Response time of thermal diode is less than 1ms
on
AMD And THG update
·
· Score: 3, Informative
On Ace's Hardware, this subject is discussed thoroughly the last days. An interesting article can be found here. Some thoughts from this article:
- the component needed for proper protection of the cpu costs $0.85 (in quantities of 1K).
- "Obviously, Siemens used an external temperature probe and tried to pass it off as using the internal diode."
- The reaction time of the thermal diode is certainly not 1 degree/second: "At our worst case rise of 300C/sec, that translates to a response time of less than 1ms. No way would this result in a fried CPU if power off is immediate upon the signal occurring."
For a matter of fact, an engineer told a friend of mine it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to develop a thermal diode with such characteristics (1 degree/sec response time).
You can find the main thread of this article here.
Re:and in the end it doesn't really matter
on
AMD And THG update
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
However, AMD should have designed the safety circuit they have shown off in the article INTO the actual CPU itself, so it can save itself. And it should save itself by basically clocking itself down to 100MHz or slower, so that data loss does not occur and the user can save their data. Hopefully this will be implemented in a future revision of the CPU.
It would be very nice to have such a feature, but this will require a rather large redesign. Remember the Palomino is based on the Thunderbird. Intel designed the P4 from the ground up...
And if AMD implements such a feature, they shouldn't make the mistake Intel did. If the cpu is lowering the clockspeed internally, this should be clearly communicated to the outside world (the bios), so the user is aware of this.
Slashdot Mirror
On Ace's Hardware, this subject is discussed thoroughly the last days. An interesting article can be found here. Some thoughts from this article:
- the component needed for proper protection of the cpu costs $0.85 (in quantities of 1K).
- "Obviously, Siemens used an external temperature probe and tried to pass it off as using the internal diode."
- The reaction time of the thermal diode is certainly not 1 degree/second: "At our worst case rise of 300C/sec, that translates to a response time of less than 1ms. No way would this result in a fried CPU if power off is immediate upon the signal occurring."
For a matter of fact, an engineer told a friend of mine it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to develop a thermal diode with such characteristics (1 degree/sec response time).
You can find the main thread of this article here.
However, AMD should have designed the safety circuit they have shown off in the article INTO the actual CPU itself, so it can save itself. And it should save itself by basically clocking itself down to 100MHz or slower, so that data loss does not occur and the user can save their data. Hopefully this will be implemented in a future revision of the CPU.
It would be very nice to have such a feature, but this will require a rather large redesign. Remember the Palomino is based on the Thunderbird. Intel designed the P4 from the ground up...
And if AMD implements such a feature, they shouldn't make the mistake Intel did. If the cpu is lowering the clockspeed internally, this should be clearly communicated to the outside world (the bios), so the user is aware of this.