Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

gmplib.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 240 posts

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#181

Post by account42 »

spoaceman7777 wrote: post #100
stouset wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a good catch, but don’t modern CPUs thermally throttle, rather than risk damage? Not that you should rely on this with an underpowered cooling solution but I would expect worse performance, not a fried chip.

Not really a lot it can do rapidly enough if there's only thermal paste on half the CPU. It sounds like the user likely did the opposite of the "offset seating" of the heatsink that Noctua recommended.

There thermal paste on the whole CPU in TFA, it's just thinner on one side because there was more pressure there. Or are you looking at the pic of the heat sink, which is larger than the CPU heat spreader and thus only partially covered by paste?

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#182

Post by FirmwareBurner »

mook wrote: post #152
sitkack wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyWelvEP_CQ

Given that Gamers Nexus needs the ad revenue wouldn't linking to a re-upload that wouldn't give them any of that be sort of bad?

>Given that Gamers Nexus needs the ad revenue

They made six figures from merch sales on that investigation. Not much, but more than Youtube ads.

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#183

Post by account42 »

wkat4242 wrote: post #147
userbinator wrote: post #119

We don't overclock or overvolt or play other teen games with our hardware. But doesn't the hardware "overclock" and "overvolt" automatically these days? This reminds me of the Intel CPUs with similar problems a year ago, and AFAIK it was caused by excessive voltage: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41039708

> But doesn't the hardware "overclock" and "overvolt" automatically these days? If it's done by the manufacturer it's within spec of course. As designed. The overclock game was all about running stuff out of spec and getting more performance out of it than it was supposed to create.

If anything, what replaced overclocking is not PBO and similar features to dynamically clock the CPU but rather binning that lets better performing samples be sold with higher base frequencies than other samples of the same design.

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#184

Post by gblargg »

mook wrote: post #152
sitkack wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyWelvEP_CQ

Given that Gamers Nexus needs the ad revenue wouldn't linking to a re-upload that wouldn't give them any of that be sort of bad?

Agreed. I'm waiting until they get it back up to watch it. I can wait.

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#185

Post by account42 »

protomikron wrote: post #48
on_the_train wrote: post #27

What is gmp?

Valid question i think in this context. I knew about GNU multiprecision library, but thought that couldnt be it, as it's "just" a highly optimized low level bit fiddling lib (at least thats my expectation without looking into the source), so it's strange why it could be damaging Hardware ...

TFA is on gmplib.org which kind of answers the question though.

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#186

Post by db48x »

sireat wrote: post #154
db48x wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Remember that you cannot destroy energy. The energy you use to flip the flip flop still exists, only now it’s just disordered waste heat instead of electricity.

To be a bit flippant, you can absolutely destroy energy by creating some mass.. Then again most of us do not have particle accelerator nearby looking for Higgs boson.

I’m sorry, but no. Mass is just energy.

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#187

Post by account42 »

fithisux wrote: post #156
toast0 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The x86-64 ISA is a POS BTW. > It needs major refactoring. The backwards compatibility is killing the platform. People have been saying that for 30 years at this point. You can dislike the ISA all you want, but the platform doesn't seem to be dieing all that fast, and compatibility helps it live. Compatibility is how you sell chips: windows on arm doesn't sell because people are concerned about running their apps;…

The Intel ISA CPUs have too many features for backwards compatibility. This puts a lot of design strain, CPU have to support everything, have to emulate behaviors. Too much bloat on the CPU.

Emulating behaviors are not on the hot paths if they are even implemented in silicon at all rather than microcode that may as well not exist if you don't use those features. This is entirely irrelevant to the issue of CPUs burning up under normal use.

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#188

Post by rozab »

I've not built a new PC in a while, is it normal for the cooler to only cover 2/3 of the IHS?? Seems like that leaves a lot of cooling performance on the table

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#189

Post by account42 »

lloydatkinson wrote: post #40

One day I’ll understand why some websites refuse to have a way of navigating to the home page. I had to edit the URL in the address bar. I just wanted to find out what GMP is.

The better question is, why isn't your browser providing that feature? Or why is it making it incredibly hard to edit URLs in case you are using a mobile browser?

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#190

Post by db48x »

imtringued wrote: post #170
db48x wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but only briefly. When you study the thermodynamics of information you’ll discover that it’s actually erasing information that has a cost. Every time the CPU stores a value in a register it erases the previous value, using up energy. In fact, every individual transistor has to erase the previous state on basically every clock cycle. Curiously there is a minimum cost to erase a single bit that no system can go be…

>In fact, every individual transistor has to erase the previous state on basically every clock cycle. This is incorrect in both directions. Only transistors whose inputs are changing have to discharge their capacitance. This means that if the inputs don't change nothing happens, but if the inputs change then the changes propagate through the circuit to the next flip flop, possibly creating a cascade of changes. Consi…

My apologies if I wasn’t clear enough. I was only intending to make a statistical statement that the number of erasures is of similar order to the number of transistors, not that every single transistor changes its state exactly once per cycle. Some don't change their state this cycle, others end up changing multiple times before settling. In fact, some are completely powered off! (Because you’re not using the built–in GPU right now, or you’re not doing AVX512 right now, etc, etc.)

Note also that discharging the internal capacitance of a transistor, and the heat generated by current through the transistor’s internal resistance, are both costs over and above the fundamental cost of erasing a bit. Transistors can be made more efficient by reducing those additional costs, but Landauer discovered that nothing can reduce the fundamental cost of erasing a bit.

Post reply on HN