Is Your P4 Working At Half Speed? 217
"More information can be found in Intels Pentium 4 Thermal Design Guidelines (check out page 23)."
Several readers have submitted news of this clock-throttling, one aspect of the P4's built-in temperature sensor system Intel calls "Thermal Monitor." One thing to point out is that the same design guidelines document goes on to say that "the clock modulation feature of Thermal Monitor is disabled by default ... OEMs are expected to enable the thermal control circuit while using various controls and outputs to monitor the processor thermal status." Other things being equal (even if they never are) is there some reason to prefer a chip for not having this capability? If someone forced me to accept a free and loaded P4 system, I'd rather it be cool down at 750MHz temporarily than toast at 1.5GHz.
1.5GHz is fraud. Should be labeled like CDROMs. (Score:1)
Pentium 4 (Score:1)
This is actually a good thing (Score:1)
Re:is there some reason? (Score:1)
I just laugh at this whole throttling thing. People are surprised that a processor is so badly designed that when it does what it's supposed to, it has to shut itself down. You cryo people stay out of this; I don't think having some kind of six-pound heatsink with 12 fans on a 73 watt processor is a solution to a problem.
*sigh*
Sun machines for less than $2K these days. G4s with your choice of OS X or Linux. How much longer can the PC hold on?
Whatever, you guys. My machine does everything I need to and it does it cool. If you wanna deal with your PCs, have it your way.
Thank you for some intelligence!! (Score:1)
And I really don't know what all the hub-ub is about. Ever since the PII there has been a "Catastrophic Thermal Shutdown" protection mechanism that would just stop the chip if it got to hot, so now all they're doing is halfing the speed so you don't loose whatever's on your system. I think that's a great idea. In case your fan stops or breaks, your chip won't fry, and you're system won't die either. You have time to save everything and shutdown gracefully instead of a BSOD-style shutdown. And mobile chips have had duty cycling (temp related too) since the MMX pentiums...
I'm really sick of this AMD-loving antiestablishment bull**** of people who misconstrue the facts to make it look like something is better, or something else is worse. Who the hell cares? Buy your AMDs, buy your Intels, but stop spreading unwarranted and ignorant propaganda just because someone else likes a different processor than the one you bought.
Unpossible!! (Score:2)
Re:is there some reason? (Score:2)
Picking a nit (Score:1)
The only way the heatsink can be below room temperature is if there is active cooling involved. (There might well be, but I've not seen it on Orb-type heatsinks.) The reason metal feels cold is that it conducts the heat away from your skin faster than air does. Your nerves mis-read this as "cooler".
...phil
Morons.. (Score:1)
Why is it a problem that a chip has a feature built in that slows down the clock speed when it begins to overheat?
Am I missing something here?
Would you rather your poorly cooled, poorly ventalated system go into thermal meltdown?
Re:This has always been a problem (Score:1)
Basically, let the fan in the back suck air into the case and blow it over the CPU. If you put one in the front, point it so it blows air out of the case. That will help the other fan. If you turn it so that it blows inward, it will create back pressure for the other fan. As an old technician buddy of mine would say, "NFG".
Re:well... (Score:1)
And yea, they obviously rushed this one even more than usual. Intel sucks...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
well... (Score:2)
Why can't processors dynamically adjust their clock speed based on temperature in the first place? Transmeta does this somewhat, but it'd be nice if my chip could overclock itself, insofar as that is safe.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:AMD cooling. (Score:2)
You can read about the temp specs in this document: (in pdf.. sorry.. that's all I could find)
http://www.amd.com/products/cpg/athlon/techdocs/pd f/23794.pdf [amd.com]
It says 90C is the maximum die temperature. I guess that means you should start worrying if it hits 80C. My 900MHz T-Bird seems to hover between 60-70C. That bothers me, but I'm not sure what else I can do about it. I have a good heatsink that should keep it a lot cooler than that, but for some reason it doesn't seem to be working. I also added 2 extra fans to my case to help with airflow, but nothing seems to work.
Re:well... (Score:1)
The real problem (Score:2)
There is nothing wrong with having a thermal throttle. In fact, it's a good feature.
The real problem shows on page 25 or the Intel doc. That's where they reveal that the rather hefty heatsink requirements are targeted to be adequate for only %75 of full power.
In other words, if you do compute intensive work, you will engage the thermal throttle on a regular basis unless you install an even bigger and heavier heatsink with even better fans.
Most interestingly, it turns out that the full utilization dissipation is more like 73Watts. In other words, it's not actually significantly cooler running than the Athlon, in spite of marketing's sincere wishes to the contrary.
So, the only real 'advantage' over the Athlon is vapor.
Re:A reply from Intel at [H]ardOCP (Score:2)
He is not saing that he expected the cpu utilization to drop top 50%, He is saing that he is running his apps at 100% cpu utilization and didn't notice any performance drop.. meaning that his cpu never kicked into the throttle mode. This 100% is meant to say that he is STRESSING his cpu.
Re:Whoops! (dual p4) (Score:2)
Actually, I wonder if they could build a motherboard where, if one CPU got too hot, it would switch over to the other one.
Re:This is not bad (Score:1)
The kind of code you have to worry about is SETI@home type stuff. (well, you would if it was optimized, but it isn't...) Reportedly, distributed.net's RC5 cruncher makes G4 CPUs hotter than pretty much anything else, because it makes full use of the Altivec and the regular pipeline at the same time. It only misses a few instruction scheduler slots, so it works things pretty hard. It's all integer, though, but I guess Altivec is different
#define X(x,y) x##y
Re:Good heatsink (Score:1)
Re:my god! (Score:4)
Hehehe looks like someone did [envador.com]..
Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)
Re:Alrighty then. (Score:1)
That is underhanded.
Alrighty then. (Score:2)
So, basically,
1) if you have proper cooling, it won't ever come into play (which sounded like it was the case anyway, since none of the benchmarks seemed to show this behavior)
2) it is still somewhat underhanded to advertise the part as having a power consumption of 54W, making the P4 seem as though it consumes less power than the K7.
3) it is still pretty silly for AMD _not_ to have some kind of thermal protection (though again, if you have proper cooling, it shouldn't be a problem).
Now that we've got that cleared up...
No rumor. (Score:2)
As to why it ain't out yet, I can't tell you. Sorry.
Hmmm, I wonder... (Score:1)
I wonder how much stress non-P4-optimized code places on the processor. If one or two of the integer units aren't active because the code wasn't scheduled properly, you'll see 100% CPU utilization, but the CPU won't really be functioning at 100% of potential.
Anybody have any numbers on instruction scheduling efficiency for the P4 on non-optimized code?
Re:hype. (Score:2)
Remember, 100% utilization at 1.5Ghz is going to look the same as 100% at 750MHz. The useful info would be to run a program alongside that could monitor the current clock of the CPU. Either that or keep track of your work submissions to make sure they don't drop off.
Can't be done (Score:2)
What's the difference between a Java applet stuck in a non-terminating loop chewing CPU, and one that's, say, searching the key space for a distributed code-cracking problem? As far as the Java runtime environment, nothing that it can identify.
If I understand you correctly, the problem that you are suggesting that Java should solve is a variant of the halting problem, which is practically undecidable (it's theoretically possible for storage-limited machines, but not in any practical sense). In other words, it can't be done.
Java can be faulted for many things, but this doesn't appear to be one of them.
Go you big red fire engine!
Re:well... (Score:1)
Apple/Motorola started doing this with (I think) the original Duo series in 1992, and still do it today.
A year ago Intel releases something similar for their notebook line of procs, and it's touted as a new and innovating feature. How will beleagured Apple ever catch up to such engineering marvels as this?
Re:Try running your CPU in a system that meets spe (Score:1)
Allow me the dignity of my blinders. Im an AMD fan now (and building a cluster out of them to boot, if you want my spreadsheet of comparison benchmarks, feel free to ask).
Intel to Slash P4 Prices by 50% (Score:2)
Sounds fair to me.
What did you think AMD's PowerNOW! does? (Score:1)
I suspect that the P4 is already running faster then it should, I remember stories about Intel boasting about how they could overclock their chips to different speeds a while back.
Anyhow, this isn't a big deal.. who wants their processor burning up anyhow?
Re:And what will the wider consequences of this be (Score:2)
Further than who is prepared for? Who are you to make this judgement? Who are these 'masses' you have so little respect for? Who is moral?
Your post bespeaks of a quiet and pig-headed elitism that does you ill. I suspect you are probably a troll, and a stupid one at that.
In addition to this problem with the P4 having nothing to do with the advance of tech in general, the advance of technology will never be halted as long as humans exist. If you feel that technology should or should not be used in certain ways, you'd better convince people you're right instead of hoping in vain for the advances to cease.
Re:Morons.. (Score:1)
--
Re:Limp Home Mode (Score:1)
Since you asked, I'd prefer the CPU sensor and the limp-home.
--
It's not a big change... (Score:2)
The problem is then exactly the same as here:
You've got a super-fast CPU, but you can't actually use it for long, intensive tasks.
(i.e. 5 minutes into a game of Quake, the system will become unstable)
The solution? *shrugs* Hard to tell. Wait for a CPU that won't do this. (AMD!) and don't overclock so much.
Note: I love overclocking. I've overclocked every system I've had since my 483/33 My current main system won't overclock more than 5MHz. Life sucks for me. But I'll overclock my next system.
Wombats: The Bulldozers of the Bush.
Re:Is Your P4 Working At Half Speed? (Score:5)
No, reading Slashdot isn't THAT taxing on my cpu.
Unless you're using Mozilla.
Geez, and to think all this time... (Score:1)
Thanks for explaining this!
I smell FUD!! (Score:1)
Grok the Demon !
Re:Good heatsink (Score:1)
---
Fred Ackermann
e-mail: fred@warnerve.net
homepage: www.warnerve.net
mobile: 0402 293 572
Swiss chess style processors (Score:2)
Re:AMD cooling. (Score:1)
I just built a 1.2GHz system.
> My 1100 Mgz thunderbird never goes below 60 C and I have seen it go as high as 72 C.
I have the Global WIN FOP38, which IIRC is one notch above the minimal requirement, so maybe it's making a difference. I also used some extra case ventalation, so that might be bringing it down a bit as well.
Unfortunately, the FOP38 is a bit on the noisy side.
--
VIA chipset {Re:Good heatsink} (Score:2)
Go to Linux Today, and read the announcement about Alan Cox's 2.4.3-ac7, which just came out today.
Maybe it will help you; maybe it won't.
Maybe Slashdot will accept this post; maybe it won't.
--
AMD cooling. (Score:2)
Do you know where I can find AMD's temperature recommendations? I just built my first system with sensors on the motherboard, and I got the lm_sensors stuff working with the 2.4.3 kernel Saturday, so now I can watch the temperature on my desktop with gkrellm [wt.net]. But I don't know what I'm looking at. It usually hovers around 50C, but sometimes climbs as high as 57C when I've run an all-night number crunching job.
At what point do I start worrying?
--
Re:AMD cooling. (Score:2)
You sound like 'Eliza'.
Visit the lm_sensors page [netroedge.com]. Notice that i2c support is built in to the 2.4.* kernels, so you won't need the separate download for that, but you do need to have the basic i2c support compiled in to the new kernels. (It may already be compiled in if you have a stock kernel.)
Once you've gotten i2c support, just get the lm_sensors package and follow the instructions in the QUICKSTART file. When you're done, you'll have a hardware monitoring infrastructure, if your motherboard provides the info.
Various user tools tap in to that infrastructure to give you a live display or plot the data. I've already mentioned gkrellm; you can find more at the lm_sensors site's links page [lm-sensors.nu], or perhaps on google.
--
Re:Effecient engineering (Score:1)
I'm waiting for an SMP motherboard for the Athlons.
Re:This is not bad (Score:2)
Ummm, I beg to differ. It *is* good that the CPU doesn't burn itself out - yes. But it is bad that the CPU kicks into this mode on common applications.
If Intel is selling this chip as a performance solution then I want to be able to run it at 100% for 4-6 hours, for a kicking game of Q3 at a LAN party. I want to be able to do FP work 24/7 while I render an animation. If their CPU can't do these perfectly reasonable things they should mark it as such.
Look at it this way - if Intel was selling a CPU for use in WebTV (or some other embedded application) and the user was able to do something, rapidly opening and closing a window for example, that overheated the CPU and it slowed down - that'd be fine. It'd still function as a WebTV box, and while the user was screwing with the CPU it wouldn't be doing anything else.
Contrast that with them selling a CPU that they claim is a performance monster, better than any other x8 CPU. People expect to run their x86 machines at 100%, many servers at my work have been up for months and have been at nearly 100% load the entire time. When I installed a bunch of dual celerons a few years back as a rendering farm, they were at 100% for 18 months, running FP rending - about the hottest code you can get.
If the P4 is sold to a market that expects this performance, it had better perform.
If the only way to get a chip to overheat was to execute a tight loop of CPUID instructions, or something else that had no real purpose, then I would accept it kicking in thermal limiting. That's beyond reasonable operating specs (as in, performs no function, exists just to stress the product.)
To use a car as an example - if I buy a car, I expect it to be capable of highway speeds for prolonged times. It's not okay that the company profiled drivers and decided that 99.2% of the time, a duty cycle of 70% 30mph, 20% 50mph, and 10% 60mph was all that was required. I'd expect the car to be capable of handling 65mph 100% of the time, for 8-10 hours. If it couldn't do this, I would like a thermal limiter where it warned me gracefully instead of blowing up, but I'd still take it back as defective.
Re:VIA chipset {Re:Good heatsink} (Score:2)
Who knew (Score:1)
Re:is there some reason? (Score:1)
UltraSPARC III CPU runs at 600MHz and it is used in a $7000 Sun Blade 1000.
The chip that you probably have is a 500MHz UltraSPARC IIe which (sorry to disappoint you) doesn't kick x86s ass. IIe is a stripped down version of II with a tiny cache and it was originally designed for low power consuption and embedded applications.
Re:well... (Score:3)
--
"take the red pill and you stay in wonderland and I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes"
A reply from Intel at [H]ardOCP (Score:4)
Now that you guys have had a couple days to get excited about what Bert McComas had to say about the P4 clock throttling itself, I thought I would throw in my two cents. First off, here is the statement that is stirring the pot so well.
Intel's Thermal Design Guide has revealed that the absolute maximum power dissipation of the 1.5GHz P4 is actually 72.9 watts. This is 33% higher than the published system design specification, and essentially identical to the 1.33 GHz Athlon. In order to prevent the CPU from exceeding 54.7 watt, thermal throttling is used. If performance critical applications drive CPU power above its artificially low 54.7 watt limit, the CPU is halted with a 50% duty cycle (alternating 2 microseconds on; 2 microseconds off) until it cools down. This effectively turns your 1.5GHz processor into a 750MHz processor - just at the moment you demand peak performance. On the other hand, you will probably still be able to check your email at 1.5GHz.
While I don't know Bert, I have had the pleasure of meeting him and you have seen his links here on the [H] many times. On this occasion I think Bert has been sucking the crack pipe a bit too hard or either must have been in a terrible auto accident and had his cranium lodged in his rectal cavity and did not notice before he wrote the above statement.
We have been running an over-volted overclocked Pentium4 with the factory heatsink installed now for some time. It has been running here beside my desk folding proteins for Stanford University now for a solid month and has stayed at 100% CPU utilization. I track its performance and I can assure you that it has not ever slipped into the throttling that Bert speaks about above. If Bert's apps are running at 50%, it is because he does not have the sense to put a heatsink on the CPU or either he is operating his P4 system in Hell. Bert is taking an Intel safety device and demonizing the P4 with it. Here is what Intel PR George Alfs had to say about Bert's statements.
Hi Kyle,
You can run benchmarks all day on a Pentium(R) 4 processor with the benchmarks unaffected by the thermal protection circuitry. The key is to have a robust heat sink and thermal solution. With the heat sink setup we designed for Pentium 4 processor systems, I have yet to see thermal protection kick in.
George.
I have to fully agree with George's statements and have a few things to add. Also, I think that "robust" need not be in his statement.
What Bert may not know is that some mainboards have an adjustment in the BIOS that you can set yourself with the temperature that you want throttle to. (On our systems we have left it at default and never messed with the settings on the particular board that is Folding.) Yes, YOU can turn this on and off and fully control it on some mainboards. If you want a shield in between you and a burned up processor, set it low; if you want to forego the safety feature, set the temp high. I know that MANY of you wished that AMD had the courtesy to include a feature such as this instead of leaving their Athlon and Duron CPUs totally unprotected.
We have never seen nor heard of the CPU throttling being active on any person's CPU and certainly have not experienced it ourselves (unless we FORCED it to happen) under conditions more strenuous than 99.9% of the P4s in the field will ever encounter. I do not suggest that DIYers or hobbyist go the P4 route if they want to buy a system for themselves, but bashing it on this front is simply bad journalism and transparent to many people.
We here at the [H] have a lot of respect for Bert McComas' work and think he should step back up to the plate and possibly rephrase the statements in regards to this issue. Bert, we love you man, but you were just totally out to show Intel in a bad light this time, or were simply not thinking through the issue properly because you are being misleading and it looks to us as if you were trying to do it purposefully.
Moderate the parentes POST UP!(N/T) (Score:1)
Re:well... (Score:1)
Re:Ultra 3 (Score:1)
netra x1 - 1U @ $995 (small 1U - I think it's only 13" deep). I've never seen PC hardware
that's as compact (though if anyone has any
pointers...)
You can power it on/off and boot through the serial port. It has dual ethernet interfaces
and uses commodity sdram memory and IDE drives.
water cooling will prevent problems... (Score:2)
And it's quiet because water cooling is not only used for the CPU, but also hard disk, power supply and graphics card.
Of course, I've seen 4 way powerpc systems that have no cooling required...
Motherboard Shutdown Feature (Score:2)
Later,
Thad
Abuse (Score:1)
Slashdot would not be happy, for example, if someone began collecting their more interesting articles and reproducing them elsewhere. Hyperlinks were intended for a purpose! HardOCP deserves to have its content seen on its site, IMO.
Although this instance of a post copying from another site (in this case HardOCP) may have been purely informational, the concept that messages with no original content can get modded up may become an encouragement for ACs, and eventually force less genial folks than Kyle to step up their actions, a la Church of Scientology.
Posts exist to publicize original content. What has been done here is not that.
this is a bad thing? (Score:1)
i believe it actually lowers the clock speed, but im not sure how much...
if there was more controll, this would be a good feature for overclockers, or people who have to operate their computers in a hot environment. i would rather have my computer run slower, than have to buy a new one because i burnt it out
Re:A reply from Intel at [H]ardOCP (Score:1)
Maybe I was a bit quick in my comment, but the way he wrote the first part led me into thinking his way of tracking performance was checking the utilization. Rereading the part, I see that I was most probably wrong.
Re:A reply from Intel at [H]ardOCP (Score:2)
setiathome (Score:1)
Re:setiathome (Score:1)
Big deal the PIII does it too... (Score:2)
Re:Moderators, this is REDUNDANT (Score:1)
I always thought that Redundant applies to when it is a duplicate of another slashdot comment. Calling it Redundent makes it sound like it contains no new information.
How about Overrated?
Re:Good heatsink (Score:1)
Most of what I've heard about them has been not-so-good...mostly along the lines of "looks impressive, but doesn't get the job done." They don't appear to have much surface area to them, which is a Bad Thing (TM) for a heatsink.
I bought this heatsink [tcwo.com] to go with my 1.0-GHz Athlon...it's cheap, but it gets the job done fairly well AFAICT (no lockups, and the heatsink only gets warm, not hot). The thermal pad at the bottom was removed and the appropriate amount of Arctic Silver II was scraped across the top of the die. There's no thermal monitoring on the motherboard (a Biostar M7MIA), so I can't provide numbers for comparison, but I suspect that mine is running much cooler than yours.
Re:Mac tests? (Score:1)
Ever hear of KryoTech [kryotech.com]? Their website is pretty much content-free at the moment, but they sell refrigeration systems for overclockers. They also sell prebuilt Athlon-based systems...they had Athlons running at 1.0 GHz months before AMD shipped true 1.0-GHz Athlons. Last time I heard, their equipment, combined with the latest processors, was supposed to enable speeds up to 1.5-1.6 GHz. If a 1.2-GHz Athlon is an even match for a 1.5-GHz P4 in most tasks, imagine how an Athlon @ 1.5 GHz would compare to a 1.5-GHz P4.
There are other companies out there in this business...KryoTech is the one that popped to mind first. I think Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com] did a review of a similar product from another company, and continues to use a system built around that product as its reference "absolute fastest you can get" system.
Wait a second... (Score:2)
Is Your P4 Working At Half Speed? (Score:2)
No, reading Slashdot isn't THAT taxing on my cpu.
So that's why Intel is chopping the price! (Score:1)
I work at half speed... (Score:5)
Re:Good heatsink (Score:1)
Jeff
Moderators... this post is sarcastic (Score:2)
Re:Effecient engineering (Score:1)
Re:This is not bad (Score:2)
-----------------------
is there some reason? (Score:5)
Perhaps there's a reason to prefer a chip that doesn't get so hot in the first place. I heard Motorolla and IBM make one, and that some company has released a Unix variant that runs pretty well on it.
Re:Another great innovation from Intel! (Score:2)
You mean the Athlon? Or are you running quad Athlons are your Socket 7 motherbaord from 1995?
Hey timothy.. I can cut and paste too! (Score:2)
Anyone care to comment on this seeming discrepancy?
Assuming that it really is thermal throttling, I would love to see what a good tech site like Tom's might be able to determine about the throttled down CPU when using various heatsinks. If that feature is really there then you should expect more powerful heatsinks give the same temperature as lesser heatsinks, but higher performance.
In other words, it is possible to see this as a feature, not a bug. You get 1.5G when the processor is capable of it. You get half that when you are running hot; but with good enough cooling you should always get the highest performance possible.
"Overclocking" may go away, replaced by "overcooling".
-- props to Wreck (leonard@dc.spam.net) --
Re:well... (Score:5)
--
This is good design (Score:2)
Back when computers were sold to engineers, they came with a spec sheet with the environmental specs: allowable ranges on power, temperature, air pressure, and humidity. Compaq still provides them. Here are the numbers for a PIII desktop machine [compaq.com]:
Note that any environment that isn't air-conditioned and humidity-controlled will probably go outside those ranges at some point in the year. So some form of overheat protection is essential to prevent component damage. A slowdown is better than a shutdown, which is better than a crash, which is better than a meltdown. You want thermal throttling, fan speed control, and emergency overtemp shutdown on anything used for more than Quake. Fortunately, those features only add a few dollars today.
Surprisingly, Compaq's laptops have a 95F temperature limit, which is on the low side for a portable device.
There used to be a saying in railroading: "Never buy equipment from a supplier who's in a better climate than yours". All the good railroad suppliers were in places like upstate New York, where they experienced snow, ice, rain, heat, and thunderstorms. Computing could use more of that attitude.
Re:And what will the wider consequences of this be (Score:2)
This has been said of Intel over and over again. They were deceptive liars when they released the Pentium III, which was almost exactly the same as the Pentium II, except for the CPU ID (and perhaps other minor differences), and that was coupled with the privacy concerns of the CPU ID, which was going to ruin Intel by erroding trust amongst consumers.
The Pentium Pro was also going to ruin Intel, as it was so expensive and didn't seem like it'd ever be worth the money for something that didn't perform much better. And so on... people have said more or less this same thing most of Intel's new processors. Ok, maybe this time it really will happen, but much more likely is that history will repeat itself yet again.
In fact, the only time Intel's ever really had any major trust problems was when the FDIV bug hit, and when they finally did the right thing and offered to replace any FDIV-bug chip for free, consumer/business's trust was almost fully restored.
This certainly isn't the first time there's been a slow-down in the market.
Moore's law has been predicted to have run dry many many times. Right now doesn't seem like such a good time to be forcasting the end of Moore's law, since short-term incremental improvements (1.7 GHz up from 1.5 GHz on the P4) and long-term improvements (IA64, async "clocking", even finer geometry transistors in the lab, etc) are in the making.
Just as predicting "everything the can be invented has been" didn't work in 1899, it's incredibly short-sighted today.
Speech recognition isn't too hard to imagine today. While it isn't likely to become the primary way of interacting with the computer (ala Star Trek), it will certainly become a high-demand feature when it's refined and cost effective. Among other benefits, speech recognition may really open up the possibilities for people communicating with one another by email and discussion forums (like this one), as a great portion of the population has reasonably good speaking skills, but typing messages is "hard work".
It's also not too hard to envision future software parsing natural language, at least with some level of success in understanding the meaning. Today's computer interfaces aren't much more sophisticated than caveman's point-and-grunt (well, maybe except for geeks/programmers who can use the command line). Today's successful user interfaces tend to build their success by arranging objects to be pointed at... but it's easy to see with the massive growth of available information on the web that point-and-grunt doesn't scale well. Quite a lot of research has gone into this dream. In fact, the aim of languages like XML are to facilitate computers being able to "understand" the information, so that new methods of interaction can be built (well, there's other shorter-term benefits too) When/if natural language parsion becomes a useful interaction technique, it will be very compelling (aka a "killer app") and today's computers will seem as ancient as black-n-white television (or perhaps an old Apple ][).
There's many other amazingly short-sighed quotes lurking in sociology's post (hard to believe 3-4 people mod'd it up as insightful), but perhaps the best is "Computers are at the base of all our technological advances." Perhaps that could be said of the written language or maybe even the printing press.
There's plenty more to be commented upon, but, dear moderators, please take a moment to ask yourself how insightful is a viewpoint with very limited historical perspective that predicts no advanments in the future? Sounds to me like the wishful thinking of a luddite.
Bush's brain is overheating (Score:3)
The Secret Service is now charged with the responsibility of making sure his Peltier cooler is always firmly attached to his forehead.
Re:I work at half speed... (Score:5)
I'd hate to have your job.
Deja Vu... (Score:5)
Re:AMD T-bird = Better cpu! (Score:2)
But in the document... (Score:3)
Re:1.5GHz is fraud. Should be labeled like CDROMs. (Score:2)
The comments here make it sound like running a simple photoshop blur will make the CPU slow to a crawl in order to avoid going tits-up in under 5 minutes.
For all we know, the only way to cause the clock throttle to choke up is running the chip heavilly with no fan in close proximity to a blast furnace under direct sunlight for three days straight...
Just how hot is "too hot", and how much do you have to abuse the chip to get there? Until that question has been answered fully, I am going to view this as a lot of panic over nothing.
[H]ardOCP response... (Score:3)
Re:Hottest CPU was 5V 75MHz Pentium. (Score:2)
---
Re:And what will the wider consequences of this be (Score:2)
---
Good heatsink (Score:4)
Re:This has always been a problem (Score:3)
Honestly, Out of the two types of cases I have, I have a In-Win Q500A and two Enlight Cases (Full and Mid-Tower), the Enlights stay super cool, the panel is always cold to the touch, the In-Win burns up on the side...I love my Inwin case though...its just always HOT..
Re:This is not bad (Score:2)
This is not bad (Score:5)
Re:Morons.. (Score:2)
Re:I couldn't imagine a P4 at half speed... (Score:3)
Re:[H]ardOCP response... (Score:2)
It gets too hot and cycles the fan on whenever a java applet goes bugfuck in my browser and spins in the background, even after I close the browser. Happens about once a week, and more often if the offending websites increase my interest for a while.
So "99.9%" might be a little understated. Most computers probably have similar problems with crappy applets. It may affect a particular user maybe only 0.1% of the time, but it will hit nearly every user at least once over a long enough span of time.
Intel's half-speed hack might prevent a disaster. What's really needed is for someone to fix or denigrate Java so that applets never crash in runing states.
--Blair
Re:Can't be done (Score:2)
The problem is evident: Java is prone to getting into infinite loops that were not intended by the program designer.
Much more so than any other piece of software I've run more than once in the past few years.
Most coders have an intuitive understanding of the flow of their process, and do not create infinite loops, even if Turing says they're never 100% sure. Something about Java keeps this intuition from working.
Most likely it has to do with race conditions conflated with external events and undisciplined state-machine design. Which, when you look at it, is the Java programming model. It's also the Windows, Mac, and X programming models. Java should be revised with the goal of obviating this high-probability trap.
--Blair
hype. (Score:2)
that sounds like why-your-intel-processor-is-bad-hype to me.
you may want to read this posted on hardocp.com:
Hi Kyle, You can run benchmarks all day on a Pentium(R) 4 processor with the benchmarks unaffected by the thermal protection circuitry. The key is to have a robust heat sink and thermal solution. With the heat sink setup we designed for Pentium 4 processor systems, I have yet to see thermal protection kick in. George.
(George = Intel PR George Alfs)
And here is a small excerpt from Kyle's comment:
We have been running an over-volted overclocked Pentium4 with the factory heatsink installed now for some time. It has been running here beside my desk folding proteins for Stanford University now for a solid month and has stayed at 100% CPU utilization. I track its performance and I can assure you that it has not ever slipped into the throttling that Bert speaks about above.
Effecient engineering (Score:3)
Re:is there some reason? (Score:3)
Don't be a FOOL - It DOES run at full speed (Score:2)