Re: Die Simulator vs. CPU Article Discussion
 

The software is FEMLAB 3.1, or as it is called now in the later version Comsol Multiphysics.

I have some limited access to it through my work where we have a rather restrictive single user network licence. So I do not have totally free access to it.

At this point I am treating it as training. The people available who are actually able to use this software with any competence are few and far between. I do not count myself as one of them.

The problem with this type of modelling is that a very in depth knowledge is required of the problem itself before anything meaningful can be created, a bit of a chicken/egg scenario.

Re: Die Simulator vs. CPU Article Discussion
 

Just looked at that website and it appears they have no prices. In other words, it is so expensive that if you are bothered by the price, you probably can't afford it. :(

Oh, and I can see how you could very easily mislead yourself with a modelling tool like this. It's very much the same in other areas such as EM RF modelling.

Re: Die Simulator vs. CPU Article Discussion
 

Exactly, it's in the region of $10000 depending on licence.
The extra modules are ~$4000 each. At least in Sweden, not sure about the US.

Re: Die Simulator vs. CPU Article Discussion
 

Nugit found this article
http://www.frostytech.com/articlevie...articleID=1915
and Nov 05
http://download.intel.com/design/Pen...s/30255304.pdf

Re: Die Simulator vs. CPU Article Discussion
 

Another snapshot of some of Incoherent's work.
Possibly the most interesting features are the "Delta T"s across the TIM.
Due to the exploratory nature of the work, more than one variable are considered.
It is thought,however,that the difference in TIMs is due to the Heat-Flux-rate distribution.

Re: Die Simulator vs. CPU Article Discussion
 

Am following up on some threads; any progress here?

Re: Die Simulator vs. CPU Article Discussion
 

just spoke with Les, he is/will be in contact with Inco

where the hell is Groth ?