You must log in or register to comment.

namesarenotus t1_j41s6zt wrote

Up to 250 watts. No longer will my house need a furnace. This packaged with a 4090 should be integrated into my air handler and WAMMO I got sufficient heat for my winters needs.


BezniaAtWork t1_j43424u wrote

My heat pump had a capacitor blow the night before we had those horrible freezing temps around Christmas hitting -40 wind chill, and -20F real temps. GF and I just stayed in our office with our gaming rigs both running software in the background using the GPU a 80-100% and that office stayed >70F the whole time. Living room had frost on the interior walls, which was neat!


namesarenotus t1_j439lfh wrote

Literally a life saver. Glad you got through the freezing weather.


BezniaAtWork t1_j43buek wrote

Yeah it was a bit scary, but I also am in a condo building with 12 other units in the same structure, so while around the doors and windows it was cold, in the interior of the house I believe the lowest it dipped that week was 54. Growing up, my dad used to not turn on the heat until it dipped below 58 in the house so I'm no stranger to wearing 2 pairs of pants, 2 long shirts, a hoodie, and 2 pairs of socks around the house.


cyrixlord t1_j44e2h1 wrote

my grow lights add +30f on those cold nights. spending a night in the greenhouse is such a wonderful experience (seriously!)


Randomthought5678 t1_j440h1n wrote

Honestly that's completely insane. Wow. Care to share what you've got in those rigs? Can the heat pump keep up with the excess heat in the summertime?


BezniaAtWork t1_j4gdwzl wrote

Haha they're both running RTX 3080s. It typically doesn't get crazy hot in the summer here in Ohio except for a couple weeks, so I tend to open all of the windows in the house and have fans running to keep it cool. On the very hot days in the 90s, I'll kick on the AC and it does fine. I don't keep any temperature sensors in or around the office so while the rest of the house will be about 72, it stays in the upper 70s in the office.


azurleaf t1_j41vdyj wrote

My 3080 running Folding@Home was basically my heater for a bit a while back.


Rain1dog t1_j421d4f wrote

I miss seeing SETI running on my dads P3 on a CRT as a kid. Walking past the office at 2am hearing the cpu making its noises, lights on the modem flashing, having the urge to fire up TFC or CS1.6 and dick around on well or 2Fort.

God I fucking miss those days.


TheSeek3r_ t1_j42leka wrote

Maaaan, I miss well and 2fort. Those were the days!


Rain1dog t1_j42lx1p wrote

Indeed they were! Loved setting up a sentry at the bottom of our base with a dispenser in the hallway leading down.

Or playing as a spy on the snipers perch on 2Fort.

Or as a medic spamming infection at a spawn location infecting everyone!! Haha, guaranteed way of having others personally hunting you down.

The days of Half-Life, Unreal, Tribes, Quake, Doom, EverQuest, Asheron’s Call, Dark age of Camelot, City of Hero’s, Earth and Beyond were so much fun!


Drone314 t1_j42vlws wrote


Oh man, those were the days. 2 best days ever, the day I brought home a 3DFX graphics card and the day I got cable internet. Ping's and frames so good they kicked you thinking you were a cheater.


Rain1dog t1_j42wgp7 wrote

Ha! The day I got the 3DFX and saw Quake II IN 3D blew my mind. How the world was in actual 3D. Seeing that effect for the first few times was so satisfying.

I still remember the first day we got Cox cable instead of Compuserve because I had been trying to download the trailer for Castlevania 64 from Ign64. I was floored the 30mb clip took 27 seconds instead of hours.

Then walking past my Dad’s office around 2am seeing SETI running on the Gateway p3 makes me nostalgic. Hearing the cpu make its noise, seeing the lights flicker off the walls from the modem…

Such great times!


poostew t1_j44x5o2 wrote

Yeah, absolutely mind blowing to be able to click on a link and it just loaded instead of taking minutes. It was like switching to a SSD for the first time but 1000x more insane. The world at my fingertips INSTANTLY.

Mario 64 was my biggest mind blowing experience graphically. Grand Theft Auto in 3D was a generational leap as well that I haven't really experienced since.


way2funni t1_j43ijgf wrote

come on steam and search for Drippy's Golden Showers Retirement Community ( all day/night Team Fortress Classic ) it's most active evenings after 7pm EST and weekends. break out your reading glasses and get in here. It'll be fun (they said)


sillypicture t1_j4651fs wrote

Moneybags with a P3. I had to make do with my pentium 380 MHz.


xShooK t1_j44io86 wrote

Grabbed 3 antminers when they released first edition. Those mining rigs plus 2 gaming pcs in the dining room between two rooms kept it fairly toasty with fans blowing to rooms.


Yukondano2 t1_j41ydws wrote

Funnily enough that not a bad idea. Almost all power for a pc is turned into heat, if you need to heat a home anyways you might as well.


Zncon t1_j43ofo2 wrote

Back when you could potentially turn the GPU cycles into some cash via crypto it made sense, but it's same as running a space heater.


Jake123194 t1_j461v8l wrote

Nowadays you could run folding at home and set it up so you earn some banano, Contribute to science, heat your house and get much potassium.


pdinc t1_j447dqy wrote

This is what I did, heh


Chuckdatass t1_j42zsui wrote

Shit with Gas prices going up 200% in SoCal, I might just rely on that


5kyl3r t1_j42d5e2 wrote

not sure why someone downvoted you, it's a fact


bplturner t1_j44aibs wrote

Large data centers recover the heat and use them for preheating.


Yukondano2 t1_j464auf wrote

Preheating? Not familiar with that in this context. I see articles on using heat for the office but, what needs to be pre heated?


NormanPeterson t1_j41xgda wrote

You could probably even sell the excess heat back to the gas company.

Wait nobody do that idea. Then we’ll run into a shortage/hoarding again..


403Verboten t1_j44yc0s wrote

Linus from Linus tech is heating his pool with cpu heat so it's definitely possible.


im_thatoneguy t1_j455uas wrote

Even with the crypto crash I paid for all of my heating electricity last year with the Bitcoin mined.


dynamic424 t1_j44lmv1 wrote

honestly, if we could make this a thing, why buy a 2000 home heater, when you can just buy a top of the line PC, and pipe it through your house.


namesarenotus t1_j44n1wj wrote

Now we are getting somewhere. I like where your heads at.


Unicorn_puke t1_j44zklh wrote

You joke. I saw someone promoting a bit mining rig that was also a room heater. Like legitimately designed to do those tasks


namesarenotus t1_j455xsu wrote

Uh no joke man. This is the internet, we are never joking.


throwaway1point1 t1_j42vhpu wrote

Keep it in a server room and use a heat pump to cool it in the summer. Just open the door to heta the house in winter.


pdinc t1_j447cn2 wrote

How to get your CPU hot and bothered


nitrohigito t1_j44pxm3 wrote

Sounds suspect, even my 13600K goes up to 230+ watts under P95, according to hwmon.


james2432 t1_j45lmam wrote

only missing 1250w to pull as much as a space heater/ hair dryer


Lord-Sprinkles t1_j46xfr5 wrote

I know you’re joking but when my partner and I are cold in our room, I literally sometimes decide to start gaming or making AI images to run in the background so the room heats up. It will go from 65 to 80 in about an hour or 2. Not even joking I use my PC as a heater sometimes


Loocsiyaj t1_j477q3p wrote

You joke but I heat my room with my setup


r_golan_trevize t1_j42t1gs wrote

It took as long to get from 3ghz to 6ghz as it did to get from 1mhz to 3ghz.

Yeah, I know, we got multiple cores and stuff along the way.


blackdynomitesnewbag t1_j44d4i1 wrote

We could’ve gotten to 6GHz sooner by using deeper pipelines like the Pentium line, but it would’ve resulted in poorer performance. Clock cycles per second isn’t everything, what you do with those cycles is just as if not more important.


beefcat_ t1_j45666r wrote

Yeah, I remember when their Penryn-based chips came out and even with a single core they wiped the floor with my aging Pentium 4 at much lower clock speeds


Geek55 t1_j45u712 wrote

The Pentium 4s were basically a step backwards from the Pentium 3s architecturally but Intel wanted a big number to stick on the box.


BroMatterhorn t1_j49bajy wrote

It worked too. AMD was killing it back then, but people didn’t understand the lower number was still faster.


JukePlz t1_j46sj30 wrote

Modern processors also support more special purpose instruction sets, and a lot more instructions per cycle. So a newer processor at the same clock speed can still be a lot faster than a previous generation processor.


kkeiper1103 t1_j43ghgb wrote

Lol isn't that completely linear? 1mhz to 3 ghz is the same difference as 3ghz to 6ghz.


r_golan_trevize t1_j43gw21 wrote

6ghz is twice as fast as 3ghz

3ghz is three thousand times as fast as 1mhz.


kkeiper1103 t1_j43hcdi wrote

Yeah, but there's 3 ghz difference between both of them. Kinda like like 30mph is 30x as fast as 1mph, but 30-1 is 29 and 60-30 is 30.


r_golan_trevize t1_j43iuyt wrote

Yeah, that's one way to look at it and it is kind of neat that it splits the difference but the relative speed difference between 1~4.77mhz 6502s, Z80s and 8086s and the 3mhz Pentium 4s and their contemporaries is way more profound and impressive.


professorDissociate t1_j44qbox wrote

> 6ghz is twice as fast as 3ghz > > 3ghz is three thousand times as fast as 1mhz. > > s




All I can say is I hope we don’t keep the same pace slowing down.


guyonahorse t1_j44akq7 wrote

Heh, 3mhz Pentium 4s. They were slow, but they weren't *that* slow.


trebuch3t t1_j45juaj wrote

But imagine going from a vehicle that tops out at 1mph to a vehicle at 30mph, and then after the same period of time getting to a vehicle that tops at 60mph. Despite linear progress, 1mph max speed to 30mph is clearly much more impressive


mypostisbad t1_j4691rz wrote

It might FEEL more impressive but it is actually more technologically impressive to go from 30mph to 60mph


CoolFreeze23 t1_j47kykc wrote

You'd be right but technology gets harder to improve the higher you go up. Going from 1mhz to 3ghz was really impressive, but the technological advancements needed to double that even further are insane.

Its like this, the iPhone 1 was released in 2007 and had a 2MP camera. And the iPhone 7 has a 12MP camera and was released in 2014. That's like in another 7 years the iPhone 15 had a 22MP camera. Sure it might *seem* like the same thing, but there's reason the phone's been at 12MP for a while. Your not doing the same thing you did from 1mhz to 3ghz as your doing from 3ghz to 6ghz

Linear progression with exponential technological advancements.


PM_ME_YOUR_SSN_CC t1_j44dhzn wrote

Uh, no. If we round 1 MHz to 0 GHz then we went from 0, to 3, to 6. In the same amount of time we'll have 9 GHz. This is obvious math.


Tenter5 t1_j44o5om wrote

Please review sig figs. You are assuming 1mhz is 0 in this scenario.


r_golan_trevize t1_j46een2 wrote

I should also point out that the steps between 0 to 1 to 2 to 3mhz ghz were not linear at all. 0 to 1mhz ghz took from the dawn of computing to the late 1990s and then we went very quickly from 1 to 3 mhz ghz in the span of just a few years and then we leveled off around 3.4mhz ghz very quickly after that. It wasn't really linear at all.


seiggy t1_j46s4xa wrote

Think you're confusing 1-3MHz with 1MHz-3GHz. In the 1990's, chipsets were running in the 100's of MHz. The first 1Mhz chip was in the 1970's, the first commercial PC, the Altair 8800 used a 2MHz Intel 8080. The original IBM PC in 1981 released with a 4.77 MHz CPU. In 1995, the Intel P5 was running at 100MHz, and in 2000 AMD released the first 1 GHz CPU.


r_golan_trevize t1_j46sb72 wrote

Yeah, I mixed up mhz and ghz for the unpteenth time typing this stuff out.


RikerT_USS_Lolipop t1_j4635s7 wrote

Upon reading the headline I thought to myself, Holy Hell, imagine how deflated you would be if just that headline were sent back in time to 2001.


SentorialH1 t1_j446ka8 wrote

I always wonder why people post stuff like this... like, can you do their job better or something?


lurkynumber5 t1_j41wecj wrote

At what point will i require a dedicated socket for my gaming pc....


namesarenotus t1_j41z1ol wrote

Fun fact: if you are in the US on a 15 amp circuit which is most common. You can start tripping circuit breakers at 1400+ watts at 120 volts.


Komikaze06 t1_j4239fc wrote

That's for 1 breaker though, an entire room is usually on 1 breaker, so better hope you've only got 1 pc in there


Free_hugs_for_3fiddy t1_j43c3rp wrote

1 pc and absolutely nothing else. Can't turn the lights on, cant turn the fan on, can't have a charger, etc.


lammatthew725 t1_j44zl21 wrote

Lights now are usually at the 5-10W range

Speaker, depending on size, usually range from 10-150W

Air conditioner ~700 - 1500W

Laser printer is at the 500W range when active (inkjet uses way less)


ledow t1_j42rj74 wrote

As an IT guy in the UK, that makes me laugh.

We regularly plug in servers with 1400W dual-PSUs, multiple of them, on an ordinary test bench in an ordinary workplace, no special provisions required, or a rack running off a couple of ordinary wall plugs and a PDU (which is basically just a giant extension lead).

Hell, on my workbench at the moment is some 3.8KW of servers, just plugged into the same sockets we would plug our USB chargers or laptops into.


throwaway1point1 t1_j42vvh3 wrote

Yeah UK 220 circuits are better, and the plug is far superior too.

Safer and more robust.


uiucengineer t1_j43myqv wrote

There are tradeoffs, "more" isn't inherently "better". I'm in the US and I can't remember the last time I tripped a breaker, though I remember quite vividly the last time I got a shock.


second_time_again t1_j44dn2e wrote

I’d like to know why you’re being downvoted


uiucengineer t1_j44odqh wrote

A knee-jerk reaction to perceived American exceptionalism? I didn't even say our way was better, but most people don't understand nuance if it isn't spoon-fed to them.


throwaway1point1 t1_j49oc1k wrote

The new safer breakers are less tolerant. They trip all the time if you run any kind of load at all (space heater in our basement office, for instance)


throwaway1point1 t1_j49othv wrote

Common appliances are too much for a standard US/Can circuit tho.

Treadmill? Boop.

Space heater? Boop.

Dehumidifier? Boop.

The safety factor of the UK plugs is the biggest thing tho, and the fact that almost all outlets have a hardware switch cut off right on them (tho with kids that could become a pain)


namesarenotus t1_j42tm54 wrote

Curious to know, what’s the load rating for each server under normal conditions? Even though the PSU is rated at 1400 watts I assume they are not running at full capacity. Crazy to think that home Computers can possibly run at the same draw rating as a household microwave.


ledow t1_j42vjo3 wrote

A blade server I had used to pull 3KW under average load. Full load required 4 separate 13A 220V mains plugs. It would literally "dial down" if you only had 2 or 3 plugged in.

But even that just ran off four normal 13A sockets in two double-sockets that were installed in an office ring main.

Generally you don't have servers unless they're pulling power... or entirely idle. Even a redundant server is churning along doing everything the same, ready to take over at a second's notice if it needs to. 800-1000W draw isn't unusual for a single server, 1400W if it's being stressed (and all servers get old enough to be stressed, when you then start trying to pitch for upgrades).

Hell, I have network switches that individually pull 700W during operation (usually PoE switches powering phones, cameras and wireless points).

A small rack of basic networking equipment can easily max out two 13A 220V plugs (don't forget, you'll have a UPS on that, so it's only 90% efficient before you even start).


namesarenotus t1_j42ws46 wrote

Well shit that’s a lot of power. I knew Xeons were not that efficient but I had no idea they drew that much consistently. Gotta get those I and O requests completed.


ledow t1_j42y9rd wrote

The chip might be one part... but now consider a dual-processor setup, plus fans, plus cards (RAID, multiple 10Gb/40Gb networking, GPUs for some loads, etc.), plus storage (e.g. a server with 12+ drives in it is pretty standard, nowadays NVMe is pretty standard but the internal storage is often still 12 x 15K spinning disks), plus a TON of RAM (the last servers I bought have 32 DDR5 RAM slots - 16 per CPU - and can take several Tbytes of RAM).

Plus PSU losses, redundant PSUs (again... never completely idle), etc.

Dual NVMe boot drives + multiple 10GbE SFP ports + internal RAIDs on the order of 10Tb is pretty much standard "small school / office" hardware for servers nowadays.

And then you have multiple of them, usually in multiple locations, and that's just your on-premise stuff.

The small school I work for has 10Gb leased lines.


cardcomm t1_j42zo84 wrote

> in the UK

don't y'all have 220v power over there?

We're on 110v in the US


D00m3dHitm4n t1_j4390gj wrote

You might be surprised to know that 220v is pumped into houses in the US but is split at the breaker box into 110v for each breaker.


draftstone t1_j43n2xr wrote

I assume that the US is like Canada, you have some 240v outlets (with different shapes) for things like clothes dryer, oven, possible welder in the garage, but outside of that everything is 120?


Cindexxx t1_j43qw8g wrote

Yep. The plugs are kind of random though. My old dryer, my new (used) dryer, and my stove are all 240v and every one is a different socket. It's weird. I think my RV hookup is the same as the new dryer though, which matches my little generator.


draftstone t1_j43rxnf wrote

The plugs being different is for a purpose I think. In most houses the oven and the dryer use different wiring size because they pull different amount of power and you don't want to plug an oven in a dryer outlet.


Cindexxx t1_j45q6zj wrote

I thought that too. But it turns out, no.....


Cindexxx t1_j4e7kmw wrote

Still, only kind of. My oven and dryer are different plugs with the same amperage rating. They're actually wired into the same breaker..... I don't really like that but I don't have the space for a new breaker to fix it, and that's how it was when I moved in. So I can't run my dryer and stove full blast at the same time lol.

The different plugs do have different uses, but they're not strict and they can be interchangeable. I found out mine were wired together because my old dryer outlet was different than the new one, but the wiring met the amp requirements so I just took the old socket off and put the right one on. 30A/240v but different plugs for the stove and dryer. It's kind of nonsense.


ShesMyPublicist t1_j4ed63p wrote

Ah the fun of old homes, years and years of DIY hack jobs with wildly varying quality lol. In a similar boat with my home, slowly trying to improve things as they come. I just replaced all the outlets in one room and found just 1 was on a totally different breaker - luckily I was checking them individually instead of assuming the breaker took care of everything.


[deleted] t1_j43dr2m wrote



SteveThePurpleCat t1_j43fup3 wrote

>I've never understood where 220 and 110 came from.

Those are the nominal or 'average' voltages. Nowhere has 100% consistent voltage supply. The UK goes from about 216v to 250v. If you were to plot the AC sine wave, the peaks would be nearer 330v RMS. But that variance is of no damn use to anyone who makes devices, or the consumers shopping for something compatible.

So a nominal is used, a nice easy number for everyone to read and go 'oh yeah, that works in my wall socket'.


The-Protomolecule t1_j42ez4f wrote

Yeah, running above that 1440w 80% level consistently starts warming up wires.


greatgoogelymoogely t1_j44ieay wrote

A functioning 120v breaker will start tripping at 1800 watts.

Amps x volts = watts. 15 amps x 120v= 1800 watts.


namesarenotus t1_j44mxsg wrote

While you are inherently correct circuits are engineered to run at 80% capacity. Check out the 80% rated breaker rule.


[deleted] t1_j46clxd wrote

The circuit is designed with that spec in mind but the actual breakers you find in use don't trip until 15-20% over their rating. No they do not trip at 80% unless the breaker is fucked.

-source me, EE, work with this shit quite literally every day and trust me, you are not tripping at 1400w and no one is assuming that we only have 1400w available when designing products. And yes I do work on things that pull that much or more power continuously and we are using residential breakers for testing. The reason a device might trip a breaker when it's continuous rating is 1400W is if it pulls an instantaneous load over ~2-2.5kW. but under normal operation a 15A breaker will never even sneeze at a 1400w continuous load.


Pooshonmyhazeer t1_j44rt91 wrote

15A * 120v = 1800 watts bubba. You ain’t trippin shit at “1400+”


semibiquitous t1_j44212g wrote

Can confirm. Hungry gaming laptop + 2 monitors + 1200W space heater + 3d printer + peak 300watt speakers = occasional trip. Which isn't fun to get out in the cold to reset.


[deleted] t1_j46c1rx wrote

Uh no this is completely wrong. Not unless the breakers are really old and need replaced. Breakers typically won't trip until about 15-20% ABOVE their rating. So a 15A breaker wouldn't trip until you start pulling over 2Kw continuous/2.5kW instantaneous. Most modern houses are using 20A breakers and 12ga Romex now anyway so there's very very little chance of someone tripping a breaker at 80% of a 15A rating.


qutaaa666 t1_j43gazy wrote

Depends on where you’re from. In Europe it’s not likely


lammatthew725 t1_j44zb1z wrote

Depends on where you are

If you are in the 220V world, with a 13A socket, you should be fine with anything drawing less than 2860W.

In case you have no high school science background... The equation is P=IV. Power = current* voltage


Rapid_Sausage t1_j45ncou wrote

I think, generally speaking, you wouldn't want a valuable appliance on anything but a dedicated socket.

Honestly it'd be even better if you bought a UPS for your PC, the added cost is negligible for the peace of mind you get to safeguard from electrical mishaps.


TunaOnWytNoCrust t1_j41v8w1 wrote

I've been getting major future Trunks and Vegeta leaving the hyperbolic time chamber vibes with recent GPUs and CPUs. Sure would be nice to get some teen Gohan and Goku leaving the hyperbolic time chamber products instead.


QuantumInteger t1_j4321ba wrote

That’d be Apple Silicon. There’s a reason Apple harped on perform per watts. This TDP creep is getting out of control.


Tymko t1_j42ohme wrote

Had to double take what sub I was in. Well put.


Zenith251 t1_j45f0r0 wrote

12th Gen and Zen3 were big jumps. 13th and Zen4... Ok. Certain tasks that require massive memory bandwidth benefit, but the power consumption of these new chips... Oof.


CoolFreeze23 t1_j47lfrs wrote

Wait someone explain please. I get that its something about Trunks and Vegeta being inefficent and Gohan and Goku being more efficent and powerful.


TunaOnWytNoCrust t1_j49k0qj wrote

Vegeta and future Trunks went for brute force power at all costs, which created weaknesses for themselves including being unable to stay in that state for very long.

Goku and teen Gohan didn't get much physically stronger, but they mastered efficiency and energy control while being SS1 and improved across the board. They could sustain being SS1 seemingly indefinitely.

Damn I really miss when they were just low-key SS1 all the time with zero effort. I wish they kept that going, such a massive flex.


Moose_knucklez t1_j42wjdg wrote

Good thing electric heat has 100% efficiency in the sense of energy converted to heat.


KungFuHamster t1_j4215gy wrote

I thought smaller transistor sizes were supposed to require less power, not more?


5kyl3r t1_j42evo4 wrote

let's use a simple example

you have 4 LED that is fits in car headlight but only 4 fits because they're huge. it uses 80 watts total (20w each)

next year they release new LED's that are 20% more efficient and half the size, so 16w each. but since they're half the size, you can fit twice as many now. 8 led's * 16w = 128 watts total

this is what happens with cpu's. the size of the transistor shrinks, and so does power use of each transistor. but since they're smaller, the companies pack way more of them onto the processor. if you have enough, it can end up being more power. if they kept the transistor count the same, it would use less power


carl_on_line t1_j4226ty wrote

They do, but new chips have billions more transistors and switch them faster, that drives power consumption up again.


Avieshek OP t1_j42g0rr wrote

They do and hence why they've aimed and achieved beyond 5GHz on all cores but if they stop chasing after numbers for marketing purposes you'll likely see the efficiency improvements in power consumption like AMD or Apple (who barely hits 3.5GHz with their M1s) though also dial in the fact that they're not fabless and have their own fabrication standards in case of Intel so you can't compare with TSMC the customers of which others are.


StarsMine t1_j4293tb wrote

The following numbers are not correct for this node But when new nodes come out you get stats like 20% more performance at same power Or 80% power at same performance These numbers come directly from the fabricators and do not take into account at hectare changes.

What you are still allowed to do is do is Use 20% more power and get 1.5x the performance


rakehellion t1_j42ca1d wrote

More transistors and higher clocks require more power.


TheOGBombfish t1_j431w4m wrote

The actual formula for calculating switching energy is approximately E=C * Vdd^2 * fs, where C is the load capacitance (larger the transistor higher the C), Vdd is the operating voltage and fs is the switching frequency.

This means that increasing the frequency affects the power consumption at the same rate as decreasing the physical size of the transistor lowers it.

Ofc making transistors smalles is extremely difficult at the moment, which means that the increase in switching frequency pretty much negates it. This combined with the increased transistor count pretty much guarantees that higher performance -> higher power consumption.


red_vette t1_j42itzl wrote

Performance per watt goes up, but the increase in transistors far out paces it.


algernon132 t1_j426yyd wrote

Actual transistor sizes have hardly gone down in years now


oneplusetoipi t1_j42cw31 wrote

This is incorrect. It is not scaling like the name suggests but they are definitely getting measurably smaller.

In fact, in order to “print” a transistor requires extreme UV light so that the wavelength is small enough that the fringing effects do not ruin the outline of the printed structure.

It is very expensive and requires a lot of maintenance.

The smallest patterning is used for the transistors and the lowest metal layers. The higher metal layers still use regular UV optical pattern printing.


throwaway1point1 t1_j42w8pq wrote

The size of the transistor has gone down, helping efficiency, heat, etc, allowing higher clocks.

But they can't put them much closer like previous node advances.


algernon132 t1_j42wq2p wrote

Gotcha, thank you. I mistook gate pitch for transistor size.


5kyl3r t1_j42f646 wrote

well we're down to what 2 nanometer now? a single atom is 0.1 - 0.5 nanometers, so we're nearly down to the size of individual atoms lol. not sure what'll happen after that


Wuyley t1_j44i7ll wrote

Someone care to explain how an old fogey like myself can tell recent processors apart? Back in my day a Pentium 4 was better then a Pentium 3 and a 2.4 Ghz was better then a 2.3 Ghz.

Now everything is is an I3/5/7/9 regardless of what year it was made and its now "generations".

Is the best way to tell by looking at a I7 12th gen being better then a I7 13th? Do GHz even matter anymore?


LukeLC t1_j44xvii wrote

While it's not super helpful, generation is the most useful singular spec to tell CPUs apart these days. Even the i3/i5/i7/i9 branding breaks down, since a 12th gen i3 can perform as well as an 11th gen i5.

GHz doesn't really matter anymore, except when comparing CPUs within the same generation.

To get a clear idea of what really differentiates one CPU from another, you pretty much have to look at benchmark scores. There's just too many variables to meaningfully compare on paper.


OldBoyZee t1_j45fag2 wrote

They changed the naming convention a while ago, due to more stable release launch window and a specific project name. For ex. Skylake i3, vs coffee lake i3. They are different generations, but anyone can easily know its an i3. While the pentium was long running with many, many variations, if i recall, and they used to figure that out with ghz since it was a one and done core processor or dual core, etc.

Actually, amd had the same thing. They would just call their processors, zhambezi, or some weird name no one understood, but it was always ghz based due to oc and how many cores, even when the core processing sucked.

Personally, ghz matter little now, specially since most applications already use multiple cores and threads. Singular core stuff is more ghz related, and honestly, its good we made it past that stuff.


WolfResponsible8483 t1_j45q98a wrote

> Personally, ghz matter little now, specially since most applications already use multiple cores and threads. Singular core stuff is more ghz related, and honestly, its good we made it past that stuff.

Single thread performance does matter.

Not everything can be multithreaded. Some algorithms are purely serial. Some can only really be split into 2 or 3 threads. See Amdahl's law

This is why Intel is still chasing it.


OldBoyZee t1_j45qmkz wrote

Yah, i should have worded that better.

In general, single performance per core matter,but they arent the selling point like the old days where a single core would have x.x and the rest would throttle. Idk if im explaining it right.

Also, you are 100% right, intc is chasing that, the same way amd was before the ryzen series, but as mentioned above, it wont matter as much from a few .x difference, unless the architect could actually use it. Look at the 8350, or the 9000 series amd cpus that could easily overclock, but their performance per value was lackluster since their architecture was shit. Idk if Im explaining that right, but thats what was going through my brain in my prior reaponse.


Nemo4evr t1_j42dh0w wrote

Go watch the review at Hardware Unboxed before you even consider looking at this cpu at the store, a real eye opener.


tempski t1_j43kdjj wrote

Maybe for the next CPU release, we can have something that uses very little power but packs a punch at the same time instead of this monster?


jezza129 t1_j43o72s wrote

My favourite take away from the K reviews. The 16 E cores use the same power as a 5950X (AMDs 16 core cpu). i don't think intel can


Nayleen t1_j4655u0 wrote

So a 7900 at stock settings then ?


Figuurzager t1_j43wcg8 wrote

Damn getting Intel Presscot vibes... Where intel also dragged its feet for way to long and just kept on clocking higher instead of improving efficiency per tick. As a result those things also consumed a shitload of power (still 'only' half of this thing) and ran really, really hot.


eXAKR t1_j44clah wrote

Yeah, it does feel like Intel is going down that whole “chasing more megahertz/gigahertz” thing again and feeding into the old megahertz/gigahertz myth, something which Apple and AMD back in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s rightfully attacked them for.


twigboy t1_j452kzt wrote

History is really repeating itself. My mate was a big Intel fan until he got hit by Pentium 4 I think it was? The thing kept throttling itself due to heating issues and was unusable for the most part.

They're going hard on marketing these scorching hot wasteful chips while AMD is doing more for less power.


Dickmusha t1_j43c3pz wrote

These companies are just lost in some weird mind space at this point obsessed with all of the wrong things. "Shit we fucked up by not going chiplets" "Lets just test every single chip we have and find ones that can survive shoving 120v directly into them and sell them at a premium" "Amazing idea Bill now pass me that crack pipe you've been hogging it all day"


cyrixlord t1_j44dn6f wrote

the secret is in the size of the nm .. oh wait

[Laughs in AMD]


Daddy_Jayus t1_j42kwe6 wrote

Didn't I read something about a ~3ghz wall a few years ago?


Noxious89123 t1_j43rfs3 wrote

>Didn't I read something about a ~3ghz wall a few years ago?

My old i7-2600k from 2011 humming along at 4.9GHz be like "Hmm, what did you say?"


uncoolcat t1_j44rad4 wrote

I was only able to achieve a stable 4.8 GHz on my 2600k (with custom water cooling at that), but was rock solid at 4.8 GHz even when running stress tests for days at a time. I did get it up to 5.0 GHz, but it'd blue screen after just a few minutes. lol


Noxious89123 t1_j475jyu wrote

Mine did like 4.3GHz on air, couldn't cool it with the voltage needed to go faster.

Watercooled it in 2018, got as high as 4.95GHz but wasn't willing to use any more voltage to go faster.

Ended up degrading it over ~6 months, now it won't do over 4.8GHz.

Probably should have just settled on 4.8GHz, as that required way less voltage.


Lechowski t1_j45bjvo wrote

Isn't there a physical limit to the frequency of the processor based on the size of the die? I mean, at some point the transistor in one edge of the die will take more time to update it's state than the clock in clocking'


AJelvani t1_j45lwc6 wrote

Yes, the physical limit is found by finding the length of the longest critical path on the die.


abhiram214 t1_j451c78 wrote

More cores and better Out of order execution >>>


nezukotanjiro150 t1_j45842c wrote

Well...the better question...

Can you use it as a heater...


reimancts t1_j45udjz wrote

It's not a barrier. They can make a processor much faster. But if they do, they won't make all the money from slowly releasing CPUs that at faster and faster.


kemosabe19 t1_j45yakn wrote

Can’t new with a free rotisserie, so there’s that.


1_H4t3_R3dd1t t1_j42wl1h wrote

But at what cost!!! About 6 incandescent light bulbs running 24 hours a day. With a spike of up to 18 in extreme circumstances.



That actually sounds terrible. Fortunately it's nowhere near that bad because you won't be running heavy loads all day.


1_H4t3_R3dd1t t1_j451njj wrote

Depends what you do. It definitely isn't for productivity and I certainly wouldn't use it on a heavy game that requires a lot of processing power.


PhotoSpike t1_j440ceg wrote

Those are tiny tiny light bulbs


1_H4t3_R3dd1t t1_j44dbsb wrote

Those are leds, incandescent are the gas filled bulbs that can take a range or anywhere between 25watts to 100watts. They were chosen over longer lasting bulbs because of the bulb industry able to profit off the sale of.

Realistically a standard house hold incandescent bulb used 60watts.

6x60 is 360 I obviously exaggerated.

It is more like 4 to 11 incandescent bulbs.


PhotoSpike t1_j466dyr wrote

You said 6 and 18 at peak. 18*60w=1080w.

At peak it draws 250w or just a tad over 4 standard incandescent bulbs. Probably actually slightly less then 4 bulbs depending on the efficiency of the ballast used if you took that into account. Also they get a lot higher then then 100w, in horticulture 400w&600w bulbs where common before leds replaced them. (Although a high quality incandescent can put out more light per watt then some of the really crappy horticulture lights)

Now I was probably exaggerating a bit when I said tiny tiny. At 250w/18 we would need a draw of about 13.888w this is the closest I can find it’s 11w so a little smaller then a 13.8w and tbh I would call it small not tiny.

these I would call tiny at ~0.4w per bulb but much smaller then this cob led, assuming we consider all the diodes on a cob to make up one light wich I totally would. In the same way we consider all the molecules in the wire of a bulbs filament part of the light, in fact if we take that to the extreme and argue all the diodes on a single lighting unit constitute a light (wich is a bit of a stretch) we get big boys like this and of course much larger.

Now if we want a tiny tiny incandescent light I would say we look more at something like this

And just because I like extremes while obviously not commercially available look at this 1.4 micron long 13nm wide incandescent light made at UCLA! And then there’s this fucking giant incandescent bulb

That is to say, no when I said tiny bulb I did not mean led. I meant smaller then the incandescent lights used in households in normal fixtures.

Also 11*60w is stil 660w and last I checked 660 is greater then 250.