- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,162 (0.20/day)
- Location
- I live in Norway
Processor | R9 5800x3d | R7 3900X | 4800H | 2x Xeon gold 6142 |
---|---|
Motherboard | Asrock X570M | AB350M Pro 4 | Asus Tuf A15 |
Cooling | Air | Air | duh laptop |
Memory | 64gb G.skill SniperX @3600 CL16 | 128gb | 32GB | 192gb |
Video Card(s) | RTX 4080 |Quadro P5000 | RTX2060M |
Storage | Many drives |
Display(s) | AW3423dwf. |
Case | Jonsbo D41 |
Power Supply | Corsair RM850x |
Mouse | g502 Lightspeed |
Keyboard | G913 tkl |
Software | win11, proxmox |
Yes it does. If you want an electronic device to clock higher you have to shorten the path between input and output and that means going parallel with (duplicating at transistor level) a lot of things that would otherwise be serial and means you have to invest much more transistors on it. That takes up much more space and transistors and that also means more complicated control & logic, which once again means more transistors. Which once again means more active transistors for the same job, which means higher TDP, which means higher temps, which actually means higher TDP, which actually means lower posible clocks, which actually means you have to invest even more transistors in order to achieve a certain clock, which means higher TDP and the process keeps going on and on and on.
Ibm shows that it's possible, but I agree with you, but there are other ways to design stuff that goes around that problem you state, but Nvidia is doing the right thing.