Actually its quite simple: Ohms Law is R = U/I and the Power is P = U*I, so the Power Dissipation of a Resistor is P = R * I^2.
As a basic model let´s say a chip component has a fixed resistance.
Now if you clock a chip you move electrical charge around. The current I is how much charge you move around per time, I = Q/t.
So for one clock you move a certain amount of charge, if you double the clock you have to move twice the amount of charge in the same time, the average current I doubles. So does the power dissipation by P = R * I^2.

So this is a very simple model, but I guess it should make it clear that with a finite resistance R and a technology that moves electric charge, there is no chip that has zero power dissipation.
Or what do you mean with 100% efficiency?

All PCs are 0% efficient. All the power they draw comes to heat, as far as I know. Sorry, dude, that's how physics work. From thermodynamics standpoint efficiency equals effective power divided by drawn power. And effective power is always zero for a CPU - it does not move or accumulate charge, it only dissipates whatever comes to it, while doing all the stuff.

And considering Global Warming, you've got it all wrong. It's about fighting for the ozone layer - by prohibiting the use of high-GBP refrigerants, for example. It's all about making everything ecology-friendly mainly from chemical standpoint - reducing factory waste, automobile waste, etc.

And even if this heat did count, it is but a drop in the ocean. You'd be surprised to know that YOUR BODY produces 100W of heat when you are idle and up to 400W of heat under heavy working load. It's got lower potential (temperature), so you hardly notice. And don't get me started on laser printers, lamps, automobiles, etc. 😀

it's not that they are have too much power, it has more to due with all the friction the billions of transistors and the electrons flowing through them are generating. just because to has no moving parts doesn't mean there isn't friction. Think of all those trillions of atoms moving around in side a chip, you can't imagine it's insane. 🤣 That heat is then conducted in to a heat sink then radiated in to the air push out in to the pc.

What RacoonRider said,
All energy remains, but it changes form. Mild heat is the usual less valuable form of energy at the end of the line.

Kerr Avon wrote:

I know nothing of CPU design or building, it might as well be magic to me

cdoublejj wrote:

it's not that they are have too much power, it has more to due with all the friction the billions of transistors and the electrons flowing through them are generating. just because to has no moving parts doesn't mean there isn't friction.

It's not exactly "friction", but we could quibble over terminology all day.

well lets say that is for lack of more and better words.

In the future when processors begin to rival the human brain in brute power [number of operations/sec etc.], the amount of cooling will be phenomenal using current techniques. I forget the author and book that explained it, but a brain-sized processor would need the equivalent of a power station water coolant system to operate - like a torrent of 1000's gallons per minute streaming over it.

I'll track the quote/book down later - was it Dennett or Dawkins? But the point is residual heat is not simply a 'side effect' but a major conceptual and design constraint going forward.

Obviously that number would have been calculated with respect to the efficiency of CPUs from the time it was written. CPUs have been getting more efficient, and clearly it's possible for a computing device to compute as well as the brain without dumping that much waste heat. The brain does it after all.

There are thermodynamic limits to how efficient a calculation can be (the Landauer limit) , but we're not anywhere near it.

Hatta wrote:

Obviously that number would have been calculated with respect to the efficiency of CPUs from the time it was written.

yes, the work dates back 10 years or so if I recall. None the less dealing with heat intrinsic to electrical operations is still the issue. And it makes biological brains all the more astounding when considered just from this perspective alone.

Co2 pollutes the earth adding to global warming, humans exhale it.
But we cant decrease the number of total humans on earth.

JaNoZ wrote:

But we cant decrease the number of total humans on earth.

We can... but it's unethical and it won't be pretty. I don't think human's are directly responsible ( As in, all of us are creating to much C02 our selves), its from the by product of human innovations.

Double Post.

Don't worry, when climate change really kicks in in a few decades the population of the Earth will reduce itself. The modern era of peace and prosperity is a temporary artifact of abundant energy and resources. Once the fossil fuels run out and the planet chokes on our exhaust, wars for resources will be the bulk of human activity until the population reduces to a sustainable level.

Hatta wrote:

Don't worry, when climate change really kicks in in a few decades the population of the Earth will reduce itself. The modern era of peace and prosperity is a temporary artifact of abundant energy and resources. Once the fossil fuels run out and the planet chokes on our exhaust, wars for resources will be the bulk of human activity until the population reduces to a sustainable level.

That's when our substantial fallout experience finally pays off!

As stated, electronic components will always produce heat, its the counter effect product.
If you think this is a major factor on global warming, than thats just dumb.

The way earth is designed is if its too hot, it quickly cools down. Common example is extremely hot summer weather that attracts rain clouds that regulate the temperature.

People need to stop focusing on lesser non important aspects of global warming and focus on stopping so much ozone pollution.
As for CO2, plants use it, and they also create it.
Humans are the least of your problems when it comes to CO2 pollution.

Meme > Lets not ban fossil fuel miss usage and inefficiency and kill ALL humans!

Yeah, it's not the waste heat that's the problem. It's the CO2 that's generated when you produce that power in the first place that's the problem. That CO2 traps more heat than is generated by the combustion of fossil fuels.

The rest of your post is venturing into truther territory. The Earth isn't designed at all, it's just a big rock subject to the laws of physics. Hot weather doesn't "attract rainclouds"(I don't even know where you got that from). And the Earth can't cool down quickly, it's sitting in a vacuum. You know, like the vacuum in your thermos that keeps your coffee hot. And humanity is definitely the cause of most of the increase in CO2. Plants produce CO2, but we've released hundreds of millions of years worth of CO2 that's been sequestered underground.

The scientific consensus is overwhelming that anthropogenic is the major contributor to the increased concentrations of CO2. The increase started when we started burning fossil fuels, CO2 levels correlate highly with fossil fuel use, the isotope ratios are consistent with ancient carbon, and no other source (plants, volcanos, ocean outgassing) produces enough CO2 to account for it.

Unfortunately, banning fossil fuels isn't going to solve the problem. Banning fossil fuels means we can't fix nitrogen for fertilizer anymore, which means we'd be losing about half of the world's food production. Banning fossil fuels means we have to rely less on machines, and more on human labor, which means the cost of everything will skyrocket. That's going to lead to massive social unrest any way you slice it. I don't think there's any way around it. In economics terms, the humanity bubble is going to pop, and a major correction is going to occur. I hope I don't live to see it.

But this is getting increasingly off topic. Sorry about that.

Don't ban it, use it smart. Since when did banning anything prove more efficient than educating?
And by designed i of course mean the way it functions following the laws of physics.

The quote I was looking for was Eric Drexler's "Engines of Creation: The coming era of Nanotechnology", and I was incorrect about the date, it's earlier, 1986. In Ch.5 he describes the basic character of a brain-like processor:

"...Only cooling problems might limit such machines to slower average speeds. Imagine a conservative design, a millionfold faster than a brain and dissipating a millionfold more heat. The system consists of an assembler-built block of sapphire the size of a coffee mug, honeycombed with circuit-lined cooling channels. A high-pressure water pipe of equal diameter is bolted to its top, forcing cooling water through the channels to a similar drainpipe leaving the bottom. Hefty power cables and bundles of optical-fiber data channels trail from its sides.

The cables supply fifteen megawatts of electric power. The drainpipe carries the resulting heat away in a three-ton-per-minute flow of boiling-hot water. The optical fiber bundles carry as much data as a million television channels. They bear communications with other AI systems, with engineering simulators, and with assembler systems that build designs for final testing. Every ten seconds, the system gobbles almost two kilowatt-days of electric energy (now worth about a dollar). Every ten seconds, the system completes as much design work as a human engineer working eight hours a day for a year (now worth tens of thousands of dollars). In an hour, it completes the work of centuries. For all its activity, the system works in a silence broken only by the rush of cooling water."

Let's be generous and say this brain computer is using 286 CPUs. 386s were available in 1986, but in 16 bit they were slower than a 286 at the same speed. Wikipedia says a 12mhz 286 does 2.66 MIPS, and cpu-world says a 12mhz 286 draws 3.3W max. 15MW can power 4.5 million 286s, for ~121 trillion IPS.

Todays i7 processors do more like 128300 MIPS at 3.4 GHz dissipating 95W (i2600K). 121 trillion IPS would require only 94 i7 CPUs, consuming 8.9kW. How times change!