Continued from other thread:
Right and that's where the Revolution vs Xbox 360 comes in. Both the CPU and GPU in Xbox ran at higher clockspeeds than Gekko and Flipper by about 30-40%. This higher clockspeed will obviously translate to higher power consumption and heat output assuming similar process nodes. Coincidently this clock advantage also points to higher overall theoretical processing power. Whether this difference between Xbox and GCN will be similar between Xbox360 and Revolution nobody knows. I say the possibility is there, but I don't see the case size dictating whether it's possible or not. As we've seen when comparing GCN vs Xbox, it clearly shows that case size is not a factor at all and this supports the assumption that it is indeed possible for Revolution to be within a certain percentage of processing power of Xbox 360 and still be housed in a small case especially when it's coming out 1 year later. Another thing to remember is that GCN didn't come out one year later than Xbox. Now assuming Xbox 360 isn't outputing several hundered watts of power. I think it's not unreasonable to conclude that it's possible.
Anyway, anybody have the power consumption figure for the currrent Xbox?
The point isn't what the actual power consumption is. The point is, the evidence shows that it's possible and well within the realm of reality. The power consumption of Revolution will depend on what Nintendo's goals are and at this point we don't know that answer. They've only gone on record as saying low power. Again the possiblity is there, whether or not Nintendo choses that route is up to them.
What's stopping Nintendo from running at a lower clock? The PS3's CELL chip has over 200 GFLOPS of processing power yet it's running at the same clock as the Xbox 360's CPU. What would happen if you clocked that CELL chip at at 2 GHz instead? What would happen to the power consumption?
I guess you are not aware that you can benchmark laptops for sustained performance too without some heat alarm kicking in. The fan operating at full speed isn't that loud contrary to what you would like to believe. Also the throttling is mainly for conserving battery life not reducing heat. You can run said notebook at full throttle for benchmarking using AC without any meltdown or blown eardrums.
It all depends on the design. Just looking at AMD vs Intel, AMD chips often run at lower clockspeeds with lower power consumption yet compare favorably with the Intel chips and they both are using the same ISA. Or just look at the CELL in PS3 based on a PPC vs the XeCPU.
Actually thinner means faster heat transfer. This is basic thermodynamics. We're not talking about conducting electricity, we're talking about conducting heat.
You make no sense at all. If you start out with 10 thick fins then changed it to 10 thin fins, the thin ones will be farther apart than the thick ones assuming they're fixed in the same positions. As a result you're getting less friction yet faster heat transfer from processor to fin. Not only that but instead of 10 fins you can now add maybe two more since you've decreased the friction somewhat by going thinner. So now you have 12 thin fins with 20%more surface area yet the friction has only gone up by a few percentages which is already low to begin with. As a result you don't even need to increase the fan RPMs at all.
Wrong see above.
Wrong see above.
Since everything that followed is based on the first assumption, I don't think I need to address them since your first assumption was flawed to begin with. So I say again. Wrong see above.
Who said anything about not needing a fan in a console? The point about fanless systems was to shoot down your flawed argument where "Alternately, you could just keep the same fin surface area and increase flow rate/air velocity. Very much the same outcome will result- more drag ==> pressure loss ==> more fan blowage ==> highly likely more noise."
I'll just repost what I said previously:
Faster air flow doesn't automatically mean better cooling. The limit is the rate at which the heat from heatsink is taken away. This is not entirely up to the fan. Taken to extremes if your heatsink is tiny, no amount of air would be sufficient to overcome the limitation of the heatsink. That's why HSF cooling efficiency needs to be calculated as a whole not individually. Wouldn't it be funny if you hooked up a motorcycle engine to a bicycle trainy?
Only to people who have yet to learn how to read.
Uh no it isn't. Trying to dissipate a processor that's giving off 100 watts of heat in a dumb design will be more difficult than a smart design, but only a smart person can see this. The dumb person unfortunately cannot see this. In fact I suspect the Xbox is big not because it had more processing power and more heat to manage. It probably had more to do with that big motherboard. They probably didn't even need to go smart with regards to the cooling system.
It seems what jvd said about you is true and you have a knack for ignoring what others have posted only to later come back and pretend it didn't exist in the first place when you get smacked in the face with it. Since you seemed to have ignored it the first time, I'll post it again:
PCE wrote:
Next time try quoting within context.
Nobody said a certain case size can dissipate unlimited amounts of heat.
The more options you have the more flexibility it provides. With a small case more options is always better than less options. This is common sense for those who have it.
Please site where you have proven me and jvd wrong other than Mr. and Mrs. Scarecrow arguments...
More space? If it's low profile then how is it more space? The Revolution has a low profile case unlike the GCN so things have to be designed differently. The liquid metal cooling is just an alternative to the heatpipe and HSF variety. There's a reason why the top of the line laptops use heatpipes instead of just the standard HSF frantically blowing stupidly and loudly.
Once you get into the separate chambers, tunnels, ducts you've already crossed the line from dumb design and into intelligent cooling design. With a small case you have to design smart. You can't just brute force it with big noisy fans or multiple fans.
Unless you can explain how your point is relevent, then I don't see how it isn't. Again we're not talking about transplanting the innerds of a Xbox into a GCN or a Xbox 360 into a Revolution. If we did, the GCN would be nearly the size of the Xbox purely from the size of the motherboard alone.
So now you are trying to say GCN is less powerful than PS2? Shall we go back and dig up your magical GS GFLOPS claim again??? It's common knowledge that GCN is between PS2 and Xbox in processing performance, of course we could always depend on you to claim otherwise.
You were the one who suggested inplanted GCN with Xbox innerds.
I already addressed that example. Here I'll post it...again.
If the liquid metal system needs to be at a high temperture to flow/work then all you need to do is enclose the apparatus in an air chamber that's connected to the exhaust port fan so the air can come in at the inlet port close to the processors and out through the exhaust port close to the outside of the case similar to the GCN. This will prevent the dumping of heat back into the case unlike the standard "HSF over processor" cooling design. With the standard design you need massive airflows just to get the heat out of the case because it has to fight all sorts stagnant hot air inside the case. Also it is easier to get fresh air from near the outside of the case then deep insided.
Well it's water under the bridge at this point.
You were the one rushing to poke holes at something you didn't completely understand. That's not my problem.
Boy are you losing it. The purpose of the fan in a hair dryer is to BLAST the hot air through a narrow port in order to increase its velocity to BLOW DRY your hair. You are aware that on some hair dryers, you can independently turn off the heating element right? I'm sorry but you're simple wasting my time with BS analogies because you've run out of valid analogies.
I've already addressed this in my reply above.
So you've invited Mrs. Scarecrow now? How long before Scarecrow Jr. appears?
You were the one to bring up DRAG as an argument. When I showed you drag was insignificant in a design like the GCN, you quickly retorted to using a bigger fan with bigger CFM and ignoring case volume to suit your own argument. Your argument was small size = more drag which I've repeatedly proved to be logically flawed. Are you saying the Xbox was designed from the ground up to be the best in cooling design? I'm sorry but best versus best does not apply here. You're trying to create a level playing field but that's just not how it works in the real world. It's just as flawed as your ideal world where everyone is using the same architectures and the same cooling designs. At the end of the day X CFM will be able to cycle air throughout the whole case many more times as the case volume decreases. This is so basic it's not even worth mentioning.
I think Nintendo has smarter people working on their cooling system. Well at least smart enough to not base their decisions on coin flipping.
You need to face reality and come to grips with what has been shown in the form of GCN's design vs a competing console that was released at roughly the same time using similar technology. In fact you have not shown any evidence that it would be impossible to design Revolution to be at parity with Xbox 360 processing capabilty while contained in a small form factor.
Right and that's where the Revolution vs Xbox 360 comes in. Both the CPU and GPU in Xbox ran at higher clockspeeds than Gekko and Flipper by about 30-40%. This higher clockspeed will obviously translate to higher power consumption and heat output assuming similar process nodes. Coincidently this clock advantage also points to higher overall theoretical processing power. Whether this difference between Xbox and GCN will be similar between Xbox360 and Revolution nobody knows. I say the possibility is there, but I don't see the case size dictating whether it's possible or not. As we've seen when comparing GCN vs Xbox, it clearly shows that case size is not a factor at all and this supports the assumption that it is indeed possible for Revolution to be within a certain percentage of processing power of Xbox 360 and still be housed in a small case especially when it's coming out 1 year later. Another thing to remember is that GCN didn't come out one year later than Xbox. Now assuming Xbox 360 isn't outputing several hundered watts of power. I think it's not unreasonable to conclude that it's possible.
Anyway, anybody have the power consumption figure for the currrent Xbox?
The point isn't what the actual power consumption is. The point is, the evidence shows that it's possible and well within the realm of reality. The power consumption of Revolution will depend on what Nintendo's goals are and at this point we don't know that answer. They've only gone on record as saying low power. Again the possiblity is there, whether or not Nintendo choses that route is up to them.
What's stopping Nintendo from running at a lower clock? The PS3's CELL chip has over 200 GFLOPS of processing power yet it's running at the same clock as the Xbox 360's CPU. What would happen if you clocked that CELL chip at at 2 GHz instead? What would happen to the power consumption?
I guess you are not aware that you can benchmark laptops for sustained performance too without some heat alarm kicking in. The fan operating at full speed isn't that loud contrary to what you would like to believe. Also the throttling is mainly for conserving battery life not reducing heat. You can run said notebook at full throttle for benchmarking using AC without any meltdown or blown eardrums.
It all depends on the design. Just looking at AMD vs Intel, AMD chips often run at lower clockspeeds with lower power consumption yet compare favorably with the Intel chips and they both are using the same ISA. Or just look at the CELL in PS3 based on a PPC vs the XeCPU.
Actually thinner means faster heat transfer. This is basic thermodynamics. We're not talking about conducting electricity, we're talking about conducting heat.
You make no sense at all. If you start out with 10 thick fins then changed it to 10 thin fins, the thin ones will be farther apart than the thick ones assuming they're fixed in the same positions. As a result you're getting less friction yet faster heat transfer from processor to fin. Not only that but instead of 10 fins you can now add maybe two more since you've decreased the friction somewhat by going thinner. So now you have 12 thin fins with 20%more surface area yet the friction has only gone up by a few percentages which is already low to begin with. As a result you don't even need to increase the fan RPMs at all.
Wrong see above.
Wrong see above.
Since everything that followed is based on the first assumption, I don't think I need to address them since your first assumption was flawed to begin with. So I say again. Wrong see above.
Who said anything about not needing a fan in a console? The point about fanless systems was to shoot down your flawed argument where "Alternately, you could just keep the same fin surface area and increase flow rate/air velocity. Very much the same outcome will result- more drag ==> pressure loss ==> more fan blowage ==> highly likely more noise."
I'll just repost what I said previously:
Faster air flow doesn't automatically mean better cooling. The limit is the rate at which the heat from heatsink is taken away. This is not entirely up to the fan. Taken to extremes if your heatsink is tiny, no amount of air would be sufficient to overcome the limitation of the heatsink. That's why HSF cooling efficiency needs to be calculated as a whole not individually. Wouldn't it be funny if you hooked up a motorcycle engine to a bicycle trainy?
Only to people who have yet to learn how to read.
Uh no it isn't. Trying to dissipate a processor that's giving off 100 watts of heat in a dumb design will be more difficult than a smart design, but only a smart person can see this. The dumb person unfortunately cannot see this. In fact I suspect the Xbox is big not because it had more processing power and more heat to manage. It probably had more to do with that big motherboard. They probably didn't even need to go smart with regards to the cooling system.
It seems what jvd said about you is true and you have a knack for ignoring what others have posted only to later come back and pretend it didn't exist in the first place when you get smacked in the face with it. Since you seemed to have ignored it the first time, I'll post it again:
PCE wrote:
Next time try quoting within context.
Nobody said a certain case size can dissipate unlimited amounts of heat.
The more options you have the more flexibility it provides. With a small case more options is always better than less options. This is common sense for those who have it.
Please site where you have proven me and jvd wrong other than Mr. and Mrs. Scarecrow arguments...
More space? If it's low profile then how is it more space? The Revolution has a low profile case unlike the GCN so things have to be designed differently. The liquid metal cooling is just an alternative to the heatpipe and HSF variety. There's a reason why the top of the line laptops use heatpipes instead of just the standard HSF frantically blowing stupidly and loudly.
Once you get into the separate chambers, tunnels, ducts you've already crossed the line from dumb design and into intelligent cooling design. With a small case you have to design smart. You can't just brute force it with big noisy fans or multiple fans.
Unless you can explain how your point is relevent, then I don't see how it isn't. Again we're not talking about transplanting the innerds of a Xbox into a GCN or a Xbox 360 into a Revolution. If we did, the GCN would be nearly the size of the Xbox purely from the size of the motherboard alone.
So now you are trying to say GCN is less powerful than PS2? Shall we go back and dig up your magical GS GFLOPS claim again???
It's common knowledge that GCN is between PS2 and Xbox in processing performance, of course we could always depend on you to claim otherwise. You were the one who suggested inplanted GCN with Xbox innerds.
I already addressed that example. Here I'll post it...again.
If the liquid metal system needs to be at a high temperture to flow/work then all you need to do is enclose the apparatus in an air chamber that's connected to the exhaust port fan so the air can come in at the inlet port close to the processors and out through the exhaust port close to the outside of the case similar to the GCN. This will prevent the dumping of heat back into the case unlike the standard "HSF over processor" cooling design. With the standard design you need massive airflows just to get the heat out of the case because it has to fight all sorts stagnant hot air inside the case. Also it is easier to get fresh air from near the outside of the case then deep insided.
Well it's water under the bridge at this point.
You were the one rushing to poke holes at something you didn't completely understand. That's not my problem.
Boy are you losing it. The purpose of the fan in a hair dryer is to BLAST the hot air through a narrow port in order to increase its velocity to BLOW DRY your hair. You are aware that on some hair dryers, you can independently turn off the heating element right? I'm sorry but you're simple wasting my time with BS analogies because you've run out of valid analogies.
I've already addressed this in my reply above.
So you've invited Mrs. Scarecrow now? How long before Scarecrow Jr. appears?
You were the one to bring up DRAG as an argument. When I showed you drag was insignificant in a design like the GCN, you quickly retorted to using a bigger fan with bigger CFM and ignoring case volume to suit your own argument. Your argument was small size = more drag which I've repeatedly proved to be logically flawed. Are you saying the Xbox was designed from the ground up to be the best in cooling design? I'm sorry but best versus best does not apply here. You're trying to create a level playing field but that's just not how it works in the real world. It's just as flawed as your ideal world where everyone is using the same architectures and the same cooling designs. At the end of the day X CFM will be able to cycle air throughout the whole case many more times as the case volume decreases. This is so basic it's not even worth mentioning.
I think Nintendo has smarter people working on their cooling system. Well at least smart enough to not base their decisions on coin flipping.
You need to face reality and come to grips with what has been shown in the form of GCN's design vs a competing console that was released at roughly the same time using similar technology. In fact you have not shown any evidence that it would be impossible to design Revolution to be at parity with Xbox 360 processing capabilty while contained in a small form factor.
