Hacker News Reader

Comment by caf | Hacker News Reader

A basic model of a CPU is running an infinite loop like this:

  1. If interrupts not masked, check for interrupt
  2. Load instruction
  3. Advance instruction pointer
  4. Execute instruction

It doesn't ever stop - as soon as the current instruction is finished executing it moves on to the next one. So, if you don't have anything better for the CPU to do, you need to have it spin in a loop of instructions anyway.

More modern CPU designs typically include an instruction that means "halt until next interrupt" which actually stops the CPU from fetching and executing instructions.

View on HN

Why do CPUs and GPUs run hotter when doing more intensive tasks?

In your last statement I could see it making sense where the CPU actually halts, but did prior CPUs always run at about the same temperature? Or do these idle processes throw fewer instructions at one time so it's not as overwhelmed?

> did prior CPUs always run at about the same temperature?

Basically, yes. But then they typically produced so little heat they had passive heatsinks, up to and including the Pentium II (~20 W TDP) and ATI Rage 128 that I used back in '99.

Modern CPUs, GPUs and SOCs have power management states that disable entire submodules when they're not in use, by actually gating off the clock to them. If you run without power management enabled, you'll find that they run hot all the time.

wow.. Thanks for the explanation there.When we switched to modern CPUs that could actually Halt, was there actually hardware/physical changes to the CPU ? Or was it just a software change (ie) Added a new instruction to the existing instruction set ? ..

Is that what made it difficult for us to design processors capable of "idling" ? (ie) completely new hardware design

It was a hardware change. In those older CPU designs, the external clock signal was directly driving a state machine, so for as long as the clock was applied, the state machine would go.

It's important to realise that there was no good reason to have the ability to stop the CPU in those days - power consumption by the CPU itself was truly trivial compared to the memory and peripherals it was attached to, and those CPUs weren't really damaged or worn out by running continuously. Having the CPU spin in software when there was nothing else to do was perfectly fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com