Solid State Active Cooling Could Revolutionize Thermals, sounds awesome.

[B@Th*nG]

What are you trying to say.

Laptops are currently cooled by fans especially gaming laptops. The number of fans has no bearing on their cooling capacity. A 250W gaming laptop will have maybe 2 fans, considerably larger and more powerful than the midget one demonstrated.

No part of the advertising or the guy promoting his company says the chips have better cooling performance than fans.

He IS promoting it on having less noise and higher pressure (which in certain circumstances could lead to an advantage)

He states each one can disipate 15w of heat. He states that a heatpipe distributes heat evenly and you can daisy chain the chips together. He states it would allow higher tdp chipsets in laptops. What more do you need?

Also, to say the number of fans has no bearing on cooling capacity isn't strictly true is it? If they're insufficient it will. The fact those laptop fans run at full chat and it's still hot as **** suggests as much

 

[Hotwired]

He states each one can disipate 15w of heat. He states that a heatpipe distributes heat evenly and you can daisy chain the chips together. He states it would allow higher tdp chipsets in laptops. What more do you need?

Nothing is 15W. Original is rated for 5.25W but generates 1W so 4.25W net and the pro is rated for 10.5W while generating 1.75W so that's 8.75W net.

He gave an example of improving performance in an ultrathin notebook from 10W passive, 15W with a fan and 20W with a solution of theirs.
However he also stated that while they are targeting Intels 28W cpus, managing 100W in a gaming laptop is not possible with their current products.

I can see why. If they used their most efficient part, the pro, to remove 100W it would cost the battery another 20W to power the cooler which would in total be shoving out 120W of heat from the chassis.

For comparison: this uses 1.56W to power its 140mm fan and can do a lot better than dissipating 100W.

Clearly these chips have high power consumption for what they do. This is not a selling point for a battery device so it better have some redeeming features.

Like being silent. And being able to dust proof it means more reliability and less RMAs. Customer will just have to suck up the bad runtime to get their silent notebooks. They already suck up bad runtime on powerful phones.

I expect the improved performance in his ultrathin notebook example, if replacing the fan in an honest way, would be that for extremely small spaces, the chips can provide better cooling per volume of space than a fan solution. At higher power cost. This is what I mean when I say he and they are dodging an apples to apples comparison.

Also, to say the number of fans has no bearing on cooling capacity isn't strictly true is it? If they're insufficient it will. The fact those laptop fans run at full chat and it's still hot as **** suggests as much

To say you mean when the fans provided are insufficient is to put the goalposts on wheels. These chips can still be insufficiently provisioned and they will still run hot because they will be used in the same conditions that fans currently are. Cramped spaces. But a high temperature does not mean a cooling solution has failed. What matters is the watts of heat being removed.

 

[Grim5]

Nothing is 15W. Original is rated for 5.25W but generates 1W so 4.25W net and the pro is rated for 10.5W while generating 1.75W so that's 8.75W net.

He gave an example of improving performance in an ultrathin notebook from 10W passive, 15W with a fan and 20W with a solution of theirs.
However he also stated that while they are targeting Intels 28W cpus, managing 100W in a gaming laptop is not possible with their current products.

I can see why. If they used their most efficient part, the pro, to remove 100W it would cost the battery another 20W to power the cooler which would in total be shoving out 120W of heat from the chassis.

For comparison: this uses 1.56W to power its 140mm fan and can do a lot better than dissipating 100W.

Clearly these chips have high power consumption for what they do. This is not a selling point for a battery device so it better have some redeeming features.

Like being silent. And being able to dust proof it means more reliability and less RMAs. Customer will just have to suck up the bad runtime to get their silent notebooks. They already suck up bad runtime on powerful phones.

I expect the improved performance in his ultrathin notebook example, if replacing the fan in an honest way, would be that for extremely small spaces, the chips can provide better cooling per volume of space than a fan solution. At higher power cost. This is what I mean when I say he and they are dodging an apples to apples comparison.



To say you mean when the fans provided are insufficient is to put the goalposts on wheels. These chips can still be insufficiently provisioned and they will still run hot because they will be used in the same conditions that fans currently are. Cramped spaces. But a high temperature does not mean a cooling solution has failed. What matters is the watts of heat being removed.

The power draw it needs for the heat it can dissipate is poor relative to a fan, the advantage is size. That means this cooling solution won't work with high end computer parts because it will pull too much power and power actually matters when it comes to battery life. The power won't matter if you don't care about power draw but then a fan will do a better job

 

[Edward78]

If you can keep it cooler you can run it faster. So it will be able to take your gaming laptop and run it at a reasonable temperature, eventually, whereas it's impossible with a fan.

If Desktop GPUs become the size of laptop GPU. OMG, image the atom bomb of a sys you can have. If/when these get ablte to cool high end CPUs/GPUs, you could take a C64 & have a killer sys in it.

 

[B@Th*nG]

Nothing is 15W. Original is rated for 5.25W but generates 1W so 4.25W net and the pro is rated for 10.5W while generating 1.75W so that's 8.75W net.

He gave an example of improving performance in an ultrathin notebook from 10W passive, 15W with a fan and 20W with a solution of theirs.
However he also stated that while they are targeting Intels 28W cpus, managing 100W in a gaming laptop is not possible with their current products.

I can see why. If they used their most efficient part, the pro, to remove 100W it would cost the battery another 20W to power the cooler which would in total be shoving out 120W of heat from the chassis.

For comparison: this uses 1.56W to power its 140mm fan and can do a lot better than dissipating 100W.

Clearly these chips have high power consumption for what they do. This is not a selling point for a battery device so it better have some redeeming features.

Like being silent. And being able to dust proof it means more reliability and less RMAs. Customer will just have to suck up the bad runtime to get their silent notebooks. They already suck up bad runtime on powerful phones.

I expect the improved performance in his ultrathin notebook example, if replacing the fan in an honest way, would be that for extremely small spaces, the chips can provide better cooling per volume of space than a fan solution. At higher power cost. This is what I mean when I say he and they are dodging an apples to apples comparison.



To say you mean when the fans provided are insufficient is to put the goalposts on wheels. These chips can still be insufficiently provisioned and they will still run hot because they will be used in the same conditions that fans currently are. Cramped spaces. But a high temperature does not mean a cooling solution has failed. What matters is the watts of heat being removed.

Unless my memory is failing me he said it used 1 watt of power, in it's first iteration, not that it generated a watt of heat. otherwise it's sole purpose is just to use 1w of heat. It has to use some power to move the layer lol. So your calculations are wrong.

"Not possible with their current products" but they want it to be. I agree it's not going to shift 100w of heat now but nor is a fan in a laptop. You showing a massive desktop cooler being fit to deal with 100w of heat isn't relevant, which is ironic being you're the one talking about moving goalposts. You can't put one in a laptop.

They are better in cramped spaces, that's the point. We'll see won't we. When the tech develops to use a bit less power and they're more mainstream we can revisit this. The tech big guns who have invested in this business value it at 100m$, clearly believing they've got something worthwhile, as do I.

 

[Hotwired]

Unless my memory is failing me he said it used 1 watt of power, in it's first iteration, not that it generated a watt of heat. otherwise it's sole purpose is just to use 1w of heat. It has to use some power to move the layer lol. So your calculations are wrong.

"Not possible with their current products" but they want it to be. I agree it's not going to shift 100w of heat now but nor is a fan in a laptop. You showing a massive desktop cooler being fit to deal with 100w of heat isn't relevant, which is ironic being you're the one talking about moving goalposts. You can't put one in a laptop.

They are better in cramped spaces, that's the point. We'll see won't we. When the tech develops to use a bit less power and they're more mainstream we can revisit this. The tech big guns who have invested in this business value it at 100m$, clearly believing they've got something worthwhile, as do I.

Why do you need to guess? I didn't guess, the numbers are exactly from the spec sheets: https://www.froresystems.com/

You reckon a 140mm fan using 1.56W isn't relevant to how these things scale. Ok lets give the apples to apples comparison that he and they are dodging of exactly what's in a laptop.

A Razer Blade 15 uses two of these:

That's 5W total to run the cooling for a gaming laptop and I believe these models kick out a bit over 100W in the laptop itself.

I don't see finding $100M of funding as a refute to the facts neither am I saying it's garbage. I do believe I'm saying something relevant that they aren't making clear in the presentation, clearly because they're looking to sell it.

 

[B@Th*nG]

Why do you need to guess? I didn't guess, the numbers are exactly from the spec sheets: https://www.froresystems.com/

You reckon a 140mm fan using 1.56W isn't relevant to how these things scale. Ok lets give the apples to apples comparison that he and they are dodging of exactly what's in a laptop.

A Razer Blade 15 uses two of these:

That's 5W total to run the cooling for a gaming laptop and I believe these models kick out a bit over 100W in the laptop itself.

I don't see finding $100M of funding as a refute to the facts neither am I saying it's garbage. I do believe I'm saying something relevant that they aren't making clear in the presentation, clearly because they're looking to sell it.

Hmm ok fair enough. I'm still interested to see where they can take the technology, but as of now it's not ready

 

[Edward78]

Hmm ok fair enough. I'm still interested to see where they can take the technology, but as of now it's not ready

I agree 100%. Like if we went on what the first computer could do & see what we have today. Tech improves a lot.