Slashdot Mirror
Google Demands Higher Chip Temps From Intel
JagsLive writes "When purchasing server processors directly from Intel, Google has insisted on a guarantee that the chips can operate at temperatures five degrees centigrade higher than their standard qualification, according to a former Google employee. This allowed the search giant to maintain higher temperatures within its data centers, the ex-employee says, and save millions of dollars each year in cooling costs."
Wouldn't Intel run into physical limitations that simply don't allow chips to run at that low a temperature? I'm surprised Google isn't considering moving some of its data centres to Arctic locations where you get cool temperatures year-round. We've seen reports of appealing places like that on Slashdot before. (Of course, that would just be a short-term fix before we move the Earth to a farther orbit around the sun to avoid suffocating in our own waste heat like the Puppeteers in Niven's Ringworld ).
Not really.
No matter how cool the chips run they will put out heat. If you have two chips that run at X and use Y watts you will save power if you can run them a little hotter and use less power for cooling.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I'm not sure what your getting at - if by doing this they are saving millions in cooling expense, they are certainly using less energy. What is "going green" if it isn't energy conservation? The fact that the conservation comes from less work for their AC units rather than efficient little processors is immaterial.
Don't expect any company to do things because its right - but good companies will find win-win situations where they cut costs and do things to "Go Green".
Overclockers
The amount of energy you need to use to cool that stuff is quite significant. And, in case you haven't realized it, generating cool air also create more warm air, it's just not in the data center. It's usually vented right outside.
If the chips could run hotter, they'd have to use less energy to cool the data center, and generate less waste heat from that very cooling in the first place.
I'm not convinced that what they're asking for isn't a good idea.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
That means you'd need to make up for the lack of processing power with additional CPUs, which would mean more CPUs to cool.
"Guarantee us a higher temp CPU or we will switch to AMD...and tell everyone about it."
That's not really how the negotiation goes in this type of situation where there are two major supplier choices (AMD and Intel) and Google is a relatively small customer when compared with Dell, HP, IBM, etc.
In all likelihood, the negotiation is more of a partnership where both parties work together to create value. Google says, "We buy thousands upon thousands of your chips, but we also pay millions of dollars annually to cool them. We'd be willing to pay little premium and lock in more volume if you can help us save money by increasing the temperature inside our data centers." Google has done the math and comes prepared with knowledge of how much those specs can save them and forecast of chip need of the next 12-18 months, and the two work together to create value. For example, Google might offer to allow endorsements (as they did with Dell for their Google appliances) in exchange for favorable pricing and specifications.
The "do this or I'll switch" tactic only works well when there are many suppliers and products are relatively undifferentiated, like SDRAM or fan motors.
Odds are this is being driven by a data-center engineering team, who are looking at the cost savings of running their data center 5 degrees hotter.
You don't get what you don't ask for.
Intel will do exactly as much engineering as necessary to keep their target market up, and no more.
If the market wants chips that operate 5 degrees hotter.. the engineers will do their job and see if it can be done. Intel will charge a premium for this.
That's business.
Yes, but way I see this is:
Intel isn't arbitrarily going, "man, we could make chips that run ok 5 degrees hotter, but we're gonna piss everyone off by demanding more cooling. Just because we can." Most likely Intel is already doing the best it can, and getting a bunch of chips which vary in how good they are. And they're getting the same bunch of chips regardless of whether Google demands higher temps or not.
Google just gets a cherry-picked bunch, but the average over Intel's production is still the same. Hence everyone else is getting a worse selection. They what remains after Google took the best.
It's a zero-sum game. The total load on the planet is the same. The same total bunch of chips exits Intel's fabs. On the total, no energy was conserved.
So Google's "going green" is at the cost of making everyone else less "green". They can willy-wave about how energy efficient they are, by simply dumping the difference on someone else.
That's not "going green", that's a predatory approach. Your computers could require on the average an extra 0.5W in cooling, so Google can willy-wave that theirs uses 1W less. They just dumped their costs and their "eco burden" to someone else.
It's akin to me willy-waving that I'm so green and produce less garbage than you... by dumping some of my garbage in random other people's garbage bins across the town. Yay, I'm so green now, you all can start worshipping me. Well, no, on the total the same amount of garbage being produced, I just dumped it and the related costs on other people. That's not going green, that's being a predator.
I can see why a business might want to cut their own costs, and not care about yours. That's, after all, the whole "invisible hand" theory. But let me repeat it: on the whole no energy was conserved. They just passed off some of their cooling costs (energy _and_ money) to someone else.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
They are not asking for the chips to be made to produce more heat, they're demanding that Intel guarantee that the chips will still perform, even if operated at a higher than specified max operating environment temperature.
You would be forgiven for thinking it makes more sense to for Google to insist that the chips produce less heat, rather than that they will still operate in extreme temperatures, since the majority of the cooling cost come from dissipating the chip heat from the enclosed space. But hey, it's Google, they do things a bit different.
I wouldn't say the post is off topic. When I read it first, I thought the title suggested Google wanted the processors to produce more heat.
And ideally, I'd come home to find Alyson Hannigan oiled up and duct taped to my bed
You know you're pathetic when they're even unwilling in your fantasies.
You're assuming everyone prefers them willing.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
>> So Google's "going green" is at the cost of making everyone else less "green". They can willy-wave about how energy efficient they are, by simply dumping the difference on someone else.
The difference is that Google is going to actively exploit the ability of those hand-picked CPU's to run hotter. Chances are that the users who would have otherwise received those chips would not reap any energy savings from the capabilities.
At a minimum, Google is contributing here by forcing a vendor to differentiate chips that have a capability of running hotter from ones that don't. No matter who uses that capability, it's a benefit to the planet (versus the alternatives at least).
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
You can run a data center cheaper at a cooler temperature simply by having better insulation.
That assumes that the outdoor temperature is higher than the indoor temperature. My bet is that a data center run at 80 F in the Pacific Northwest would be warmer inside for most of the year than outside. Insulation under those conditions could actually increase cooling costs.
Not really.
No matter how cool the chips run they will put out heat. If you have two chips that run at X and use Y watts you will save power if you can run them a little hotter and use less power for cooling.
Electronics tend to use more power, the hotter they run. So running the chips at a higher temperature will use more power than at the stock temperature. However, since refrigeration based cooling can use up to 3 watts to remove 1 watt worth of heat, Google will still be coming out ahead by a long shot.
What? American businesses like saving money almost as much as they like making it. It's environmentalism is not as a big motivator as profit, at least in the US. Make being efficient profitable long term, and some businesses will do it. Make it profitable short term and businesses will fall over one another to do it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire