Wedo
12-16-03, 06:52 PM
Inspired by this thread (http://www.ocforums.com/vb/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=254049), read on:
Brethren, there are much smarter people than I when it comes to the architecture of a cpu. However, the basic premise of a microchip is to perform complex calculations with speed and accuracy. To assume the cpu will be damaged for performing the exact duty for which it was created is to walk the dark alley of ignorance.
Granted, a cpu chugging along at the normal 1-5% will produce less heat and last longer over time. Yet, this begs the question of how much time will be gained in the life of the cpu and therefore, how much time could be cut from the longevity of the device?
The only way to truly tell is by performing experiments of two identical systems side by side one another of a variety of setups in which one folds and the other doesn’t. But even this experiment would show that the very question that the hypothesis is trying to answer is a moot point as the life of the cpu with or without folding is FAR longer than the need for its existence.
Moore’s Law notes that the number of transistors on a chip doubles every 18 to 24 months. While the performance of the chip doesn’t double as well due to I/O speeds (for now), the speed at which our systems increase continually puts four, three, and even two year old rigs to shame. (Read more about Moore’s Law here. (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,881104,00.asp)
Couple this with chip manufactures giving their products a conservative estimate of life to be in the double digit years (10+) and you see that their whole argument is flawed.
Essentially, the cpu will need to be replaced due to new technology YEARS before FAH could have a negative effect on it.
Wedo
Brethren, there are much smarter people than I when it comes to the architecture of a cpu. However, the basic premise of a microchip is to perform complex calculations with speed and accuracy. To assume the cpu will be damaged for performing the exact duty for which it was created is to walk the dark alley of ignorance.
Granted, a cpu chugging along at the normal 1-5% will produce less heat and last longer over time. Yet, this begs the question of how much time will be gained in the life of the cpu and therefore, how much time could be cut from the longevity of the device?
The only way to truly tell is by performing experiments of two identical systems side by side one another of a variety of setups in which one folds and the other doesn’t. But even this experiment would show that the very question that the hypothesis is trying to answer is a moot point as the life of the cpu with or without folding is FAR longer than the need for its existence.
Moore’s Law notes that the number of transistors on a chip doubles every 18 to 24 months. While the performance of the chip doesn’t double as well due to I/O speeds (for now), the speed at which our systems increase continually puts four, three, and even two year old rigs to shame. (Read more about Moore’s Law here. (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,881104,00.asp)
Couple this with chip manufactures giving their products a conservative estimate of life to be in the double digit years (10+) and you see that their whole argument is flawed.
Essentially, the cpu will need to be replaced due to new technology YEARS before FAH could have a negative effect on it.
Wedo