CPU会老化吗？
115 views
Skip to first unread message
Rizza SSZ
Apr 1, 2015, 9:30:13 PM4/1/15
to ustc...@googlegroups.com
电子元件不是都会老化吗？
不过CPU的寿命应该相当的长，淘汰之前基本上很难坏。
Yan Wang
Apr 1, 2015, 9:53:57 PM4/1/15
to ustc...@googlegroups.com
以我浅薄的经验和见解，CPU是会老化的。这个老化主要指的是绝缘基质会逐渐漏电，导致1) CPU的工作电流加大，2) 工作电平不稳定。这个一般不会让CPU变慢，但会让CPU变得更热，耗电更多，老化更快。（也许因为高低电平的不稳定会造成一些错误，CPU如果有校验的话会重算，这个会影响速度。但我猜想桌面级的CPU没有这个校验机制，也因此不会影响速度）
当这个老化到达一定程度以后，CPU就会很不稳定，计算出错误的结果或者温度过高。这时候就要退休了。
（CPU设计圈外人士，欢迎打脸，轻点就行。啪啪啪
--
-- 来自USTC LUG
请使用gmail订阅，不要灌水。
更多信息more info：http://groups.google.com/group/ustc_lug?hl=en?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USTC_LUG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ustc_lug+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ustc...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Bojie Li
Apr 1, 2015, 11:24:18 PM4/1/15
to USTC_LUG
我也不懂 CPU，不过我觉得出错概率增加是会有的，但时钟频率降低是不科学的（除非你开启了超频或睿频，老化的 CPU 发现高频率跑不动了，就会自动降频，但这对额定工作频率的 CPU 应该不是个事）
曾经看到内核邮件列表如下的有趣讨论。
Date: Fri May 11 2007 - 08:29:56 EST
Hi!
> >>You say there is "no danger of overflow", and I mostly
> >>agree that once
> >>we're talking about 64-bit values, the overflow issue
> >>simply doesn't
> >>exist, and furthermore the difference between 63 and
> >>64 bits is not really
> >>relevant, so there's no major reason to actively avoid
> >>signed entries.
> >>
> >>So in that sense, it all sounds perfectly sane. And
> >>I'm definitely not
> >>sure your "292 years after bootup" worry is really
> >>worth even considering.
> >>
> >
> >I would hate to tell mission control for Mankind's
> >first mission to another
> >star to reboot every 200 years because "there is no
> >need to worry about it."
> >
> >As a matter of principle an OS should never need a
> >reboot (with exception for upgrading). If you say you
> >have to reboot every 200 years, why not every 100?
> >Every 50? .... Every 45 days (you know what I am
> >referring to :-) ?
>
> There's always going to be an upper limit on the
> representation of time. At least until we figure out
> how to implement infinity properly.
There's also upper limit on life time of this universe. 1000 bits is
certainly enough to represent that in u-seconds.
Also notice that current cpus were not designed to work 300 years.
When we have hw designed for 50 years+, we can start to worry.
Pavel
> >>You say there is "no danger of overflow", and I mostly
> >>agree that once
> >>we're talking about 64-bit values, the overflow issue
> >>simply doesn't
> >>exist, and furthermore the difference between 63 and
> >>64 bits is not really
> >>relevant, so there's no major reason to actively avoid
> >>signed entries.
> >>
> >>So in that sense, it all sounds perfectly sane. And
> >>I'm definitely not
> >>sure your "292 years after bootup" worry is really
> >>worth even considering.
> >>
> >
> >I would hate to tell mission control for Mankind's
> >first mission to another
> >star to reboot every 200 years because "there is no
> >need to worry about it."
> >
> >As a matter of principle an OS should never need a
> >reboot (with exception for upgrading). If you say you
> >have to reboot every 200 years, why not every 100?
> >Every 50? .... Every 45 days (you know what I am
> >referring to :-) ?
>
> There's always going to be an upper limit on the
> representation of time. At least until we figure out
> how to implement infinity properly.
There's also upper limit on life time of this universe. 1000 bits is
certainly enough to represent that in u-seconds.
Also notice that current cpus were not designed to work 300 years.
When we have hw designed for 50 years+, we can start to worry.
Pavel
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Fri May 11 2007 - 12:52:13 EST
Date: Fri May 11 2007 - 12:52:13 EST
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> Also notice that current cpus were not designed to work 300 years.
> When we have hw designed for 50 years+, we can start to worry.
Indeed. CPU manufacturers don't seem to talk about it very much, and
searching for it with google on intel.com comes up with
The failure rate and Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) data is not
currently available on our website. You may contact Intel®
Customer Support for this information.
which seems to be just a fancy way of saying "we don't actually want to
talk about it". Probably not because it's actually all that bad, but
simply because people don't think about it, and there's no reason a CPU
manufacturer would *want* people to think about it.
But if you wondered why server CPU's usually run at a lower frequency,
it's because of MTBF issues. I think a desktop CPU is usually specced to
run for 5 years (and that's expecting that it's turned off or at least
idle much of the time), while a server CPU is expected to last longer and
be active a much bigger percentage of time.
("Active" == "heat" == "more damage due to atom migration etc". Which is
part of why you're not supposed to overclock stuff: it may well work well
for you, but for all you know it will cut your expected CPU life by 90%).
Of course, all the other components have a MTBF too (and I'd generally
expect a power supply component to fail long before the CPU does). And
yes, some machines will last for decades. But I suspect we've all heard of
machines that just don't work reliably any more.
Linus
>
> Also notice that current cpus were not designed to work 300 years.
> When we have hw designed for 50 years+, we can start to worry.
Indeed. CPU manufacturers don't seem to talk about it very much, and
searching for it with google on intel.com comes up with
The failure rate and Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) data is not
currently available on our website. You may contact Intel®
Customer Support for this information.
which seems to be just a fancy way of saying "we don't actually want to
talk about it". Probably not because it's actually all that bad, but
simply because people don't think about it, and there's no reason a CPU
manufacturer would *want* people to think about it.
But if you wondered why server CPU's usually run at a lower frequency,
it's because of MTBF issues. I think a desktop CPU is usually specced to
run for 5 years (and that's expecting that it's turned off or at least
idle much of the time), while a server CPU is expected to last longer and
be active a much bigger percentage of time.
("Active" == "heat" == "more damage due to atom migration etc". Which is
part of why you're not supposed to overclock stuff: it may well work well
for you, but for all you know it will cut your expected CPU life by 90%).
Of course, all the other components have a MTBF too (and I'd generally
expect a power supply component to fail long before the CPU does). And
yes, some machines will last for decades. But I suspect we've all heard of
machines that just don't work reliably any more.
Linus
From: Pavel Machek
Date: Fri May 11 2007 - 15:21:35 EST
Date: Fri May 11 2007 - 15:21:35 EST
Actually, when I talked with AMD, they told me that cpus should last
10 years *at their max specced temperature*... which is 95Celsius. So
overclocking is not that evil, according to my info.
(That would mean way more than 10 years if you use your cpu
'normally'.)
But I guess capacitors from cpu power supply will hate you running cpu
at 95C...
Pavel
10 years *at their max specced temperature*... which is 95Celsius. So
overclocking is not that evil, according to my info.
(That would mean way more than 10 years if you use your cpu
'normally'.)
But I guess capacitors from cpu power supply will hate you running cpu
at 95C...
Pavel
hui zhang
Apr 7, 2015, 4:51:48 AM4/7/15
to ustc...@googlegroups.com
实践出真知啊
在 2015年4月2日星期四 UTC+8上午11:24:18，Bojie Li写道：
以我多台 pc 的老化经历来看
元器件老化忽略不计
大部分情况是 机器进灰 散热油脂耗尽
cpu散热性能降低，发热导致速度变慢。
所以某种程度上来说， 也算老化吧。
当然清理 重上散热的那个油脂（忘了叫什么了） 可以解决， 但是普通人没那手艺。
在 2015年4月2日星期四 UTC+8上午11:24:18，Bojie Li写道：
Yousong Zhou
Apr 7, 2015, 5:01:59 AM4/7/15
to ustc...@googlegroups.com
On 7 April 2015 at 16:51, hui zhang <fastf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 实践出真知啊
> 以我多台 pc 的老化经历来看
> 元器件老化忽略不计
>
> 大部分情况是 机器进灰 散热油脂耗尽
> cpu散热性能降低，发热导致速度变慢。
>
> 所以某种程度上来说， 也算老化吧。
>
> 当然清理 重上散热的那个油脂（忘了叫什么了） 可以解决， 但是普通人没那手艺。
>
导热硅脂. 只要CPU不是贴片焊上去的，都可以把风扇或者散热片取下来重新抹这个东西，显卡也同理。
> 实践出真知啊
> 以我多台 pc 的老化经历来看
> 元器件老化忽略不计
>
> 大部分情况是 机器进灰 散热油脂耗尽
> cpu散热性能降低，发热导致速度变慢。
>
> 所以某种程度上来说， 也算老化吧。
>
> 当然清理 重上散热的那个油脂（忘了叫什么了） 可以解决， 但是普通人没那手艺。
>
Yan Wang
Apr 8, 2015, 12:38:17 AM4/8/15
to ustc...@googlegroups.com
我的电脑有段时间狂烫，水冷的情况下，CPU满负载运行也有80多度。。
然后我对着散热风扇狂吹了几口气。。一大股灰升起来。。温度一下降了10多度。。
Zhang Cheng
Apr 8, 2015, 12:40:58 AM4/8/15
to USTC LUG
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Yan Wang <gra...@gmail.com> wrote:
我的电脑有段时间狂烫，水冷的情况下，CPU满负载运行也有80多度。。然后我对着散热风扇狂吹了几口气。。一大股灰升起来。。温度一下降了10多度。。
这种神器你值得拥有，吹一下主板就跟新的一样。
（我不知道这货英文名叫啥，就不给你amazon的链接了。）
Cheng,
Best Regards
崔灏 (CUI Hao)
Apr 8, 2015, 7:21:09 AM4/8/15
to LUG 邮件列表
能吹掉油渍么，感觉风扇用久了上面会沾好多油诶。
Yuanchong Zhu
Apr 8, 2015, 8:54:52 AM4/8/15
to ustc...@googlegroups.com
油当然是吹不掉的……而且那种油还是润滑油，沾满灰尘的那种……
--
-- 来自USTC LUG
请使用gmail订阅，不要灌水。
更多信息more info：http://groups.google.com/group/ustc_lug?hl=en?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USTC_LUG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ustc_lug+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ustc...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
灿烂星空，你就是我的英雄！
Roy Zhang
Apr 8, 2015, 10:22:18 AM4/8/15
to ustc...@googlegroups.com
这种情况还是拿棉签猛擦吧～
我都是这么干的。
2015-04-08 19:21 GMT+08:00 崔灏 (CUI Hao) <cuiha...@gmail.com>:
> 能吹掉油渍么，感觉风扇用久了上面会沾好多油诶。
我都是这么干的。
2015-04-08 19:21 GMT+08:00 崔灏 (CUI Hao) <cuiha...@gmail.com>:
> 能吹掉油渍么，感觉风扇用久了上面会沾好多油诶。
Thomas Copper
Apr 13, 2015, 4:37:40 AM4/13/15
to ustc_lug
这不叫CPU老化，这只是耗材的用尽问题……
刘京倍
Apr 15, 2015, 4:01:06 AM4/15/15
to ustc...@googlegroups.com
不叫老化，只是在高温高负荷下更容易使电气性能下降，发热增加，从而使工作频率下降。对于超频爱好者来说，一般把这个叫“缩肛”，指CPU无法超频到以前可以达到的高频率。
Roy Zhang
Apr 15, 2015, 4:31:04 AM4/15/15
to ustc...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 4:00 PM, 刘京倍 <sqct...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 不叫老化，只是在高温高负荷下更容易使电气性能下降，发热增加，从而使工作频率下降。对于超频爱好者来说，一般把这个叫“缩肛”，指CPU无法超频到以前可以达到的高频率。
>
“缩肛”，这词太糟糕了……
> 不叫老化，只是在高温高负荷下更容易使电气性能下降，发热增加，从而使工作频率下降。对于超频爱好者来说，一般把这个叫“缩肛”，指CPU无法超频到以前可以达到的高频率。
>
果然我之前不算什么爱好者。
确实很糟糕0 new messages