Question Future CPU heat/TDP solutions for CPUs

[r_scooter]

Is there any hypothetical or theoretical forecast about future AMD/Intel solutions to the increasing TDP of processors?

From what I know about computer engineering, the way to increase clock speed is to pump more electricity through the processor. Which is why we are seeing processors with a 200-250 watt TDP for over 5 GHz speeds that are meant to operate at close to 100 degrees for long periods of time.

Any ideas about when and if this heat problem will be solved so that new processors can be run with less heat than current generation processors.

 

[soresu]

Is there any hypothetical or theoretical forecast about future AMD/Intel solutions to the increasing TDP of processors?

From what I know about computer engineering, the way to increase clock speed is to pump more electricity through the processor. Which is why we are seeing processors with a 200-250 watt TDP for over 5 GHz speeds that are meant to operate at close to 100 degrees for long periods of time.

Any ideas about when and if this heat problem will be solved so that new processors can be run with less heat than current generation processors.

It's more of a heat dissipation issue than anything until there is a radical change to compute for logic, memory and data IO that dramatically cuts the power draw.

Also as the actual pitch of the metal power conducting layers decreases you get more thermal loss from electron scattering, so they need to shift materials to something that works better at these ultra low nm pitches to manage this.

For now until the big shift in logic/memory/IO devices comes around they will have to improve the dissipation of the entire device - especially as they are shifting to more stacking and probably monolithic 3D logic circuits in the future, so they need to engineer a pre built 3D thermal solution into the die structure (thermal vias) to address this.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I wonder what the glass substrates will do for the CPU TDP.

 

[Orfosaurio]

Is there any hypothetical or theoretical forecast about future AMD/Intel solutions to the increasing TDP of processors?

From what I know about computer engineering, the way to increase clock speed is to pump more electricity through the processor. Which is why we are seeing processors with a 200-250 watt TDP for over 5 GHz speeds that are meant to operate at close to 100 degrees for long periods of time.

Any ideas about when and if this heat problem will be solved so that new processors can be run with less heat than current generation processors.

Use of photonic computing.

 

[soresu]

I wonder what the glass substrates will do for the CPU TDP.

Probably nothing, I suspect it will have more to do with layout of pins and metal traces + heat tolerances.

As Orfosaurio says it will play a role as the switch from copper/electric to optical data IO finally comes around, with another possible contributor being advances to semiconductor fiber optics - aka chemically doping sections of optical fiber with tx/rx semiconductor materials, rather than bonding separate fiber optics to optronic transceiver chips which results in bulkier interfaces.

 

[TheELF]

Is there any hypothetical or theoretical forecast about future AMD/Intel solutions to the increasing TDP of processors?

From what I know about computer engineering, the way to increase clock speed is to pump more electricity through the processor. Which is why we are seeing processors with a 200-250 watt TDP for over 5 GHz speeds that are meant to operate at close to 100 degrees for long periods of time.

Any ideas about when and if this heat problem will be solved so that new processors can be run with less heat than current generation processors.

The TDP of the processors DOES NOT INCREASE, the AMOUNT OF PROCESSORS does increase.
More processors need more power to run.

As an example, the 7700k had a TDP of 91W ,divided by the 4 cores it had that's 22.7W per core with a max of 4.5Ghz.
The 14900k has a maximum turbo power of 251W ,divided by 24 cores that's 10.5W per core with a max of 6Ghz.
And the actual TDP (now PBP) of the 14900k is 125W ,but 251W is what intel officially allows on the CPU.

If you want a cooler CPU get one with fewer cores...if you don't need a server you will be fine with less cores.

 

[Markfw]

The TDP of the processors DOES NOT INCREASE, the AMOUNT OF PROCESSORS does increase.
More processors need more power to run.

As an example, the 7700k had a TDP of 91W ,divided by the 4 cores it had that's 22.7W per core with a max of 4.5Ghz.
The 14900k has a maximum turbo power of 251W ,divided by 24 cores that's 10.5W per core with a max of 6Ghz.
And the actual TDP (now PBP) of the 14900k is 125W ,but 251W is what intel officially allows on the CPU.

If you want a cooler CPU get one with fewer cores...if you don't need a server you will be fine with less cores.

That is an over-simplification, and just wrong.

First, the 14900k has small cores (e-cores) and big cores (P-codes). They take different amounts of power. Then you have AMD and their cores takes less each to run that the P-cores. You have to evaluate what your needs are (numbers of cores) and how much heat/power you want to use/take. If you want efficient, then AMD is the way to go. If you want less power total, go AMD. If you want gaming, go AMD X3D chips. If you want a space heater, go Intel.

EDIT: This whole situation is even more complicated than I just explained, thats the tip of the iceberg so to speak. You need to read up on the entire subject , relationing to manufacturing process, design, etc. Todays 16 core is MUCH more efficient than a 16 core from Intel years ago, ot even AMD themselves 6 years ago( the 1950x to be specific). And todays 16 core AMD is far removed (as in much faster) then either of the aforementioned as well as way more efficient.

 

[igor_kavinski]

If you want a space heater, go Intel.

TBH Intel CPUs have their appeal if a user mainly cares about GHz or higher RAM speeds. It's moronic I know but it's the same thing as people loving their gas guzzlers. I look forward to the day when both Intel and AMD CPUs are on the same process node with the same constraints of physics. That's when we'll finally know who can design the best CPU. Or maybe the future Zen 6 vs. Nova Lake battle will settle that.

 

[Markfw]

TBH Intel CPUs have their appeal if a user mainly cares about GHz or higher RAM speeds. It's moronic I know but it's the same thing as people loving their gas guzzlers. I look forward to the day when both Intel and AMD CPUs are on the same process node with the same constraints of physics. That's when we'll finally know who can design the best CPU. Or maybe the future Zen 6 vs. Nova Lake battle will settle that.

But higher GHZ does not necessarily mean more performance , same with higher ram speeds. Right now the 7950X3D is the fastest gaming processor. An for MOST workloads, the 7950x is the fastest in productivity. And in AVX-512, its no contest, as Intel does not support that. I don't want to try and find the one thing Intel can do faster, check another thread and benchmarks for that. I am speaking generally, in answer to the thread question. And yes, process node does have a big part in that.

 

[TheELF]

That is an over-simplification, and just wrong.

First, the 14900k has small cores (e-cores) and big cores (P-codes). They take different amounts of power.

At 10.5W per core what exactly is your point here?!
10W is far below either of the cores can use.

Then you have AMD and their cores takes less each to run that the P-cores. You have to evaluate what your needs are (numbers of cores) and how much heat/power you want to use/take.

The p-core of the 14900k is 30% more efficient than the core of the 7950x both running at full clocks, that's how far behind AMD is and why intel can re release the same gen all over again without issues.
And the slower the cores the more efficient they are which is why the 13400 is 50% ahead of the most efficient ryzen core, on this list at least.

Intel Core i9-14900K Review - Reaching for the Performance Crown

Core i9-14900K is Intel's new flagship with clock speeds of up to 6 GHz. It's actually clocked even higher than the 13900KS, thanks to an extra 100 MHz when more than two cores are active. Our review confirms that Raptor Lake Refresh is amazing for both applications and gaming, if you can live...

www.techpowerup.com

If you want less power total, go AMD. If you want gaming, go AMD X3D chips. If you want a space heater, go Intel.

Great job at keeping things civil and not instigating any flame wars...

 

[Markfw]

At 10.5W per core what exactly is your point here?!
10W is far below either of the cores can use.

The p-core of the 14900k is 30% more efficient than the core of the 7950x both running at full clocks, that's how far behind AMD is and why intel can re release the same gen all over again without issues.
And the slower the cores the more efficient they are which is why the 13400 is 50% ahead of the most efficient ryzen core, on this list at least.

Intel Core i9-14900K Review - Reaching for the Performance Crown

Core i9-14900K is Intel's new flagship with clock speeds of up to 6 GHz. It's actually clocked even higher than the 13900KS, thanks to an extra 100 MHz when more than two cores are active. Our review confirms that Raptor Lake Refresh is amazing for both applications and gaming, if you can live...

www.techpowerup.com

Great job at keeping things civil and not instigating any flame wars...

And who buys a 16 or 24 core CPU to use ONE thread ? Nobody. I won't even search for the multi-core efficiency charts, you can look them up yourself, but AMD is king in total efficiency. Its a well known fact.