CPU size(physical)

sg1 · 06-28-2008, 01:58 PM

Why do they have to keep making cpu's smaller and smaller? Surely better heat dissapation could be achieved if they just made them a bit bigger?

funkysnair · 06-28-2008, 02:14 PM

larger surface area!

although i havnt noticed any size difference-ive got an amd k6 300mhz from 1998 and its similar size to new ones?

i know where you are coming from but i think there are good enough coolers out there that can deal with high tempretures on small surface areas

hackapelite · 06-28-2008, 02:14 PM

I don't think the CPUs are really getting smaller... while manufacturers are reducing transistor sizes on their chips, they're also increasing the numbers, and the actual physical size of che chip is probably very similar when comparing any recent generations of CPUs, of course there are exceptions such as at least the original P4 which was considered massive, as well as very old CPUs...especially the slot ones.

To actually make the things bigger, the transistor size should be increased, which means that higher voltages are needed to keep it operating (which works againist the idea of making chips bigger to improve heat dissipation) and operating frequencies can't be pushed as high (the heat won't be the only limiting factor, CPUs manufactured using a "bigger" process simply can't operate at frequencies as high as those with smaller transistors can).

EDIT: Also, the bigger the surface area, the higher the manufacturing costs. We want CHEAP processors, don't we?

StrangleHold · 06-28-2008, 02:48 PM

Like said above its all about Tranisitor count. The old first K6 had around 9 million, the AMD Phenom has around 450 million the Core 2 Quad even has more close to 600 million depending on how much L2. So if they didnt drop the size in nm. the processors would be huge and give off massive amounts of heat.

TFT · 06-28-2008, 03:00 PM

A better explanation from Wiki than I can give.

Shrinking everything (a "photomask shrink"), resulting in the same number of transistors on a smaller die, improves performance (smaller transistors switch faster), reduces power (smaller wires have less parasitic capacitance) and reduces cost (more CPUs fit on the same wafer of silicon).

compt121 · 06-28-2008, 03:47 PM

good idea, i would of thought a bigger processor would of spead out the heat ??

sg1 · 06-28-2008, 04:07 PM

Maybe I should have added- keep the archietecture the same but just make the outer casing slightly bigger!! maybe incorporate a liquid cooling sytem into the actual CPU- there's PLENTY of non conductive fluids out there that could be used ,

StrangleHold · 06-28-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sg1

maybe incorporate a liquid cooling sytem into the actual CPU- there's PLENTY of non conductive fluids out there that could be used ,

IBM is already trying it. Its just the small passage spaces that are giving them a problem, try pushing a baseball through a waterhose

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/8146-i...water-cooling/

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pr...ease/24385.wss

sg1 · 06-28-2008, 04:51 PM

(i knew a girl like that once

)
So my idea wasn't totally way out there then.

2048Megabytes · 06-28-2008, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrangleHold

Like said above its all about Tranisitor count. The old first K6 had around 9 million, the AMD Phenom has around 450 million the Core 2 Quad even has more close to 600 million depending on how much L2. So if they didnt drop the size in nm. the processors would be huge and give off massive amounts of heat.

It's absolutely amazing how many transistors they can fit into a modern day processor. How they have refined processor technology to the size of 65 nanometers and smaller is beyond me. I do know there are one billion nanometers in one meter.

06-28-2008, 01:58 PM	#1 (permalink)
sg1 Platinum Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: South coast of UK Age: 30 Posts: 650	CPU size(physical) Why do they have to keep making cpu's smaller and smaller? Surely better heat dissapation could be achieved if they just made them a bit bigger? __________________ DESKTOP ......................... LAPTOP Athlon64 X2 , 4200,Intel Core 2 Duo T5500 / 1.66 GHz 2x250GB Diamondmax SATA,80GB-SATA- 5400 rpm 80Gb Deskstar ATA 4GB DDRII ,2GB DDRII NEC DVDRW/DVDRW+Lightscribe,DVD±RW(±RDL) Nvidia 9600GT,Intel GMA 950 700W EZcool Panther PSU 2 x 17" TFT Monitors,15.4" TFT-1280 x 800 ( WXGA )

06-28-2008, 02:14 PM	#2 (permalink)
funkysnair Diamond Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newcastle-England-uk Age: 26 Posts: 1,469	larger surface area! although i havnt noticed any size difference-ive got an amd k6 300mhz from 1998 and its similar size to new ones? i know where you are coming from but i think there are good enough coolers out there that can deal with high tempretures on small surface areas __________________ q6600@3.2ghz-asus p5k pro-4x1gig 1066mhz ballistix- raptor 74gig-maxitor 500gig-gainward hd4850- thermaltake tr2 550watt-sony/nec dvd rw- antec900 (liquid cooled mod)-swiftech pump/rad- 2x"19 widescreen acer monitors

06-28-2008, 02:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
hackapelite VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Melbourne, Kangarooland Age: 17 Posts: 2,169	I don't think the CPUs are really getting smaller... while manufacturers are reducing transistor sizes on their chips, they're also increasing the numbers, and the actual physical size of che chip is probably very similar when comparing any recent generations of CPUs, of course there are exceptions such as at least the original P4 which was considered massive, as well as very old CPUs...especially the slot ones. To actually make the things bigger, the transistor size should be increased, which means that higher voltages are needed to keep it operating (which works againist the idea of making chips bigger to improve heat dissipation) and operating frequencies can't be pushed as high (the heat won't be the only limiting factor, CPUs manufactured using a "bigger" process simply can't operate at frequencies as high as those with smaller transistors can). EDIT: Also, the bigger the surface area, the higher the manufacturing costs. We want CHEAP processors, don't we? __________________ BY READING THE ABOVE POST, YOU AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: "The above post is provided solely for entertainment purposes and is not to be taken as professional advice. Therefore, I shall not be held responsible for any damage or losses that are result from anything I have posted, to the extent applicable by law. In the unlikely event that I CAN be held responsible, I have never been here, I am not here, and I will never be here, and it will be highly questionable whether I even exist."

06-28-2008, 02:48 PM	#4 (permalink)
StrangleHold Diamond Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: And you think your safe! Posts: 8,169	Like said above its all about Tranisitor count. The old first K6 had around 9 million, the AMD Phenom has around 450 million the Core 2 Quad even has more close to 600 million depending on how much L2. So if they didnt drop the size in nm. the processors would be huge and give off massive amounts of heat. __________________ NZXT Apollo Phenom 8750BE 3.0ghz. Gigabyte GA MA770 DS3 G Skill DDR2 1066 4gb. PNY 8800GT/VD964 W/D RE2 Sata 3.0 500gb.

06-28-2008, 03:00 PM	#5 (permalink)
TFT Diamond Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Yorkshire, UK Posts: 2,298	A better explanation from Wiki than I can give. Shrinking everything (a "photomask shrink"), resulting in the same number of transistors on a smaller die, improves performance (smaller transistors switch faster), reduces power (smaller wires have less parasitic capacitance) and reduces cost (more CPUs fit on the same wafer of silicon). __________________ Operator: Dave Operating System: XP Professional SP2 Processor: Intel E6750 Core Duo@3.20GHz Graphics: Nvidia 8500GT C: Drive 500GB D: Drive 250GB Memory: 2GB

06-28-2008, 03:47 PM	#6 (permalink)
compt121 Bronze Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 35	good idea, i would of thought a bigger processor would of spead out the heat ?? __________________ Computing Tips :: How to make windows xp run faster How to seo vbulletin

06-28-2008, 04:07 PM	#7 (permalink)
sg1 Platinum Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: South coast of UK Age: 30 Posts: 650	Maybe I should have added- keep the archietecture the same but just make the outer casing slightly bigger!! maybe incorporate a liquid cooling sytem into the actual CPU- there's PLENTY of non conductive fluids out there that could be used , __________________ DESKTOP ......................... LAPTOP Athlon64 X2 , 4200,Intel Core 2 Duo T5500 / 1.66 GHz 2x250GB Diamondmax SATA,80GB-SATA- 5400 rpm 80Gb Deskstar ATA 4GB DDRII ,2GB DDRII NEC DVDRW/DVDRW+Lightscribe,DVD±RW(±RDL) Nvidia 9600GT,Intel GMA 950 700W EZcool Panther PSU 2 x 17" TFT Monitors,15.4" TFT-1280 x 800 ( WXGA )

06-28-2008, 04:51 PM	#9 (permalink)
sg1 Platinum Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: South coast of UK Age: 30 Posts: 650	(i knew a girl like that once ) So my idea wasn't totally way out there then. __________________ DESKTOP ......................... LAPTOP Athlon64 X2 , 4200,Intel Core 2 Duo T5500 / 1.66 GHz 2x250GB Diamondmax SATA,80GB-SATA- 5400 rpm 80Gb Deskstar ATA 4GB DDRII ,2GB DDRII NEC DVDRW/DVDRW+Lightscribe,DVD±RW(±RDL) Nvidia 9600GT,Intel GMA 950 700W EZcool Panther PSU 2 x 17" TFT Monitors,15.4" TFT-1280 x 800 ( WXGA )

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Upgrade CPU on current machine easy?	UpskirtHayley	CPUs and Overclocking	3	03-17-2008 12:36 AM
Did I fry my CPU?	Metzzen1	CPUs and Overclocking	19	04-22-2006 01:52 AM
CPU bent pins	Devin009	CPUs and Overclocking	13	09-25-2005 10:55 AM
how to change CPU??	taipan541	CPUs and Overclocking	2	09-18-2005 08:57 PM
overclocking guide pt 2	Rick G	CPUs and Overclocking	0	02-07-2004 05:45 AM