 watts of power, giving 140 watts total. In order for a peltier to be useful, the wattage has to be greater than that of the CPUs. So with only the CPU and Pelt, that is a minimum of 300 watts, with something between 400 and 500 being more likely. That is an absurd amount of power and heat.

Re:Power... (1)

eskayp (597995) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615095)

IANAE (I Am Not An Engineer), nor am I up to date on current thermoelectric devices, but my understanding is that these devices are not very effiicient.
If so, that would be strike two against them when used in battery operated systems.
Expert commentary would be appreciated.

Re:Power... (1)

rxmd (205533) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615206)

In order for a peltier to be useful, the wattage has to be greater than that of the CPUs.
uhm... Are you sure you have to put more energy into the Peltier cooler itself than into the device it's supposed to cool? While the Peltier cooler does use some energy itself, IIRC in order to transfer heat from a 100W device the cooler itself does not consume more than 100W.

Re:Power... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615273)

not true... The peltier uses more power than the device normally.

It's like an air-conditioner. In order to get the lower than air tempuratures it uses a crapload of power (which in turn gives off massive heat on the other side).

Not the best cooling solution unless you in fact need lower than ambient tempuratures.

Re:Power... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615380)

*uhm... Are you sure you have to put more energy into the Peltier cooler itself than into the device it's supposed to cool? While the Peltier cooler does use some energy itself, IIRC in order to transfer heat from a 100W device the cooler itself does not consume more than 100W.*

if that were true we could be building some pretty intresting mini powerplants.

Good news - huge steps towards CPU cooling (0)

JayDiggity (70168) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614890)

Well this is good news! Anything to keep CPUs cooler as they heat up - especially the AMDs, which have always run hotter. Seems like everyone's paying more attention to these kinds of issues. Of course, I'm waiting for AMD to include some kind of liquid-cooling device [apple.com] IN the CPU package. Or maybe a jug of liquid nitrogen...

Re:Good news - huge steps towards CPU cooling (1, Redundant)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614915)

the perceived 'hotness' would be just going UP.

peltiers don't just put the heat into some magic black hole.

Re:Good news - huge steps towards CPU cooling (4, Interesting)

polecat_redux (779887) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614952)

Or maybe a jug of liquid nitrogen...

LN2 is fine and good as long as you have a replenishable supply, and asphyxiation doesn't concern you all that much. That being said, it still looks like a lot of fun [tomshardware.com] .

Re:Good news - huge steps towards CPU cooling (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615134)

Please look at this guys signiture before modding him up and giving it a wider audience. Fucking pathetic.

Re:Good news - huge steps towards CPU cooling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615064)

"Anything to keep CPUs cooler as they heat up - especially the AMDs, which have always run hotter"

BZZZZTTTT, wrong. AMDs are cooler than Intel and have been for about 3 years now

FREE LEONARD PELTIER! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615424)

He has spent more than twenty-seven years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

He colluded with alternating N- and P-type semiconductors to rob systems of thermal energy that wasn't his to begin with!
Now he's cooling his heels in prison.

Why use Lava Lamp (tm) technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10614899)

Not only would it be a stylish way to cool your CPU, you could use it as a random number generator.

that's funny (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10614931)

hot on one side, cold on the other. sounds like my bed.

Well.. (-1, Offtopic)

creaturespeaker (823981) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614946)

Many people will run notebook CPU's in desktops, since they run much cooler and can be overclocked well.

Free Flat Screen HERE! [freeflatscreens.com]

Re:Well.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615003)

stop spamming your referral link asshole

Re:Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615065)

Jesus people, quit modding up referral link spammers! This post has no useful content; it is only a ruse to get a spam link displayed on slashdot. I meta-mod unfair anyone who mods up a referral spammer, no matter what the comment actually says. Same for idiots who mod up known trolls such as Fecal Troll Matter. No need to help someone karma whore their account in advance of a trolling session.

oh dear... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10614957)

Ashlee Simpson on SNL... http://osrin.netfirms.com/video/ashlee_snl.wmv [netfirms.com]

Re:oh dear... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615013)

Ahahah! That's freaking hilarious! Thanks for posting that!

will they actually use it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10614967)

just because they have a patent on it doesn't mean that AMD will actually produce cpu's with peltier elements built into the heatspreader.

The problem with todays chips (5, Insightful)

doormat (63648) | more than 9 years ago | (#10614995)

is not just the total amount of heat they put out, but the fact that they put out that much heat over an area of about one square centimeter (on the 90nm process at least). As the physical piece of silicon shrinks, the thermal density increases. More transistors switching on and off in a smaller area, and the drop in Vcc isnt enough to counteract the increase in density (we were at 1.8v or so with the 180nm process, and now at 90nm, we're at 1.4v or so - some chips dynamically change voltage and multiplier based on demand). I'm not sure this will do a whole lot of good if you just try to disapate the heat from the processor and the heat introducted by the peltier effect over the same square centimeter. You'd need to disapate the heat over a much larger area, say 10 sq cm. They you can stay in the realm of air-cooling instead of watercooling.

Indeed (1)

Dink Paisy (823325) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615193)

I ran a simple experiment to see how bad heat is. I left my Google branded lava lamp on until the temperature stabilized. It uses a 40 Watt light bulb, or a bit more than half what a brand new AMD processor puts out under sustained heavy use. Older AMD processors, and newer Intel processors, put out even more than that. Anyway, when it reached thermal equilibrium, the cool part at the top of the lamp was too hot to touch.

Compare that 350 square cm to the area of a processor core, about 1 square cm, with twice the total heat dissipation. You can see how removing the heat is a huge problem. Compare the hot spots of the core, like the scheduler and active functional units, which use much more energy per area than the average, and you can see the problem getting much worse.

A peltier integrated into a core would be all about moving heat away from the tiny core as quickly as possible to a larger surface, such as a heat sink contact plate and a heat sink, so that it can be dissipated quickly. Even if heat dissipation in future cores went down, with smaller processes leading to smaller cores, the problem of heat dissipation would still get bigger.

Q = UAdT (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615422)

Q = Heat transfer rate
U = thermal conductivity coefficient of the 2 surfaces
A = area of the surfaces in contact
dT = delta T temperature difference

A peltier allows the dT to be much greater (on both sides) so you can transfer more heat in the same space, or the same amount of heat in a smaller space.

The hot side of the peltier can get VERY hot so air-cooling 130 degree fins with 35 degree air much easier than cooling 45 degree fins with 35 degree air.

Stop confusing it's and its (1, Offtopic)

forged (206127) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615024)

It's is the contracted form of it is. So let try it in the current context:

  • ...with it is Silicon on Insulator.

Does not look so good, does it ? Let's try the other form:

  • ...with its Silicon on Insulator.

Right here... much better :)
This simple trick brought to you by someone fed up to see such gross mistakes allowed to make it to frontpages.

old technology (3, Funny)

LiquidMind (150126) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615026)

"A peltier is a devices that gets cold on one side and warm on the other..."

come up with your own shit. my g/f patented this 'technology' years ago

Re:old technology (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615043)

I patented jizzing on your 'girl' friend's face and donkey punching her

Re:old technology (0, Flamebait)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615087)

  • come up with your own shit. my g/f patented this 'technology' years ago


Yeah, right.

You really have a girlfriend.

LK

Re:old technology (0, Offtopic)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615107)

Peltier's prior art dates back to 1834, so I see three possible scenarios:
  1. your girlfriend's patent is invalid;
  2. you can outdo any of the rest of us when it comes to "When I was young" stories; or
  3. you really are desperate to have a girlfriend.

Re:old technology (0, Redundant)

kmmatthews (779425) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615121)

Girlfriend?!

I'm afraid I have to ask you to return your Geek Card (c)(tm)(r).

It seems they got it wrong... (5, Informative)

Brane2 (608748) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615041)

AMD is patenting this as a way of *getting around* of SOI disadvantages. SOI means silicon on insulator , which is in this case SiO2, which is also excellent thermal (not only electrical) insulator. AMD says that SiO2 conducts heat at least hundred times less than silicon.

What they are saying is that transistors on SOI might behave better, but they are certainly running hotter than their classic countepairs, since layer of SiO2 stands between them and the cooling system.

So AMD is proposing several schemes of embedding TEC device into the insulating layer in the silicon. This layer would:

1. Decrease overall thermal resisstance of the cooling path

2. When powered on, offer bigger thermal diferential, since it could cool embedded side of the TEC significantly below the cooler temperature.

It is unclear if they intend to use this on the whole chip, or just the especially hot areas...

Re:It seems they got it wrong... (2, Informative)

Cutie Pi (588366) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615483)

I can't believe this is marked as informative. The SOI layer is very thin, so it contributes very little to the overall conductance of the Si substrate. And, one of the biggest advantages of SOI is that you get less leakage current, i.e. less wasted power, and less heat dissipation.

Make sure it does not work too well. (4, Informative)

ozzee (612196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615089)

I remember that SGI once used peltiers and they had to recall them because of failures due to corrosion due to condendsation because the device temperatures fell below the dew point.

Processor Requirements (1)

badpenguin (793665) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615109)

Processor Requirements: -Custom Watercooling System -Massive PSU -Alot of $

Getting the heat out of the chip (3, Interesting)

caseih (160668) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615119)

Maybe I'm wrong here, but it doesn't sound like AMD would be using the peltier as a replacement for the fan and heatsink, but rather building in a peltier into the silicon itself to pump the heat out of the CPU core itself faster, so that the heatsink and cooling fan on top can keep the core cooled. As someone mentioned, as we increase the density of the cpu die itself, the thermal density is also decreased and thus the problem becomes getting the heat from the core of the silicon wafer out to the outside of the chip or wafer itself. If we put peltier material into the wafer, we can electronically pump this heat to the surface where traditional cooling devices can disappate it into the air

Anyone else (1)

phalse phace (454635) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615306)

mistakenly read the first sentence of this article [xbitlabs.com] as:

"Advanced Micro Devices, one of the world's leading makers of central heating units, has patented a technology...."

Any news about about AMD using pure silicon SI28? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10615309)

Isotopically pure silicon is supposed to decrease leakage current and improve thermal conduction. AMD was said to explore this path. Any updates?

Nitpick: (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615337)

Peltier is the guy who discovered the effect. A peltier junction (sometimes called a peltier cooler, which is a stupid name because it's also a heater) is the solid-state heat pump. A peltier junction is not called a peltier.

Power considerations? (2, Interesting)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615417)

I suppose this will be strictly for their desktop processors, since the Peltier effect truly consumes a very large ammount of power. I couldn't see this technology being used in any rational way on a mobile proc, and since the two markets are converging, I question this move from AMD. Anyway, it will be interesting to see in what form this technology is actually realized...

For overclocking, do what I do... (1)

dargaud (518470) | more than 9 years ago | (#10615484)

...use the devil's own beer fridge [gdargaud.net] !
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...