A future with only passively cooled ARM chips

[thrasher_565]

6 hours ago, wasab said:

You think nuclear weapons mean unlimited power? Cute.

 

I am talking about type III civilization technology here and an economy in which average per capita wealth per person is literally an entire planet orbiting within a Dyson sphere. Average per person energy expenditure can be the entire daily output of an entire star and all goods can be assemble and fabricated at the molecular level like those fabricators you see in star trek while services can be entirely produced by ai robots at our whims. 

 

When we reach this level, we are like literal gods. 

sounds fictional.

who ever build the pyramids were gods...

[wasab]

5 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

sounds fictional.

who ever build the pyramids were gods...

Indeed, science fiction, for now anyways.

 

Fun fact, economic growth ties closely with technology, which has been exponential for the past century as well. Before the industrial revolution, gdp was literally a function of people times the amount of farmland. 

 

Now it is people times productivity per person in which productivity per person correlates directly with technology. 

[starsmine]

4 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

who ever build the pyramids were gods...

They were ancient Egyptian farmers.

What the hell are we even talking about here? I feel like someone lost the plot. 

[leadeater]

On 4/13/2024 at 5:25 AM, kasdashd said:

server power consumption

 

On 4/13/2024 at 5:25 AM, kasdashd said:

ARM chips are also way more efficient than x86 chips in terms of performance per watt

Well the problem is ARM server CPU's actually aren't, neither are they low specific power usage either. There are workloads where something like the Altra Max is massive lower perf/watt compared to both AMD and even Intel due to the drastically lower performance while still drawing 300W-400W.

 

One of the biggest problems you'll face with your thought process is that any improvements we make to power efficiency will just be used to increase performance rather than lower chip power usage. While companies want maximum possible performance we'll continue to 400W-600W CPUs and GPUs and they are buying more of them so actual power consumption is not doing down with improvements to power efficiency. 

 

Power efficiency and power usage, low power usage in  particular, are not the same thing or even all that directly linked squarely because you have to convince buyers to not want to utilize 400W+ for even greater performance aka not likely. 

[Kisai]

On 4/12/2024 at 10:25 AM, kasdashd said:

I can't see how we'll solve climate change in time without drastically cutting down on personal PC and server power consumption. 

We are never solving Climate change. Hate to be a doomer, but we passed that point of no return in the 70's.

 

Earth warmed up starting with industrialization and only de-industrialization will solve it. Nobody wants to go back to where we were in 1920 because that would require letting at least 5 billion people to volunteer to die.

 

Forget cow farts, human farts are just as bad.

 

On 4/12/2024 at 10:25 AM, kasdashd said:

Increasing cooling and/or power for a GPU or CPU is just an excuse to not innovate enough to make chips efficient enough, to the point where they can get by with passive cooling only, like the RTX 4090, which uses up to 500W of power!

 

ARM chips are also way more efficient than x86 chips in terms of performance per watt, so no wonder that's where everyone is headed right now, even if there's still a long way to go for Windows, Intel, and AMD, with Apple taking the lead with their M-series chips.

 

Performance at any cost is not impressive, efficiency is impressive and interesting, cause it shows real technological advancement, that also benefits science, and not just personal and enterprise computers.

 

Nah, you're kind of missing the big picture. Without a regulation coming down from the government to limit total TDP of a desktop computer to 200w, there will be no innovation here. There are many data centers that have use-it-or-lose-it energy costs, so they choose to use it, even waste it. That needs to change. It won't change because that is the nature of commercial energy contracts. You pay the electric company a set amount of money and are penalized if you do not, because the utility has to then spin down reactors/turbines/etc which increases their maintenance costs.

 

Some states, you pay through the nose for electricity, other states (eg hydro-electric power states) you have de-facto use-it-or-lose-it energy costs because they are going to operate their power stations based on environmental inputs, and if you don't use it during peak generation periods (Eg spring runoff) there is no place to store it once the reservoir is full.

 

Nothing about the computer's TDP is going to impact this. 

 

What has happened in the last 5 years is crypto-mining un-doing all the gains we got from shutting down dirty generation sources, and many of those crypto farms are operated commercially or illegally, which in turn those dirty sources have had to spin back up. AI meanwhile done in places where energy is cheap and cooling is available.

 

But we have to be careful. It would make a lot more sense, if we could get all the AI stuff off the planet and radiated into space. So I do predict at some point the impetus for building space stations will be driven by AI because that will free them of energy and cooling costs. But right now building a space station just for computers seems silly because the leadership in AI all seem to have "get to mars" in mind rather than "save earth"

 

[starsmine]

5 minutes ago, Kisai said:

We are never solving Climate change. Hate to be a doomer, but we passed that point of no return in the 70's.

*cough* no we didnt. 
If you mean back to pre industrial age, no, and that isn't the goal of anyone. 
Limiting 1.5C (long term) yes, that is 100000% possible, with OUT lowering peoples quality of life. 

Just because 1C isnt possible doesnt mean let it ride, doomerism has no place. 

[Kisai]

Just now, starsmine said:

*cough* no we didnt. 
If you mean back to pre industrial age, no, and that isn't the goal of anyone. 
Limiting 1.5C yes, that is 100000% possible. 

Just because 1C isnt possible doesnt mean let it ride, doomerism has no place. 

Have you seen global commitment to stop climate change? No. We just keep seeing the hurdles being moved.

 

Without negative growth in populations, and consequently negative growth in consumption there will be no reversal. It's not going to hit 1.5c and then plateau. It's just going to keep going up exponentially.

 

[Likwid]

There's a lot of climate research for hot and cold planet cycles and if my memory is correct we are at the end of last ice age. A lot less good papers on global warming and more with effects of pollution, which I think is a lot bigger problem.

[starsmine]

 

3 hours ago, Likwid said:

There's a lot of climate research for hot and cold planet cycles and if my memory is correct we are at the end of last ice age. A lot less good papers on global warming and more with effects of pollution, which I think is a lot bigger problem.

yes there is is research about those cycles. No, not a single one of those disputes the current climate crisis. and all that research is valid. HOWEVER

The papers on global warming have been solid and have been solid and consistent since the 70s. There have been no papers that dispute the facts that has been peer reviewed. No this is not a Dogma issue, no this is not a p-hacking issue, no this is not a reproducibility issue. There is no problem with the quality of the papers on global warming. We are not past the point of minimizing damage, because that point even in a hundred years, is always NOW.  The consensus has always been strong on this point. 

The best time to plant a tree was yesterday, the second best time is today. This is the mentality you need to have, yes yesterday was a better time to address the issue, that does not, and has never meant you don't address it today, the second best time. 

[Rocketdog2112]

I'm still waiting on the impending Global Ice Age predicted to happen back in the the late 1970's.

Bullshit then...

Bullshit now...

[SansVarnic]

-= Moved to Off Topic =-

 

 

On 4/12/2024 at 12:25 PM, kasdashd said:

I can't see how we'll solve climate change in time

in time for what? not to be snotty but I am still waiting for the ice age I was told would start in the late 90's.

 

 

.... still waiting.

[Rocketdog2112]

[leadeater]

12 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

-snip-

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

On 4/18/2024 at 4:41 PM, Rocketdog2112 said:

Add David Suzuki, the other most vocal and famous environmentalist, to the list. Always amazing how no one talks about these people jetting across the world multiple times a year to trash on climate change efforts and shame the people who are trying to make ends meet. 

[Rocketdog2112]

 

 

[Forbidden Wafer]

On 4/19/2024 at 2:41 PM, leadeater said:

Its the man-bear-pig!

[starsmine]

On 4/18/2024 at 7:41 PM, Rocketdog2112 said:

-snip-

On 4/20/2024 at 9:40 PM, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

Add David Suzuki, the other most vocal and famous environmentalist, to the list. Always amazing how no one talks about these people jetting across the world multiple times a year to trash on climate change efforts and shame the people who are trying to make ends meet. 

Zero people are shamed for trying to make ends meet
Systemic change is what is necessary, individual jets are an issue sure, by the tiniest of tiny issues.  The issue is more optics then anything, but its not that hard to look past an optics issue when you have all this data that they are giving to people and trying to get systemic changes into place. Those flights are .00001% of flight emissions, and being used with a goal of lowing systemic output. It is ONLY a gotcha moment if you are being intentionally obtuse/disingenuous/argue in bad faith.

 

Not going to argue against a persons carbon foot print mattering... it does, but it also just very much does NOT mater without significant systemic policy shifts. A person's individual carbon foot print is a fight that does not mater at this scale of multiple billions of people. 

On 4/21/2024 at 8:59 AM, Forbidden Wafer said:

Its the man-bear-pig!

which they find to be real in a later episode, because it always was real

[Rocketdog2112]

10 hours ago, starsmine said:

Zero people are shamed for trying to make ends meet
Systemic change is what is necessary, individual jets are an issue sure, by the tiniest of tiny issues.  The issue is more optics then anything, but its not that hard to look past an optics issue when you have all this data that they are giving to people and trying to get systemic changes into place. Those flights are .00001% of flight emissions, and being used with a goal of lowing systemic output. It is ONLY a gotcha moment if you are being intentionally obtuse/disingenuous/argue in bad faith.

 

Not going to argue against a persons carbon foot print mattering... it does, but it also just very much does NOT mater without significant systemic policy shifts. A person's individual carbon foot print is a fight that does not mater at this scale of multiple billions of people. 

which they find to be real in a later episode, because it always was real

Still stinks of the "Do as I say, not what I do" philosophy.

 

Or better yet... Lead by example.

[wasab]

On 4/18/2024 at 3:35 PM, Rocketdog2112 said:

I'm still waiting on the impending Global Ice Age predicted to happen back in the the late 1970's.

Bullshit then...

Bullshit now...

fun fact, global average temperature of the earth is much warmer compared to today. 65 million years ago during the Cretaceous, there was no polar ice cap and much of the lands were flooded as a result, forming a shallow inland sea. there is no reason why earth shouldn't warm up other than the fact the warming caused by human activity is much faster and too sudden than what's possibly normal on a geological time scale. there were instances of such sudden changes of climates in the earth's past, all accompanied by massive extinctions. earth's biosphere simply cant adapt to such a sudden shift without losing much of its diversity. 

[Rocketdog2112]

20 minutes ago, wasab said:

fun fact, global average temperature of the earth is much warmer compared to today. 65 million years ago during the Cretaceous, there was no polar ice cap and much of the lands were flooded as a result, forming a shallow inland sea. there is no reason why earth shouldn't warm up other than the fact the warming caused by human activity is much faster and too sudden than what's possibly normal on a geological time scale. there were instances of such sudden changes of climates in the earth's past, all accompanied by massive extinctions. earth's biosphere simply cant adapt to such a sudden shift without losing much of its diversity. 

True.... except the falsehood of human activity causing a sudden shift of the environment and causing climate change. It's a hoax now just like it was when the sky was failing over the predicted Ice Age blamed on human activity.

Why people can't accept the fact that the climate of the world does not stay constant year after year is numbing.

[FlyingPotato_is_taken]

How did a thread titled "A future with only passively cooled ARM chips" turned into a discussion about climate change?

 

 

Anyway. Very likely that it all will be passively cooled end devices as a display for energy hungry cloud that does all of the compute. It is just the next logical step of software as service and everything is a website approach.

If ARM will be still the answer is once this happened is questionable. I would put my money on RISC-V winning the race for end devices with ARM being pushed back to legacy designs and high performance applications (e.g. server).

[Rocketdog2112]

13 hours ago, FlyingPotato_is_taken said:

How did a thread titled "A future with only passively cooled ARM chips" turned into a discussion about climate change?

 

 

Because someone started a thread about how cooling a PC is causing climate change. Meanwhile, you can bet their homes' 3 ton air conditioner is humming right along.

[starsmine]

15 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

True.... except the falsehood of human activity causing a sudden shift of the environment and causing climate change. It's a hoax now just like it was when the sky was failing over the predicted Ice Age blamed on human activity.

Why people can't accept the fact that the climate of the world does not stay constant year after year is numbing.

Change is expected, no one claims the climate is constant

Its the RATE of change.

Strawmaning something because you don't understand what is being shown it is not great. 

[Rocketdog2112]

54 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Change is expected, no one claims the climate is constant

Its the RATE of change.

Strawmaning something because you don't understand what is being shown it is not great. 

When you look at the big picture....

 

 

[starsmine]

8 minutes ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

When you look at the big picture....

 

 

cool.
Again, RATE of change