On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 06:56:09 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:25:40 GMT
(Thunder9) wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:45:11 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 22:41:00 GMT
kony wrote:

On 9 Oct 2003 10:12:09 -0700, (MikeW) wrote:


And what's this obsession with undervolting. I can see not
wanting to overclock, but if you run the chips as designed, you can
probably keep them cool enough without too much noise, with
intelligent case/cooling system design.

Why not undervolt? So long as it's not such a low voltage to
intruduce instability there's nothing but benefit to it... due to
the way Intel tiers their CPUs in voltage groups, almost all of 'em
but the early releases at the highest speeds (per core revision) can
run undervolted, even overclocked up to a point.

It's like overclocking I guess--some people do it because they can.
With passive coolers available for every processor currently on the
market though there's no need to do it to achieve a quiet machine
though.

Wrong. The need is based on the cost and weight of the passive
coolers compared to ease of undervolting along with a low noise fan.

It is customary to put all of your thoughts concerning a particular post
in a single response to that post.

Apologies. I got so lost in all your incorrect, irrelevent remarks
that I lost my place. I should be more careful in the future.

Fine, forget passive coolers. Please explain why you are unable to cool
your 2.4 GHz P4 with an off-the-shelf heat sink and a Papst 8412NGL
without undervolting.

I clearly stated this is my first home built system, and its proposed.
I will attempt to cool it with off-the-shelf items, perhaps the one
you suggest. If that works I'll be happy as a camper because I won't
need to undervolt and risk stability issues as you have pointed out.

Regards,
Thunder9