Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 13 Mar 2007 02:13 Dan Bloomquist wrote: > MassiveProng wrote: > > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: > > > > > > Tell us, oh masterTARD, what would the maximum clock be on a 40 volt > > logic swing. > > > > Do you even know what slew rate is? > > > > The reason it was 5 volts is because it was a reasonable voltage > > that could be slewed to at a decent rate. > > Wow. Sounds like ECL is a tremendous screw up. ECL's use in commercial equipment is negligible. Graham
From: Eeyore on 13 Mar 2007 02:29 "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" wrote: > MassiveProng wrote: > >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net Gave us: > > > > Tell us, oh masterTARD, what would the maximum clock be on a 40 volt > > logic swing. > > > > Do you even know what slew rate is? > > > > The reason it was 5 volts is because it was a reasonable voltage > > that could be slewed to at a decent rate. > > > > NOW, we are at 3.3 volts and even 1.2V. The reason is slew rate, > > and the fact that we can transition much faster at those swings than > > we ever could at 5V. > > Here's a clue for you. High clock rates and complex > high density chips have a significant problem with > heat, the main reason for the ever lowering voltages > in CPU's. *One* of the reasons. Clearly slew rate is implicated equally. Graham
From: MassiveProng on 13 Mar 2007 05:54 On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 06:29:11 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >"nonsense(a)unsettled.com" wrote: > >> MassiveProng wrote: >> >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net Gave us: >> > >> > Tell us, oh masterTARD, what would the maximum clock be on a 40 volt >> > logic swing. >> > >> > Do you even know what slew rate is? >> > >> > The reason it was 5 volts is because it was a reasonable voltage >> > that could be slewed to at a decent rate. >> > >> > NOW, we are at 3.3 volts and even 1.2V. The reason is slew rate, >> > and the fact that we can transition much faster at those swings than >> > we ever could at 5V. >> >> Here's a clue for you. High clock rates and complex >> high density chips have a significant problem with >> heat, the main reason for the ever lowering voltages >> in CPU's. > >*One* of the reasons. Clearly slew rate is implicated equally. > The transition time to an acceptable logic 1 without a false high at 5 volts is huge compared to modern logic designs. Sure power consumption being lower is part of it, but the ability to go at 10GHz is simply not possible at 5Volts, and certainly is at 1.2Volts. The proof is in examining a signal. At 1.2 volts we see nice crisp, nearly vertical slew transitions between levels. When an engineer looks at a 5 Volt signature, he notes right away that the slew of the pulse is so high that high frequency operation won't be possible. I'd say reduced power consumption and heat generation was a benefit, not the root reason for the transition. Look at the cpu floating point wars between Intel and AMD for an example. They are one of the main reasons that we saw this reduction in logic level voltages (as consumers). Sure heat and power consumption was a factor, but we would not be anywhere near where we are if we were still at 3.3 volt logic levels on the FPUs. So, nonsense and krw are currently on a false high for thinking that they shot down my remarks. :-]
From: Eeyore on 13 Mar 2007 06:08 MassiveProng wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >"nonsense(a)unsettled.com" wrote: > >> MassiveProng wrote: > >> >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net Gave us: > >> > > >> > Tell us, oh masterTARD, what would the maximum clock be on a 40 volt > >> > logic swing. > >> > > >> > Do you even know what slew rate is? > >> > > >> > The reason it was 5 volts is because it was a reasonable voltage > >> > that could be slewed to at a decent rate. > >> > > >> > NOW, we are at 3.3 volts and even 1.2V. The reason is slew rate, > >> > and the fact that we can transition much faster at those swings than > >> > we ever could at 5V. > >> > >> Here's a clue for you. High clock rates and complex > >> high density chips have a significant problem with > >> heat, the main reason for the ever lowering voltages > >> in CPU's. > > > >*One* of the reasons. Clearly slew rate is implicated equally. > > > > The transition time to an acceptable logic 1 without a false high at > 5 volts is huge compared to modern logic designs. Sure power > consumption being lower is part of it, but the ability to go at 10GHz > is simply not possible at 5Volts, and certainly is at 1.2Volts. > > The proof is in examining a signal. At 1.2 volts we see nice crisp, > nearly vertical slew transitions between levels. When an engineer > looks at a 5 Volt signature, he notes right away that the slew of the > pulse is so high that high frequency operation won't be possible. > > I'd say reduced power consumption and heat generation was a benefit, > not the root reason for the transition. > > Look at the cpu floating point wars between Intel and AMD for an > example. They are one of the main reasons that we saw this reduction > in logic level voltages (as consumers). Sure heat and power > consumption was a factor, but we would not be anywhere near where we > are if we were still at 3.3 volt logic levels on the FPUs. > > So, nonsense and krw are currently on a false high for thinking that > they shot down my remarks. :-] Many answers can be found in the overclocking community. There, they'll happily up the volts to improve slew rate (hence CPU speed). At the expense of higher dissipation and more expensive and exotic cooling. It's nothing but a trade off. It always has been. What I'm surpised no-one has mentioned is load capacitance. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Mar 2007 06:31
In article <3f1c7$45f554cb$4fe7735$10594(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: <snip> >> You have noted that he stripped my post to make it appear that >> I was agreeing with his factoid. I was talking about something >> completely different. > >Happens all the time. > >These are the people who when asked "What is pi" will argue to >death that it is 3.14. > ># the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle; >approximately equal to 3.14159265358979323846... ># private detective: someone who can be employed as a detective to >collect information ># principal investigator: the scientist in charge of an experiment or >research project ># the 16th letter of the Greek alphabet ># protease inhibitor: an antiviral drug used against HIV; interrupts HIV >replication by binding and blocking HIV protease; often used in >combination with other drugs > >wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn In my corner of the biz, it would have been read as priority interrupt. /BAH |