Typo, should be kW. The figures are from Nokia’s technical documents, which you can browse yourself if you know the sites where telecom catalogs are archived. However, you won’t get much out of those documents unless you know the context. You’re trying hard to provoke me into revealing my background, but that’s not going to happen.
No shit Sherlock. Every new nodeB/baseband generation uses newer technology and is designed to provide more capacity within the margins allowed by the thermal budget set by electromechanics. Part of this additional capacity is consumed by increased functionality (and SW complexity), part by traffic growth.
Existing Nvidia GPU/CPU units cannot be installed in an AirScale nodeB configuration if there’s no room in the thermal budget. Creating space in the thermal budget is not trivial for configurations in operational use (practically rip-and-replace).
I’m not going to criticize others’ comments, but I will correct them if they are anything other than opinions. Naturally, this annoys people who, as laymen (as you’ve described yourself), don’t know the subject and believe they’ve found some new technical angle to hype Nokia’s excellence and raise their own profile.
Energy consumption is not just a cost for the operator. A more important perspective for the operator is hardware reliability as processing increases and turns into heat. For example, in the Indian 5G market, Nokia has had challenges with outdoor units, and the attempt to improve airflow didn’t go quite right. But I’ll leave that story untold, because it’s too negative for you (too).