# CPU size(physical)



## sg1

Why do they have to keep making cpu's smaller and smaller? Surely better heat dissapation could be achieved if they just made them a bit bigger?


----------



## funkysnair

larger surface area!

although i havnt noticed any size difference-ive got an amd k6 300mhz from 1998 and its similar size to new ones?

i know where you are coming from but i think there are good enough coolers out there that can deal with high tempretures on small surface areas


----------



## TrainTrackHack

I don't think the CPUs are really getting smaller... while manufacturers are reducing transistor sizes on their chips, they're also increasing the numbers, and the actual physical size of che chip is probably very similar when comparing any recent generations of CPUs, of course there are exceptions such as at least the original P4 which was considered massive, as well as very old CPUs...especially the slot ones. 

To actually make the things bigger, the transistor size should be increased, which means that higher voltages are needed to keep it operating (which works againist the idea of making chips bigger to improve heat dissipation) and operating frequencies can't be pushed as high (the heat won't be the only limiting factor, CPUs manufactured using a "bigger" process simply can't operate at frequencies as high as those with smaller transistors can).

EDIT: Also, the bigger the surface area, the higher the manufacturing costs. We want CHEAP processors, don't we?


----------



## StrangleHold

Like said above its all about Tranisitor count. The old first K6 had around 9 million, the AMD Phenom has around 450 million the Core 2 Quad even has more close to 600 million depending on how much L2. So if they didnt drop the size in nm. the processors would be huge and give off massive amounts of heat.


----------



## TFT

A better explanation from Wiki than I can give.

Shrinking everything (a "photomask shrink"), resulting in the same number of transistors on a smaller die, *improves performance (smaller transistors switch faster), reduces power (smaller wires have less parasitic capacitance)* and reduces cost (more CPUs fit on the same wafer of silicon).


----------



## compt121

good idea, i would of thought a bigger processor would of spead out the heat ??


----------



## sg1

Maybe I should have added- keep the archietecture the same but just make the outer casing slightly *bigger*!! maybe incorporate a liquid cooling sytem into the actual CPU- there's PLENTY of non conductive fluids out there that could be used ,


----------



## StrangleHold

sg1 said:


> maybe incorporate a liquid cooling sytem into the actual CPU- there's PLENTY of non conductive fluids out there that could be used ,


 
IBM is already trying it. Its just the small passage spaces that are giving them a problem, try pushing a baseball through a waterhose

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/8146-ibm-explores-internal-cpu-water-cooling/

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/24385.wss


----------



## sg1

(i knew a girl like that once )
So my idea wasn't totally way out there then.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

StrangleHold said:


> Like said above its all about Tranisitor count. The old first K6 had around 9 million, the AMD Phenom has around 450 million the Core 2 Quad even has more close to 600 million depending on how much L2. So if they didnt drop the size in nm. the processors would be huge and give off massive amounts of heat.



It's absolutely amazing how many transistors they can fit into a modern day processor.  How they have refined processor technology to the size of 65 nanometers and smaller is beyond me.  I do know there are one billion nanometers in one meter.


----------

