Question about revolution cooling

[hadareud]

Allright, obviously the revolution is a rather small console.

Is there any possibility to use conventional cooling methods, to basically put technology in that would be able to compete with the power Xbox 360 or the PS3 in a system this size. Are there any cooling methods that are being developed at the time that would solve this problem?

Fans don't seem to be an option since there are no visible vents on the system. I am assuming that similar tech to the 360 would also produce similar heat, considering that Nintendo also is using IBM and ATI chips).

I suppose this has been discussed before, but I found no real answers to this question (at least not by searching the forum) ...

 

[hey69]

well if you look what they can cram up in a laptop with an nice gforce 6800 inside .
probably small ventilators with heatpipes or some sort

 

[Squeak]

It has to get rid of the heat somehow and somewhere.
The only realistic somewhere is the surrounding air.
You can transfer heat to air either passively with cooling profiles sticking out from the system or actively by using energy to remove the heated air quicker.
The version of Revolution we've seen didn't have any fins, large grills or cooling towers, so we can safely rule out passive cooling (one of the sides of the casing could be made of a solid block of metal, but that's very unlikely). So, it has to have at least one fan blowing air over a cooling profile.
Now that profile can be constructed in a number of ways, but it has to have a fan blowing the heated air away.

 

[PC-Engine]

Using Xbox 360's motherboard as reference, I don't see why Revolution couldn't have comparable performance in a smaller package with a smaller motherboard using traditional crossflow aircooling like that used in GCN. If you look at the original Xbox motherboard, it looks very similar to Xbox 360's with respect to cooling requirements and space.

With Revolution I can envision cooling using a low profile heatsink with many fins spanning the equivalent area of 2/3 a DVD case. Take a look at the picture below. Now imagine that heatsink being the same in height but being 4 times larger in area to cool all the chips in Revolution. The ducting you see there can also be applied in Revolution's cooling system if required. Considering that the optical drive assembly will not take up the whole length of the Revolution, the remain length of the case can be occupied by that fan. The GPU being cooled below has 160 million transistors and runs at 540MHz on 130nm process.

Xbox 360:

Xbox:

GCN:

 

[Pozer]

Maybe the entire logic system will be vacumn sealed and submerged in a non-conductive coolant. Of course that raises enviromental and safety concerns. I saw such a thing on TV once but I think the material is very expensive.

"Mommy....Daddy kicked the GameDiamond and blue cool-aide spilled out and I drank it and now I feel all numb...."

 

[Powderkeg]

Using Xbox 360's motherboard as reference, I don't see why Revolution couldn't have comparable performance in a smaller package with a smaller motherboard using traditional crossflow aircooling like that used in GCN. If you look at the original Xbox motherboard, it looks very similar to Xbox 360's with respect to cooling requirements and space.

You do realize that even with liquid cooling, the 360 is almost 3 times thicker than the Revolution, right?

Passive cross-flow air cooling isn't nearly as efficient as liquid cooling, so using a less efficient cooling solution in a smaller case that doesn't allow for a lot of airflow to cool the chips isn't a realistic option. You either have to move to liquid cooling and a larger case, or you have to use a less powerful chip that doesn't produce as much heat.


Instead of comparing motherboards, perhaps you should compare what's sitting on top of the CPU and GPU.

 

[mesyn191]

I'd take a look at the cooling solutions for 1U/2U racks if you want to get an idea of how they'll remove the heat. They can keep the noise down so long as what ever fan they use can produce high pressures through a densly finned heatsink even at low CFM's.

 

[PC-Engine]

You do realize that even with liquid cooling, the 360 is almost 3 times thicker than the Revolution, right?

It's not 3 times thicker. It's only about 2 times thicker. In fact Xbox 360 is only 2.5 inches at the widest point of the concave sides. Regardless you need to ask why it is 2 times thicker.

Passive cross-flow air cooling isn't nearly as efficient as liquid cooling, so using a less efficient cooling solution in a smaller case that doesn't allow for a lot of airflow to cool the chips isn't a realistic option.

Why is that? Take a look at that graphics card above. Notice the duct.

You either have to move to liquid cooling and a larger case, or you have to use a less powerful chip that doesn't produce as much heat.

I doubt you need to. Like I said, look at the heatsink of the graphics card above. Can you tell me why you could not have a single heatsink just like that but with 4 times the area ?

Instead of comparing motherboards, perhaps you should compare what's sitting on top of the CPU and GPU.

Why? What's sitting on top of the graphics card doesn't look too bulky to me. MS chose to stack big fans ontop of big (tall) heatsinks. You can go tall or wide, but in the Revolution you would want to go wide for obvious reasons. That fan on that graphics card is not stacked nor is that heatsink 3" tall like what you see in Xbox.

I hope you realize that a big motherboard requires a big box...

You cannot put a big motherboard into a small box no matter how cool it's running unless you cut the board into small pieces.

 

[Readykilowatt]

Fans don't seem to be an option since there are no visible vents on the system.

Have you seen the back of the Revolution? Many people believed that the PSTwo didn't have a fan at first.

 

[Powderkeg]

It's not 3 times thicker. It's only about 2 times thicker. In fact Xbox 360 is only 2.5 inches at the widest point of the concave sides. Regardless you need to ask why it is 2 times thicker.

If by 2.5 inches you mean 3.27 inches thick, then you are correct.

Why is that? Take a look at that graphics card above. Notice the duct.

Yeah, take a really good look at it. Notice how it's 2 PCI slots tall, making it just as thick as the entire Revolution system?

You're going to have to fit an optical drive in that case too, which means you've only got about half that height to work with.

I doubt you need to. Like I said, look at the heatsink of the graphics card above. Can you tell me why you could not have a single heatsink just like that but with 4 times the area ?

There would be no room for an optical drive. You've only got about an inch and a half to work with, and you need to fit the motherboard, GPU/CPU, heatsinks, fans, and an optical drive in there.

And heatsinks/fans don't work very well when there is no room for airflow. Fans in particular tend not to spin when you have them pressed up against the bottom of a DVD drive.

 

[hadareud]

Have you seen the back of the Revolution? Many people believed that the PSTwo didn't have a fan at first.

I thought I did, until you mentioned it and looked at the pictures again

However, even if there was fans in - they must be pretty powerful for todays standards ...

 

[PC-Engine]

If by 2.5 inches you mean 3.27 inches thick, then you are correct.

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360...018/enter-the-beta-kits-20050722070014193.jpg

Yeah, take a really good look at it. Notice how it's 2 PCI slots tall, making it just as thick as the entire Revolution system?

Only because of the FAN. The whole card isn't 2 PCI slots thick.

You're going to have to fit an optical drive in that case too, which means you've only got about half that height to work with.

You're not understanding what I'm envisioning. Let me put down a few simple ideas for you. A laptop's optical drive is how thick? Will the drive need all of the length of the Revolution which is slightly longer than a DVD case? Ever seen a laptop optical drive that was as long as a DVD case? I haven't. Can you see an image of what I'm describing yet?

If you take a side cross sectional view of a Revoultion case, the slim slot optical drive will only occupy about 1/3 the height of the case. Not only that but it would only occupy about 2/3 of the length. This means you have 2/3 of the height along the whole length of the case in addition to the full height of the case from the last 3rd of the length. This last 3rd is where the fan will be located.

Take that graphics card and increase the area to 4 times which should be enough for all the other chips on the board. At the same time increase the area of the heatsink 4 times but leaving the height the same. Now if you look at the card from a cross sectional view it would look like an "L" shape. The "L" shaped board+fan will fit nicely into the "L" shaped empty space left over from the case after you add the optical drive. Here's a quick and dirty diagram.

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|----------------------Optical drive-------------------|
|---------------------------------------------------------|----------Fan---------|
|-----------------------Heatsink-----------------------|
|---------------------------------------------------------|
|---------------------Motherboard--------------------------------------------|

And heatsinks/fans don't work very well when there is no room for airflow.

If it's ducted over the heatsink and out the back like what you see on that graphics card, then it will not be an issue. As long as the airflow is adequate then it will work. I can see the air inlet to the duct located underneath the Revolution when laying horizontal or to the left side when laying vertical.

Fans in particular tend not to spin when you have them pressed up against the bottom of a DVD drive.

Look at my diagram above. The fan is free to flow just like what you see in that graphics card.

Edit: The formating of that diagram might not look right so you'll have to copy and paste it into notepad to see it correctly. I would bust out graphics editor but I'm too lazy to create and host the pic.

 

[randycat99]

Making a heatsink 4x the size and expecting it to mount perfectly flush at multiple points (the chips you are cooling) is going to be a pretty big wish. What you gain in surface area may end up entirely in vain if you end up with giant (relatively) gap junctions at the facing points, acting as excellent insulators.

 

[PC-Engine]

Making a heatsink 4x the size and expecting it to mount perfectly flush at multiple points (the chips you are cooling) is going to be a pretty big wish. What you gain in surface area may end up entirely in vain if you end up with giant (relatively) gap junctions at the facing points, acting as excellent insulators.

It's not as difficult as you think.

 

[randycat99]

Indeed, it can be problematic for mass manufacturing. That's why it is nearly never done.

 

[PC-Engine]

Indeed, it can be problematic for mass manufacturing. That's why it is nearly never done.

Have you seen the heatsink on the GCN? It's twice as large as the one you see on that graphics card. It's a single fairly large in area unit that is attached to the CPU, GPU, and two memory chips. Thermal paste is used for a reason...it's not an issue.

Look at that heatsink. It's shaped like a rectangle instead of a square and it's twice the size of the heatsink seen in that graphics card. I don't see a problem extending the sides of that heatsink so that it's bigger in a shape of a square. That heatsink is about 12cm x 6cm in area.

 

[randycat99]

Thermal paste is there to fill micro-abrasions. To act as a conduit in a misaligned gap, it will perform poorly. Don't make it out to being a magic bullet that can cure all ills.

Considering the elements you describe in a GC, it appears the GPU was the only part that needed sure-fire cooling (hence it was probably given priority in fitting the heatsink). The G3 and the memory are not to exact particularly critical heat outputs, hence even a poor fit would be tolerable. As a whole, the heat management solution in the GC could hardly be considered "elegant" or "efficient" given heatsink condition you bring to light. That is not to say it doesn't work. It's just not as fanciful as you have pumped it up to be, it seems.

Now try to do the same with 2, 3, or 4 high-performance, nontrivial heat output devices...heatsink fitting might not be so forgiving.

 

[PC-Engine]

Thermal paste is there to fill micro-abrasions. To act as a conduit in a misaligned gap, it will perform poorly. Don't make it out to being a magic bullet that can cure all ills.

Who said anything about it being a magic bullet?

It will perform poorly?

Are you serious?

Thermal paste is for transferring heat from the IC to the heatsink. Filling in gaps is why it's called paste instead of a thermal sheet. If you think thermal paste can't also compensate for different chip thicknesses then you're sadly uninformed.

Considering the elements you describe in a GC, it appears the GPU was the only part that needed sure-fire cooling (hence it was probably given priority in fitting the heatsink). The G3 and the memory are not to exact particularly critical heat outputs, hence even a poor fit would be tolerable. As a whole, the heat management solution in the GC could hardly be considered "elegant" or "efficient" given heatsink condition you bring to light. That is not to say it doesn't work. It's just not as fanciful as you have pumped it up to be, it seems.

First of all it doesn't matter which chip needed the most cooling. The fact of the matter is the heatsink is one piece that is attached to all 4 chips using thermal paste. The heatsink itself has screws at the four corners to clamp down onto these chips. Second, the cooling is much more elegant than what you see in Xbox with stacked fans on top of separate heatsinks of different heights and size blowing down on the heatsinks and recirculating the hot air.

Now try to do the same with 2, 3, or 4 high-performance, nontrivial heat output devices...heatsink fitting might not be so forgiving.

What are you talking about?

Nontrivial?

You mean fantasy scenarios where there are 4 chips each outputing 100 watts? Uh I don't think any sane console designer will want something like that, not even SONY.

Again take a GOOD look at that graphics card...that's right 160 million transistors at 540MHz on 130nm.

 

[randycat99]

Thermal paste is for transferring heat from the IC to the heatsink. Filling in gaps is why it's called paste instead of a thermal sheet. If you think thermal paste can't also compensate for different chip thicknesses then you're sadly uninformed.

It will fill in gaps if it needs to. That's not the same as it erasing the thermal effect of a gap, outright. Only so much heat will be able to pass through and that will be drastically increasingly better at thin to nearly nonexistent films, rather than sizable gaps. That's why it isn't a "magic bullet".

First of all it doesn't matter which chip needed the most cooling. The fact of the matter is the heatsink is one piece that is attached to all 4 chips using thermal paste.

Indeed, it does matter for this particular situation, though it is understandable how you wish to ignore this point. Suit yourself, I suppose...

Now try to do the same with 2, 3, or 4 high-performance, nontrivial heat output devices...heatsink fitting might not be so forgiving.

What are you talking about?

Nontrivial?

You mean fantasy scenarios where there are 4 chips each outputing 100 watts? Uh I don't think any sane console designer will want something like that, not even SONY.

You are clearly derailing the topic. Stay on topic. No one said anything about Sony in this topic. Save the inkjets, little squid.

Again take a GOOD look at that graphics card...that's right 160 million transistors at 540MHz on 130nm.

...Exactly, so imagine 4 of those, and you will be pretty concerned that good contact is made for each unit. It's not quite the same ballgame as one major heat unit + 3 other minor ones that put out watts in the single digits. It seems to suggest you misunderstood the argument, to bring this up as if it is some kind of point. No one was saying your videocard example was of trivial heat output. Slow down, read carefully, stay on-topic...

 

[PC-Engine]

It will fill in gaps if it needs to. That's not the same as it erasing the thermal effect of a gap, outright.Only so much heat will be able to pass through and that will be drastically increasingly better at thin to nearly nonexistent films, rather than sizable gaps. That's why it isn't a "magic bullet".

Again with your scarecrow arguments.

Indeed, it does matter for this particular situation, though it is understandable how you wish to ignore this point. Suit yourself, I suppose...

Says who? You? The largest chip is the GPU so of course it would give the most surface area for mounting the heatsink NO DUH. What does this have to do with anything? The heatsink is clampled down with screws.

You are clearly derailing the topic. Stay on topic. No one said anything about Sony in this topic. Save the inkjets, little squid.

Whoah first start with the insults. I guess you want to get banned and get slapped like the last time you tried to give your personal input.

It is on topic since you tend to bring up fantasy scenarios to show that it's not doable. Keep fantasizing.

...Exactly, so imagine 4 of those, and you will be pretty concerned that good contact is made for each unit.

Revolution will have two separate CPUs and two separate GPUs? Is that another one of your fantasy scenarios to support your argument that it's not doable?

It's not quite the same ballgame as one major heat unit + 3 other minor ones that put out watts in the single digits. It seems to suggest you misunderstood the argument

You don't seem to understand why the graphics card was brought up. It's not to show that it's the same as what exists in GCN.

No one was saying your videocard example was of trivial heat output. Slow down, read carefully, stay on-topic...

Read above...carefully..understand what's being said then get back to me.