Originally posted by yump
View Post
I honestly didn't think it was something to consider with cpu/gpu design, as I though that due to the infinitesimal area, the effects on velocity would already negate all of it.
But as I said, all I know about it is dodgy murky misremembering. The other day after reading you guys' comments I realised I didn't even remember wtf was a S. Just for you to see how little remains in my head about the subject.
Also I can't even remember exactly what velocity entails. And somehow I though that with semiconductors being in a lattice structure it would mess up a lot of migration.
Originally posted by yump
View Post
As in, I thought that due to the longer time that it would take to "fill up" a capacitor with the lower voltage, the C would have to rise at iso f.
E.g. To game at nnnfps frame limited in game, cenario A with a tdp cap of 100 and cenario B with a tdp cap of 50, if the voltage is dropped for cenario B (as it should, since it has a disproportional impact in tdp) both could still boost to fmax, but A would show 50% utilisation and B would show 100% (I think in gpu_busy)(every number not related to reality, not even their relationships, cause of course I don't think halving power requires doubling activity. It's just an illustration)
As per your latest comment in response to American locomotive. A larger area of the die would have to be active at any given time for it to reach the max clock.
____---_____
s_j_newbury I'd think using dpm to create and set a mode in which the gpu simply can't reach a tdp above what the user wants would be the way they "support". Not guessing internal state from userspace. It shouldn't be needed, right?
Comment