Mobo designer speaks out

[Brians256]

I saw these on Slashdot, so who knows if any of this is true. However, I know enough to say it sounds plausible.

This is a mostly one guy talking about how to design the CPU power supply on the motherboard (and the same applies to the other DC-DC units on the motherboard).


I used to design motherboard power system components, and the author spends a good bit of time talking about that. That is actually the most complicated part of the board design, as it is not at all automated. Most component vendors try to sell a complete solution to the motherboard vendor, easing their job somewhat while helping the sales of the component vendor.

One particularly interesting item of note: all those capacitors the author describes are absolutely crucial, and together form one of the largest cost items on the board. The system is tested using a processor-vendor-supplied "load tool" which simulates the worst case load transients one can ever expect to see. Most of that testing is done by the power system component vendor and then provided as a block to the motherboard vendor. Most motherboard vendors have no idea what they are doing there.

In fact, a lot of the foreign manufacturers (no names) cost-reduce their designs by simply pulling out caps until the system blue screens. Then they put the last one back in and sell it. Intel is the only manufacturer I am aware of that actually sells the worst-case performing design.

Note that I am only aware of products related to Intel-type motherboards. I never worked on the othe stuff.



I always leave 3 or 4 no stuff capacitors (Bulk and HF)on the motherboards I work on (and I AM a power engineer). That way when I do buy one of these systems I can add the extra caps fairly easily and I'll get a system that I can actually trust.

I find that the industry is only now starting to appreciate how difficutly power supply design is.

-Coward cause I don't want my boss to hear (Empty Caps locations means harder buss routing because the vias go alllll the way through the MB)


Something you should be aware of concerning inductors is that if they are ferrites, their optimal temperature is usually 100 C. That's where they have the least losses. So the inductor will quickly heat up to 60 C or more, but once there is will actually have lower losses. (The difference can be a factor of two for some materials and frequencies.)

You don't actually want to design your inductors to run at 100 C though, since losses increase above that, which can lead to thermal runaway (mmmm, fried computer!).



In the design of a CPU motherboard power supply, I suppose my two biggest concerns were heat and transient response. In dealing with the heat issue, you have to select the "best" components to make the system work. In other words, the cheapest set that will work. That's not trivial at all. First you decide how many phases to work with, considering that the norm is about 25-30 A per phase maximum. Then you pick a frequency. The operating frequency of the multiphase converter determines the inductors you use, and those get HOT at high frequency, due to core loss effects. Then the MOSFETs, and you parallel however many as are necessary to keep the heat down while also keeping the cost down -- usually an empirical selection process (hours upon hours in the lab learning what works and what doesn't).

On the other side you're dealing with transient response. That is, the CPU is working hard, decoding your DVD's and playing MP3's and all that other sht. And then, suddenly, it's not doing much at all. The load goes from, say, 110 A to 10 A, or at least that's how the design might go. Now you have to select capacitors to deal with that. These capacitors are selected based on some specified parameters, such as raw, bulk capacitance and ESR, as well as some unspecified ones, such as ESL and whether or not you have any in the lab. And they are tested and tested to death. It's amazing how much component placement and orientation can matter.

In the field, you do not have the tools to test the resulting design, so it's not a great idea to dick around with the decoupling solution. But for fun, if you had a motherboard to mess around with, you could try replacing whatever existing bulks with the smallest Sanyo OS-CON's you can find, or some of those sweet Fujitsu yellow caps, I never found a part number. If the total C is at least the same as what you had, it "might" work.

As far as MOSFETs go, to replace them you're mostly worried about heat. For the high side switches, you worry about gate charge Qg and thetaJA, the lower the better. For the low side switches, RDSON and thetaJA, the lower the better. The high side switches aren't on very much (only 1.5/12 of the time) and depending on the switching speed they will generate a lot of heat. So we want good switching capability out of them. The lowside switches are on 10.5/12 of the time so we want them to conduct well, with low resistance.

But if you replace the MOSFETs, and you happen to find low side switches with too high gate charge, the existing drivers may be unable to deal with them, and so you are screwed. Drivers can be tough, depending on whether or not they are standard. There is a fairly standard SO-8 format for driver pinouts that is ignored as often as it is accepted.

In short, there's not a lot you can do. Replacing inductors is too hard to do right, and same with the power design. Best bet, go with the Intel design (and no, I don't and didn't work for them, and I don't own stock in them, I just understand their methodology). If not, then buy the motherboard with the most phases (most big inductors around the CPU). That means the lowest current per phase and, if well designed, the best future CPU upgrading capability.


All quotes taken from this (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=122030&threshold=0&commentsort=0&tid=137&mode=thread&cid=10264694) forum thread. It was a thread talking about MBReview's article on motherboard design (fairly basic, trying to cover too broad of an audience by having both beginner and advanced concepts in the same text).

[pHaestus]

Really interesting quotes and thread Brian

[Brians256]

What I find most astonishing (and frightening) is that the mobo designers have such a limited amount of time to design that they simply try out different components in a generic design to see it it will work.

In other words, slap in a couple of these caps here and use these MOSFETs and inductors that are mostly the same as the reference design and see if it works! The worst case scenarios might need more capacitance, but hey! it runs WinDVD, so it must be OK. Ship it!

Sounds like the easiest way to "improve" the on-board DC power supplies is to add some very low ESR filter caps and keep the MOSFETs cool. In other words, not much we can easily do. :(

[pHaestus]

It puts the rationale for never buying a new via chipset-based mobo without an "A" at the end though doesn't it?

I also remember clearly the voltage regulation issues on a few mobos I have owned when you pushed them. Puts that into perspective a bit too.

[bigben2k]

It all sounds like straight forward talk.

The advice about swapping caps is one I'd ignore, unless one knows precisely what one is doing.

Otherwise I know that Asus is one of the rare board designer that's at the top level for development with Intel. Beats me why they still use the same old phase scheme though.

I've had a chance to see many ads in electronic magazines for plug in power modules. There's an astounding number of them out there. I guess that's the future?!?

[Groth]

It puts the rationale for never buying a new via chipset-based mobo without an "A" at the end though doesn't it?
You could easily have a well designed board with a crappy chipset, or vice versa.

Beats me why they still use the same old phase scheme though.
Huh?

Not a bad article, but needs editing for spelling/grammar/clarity.

[nicozeg]

exellent read. :) I only recomend cutting the couple Intel adds in between! :p

[bigben2k]

...
Huh?

...
Check this out:
http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=76562
(a classic, linked many times here).

There's a perception out there that Asus' scheme of using only 2 phase is a bad thing.

I'm not sure where they stand on that today, but I haven't heard of any changes.

Oops, here's a change:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mainboards/display/asus-p4p800s_2.html

Asus is now on three phase, at least for Intel. Looks like they still use a 2 phase system on the A7N8X-X:
http://www.devhardware.com/c/a/Motherboards/Asus-A7N8X-X/4/

[SysCrusher]

Stupid question. I know nothing of electronics or electrical other than my house. What about changing out the caps for bigger better ones? Maybe faster switching mosfets?

[bigben2k]

The problem is that it adds to the load, on startup. Otherwise it won't have any beneficial effects, since they wouldn't filter out anything, really: they're just there to pickup the transients on the phase switches (from my limited understanding).

[Brians256]

Stupid question. I know nothing of electronics or electrical other than my house. What about changing out the caps for bigger better ones? Maybe faster switching mosfets?

Well, this is not my field (fascinating as it is), but I believe that you cannot replace these caps with bulk capacitance units and get good results.

One factor that I know of is ESR. ESR is equivalent series resistance. It is the amount of resistance current encounters going in and out of the capacitor. So, at high frequencies, it means that slows down the filling and emptying of the capacitor. When a capacitor is used as a filter (to keep voltage steady instead of choppy), it lets high-frequency waves exist instead of smoothing them out. High capacitance caps usually have high ESR, so they are good at delivering large quantities of current, but not instantaneously. They handle low frequency high magnitude ripples.

Also, adding bulk capacitance could interfere with startup. Large capacitors act like a low resistance (ESR) short to ground until they are "filled". So, excessive capacitance can actually burn out or at least stress the circuitry leading up to them. Modern DC-DC controllers probably have a soft start algorithm though I'm not sure if this would completely take care of this issue.

This is just scratching the surface. The output filter is actually designed as an LC filter, and it is tuned for the given components. The output filter should be modelled to see what values *should* be there. Increasing C might be good if you change the inductance value at the same time. Go up or down? You know the answer to that? I'd have to look it up and then trust that I'm reading the book right. A more effective filter might actually be more complicated than an LC filter. How many nodes do you want to involve in the filter?

My hope is that we'll convince someone smart like Groth to add some tidbits here and there, although I think he's on record as saying we're too uneducated to actually make a positive difference on this area of a mobo without getting lucky.


You have no idea what you are doing. Buy a quality board to begin with or get an EE degree.


:D
Get an EE degree

[nicozeg]

thats the thing that needs to be reduced. switch transients increase a lot at high power demand, and can make a noise big enough to mess cpu signals.

[jaydee]

Stupid question. I know nothing of electronics or electrical other than my house. What about changing out the caps for bigger better ones? Maybe faster switching mosfets?
Not sure but faster switching mosfets may **** up the drivers. I think I read that in the quotes.


But if you replace the MOSFETs, and you happen to find low side switches with too high gate charge, the existing drivers may be unable to deal with them, and so you are screwed. Drivers can be tough, depending on whether or not they are standard. There is a fairly standard SO-8 format for driver pinouts that is ignored as often as it is accepted.

Maybe that dosn't have anything to do with faster switching mosfets though.

Looks like Brian covered the caps.

Interesting thread.

[Groth]

Originally Posted by Groth-Clone

You have no idea what you are doing. Buy a quality board to begin with or get an EE degree.

Hey! I can come up with stupid and insulting things to say all on my own! :p

I'm no expert by any means, but...

Like the guy Brian quoted earlier, changing the MOSFETs may save you little heat, but it won't appreciably affect Vcore quality. The only effect that might be noticable would be a decrease in ground float at high currents, sort of a small scale droop-mod.

Forget changing the inductors. Not only are they a total bitch to remove (yes, I've done it) but their value is largely determined by the switching freqency (which you can't change). If you want to change 'em anyway, you've got a compromise: lower values will reduce the transients caused by changes in power demand, but store less energy so you get more ripple during constant demand. Higer values give smoother power during constant demand, but bigger transients when demand changes.

The active-droop that Intel specs call for (and people mod to remove) is to help deal with these inductor transients. Reduce the Vcore under load so the high voltage transient from going to idle doesn't kill, increase Vcore at idle so the low voltage transient from going to load doesn't cause crashes.

For the caps, not only the capacitance value and ESR need watching, but the ESL (effective series inductance). Electrolytic caps are rolled, so they always have some inductance, but it's harder than hell to get numbers. Like ESR, ESL will limit the caps ability to absorb a transient, and also allow noise at a specific frequency through, noise than needs to be killed (with a ceramic cap near the CPU, usually).

If you want to play with the caps, add more in parallel instead of replacing (kinda like the engineer who talked about leaving unstuffed holes he could fill at home :) ). Paralleling increases capacitance and decreases ESR and ESL, so you're not likely to cause problems (if you keep the leads short).

Realistically, you're unlikely to make any positive changes.

[freecableguy]

Forget changing the inductors. Not only are they a total bitch to remove (yes, I've done it) but their value is largely determined by the switching freqency (which you can't change).

Untrue! I can show you EXACTLY how to change the switching frequency! It involves changing ONE SMT resistor for the PWM controller. Couldn't be easier. Now, would I suggest doing this....no, not really...

[nicozeg]

Untrue! I can show you EXACTLY how to change the switching frequency! It involves changing ONE SMT resistor for the PWM controller. Couldn't be easier. Now, would I suggest doing this....no, not really...

That's interesting. It would not be the firt time i solder an smd for a volt mod :D

now the question is wich way is usefull to go when in an amp hungry overclocked situation? Higher or lower frecuency?

[Groth]

Okay, yeah some VRM controllers use external caps and/or resistors to set the frequency.

Lower frequencies will mean cooler MOSFETs and inductors, but more ripple and transients. Higher will mean more heat and a smoother output. But if your inductors get too hot, thermal runaway and everything dies.

[zoson]

Reading this, my 8k7a+ came to mind... :O 2 phase power... It's a small wonder the board blew up so many times, and it's a miracle that it ran so fast.

You know what? Everyone bitches about keeping the mofets cool at high frequency. Yet we already see MANY motherboard manufacturers adding cooling solutions to them. This brings up an interesting question: Are the power designs going to get even worse simply because we're treating symptoms with brute force cooling? "hey! we can save money by making a two phase solution again and cooling it with an obnoxious 'overclocking' feature!"

This also opens up an interesting new DIY idea for those who have the experience. Can we get schematics for these power supplies, and can we effectively analyze and FIX the problem ourselves? Personally, when I was taking VLSI I could barely follow the examples our professor gave. I can't imagine having to look at a design I know nothing about and fix it.

[freecableguy]

Information for the PWM controller and buck/boost controllers for the MOSFETs are amazingly simple to follow. The best thing I have found to keep the MOSFETs cool has been the installation of a TEC to my system. Since they are located so close to the CPU the board actually keeps them at 20C or below. Amazingly simple....plus I have used AS epoxy and heatsinks on them (Al) with a big 12cm fan providing about 80CFM to them...

[DrMemory]

Okay, yeah some VRM controllers use external caps and/or resistors to set the frequency.

Lower frequencies will mean cooler MOSFETs and inductors, but more ripple and transients. Higher will mean more heat and a smoother output. But if your inductors get too hot, thermal runaway and everything dies.


Resistance in the inductor windings increases with temperature. When the resistance increases, current decreases and temperature goes down. They can't go into thermal runaway. MOSFETS are also immune to thermal runaway. However higher MOSFET temperatures mean less current from the power supply and a decrease in output voltage if the CPU needs more current can be supplied.

Another way to decrease MOSFET temperatures is to replace the ones on the motherboard with ones with lowest RSDON. These cost more which is why the best ones may not be used on motherboards. If all the other MOSFET parameters are the same, this should cause no problems.

[Groth]

The permitivity of ferrites changes with temperature. Get it too hot and more of the energy that is intended to be stored magnetically will be lost as heat, temperatures rises, more is lost to heat, etc.

[DrMemory]

Interesting. I've never heard of thermal runaway in magnetic circuits. But then I've done very little research or work with magnetics in power circuits.

[Groth]

I'm no magnetics expert either, those stupid B's and H's and how they interact really messes with my brain.

[KnightElite]

No kidding. I'm taking a Power Systems class and a Magnetic circuits class right now ;). Power Electronics is coming up either next term or next year, can't remember.

Fun fun fun... ;).

Nice thread you found Brian, interesting discussion thus far.

[zoson]

What I was getting at freecableguy is the possibility of adding more phases to the power supply via a secondary PCB attached creatively to the existing power supply on the mainboard. We did see ASUS do something similar to this for THG and their 100 Amp modification for their a7n8x deluxe.

[Groth]

I have seen two phase boards where the VRM controller was capable of three and four phase. The fun will be getting the MOSFET driver that matches the controller IC. And if you can't get MOSFETs and inductors that match the existing ones, you'll have to swap out the ones on the mobo.

Probably easier/cheaper just to buy a good board to begin with.

[jimmyswimmy]

Wow, I am such a narcissist, I googled myself and this was the first result. I'm honored to be quoted like that. And in case you're asking yourself, does this guy have anything better to do than google himself, it's either this or mow the lawn.

Anyway, I thought it would be fun to drop in. And to respond to a couple things I read here... if anybody is interested. This actually got a lot longer than I expected it to. Guess I wasn't as bored at this job as I thought I was.

1. I realized some of the context is gone, so I'll fill in. Up until a few months ago I designed power supplies for a "leading" semiconductor company. I made reference designs to help out manufacturers. Then I got bored (board, hah!) and changed careers.

2. Motherboard designers don't have time to do much of anything, actually. The designers I worked with wanted me to give THEM a finished design that they could just copy and paste onto their board. The most part of their designs involved cost reduction - literally, removing output capacitors until it blue screened and then putting the last one back (the one that broke the camel's back, so to speak). Crazy.

3. As far as the way designs go, a lot of that is due to poor specifications. It's really hard to specify ESL (equivalent series inductance) of a component, because it's hard to test reliably. So you don't really get that data from manufacturers. Which means your design is pretty much plug and play, the hard way.

4. Yeah, changing inductors is a cast-iron bitch. I did it EVERY day and was never happier when I could get my technician to do it for me. The only thing worse is changing thruhole caps -- at least the L's have big holes. It takes forever to clean out those little 30 mil cap holes.

5. Changing switching frequency is easy. Like someone here said, it's almost always just a smd resistor. Could be a cap but you don't see that much. Almost all the parts are Intersil (HIP6xxx) or Analog Devices, can't remember their part numbers. ON Semi makes some, but you don't see them much lately, same with Fairchild. Richtek is the dirty cheap solution, as I recall. But AD and ISL are the big players of late.

6. For the real adventurous types, you can change the droop/AVP/active blah blah blah, the load line/output resistance whatever you like to call it. That's only a two resistor change, typically. But it totally affects the whole dynamic load response, and you want to be pretty careful about that.

7. The real problem with changing the output caps is all because of this: A modern CPU supply is basically a bunch of parallel inductive current sources. When you go from pulling a 100 amps to almost none, all the energy stored in your inductors (0.5*LI^2 for those following along) must go somewhere. The cheezy way of thinking about that is that you have a bunch of caps (C) and a maximum allowable voltage rise (V) so that the 0.5*LI^2 = 0.5*CV^2... but in practice it's nowhere near that simple. Unfortunately. Or fortunately, because it kept me employed for quite awhile. All of those parasitic elements in the capacitor and in the board result in more than the ideal number of caps.

8. Magnetics design is a royal pain. Besides, the magnetics design interacts so strongly with the rest of the system that you're not done until the whole thing works. Say you pick an operating frequency and inductor design, you might need to reduce the L later to get the dynamic performance in spec. Or you might need to increase the L to get the heat down. And inductor core loss is still a near complete mystery to me. When I need to know it, I look it up on the "nomograph" (chart, but that's what they call it for some reason).

9. Power loss in the MOSFETs is easy to calculate. You can come up with a very good estimate of efficiency before even putting one board together. For the high-side MOSFETs power loss in the existing switch is proportional to switching frequency. For the low-side MOSFET the power loss is only related to frequency by the fact that higher frequency reduces the ripple current... and that gets pretty technical. Anyway when you pick MOSFETs you have to really worry about what the drivers can actually drive (the gate of a FET is basically a capacitor) and how fast it can do so.

10. Component temperatures interact with one another in interesting ways. You can model this with some really expensive software that my company wouldn't buy me (nor budget me the time to use it anyway). I spun many a board just to move some parts around or add thermal vias to reduce maximum temperatures. If you have two heat generating parts next to each other that are each 80 degrees and move them closer, they could be 100 degrees. And then you have to worry about the FR-4 board material "glassifying", which doesn't happen until over 100 degrees but that's not a number you want to get very close to.

10. KnightElite-- power electronics is a huge and rewarding ($) field. Learn it and, more importantly, get your HANDS ON some stuff. Do whatever you have to do to get in a lab. Almost all of electronics is not what the book tells you but rather it is figuring out what parasitic element you didn't count on. You can significantly reduce component stresses (say, peak voltage) through good layout techniques, which you will never learn in a book. Hell, most power product manufacturers neglect this stuff in their datasheets. And also, TI has some pretty good app notes describing buck and boost regulators. Starting from square one... they're basic but a pretty good primer. Oh yeah, don't forget to learn your controls stuff. Loop compensation is pretty essential too.

Well, that was a whole lot of fun. It was really nice to see that some people were interested in the work I used to do. I hope this is useful to someone and will be glad to answer questions if anyone is still interested. And now, since it is an option, I will round out this post with as many barfing smileys as I am allowed.

:drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool:

15 barfing smileys. too sweet.

p.s. Oh yeah, the multiphase thing. Most of the time when a system has multiple phases they are switching in an interleaved fashion, that is, only one phase is on at a time. In fact that's 99% of the time. I once saw a board with four separate power stages which all turned on and off together. Crazy, but dirt cheap. Anyway, if you add an extra parallel power stage, you could actually make things worse. One time I built a three phase board and the stages were not sharing correctly. I had a 90 A load (for this VRM board) and one phase was putting out 15 A, another phase was putting out -10 A, and the other phase was putting out 85 A. I ran it for 10 minutes to "warm up" heh heh heh. (ran out of smileys). A couple things from that. First, when I measured temperature, the inductor was over 250 C. Second, I burned the shit out of my hand. Third, I have never actually seen an inductor turn its paint a different color, have the paint actually fall off, and the inductor break into chunks. I was actually pretty proud of that. The pieces went in a bag and I stuck it on my wall of shame.

So the lesson is, even the so-called "experts" can have trouble with current sharing, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Your board probably works fine. If you want to make it better, add cooling (preferably passive, second choice airflow, third choice heat pipe and way last is liquid/gas cooling... too much mess if it breaks). Don't add extra output capacitors because you could screw up the control system and make the power supply go unstable (KnightElite -- take those controls classes too!).

Later all.

[jaydee]

If you want to make it better, add cooling (preferably passive, second choice airflow, third choice heat pipe and way last is liquid/gas cooling... too much mess if it breaks).
DOH! Vote for immediate ban! :D (joke)

Little off topic but being your here I would like to hear your opinion of where you think CPU's are going heat wise and if air cooling is going to be acceptable in the future.

Glad you stopped by!

P.S. Those are drooling smilies not barfing smilies. All good though.

[peepingdan]

This has been a great read for someone with no knowledge in this field. I work at a small networking equipment company and I see all sorts of this stuff every day but I've never thought about the difficulty involved. Enlightening.

[KnightElite]

Thanks for stopping by. I am in fact taking a control systems class right now as well. Yay transfer functions and feedback loops, etc.... ;).

Very interesting comments though, thanks :D.

[bigben2k]

2. Motherboard designers don't have time to do much of anything, actually. The designers I worked with wanted me to give THEM a finished design that they could just copy and paste onto their board. The most part of their designs involved cost reduction - literally, removing output capacitors until it blue screened and then putting the last one back (the one that broke the camel's back, so to speak). Crazy.

I've got a Q: if caps are removed, what could one expect from adding caps? (I know, it seems obvious).

[Brians256]

Hey! Welcome, jimmyswimmy! Since I work in a tangental industry, I get tantalizing glimpses of both sides of the coin. I play with these mobos at home, and I get to work with semiconductor companies and high-end EEs at work. I write software for DC and RF probing of components and on-wafer devices for a company called Cascade Microtech (we produce wafer probers and some RF software that helps calibrate VNAs).

Anyways, why is the ESL so difficult to measure? Is it because the devices vary so much that a representative sample is difficult to achieve? For example, a VNA can measure complex impedance of a device very easily although it is both complex and variant with frequency. The software I'm working on right now has a marker to display inductance (among other things) at a frequency of a smith chart and the ability to show inductance vs. frequency (or vs other things). With a decent modelling program, you should be able to deconstruct a lumped-element model of the device fairly easily and then publish it. No more than a couple days work per device (assuming you have a stable methodology), right?


I've got a Q: if caps are removed, what could one expect from adding caps? (I know, it seems obvious).

I'm guessing that it depends very much on the characteristics of cap(s) you add. Unless you know the original design, you could add too much capacitance and throw the control system into instability. Or, adding caps with too much ESL could cause problems when the CPU changes current demand. Or it could be just fine. One of the things I'm learning about with the microwave design stuff I'm working on is that capacitance and inductance both affect the relationship of current and voltage of a signal (in opposite directions though). I think you could end up causing resonance because of newly added capacitance interacting with the control system's feedback loop. For those of you who actually know, please forgive my stumbling attempts here. I get paid for writing software, not EE.

My guess is that adding a bit of low ESR capacitance would help out in most implementations, but that adding bulk capacitance could be BadJuju(tm) in edge cases where current demands change rapidly.

As for having the tools to test a design... I probably come closer than most to having the tools. We have scopes and high-bandwidth VNAs here at work. But I don't know how to use the scopes, to be honest. The only reason I know how to use the VNAs is that I'm writing SW to use them and I blackmailed some EEs to teach me a bit about their theory (and I read "Practical Microwaves" by Thomas S. Laverghetta). How would you test a design modification? Would you model it after doing some component analysis or just throw a mod together and set a triggers on the scope to watch for anomalous events like voltage droop/spike?

[greenman100]

awesome comments indeed

so would there be any benefit to adding capacitors in parallel to those existing on say, an NF7-S?

[jimmyswimmy]

I would like to hear your opinion of where you think CPU's are going heat wise and if air cooling is going to be acceptable in the future.

Well, this is all IMHO, but I haven't gotten the idea from the manufacturers I worked with that they wanted to spend more money on ANYTHING. So at least in the near future, next couple years, I would not imagine that you will see systems shipped with anything more than passive or air cooling equipment included.

If you look at the trends of electrical specifications for most processors over the past several years you will see that they are heading to where that will no longer work. Looking at my 6 month old Dell, which has a 2.8GHz P4, I see that there is some ductwork to vent the processor heat outside of the case, and that tells me that there is concern over the amount of heat generated by the CPU.

I can tell you for certain that motherboard manufacturers hate the fact that they have to spend so much on doing something as "boring" as providing power to the CPU, and the rising percentage of cost on the motherboard that entails. I'd be surprised if they weren't demanding of Intel that they do something about it. But Intel is basically fighting the laws of physics...

So I would say that for the next couple years (IMNSHO, I suppose) you're gonna see more inventive approaches to the same old airflow solution, but if there is not a more thorough change to the way processors are made than you might start to see some active cooling approaches. What that entails... I have no idea.

Hope that's helpful!

[jimmyswimmy]

I've got a Q: if caps are removed, what could one expect from adding caps? (I know, it seems obvious).

Hi BigBen!

Well, it gets a bit technical. I sort of vacillate between telling people to add extra caps and telling them that it could be bad. The specs require that the system be stable for something like zero to 30,000 uF of caps, I think, which is pretty ridiculous since at zero it might be stable but it will also destroy your CPU. And there is a spec for ESR as well, which I can't remember. Should be available online. Anyway...

If you change the system too much you can, in theory, get it to where it will no longer be stable. There was one controller vendor that depended on the tiny amount of ripple on the output voltage, and so for that one, if you added too much filtering (more caps, essentially) there would be no ripple and it would lose its mind. For the other vendors' parts, depending on the control mode, you could have the same result.

What do I mean by stable? Well, providing the constant output voltage at the programmed load line, within specified limits. To use an idiotic and simple analogy, I am stable for most inputs; I can remain standing if you give me a little shove. But if you give me a huge push, I will go unstable -- first I'll fall over, then I'll get up and try to return the favor. In a similar way, if you push the controller outside its limits, you could receive an unpleasant surprise.

A well-designed control system will have enough extra margin that you could probably get away with a few little changes. So if you're not too worried about toasting that new motherboard and processor, go for it, see what happens, it will "probably" be all right (standard disclaimer: it might not be all right, too; do not taunt super happy funball; always wear your seat belt; product may contain nuts)

KnightElite is learning the basics of this unpleasant specialty right now. Perhaps he can offer a more intelligent analogy. Technically speaking, in a voltage-mode control topology, the ESR zero will alter your phase margin when you use a Type II (2 poles, 1 zero) or Type III (3 poles, 2 zeros) compensation. If you really lower ESR significantly, the ESR zero will move right, which could change the bandwidth of your power system.

Hope that's at least a little useful. Oh yeah, forgot my "drooly" smileys. I'm telling you, those guys are puking. :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool:

[jimmyswimmy]

Hi Brians,

Neat response. Now I have to think!

Okay, let's see.... first, off sounds like a great job.


Anyways, why is the ESL so difficult to measure?

Well, it's not impossible to measure by any means. My tech used to do it for me all the time. What used to kill me was that the measurement is so dependent on a good board layout, proper probe placement (say THAT five times fast) and the like. You are basically trying to find V = L * di/dt, where you program di/dt (the current slope) and measure the resulting V to determine L. Since we're talking an L in the nH range, you need either a huuuuuuge di/dt (which is not a great idea in production testing) or the capability to measure small V (back to my point of good layout and probes), not a preferred thing to do in production.

So I'm talking about soldering devices to boards to make this measurement, which means a production sampling program, and those pesky manufacturers never seem to want to do that. It was only a couple years ago that they started specifying a max ESR on datasheets, and that's the kind of information needed to do a proper design.

I used to have a nice HP impedance analyzer, it came in pretty handy a bunch of times. Still couldn't make reproduceable measurements of those nH level inductances though.

One of the things I'm learning about with the microwave design stuff I'm working on is that capacitance and inductance both affect the relationship of current and voltage of a signal (in opposite directions though).

ELI the ICEman, huh? I always liked that one. Voltage (called EMF by the old-timers, thus the 'E') leads current (I... no idea why it's an 'I', actually) in an inductive circuit, and vice-versa for a capacitive circuit. Good stuff. Pretty much a good description too.

How would you test a design modification? Would you model it after doing some component analysis or just throw a mod together and set a triggers on the scope to watch for anomalous events like voltage droop/spike?

So, right on both counts. To find the right design in the first place, you do a paper design. Usually more of an Excel design these days, since it's a bunch of mind-numbingly simple calculations that all depend on one another. So you pick everything and figure out where to start, and then build it.

And once it's built, you tweak it to your heart's content, because the paper design never seems to take into account all of the things you forgot or didn't know. :shrug: And then, time permitting, you go back and model it on some variant of SPICE and see how it handles boundary conditions.

Believe it or not, it's significantly faster to build, tweak and test a board than it is to model it. I find modeling most useful when I need to see either gross functionality of something untested, or edge conditions that I simply cannot obtain in real life (where did I put that 3781.22 uF capacitor, anyway???)

So, the guys who do this for a living have a neat little contraption that plugs in the same socket as the real processor. I had that 478 pin mother for a while, and now they've got some even more fancy stuff out with more pins and a pretty crazy hook up; don't know if those have hit the shelves yet. Anyway, all this thing does is turn on and turn off, real fast, and suck out as much power as possible. So that's what they use. It's a neat little computer-controlled device, and it gets damaged way too easily. I'd tell you that you can build your own, but it's pretty tough work, and the parts are expensive.

Hope that was useful. So hey, try to push those engineers to make the UI easy to use. I have a spectrum analyzer at my new job where the buttons are all the same size and grouped together, wait for it, ALPHABETICALLY. A nice idea, but annoying as hell. I can never remember how to use the damn thing, because I can't even rely on muscle memory to help out. I have to get out the book. It's annoying. Personally I love those Tek scopes with tons of different size and shape buttons and knobs... ah, a whole different discussion.

Hope that's interesting...!

[KnightElite]

I agree about the scope, Tektronix TDS3012A = best scope ever ;). Best I have used, anyway :D.

[Starman97]

I hear you on the weirdities of inductors.

Most Mobos use those nice wound core units, they're so forgiving,
they air cool nicely too.

For real fun, try some of the SMT inductors, the Panasonics are
really good, but there are several shell types, and each has different
loss and inductance variation over temp characteristics. But then, I'm
using a 28V Vin and trying to get to CPU core voltage.

The hottest parts in my designs are the inductors, the FETs couple
so well to the PCB with the Power-SO-8 packages that I dont worry
about them any more. Even a 5% duty on the high side isnt bad at 500KHz
amazing new parts out now.

Stabilizing the loop.. UGH
I've gone to current-mode parts from LTC, had such a bad time with the old style parts.

[Brians256]

jimmy, thanks for all your posts. It's definitely fascinating to see some of what really goes on and just how practical it might be for us (as nerdy consumers) to restore some of the safety margins to these designs.