POST A COMMENT

14 Comments

Back to Article

  • Mr Roboto - Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - link

    The 65nm CPU's use Intel's DTS who's junction temp is also unknown, so it's not just the DTS on 45nm Penryn's that we're interested in learning about. From what I know all the current thermal detection software uses a Junction temperature of 105c which is based on the 65nm laptop chips, save for Real Temp which uses a base of 95c. IMO 95c is probably a lot closer since the laptop chips are no doubt designed to run in a more strenuous environment.

    It's about time Intel has explained this, although a simple e-mail two years ago would have sufficed. It's not like this is some sort of corporate secret that others could use to design a competing product, it's just Intel playing games.
    Reply
  • Mr Roboto - Friday, August 22, 2008 - link

    Well I suppose the DTS explanation is only for the 45nm CPU's. According to Intel the 65nm CPU's are end of life and don't matter anymore. Well the correct thermal readings matter to people like me who still own a (Ancient) Q6600. I guess 2 years old is now considered ancient. Disappointing but in many ways it's to be expected as Intel has never been a very friendly company, unless they are pitching a new product for us to buy that is.

    God I hope AMD come with something to compete against Intel. I really, really do.
    Reply
  • Berger - Saturday, August 23, 2008 - link

    LOL, Intel are not a friendly company!

    I guess AMD give all their customers reach arounds?

    Wake up and smell the coffee, that's how corporates work. They are inetrested in profits, nothing more. They do not care if you change your underpants every day or 7 times a week. So long as you can buy new products.

    Berger
    Reply
  • Mr Roboto - Monday, August 25, 2008 - link

    You missed the point completely while dreaming of a reach around Intel never gave you. What I meant by I hope AMD comes with something competitive is that the more a company suffers financially, the more inclined they are to change certain aspects and\or become more open and friendly with info. Where as Intel right now is back to their "we're on top so if you want some information you're going to have to beg for it". Then and only then will they give you something vague and useless. Just like they did at IDF. Reply
  • steveyballme - Saturday, August 16, 2008 - link

    I'm sending 8 NtN's (Nasal-toned Nerds) with bad attitudes!

    http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com">http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
    Reply
  • Klober - Friday, August 15, 2008 - link

    Man, where's the rating system from DailyTech?! geekfool, maybe you should try some reading comprehension yourself. pattycake made perfect sense in that post - Thursday, August 18th was the exact date mentioned in the article (as pattycake quoted), and there is no Thursday, August 18th this year, hence the reason for pattycake's questioning. I was wondering the same thing, as the article contradicts itself. Read the quotes below from the first and last paragraphs of the article:

    [quote]IDF is scheduled this year for August 18 - 21 in San Francisco.[/quote]
    [quote]We learned this afternoon that full disclosure of Intel's existing 45nm processor Digital Thermal Sensor (DTS) specification will be presented on Day 3.[/quote]
    [quote]Check back here on Thursday, August 21, for a detailed update on DTS.[/quote]

    Ok, so IDF is Monday 8/18 through Thursday 8/21, the DTS presentation is Day 3 (i.e. Wednesday 8/20), yet we're supposed to check back for a detailed update on Thursday 8/18. See the problem now? Unless we're supposed to wait until 2011, Thursday 8/18 just doesn't work.
    Reply
  • kjboughton - Friday, August 15, 2008 - link

    The correct date is August 21, 2008. Please excuse the mistake. Reply
  • Klober - Friday, August 15, 2008 - link

    Thanks Kris, that's what I had figured going by the details in the article. :)

    My main point was that pattycake is not some imbecile for being slightly confused as insinuated by geekfool's comments.
    Reply
  • TruePath - Monday, August 18, 2008 - link

    No, he's not an imbecile but that's because he wasn't really trying to correct his confusion. No doubt he was confused by the inconsistant date, at least for awhile but it was easier to figure out the correct date than it is to make a post asking about it. Hell, I doubt he was really marking it down in his calendar and even if so the simplest solution would just have been to check both days.

    In short the comment wasn't really a request for information or even a suggestion (the author knows he should avoid incorrect dates). Rather the aim of the comment was merely to censure the author for violating some standard of good writing/carefulness/whatever.

    Now humans are a rule enforcing species and we all feel the desire to punish others for breaking the rules. However, it's generally both unproductive and frowned upon (i.e. violates a rule itself) to do this about trivial issues like this date confusion that result from simple honest mistakes.
    Reply
  • pattycake0147 - Friday, August 15, 2008 - link

    "Check back here on Thursday, August 18, for a detailed update on DTS."

    So when are we supposed to check back? Thursday August 18, 2011 or perhaps Monday August 18, 2008 or maybe Thursday August 21, 2008. If your going to post a date make sure it is right.
    Reply
  • smilingcrow - Friday, August 15, 2008 - link

    This data will save a lot of bandwidth on over-clocking forums. :) Reply
  • keitaro - Thursday, August 14, 2008 - link

    Wow... who would've thought that they'd finally released the Tjunction numbers for their Penryn CPUs? I kinda wish they'd do that from the start though. But oh well. Better now (or soon to be now) than later. Good job, Intel. Reply
  • KeypoX - Thursday, August 14, 2008 - link

    took long enough Reply
  • soundx98 - Saturday, August 16, 2008 - link

    I'm looking forward to it.
    It is way overdue.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now