Revolution cooling issues revisited.

[Fox5]

Which one dissipates more heat ? The first production of Dreamcast or Gamecube ?

The Gekko ran exceptionally cool, dissipating around 5W at its 485MHz operating frequency. I'm googling those DC dissipation numbers.

I was about to reply the GC as my first gen GameCube definetely puts out hot air whereas my DC doesn't, but then I realized I don't have a first gen DC. Didn't the first gen DC use heat pipes? Anyhow, GameCube has a heck of a lot more airflow going on than DC, and a heck of a lot more complicated GPU and memory.

NEC, I'd say no way, TSMC, very unlikely, IBM, unlikely, and would they produce the GPU?

Maybe they'll pay AMD or Intel to do it?

That would be a Mac Mini killer too, no doubt.

Only if it can actually run productivity software. I'm hoping it can, come on Mario Paint, evolve into Mario Productivity Suite Pro!

Either that, or you have to go with a significantly less powerful GPU that produces significantly less heat than their competitors. There is no other choice.

Maybe they tasked ATi with producing a tile based deferred renderer? Wow, imagine if they did and ATi implemented that into future products, Imgtech definetely loses any chance of reentering the PC market then.

Nintendo didn't attend TGS last year, nor the year before that... They do their own thing.

I don't think they've had Spaceworld since 2001. They just choose to put on a bigger showing at E3 and ignore the rest.

Why would they go the full custom path? There are other alternatives than either 970 or full custom you know. Rolling Eyes

Yeah, but any of those from IBM could have been picked up by Apple instead of going x86.(I'm thinking along the lines of taking the Gecko and greatly adding to it)

 

[Evil_Cloud]

I don't think they've had Spaceworld since 2001. They just choose to put on a bigger showing at E3 and ignore the rest.

Correct, but they DO organise special Nintendo city tours in Japan around TGS.

 

[Farid]

Not sure how many exactly, but it's still a large chip for a microprocessor, and making it dual core isn't going to help either.

Compared to the XeCPU or to the PS3 Cell, we can consider it as being small, I'd say. Single core 970 that is.

Uhm... The 970-series is a very peculiar chip regarding which instructions can be bundled up with which, and such. Read the ars analysis on the chip, it's quite scary. It's NOT easy to optimize for this chip, that's for sure, and the weird scheduling is probably the reason it hurt so bad performance-wise versus PC CPUs too. It simply isn't feasible to get very close to its peak performance in a real-world situation.

Nobody's saying that it's the end-all and be-all of CPUs. I'm just saying that it would be the most logical CPU solution that Nintendo could use.
If we assume that the CPU will be simple to work with (OOoE), have a low wattage and if it's cheap for Nintendo (Not Custom).

Why would they go the full custom path? There are other alternatives than either 970 or full custom you know.

I don't see the 7XX serie clockrate scale anywhere close to what Revolution would need (That if we assume that the Rev will be comparable to the X360/PS3 in power).

Therefore it's either the 9XX Serie or a custom CPU. As far as I'm concerned, of course...

And next time, please leave the rolleyes icon out of the discussion...

 

[Li Mu Bai]

How about a dual core gekko with a large amount of l2 cache ? 4mbs ? They could design some powersaving features into the cpu . This would be fast and wouldn't be difficult to use as developers already have experiance with the gekko

You can then also in the future scale down to a single core chip for a portable version

No offense jvd, but let's stop calling Broadway (even at best speculation) the Gekko, or as I've read from others a "turbo, or souped-up" Gekko. Give IBM & Nintendo engineers a tad more credit. It will be very different in its architecture, while retaining certain aspects Nintendo liked such as the large L1/L2 caches as you noted, adding of course custom gaming specific functionality (physics, lighting, animation?) to work specifically in tandem with the GPU, & if its indeed dual central processors or cores then all but a few comparisons fly out of the window at that point.

edit: Nintendo did say specifically aspects of both the Gekko & Flipper they found to be innovative or efficient would be seeing even further refinement in the Broadway/Hollywood chipsets.

 

[V3]

Which one dissipates more heat ? The first production of Dreamcast or Gamecube ?

Serious question, why do you ask?

They both are very compact and small in term of their case design. And Revolution will too. I am curious how first generation Dreamcast and first generation Gamecube compare ? Do you know ?

 

[PC-Engine]

So IGN got the dimensions wrong. It's still 3.27" tall.

Fair enough, but again I ask you why is it 3.27" tall?

The card, plus the chip, plus the heatsink/fan is 2 PCI slots tall. Now, in the Revolution, you'll have the motherboard (card) plus the CPU/GPU (chip) plus the heatsink/fan. That's still going to be 2 PCI slots tall.

The card with the heatsink and fan is shaped like an "L" and I already drew a diagram for you why it would fit nicely into the Revolution.

Ever seen a laptop with a slot loading DVD drive? I sure haven't.

Apple uses them extensively. You can even buy them for your own laptops.

http://www.logicsupply.com/images/cddvd/CW-8123-B_pic2_big.jpg

Dimensions: 5.07â€￾ x 5.03â€￾ x 0.5â€￾

I have however, done a bit of research. The smallest slot loading optical drive you can buy is 1/2 inches thick, and it's expensive ($199 retail for the drive alone).

That doesn't mean much because you can find slim DVD drives for $35 today. Nintendo buying them in tens of millions next year will cost them very little.

Since it is unlikely that Nintendo will be using a $200 drive, we can assume that they will use the more common 41.5mm tall drives (1.63 inches).

Read above.

In that vertical space, you've got to fit

1.63" tall drive.
.125" thick mobo with chips (CPU and GPU)

Uh no, the drive will be .5"

The motherboard with chips will be .25"

The heatsink will be .65" or higher

The fan will be located in the back behind the heatsink and optical drive but on top of the motherboard. Look at the graphics card picture from the other thread. It'll look similar to that except it'll be a little bit longer and twice as wide.

In that half inch of total space, you've got to put a heatsink (No fan attached to the heatsink) that is so incredibly efficient that it can match liquid cooling, and still leave enough air space left over to ventilate the system.

Can you show me such a thin, yet efficient heatsink?

I already told you. Take a look at the graphics card. The heatsink is thin, looks like about .5" The heatsink is INSIDE of a clear plastic duct. The only air that needs circulation is INSIDE of the clear plastic duct/shroud.

And FYI, you cannot simply go wider to make up for a thin heatsink. If you ever doubt that, remove the heatsink and fan from your PC's CPU, and place a 20 foot long sheet of tinfoil on it. Place the fan on the foil and boot your computer up.

Of course you can go wider, ask any thermal engineer. Wider means more surface area. There are many ways to increase surface area for heat exchange, wider, taller, more fins, thinner fins etc or any combination them.

I don't think jimmy rigging it with 20 ft of tinfoil to cool a couple of microprocessors is good engineering. It would serve for a good laugh though.

Which one dissipates more heat ? The first production of Dreamcast or Gamecube ?

Serious question, why do you ask?

They both are very compact and small in term of their case design. And Revolution will too. I am curious how first generation Dreamcast and first generation Gamecube compare ? Do you know ?

I honestly don't know. I do have a 1st generation DC manufactured Aug 99 and it still works On the bottom it says 27W. I also have a later model DC made in June of 2000 and it also says 27W. The GCN is rated at around 37W. I don't know what the 1st generation GCNs were rated at.

 

[Teasy]

How about a dual core gekko with a large amount of l2 cache ? 4mbs ? They could design some powersaving features into the cpu . This would be fast and wouldn't be difficult to use as developers already have experiance with the gekko

That wouldn't be fast (comparatively). After all Gekko is a 1999/2000 PPC chip, its not going to compete with what's on the market today clock for clock.

I agree with Li Mu Bai on this one, using old technology supped up isn't a good option at all. Since when have Nintendo ever used a higher clocked version of a previous generations CPU in their new home console?

 

[Teasy]

I don't think they've had Spaceworld since 2001. They just choose to put on a bigger showing at E3 and ignore the rest.

The last time Nintendo did a Spaceworld show was the last time they fully unveiled a new home console. So if Spaceworld is ever going to return then it would seem later this year is the time it will happen.

 

[Mr. Saturn]

I don't think they've had Spaceworld since 2001. They just choose to put on a bigger showing at E3 and ignore the rest.

The last time Nintendo did a Spaceworld show was the last time they fully unveiled a new home console. So if Spaceworld is ever going to return then it would seem later this year is the time it will happen.

If Nintendo were to hold a Spaceworld this year, don't you think they would have announced it by now?

 

[Teasy]

Who knows? When did they announce Spaceworld 2001?

 

[Mr. Saturn]

Who knows? When did they announce Spaceworld 2001?

Um I'm not sure, I'm pretty sure though that they announced Spaceworld 2001 and E3 2001.

 

[Powderkeg]

So IGN got the dimensions wrong. It's still 3.27" tall.

Fair enough, but again I ask you why is it 3.27" tall?

Because it requires that extra space to fit the liquid cooled heatsink/fan. It needs that space for cooling. (So would the Revolution if it had the same power)

The card with the heatsink and fan is shaped like an "L" and I already drew a diagram for you why it would fit nicely into the Revolution.

Yes, because your diagram neglected the wireless unit, ide cables, wires, ports, rear fan, and you still haven't done the math.

Ever seen a laptop with a slot loading DVD drive? I sure haven't.

Apple uses them extensively. You can even buy them for your own laptops.

http://www.logicsupply.com/images/cddvd/CW-8123-B_pic2_big.jpg

Dimensions: 5.07â€￾ x 5.03â€￾ x 0.5â€￾

Yes, and that drive is $100+.

Nintendo is NOT going to use a $100+ DVD drive. I already covered that.

That doesn't mean much because you can find slim DVD drives for $35 today. Nintendo buying them in tens of millions next year will cost them very little.

Not slot loading you can't. You can get slim drives, sure, but not slot loading for that price. $100+ if you buy generic drives from some no-name comany like Teac, and that is the wholesale price.




The rest of your post isn't worth responding to, because you refuse to accept that Nintendo WILL NOT use a $100+ DVD drive in their system. If they did, then that drive would cost more than any single component in the Xbox 360, meaning Nintendo couldn't afford to sell it for less than the 360.

(Unless they went with a significantly cheaper CPU and GPU, but then they wouldn't be buying chips with the same power as the 360, would they?)


So, either you believe that Nintendo Revolution will cost the same as the Xbox 360, or you must give up this idea that they will be using $100+ DVD drives.

 

[Powderkeg]

Of course you can go wider, ask any thermal engineer. Wider means more surface area. There are many ways to increase surface area for heat exchange, wider, taller, more fins, thinner fins etc or any combination them.

Any thermal engineer will tell you there is a limit to how thin your heatsink can be before it's no longer able to keep the system cool, regardless of how wide it is.

I don't think jimmy rigging it with 20 ft of tinfoil to cool a couple of microprocessors is good engineering. It would serve for a good laugh though.

Of course it's not good engineering, but it's a good example of my point. There is a limit on your heatsinks minimum thickness. If your heatsink goes below that limit, then the heat generated in the center cannot be dispersed as fast as it is created.

It does not matter if your heatsink is a half mile wide, if the spot right above the chip is too thin, it will overheat. You must have mass to transfer heat, and thinning a heatsink removes that mass.

 

[PC-Engine]

Because it requires that extra space to fit the liquid cooled heatsink/fan. It needs that space for cooling. (So would the Revolution if it had the same power)

In Revolution you're not going to stack the fan on top of the heatsink. You know why Xbox 360 is 3.27" tall? Because the fans are stacked on top of the heatsink and the heatsinks are probably thicker than the one you see on that graphics card.

Yes, because your diagram neglected the wireless unit, ide cables, wires, ports, rear fan, and you still haven't done the math.

What are you talking about? The wireless unit is a tiny chip. Have you seen the wireless "unit" in the DS? IDE cables? You don't use fullsize IDE cables with laptop drives. You use a tiny little transparent orange ribbon cable, the same kind used in almost every laptop. As for ports they don't take up that much board space since they're edge mounted and the fan goes in the large space in the rear. I really don't need to do the math to know it will work, just like I didn't need to do any math when I proposed the slim drive.

Yes, and that drive is $100+.

Nintendo is NOT going to use a $100+ DVD drive. I already covered that.

What in the world are you talking about? That drive was for illustration purposes not pricing purposes. In fact that drive is a writer. I already told you the price is $35, but you just gloss over that fact.

Not slot loading you can't. You can get slim drives, sure, but not slot loading for that price. $100+ if you buy generic drives from some no-name comany like Teac, and that is the wholesale price.

So what if it's not slot loading? You think a slot loading drive costs that much more to make than a tray? Have you ever owned a full height slot drive? They don't cost more than the tray equivalent. Why is that? It shouldn't be any different just because it's a slim drive. BTW you can buy a Toshiba DVD slim drive for $35 retail.

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to, because you refuse to accept that Nintendo WILL NOT use a $100+ DVD drive in their system. If they did, then that drive would cost more than any single component in the Xbox 360, meaning Nintendo couldn't afford to sell it for less than the 360.

(Unless they went with a significantly cheaper CPU and GPU, but then they wouldn't be buying chips with the same power as the 360, would they?)

So, either you believe that Nintendo Revolution will cost the same as the Xbox 360, or you must give up this idea that they will be using $100+ DVD drives.

The drives don't cost $100. You first tried to pass the drive off as $200. Then after I posted a writer, you try to shift to $100. I'm telling you the drives DO NOT cost $100. They cost nearly the same as the tray drives. Companies charge more for the slot drives because they CAN.

Any thermal engineer will tell you there is a limit to how thin your heatsink can be before it's no longer able to keep the system cool, regardless of how wide it is.

Any thermal engineer can look at that heatsink on that graphics card and tell you it's about .5" tall. Maybe it looks like tinfoil to you, but to most people it doesn't.

Of course it's not good engineering, but it's a good example of my point. There is a limit on your heatsinks minimum thickness. If your heatsink goes below that limit, then the heat generated in the center cannot be dispersed as fast as it is created.

It does not matter if your heatsink is a half mile wide, if the spot right above the chip is too thin, it will overheat. You must have mass to transfer heat, and thinning a heatsink removes that mass.

And your point is based on a rediculous scenario. How thick is the heatsink you see on that graphics card? Nobody is making it THINNER. I'm talking about making it WIDER. Making it wider by a couple inches isn't go to suddenly decrease the heat transfer rate by any significant amount. Heat conduction through a metal doesn't magically gravitate towards any one direction. If you have a tall heatsink then the heat will more surface area to move up more than outward. If you have a low profile heatsink then it's the opposite.

 

[Fox5]

How about a dual core gekko with a large amount of l2 cache ? 4mbs ? They could design some powersaving features into the cpu . This would be fast and wouldn't be difficult to use as developers already have experiance with the gekko

That wouldn't be fast (comparatively). After all Gekko is a 1999/2000 PPC chip, its not going to compete with what's on the market today clock for clock.

I agree with Li Mu Bai on this one, using old technology supped up isn't a good option at all. Since when have Nintendo ever used a higher clocked version of a previous generations CPU in their new home console?

NES to SNES. They had backwards compatibility planned, and the SNES did just fine because of its graphical capabilities.

 

[Entropy]

Isn't the 970 "only" made of ~60M transistors?

Not sure how many exactly, but it's still a large chip for a microprocessor, and making it dual core isn't going to help either.

The 970fx (90 nm lithography, same as these first cell samples) is 60 mm2, just over half as large as the Prescott which is 109 mm2. The cell processor is 221 mm2.

To those debating heatsink heights: heatpipes.

 

[Fox5]

In benchmarks I've seen of the 970FX(at least I think it was the 970FX), it only seems to get good SIMD performance(well, excellent SIMD performance) and is decent to crap at everything else.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

NES to SNES. They had backwards compatibility planned, and the SNES did just fine because of its graphical capabilities.

Eh. You could argue the same thing about the old Ataris... the 2600, the 5200, 7800, etc. It was all quite literally the same machine higher clocked with more memory. And look where Atari is. There was also Sega with the Master System -> Genesis transition where they kept the Z80 from the old SMS and used it as the audio chip for the Genesis.

If you're going so far as to be sharing the hardware for backward compatibility, that's just going to inherently limit you and even more so in the long run over multiple generations where it just becomes dead weight. The whole point of consoles is to let them be a platform unto themselves, so you don't have to worry about compatibility with some arbitrary machine that doesn't even have the same design goals.

I'm of the feeling that it wasn't backward compatibility that sold PS2 -- it was PS2 that sold backward compatibility.

 

[Fox5]

NES to SNES. They had backwards compatibility planned, and the SNES did just fine because of its graphical capabilities.

Eh. You could argue the same thing about the old Ataris... the 2600, the 5200, 7800, etc. It was all quite literally the same machine higher clocked with more memory. And look where Atari is. There was also Sega with the Master System -> Genesis transition where they kept the Z80 from the old SMS and used it as the audio chip for the Genesis.

If you're going so far as to be sharing the hardware for backward compatibility, that's just going to inherently limit you and even more so in the long run over multiple generations where it just becomes dead weight. The whole point of consoles is to let them be a platform unto themselves, so you don't have to worry about compatibility with some arbitrary machine that doesn't even have the same design goals.

I'm of the feeling that it wasn't backward compatibility that sold PS2 -- it was PS2 that sold backward compatibility.

Eh, I was replying to

Since when have Nintendo ever used a higher clocked version of a previous generations CPU in their new home console?

And the NES to SNES is one case where Nintendo did.

 

[randycat99]

And your point is based on a rediculous scenario. How thick is the heatsink you see on that graphics card? Nobody is making it THINNER. I'm talking about making it WIDER. Making it wider by a couple inches isn't go to suddenly decrease the heat transfer rate by any significant amount. Heat conduction through a metal doesn't magically gravitate towards any one direction. If you have a tall heatsink then the heat will more surface area to move up more than outward. If you have a low profile heatsink then it's the opposite.

By going wider, you also need to go thicker. Otherwise, your temperature gradient will be too great at locations distant from the heat source. Once that happens, you can have square miles of heatsink and it will make nada difference in heat dissipation capability. The bulk temperature at distant areas of the heatsink would be too low to drive out any heat from the metal to air. The aluminum foil example presented earlier is a perfect demonstration of that. Surface area is good, but its the surface area that is very near to the heat source that does the bulk of the work. You can extend the heatsink perimeteral dimensions as far as you want, but very quickly it will yield only wasted metal, rather than increased heat dissipation. Most heatsink designs you find are designed to be the size that they are because that is the optimal size for that physical configuration (the videocard heatsink, for example). You cannot arbitrarily increase dimensions w/o re-evaluating the base metal thickness, and assume it's just going to work "gooder".

Someone earlier mentioned heatpipes as a solution, which could work to put more heatsink area to work, but even that can only be applied so far (no pun intended), and not without additional losses (and costs) in of itself, as well. The bottomline here is that, like most things, simply specifying "more" will not yield a workable solution. You got to re-evaluate the entire thing as a system to put "more" to good use.