Quote:
Originally Posted by dr/owned 
I'm just pointing out that I don't think the things we're seeing with IB can easily be explained by classic E&M. At the end of the day if you treat the cpu like a black box, p=iv obviously still applies. Yes, agree. But I think people are starting to literally peek into the black box (by removing the IHS).

I'm just pointing out that I don't think the things we're seeing with IB can easily be explained by classic E&M. At the end of the day if you treat the cpu like a black box, p=iv obviously still applies. Yes, agree. But I think people are starting to literally peek into the black box (by removing the IHS).
I'll ask this one question and then leave it at that and we can wait and see what the answer to all of this is either through released information or through a new stepping. If increased current draw without a corresponding significant decrease in voltage does not play the major role in increased temperatures, then why are we seeing some users posting results of 4.5GHz at 1.09 or less with temperatures equivalent to or just under what you would see with a typical SB CPU? If you subtract another 10C to account for TIM over solder you suddenly see a CPU exactly in line with what Intel claimed over the past year of 3/4 the power consumption.
Quote:
Oh yes wise one you are completely right. How could I not see that the laws of physics and electrical theory change when you switch from an analog circuit to digital.
A 5-10C temp drop replacing the TIM or removing the heatspreader entirely is not enough to account for the level of increased temps. Neither is the reduced die size.




















