If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:49:59 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote: Please link a passive cooler that doesn't require a dedicated fan/airflow as I described. http://www.silentpcreview.com/module...e=Sections&fil e=index&req=viewarticle&artid=114&page=1 Ok, but the expense and unique system layout will prohibit it's use in most systems. Unfortunately cost dictates most design decisions the most. Nobody knows that Intel runs cooler, it's been untrue from the point when AMD stopped making Palominos. Lighten up, OK? Hmmm. Sometimes my writing seems easy to misinterpret... That's the problem with usenet, you can't see the expressions on the faces of those doing the writing... large amounts of info are condensed into a few words to reduce post size and it comes out reading less friendly when it wasn't meant to. OK, and that is near the ceiling speed of the given core, which as I wrote just below this, could need that stock voltage for AMD to likewise get a good yield. Uh, you miss the point--you are not going to get anything to run quieter than that by undervolting. You mean quieter than that special, unusal, expensive heatsink you linked, right? I'm not talking theory here, I'm talking practice... in practice I've undervolted MANY different CPUs to cheaply and easily get the needed performance per the specific appliction. Granted these were usually special-purpose systems. Remember something about that passive cooler you linked- It is quite likely to make the motherboard run hotter, have a shorter lifespan. Products are designed to make $, not necessarily to benefit users, only give the IMPRESSION of benefit to users. Sometimes that impression is larger than the real benefit, or ignores the detriments. CPUs can run pretty hot with no problems, so long as stable, but motherboards benefit from the reduced power supply to CPU, reduced heat from CPU exhaust, and cooler resulting air. There are two most common failure points I see on modern systems (excluding defect and power surges)- Capacitors wearing out and fan failure. I have STACKS of systems that have failed in this way. Sometimes I'll replace the caps and have a board as good as new again. These are not any of those defective caps from Taiwan often mentioned. Reread what I wrote just above this paragraph. Engineers do NOT choose the voltage that particular CPU needs to run, Please provide a link to a statement by an engineer working for Intel that that is the case for the P4. Please provide a link to a statement by an engineer working for Intel that the P4 can only run stabily at the spec'd voltage. The spec'd voltage is that at which Intel guarantees, warranties the part to run at spec'd speed. Even using a different cooler voids Intel's guarantee, but you seem to think a different cooler is OK. I don't need theories or statements, I've observed it myself many times, and seen others have success in addition to plenty of reports of it all over the 'net. I don't seek Intel's statements because I have DIRECT evidence of it already. Systems I've set up undervolted have run completely stable, including months, even over a year (maybe two by now) of continuous uptime... Systems that have no instability in actual operation or testing. they set the voltage for a family, subgoup of CPUs, you are not second-guessing them when the spec'd operating voltage is offset like this. If you are using a voltage other than the one that they tell you to use then you are indeed second-guessing them. No, a guess is only a guess until you have plenty of evidence. I have machines in my own home running undervolted right now. I will repeat that Intel's engineers are NOT specifing the minimum voltage possible for stable operation, in their own minds. They do not test each CPU for undervoltage operation, only spec a voltage for entire groups of CPUs. Some CPUs DO need the spec'd voltage but others don't. Knowledge and/or experience with the given CPU can be needed. And where do you get that "knowledge"? My own testing, other's testing, all over the place... Experience... like everything else in life. This is common knowledge for many years. I'll let you do your own Google search instead of re-educating you myself. Nope, doesn't work that way, you made the assertion it's up to you to back it up. No, I stated what I know to be fact. Constantly reproving what is fact is a wasteful endevor. I could similarly aruge that when you disagree, you must provide evidence that it is required to operate the CPU at the exact spec'd voltage. It is not my burden to educate someone. I already know it's a fact because I've proven it time and time again, by actually doing it, as have others. The primary reason people don't as often undervolt is that they're looking to INCREASE performance, not looking for cooler operation at the same performance or lowering performance a little for even more heat reduction. The primary reason that "people don't as often undervolt" is that there is no percieved need for it. Perception is subjective. Nobody is forced to undervolt. Nobody is forced to build their own computer either. I have seen no "evidence". I have seen you make some unsupported assertions. Again, it is not my burden to educate, it is a choice, and I choose not to do so because you can find this info with Google search or asking in many hardware forums. I am perfectly content leaving you to disbelieve while my undervolted systems continue to work great, as do other's systems. You are assuming it can't be done, without doing any research, even after you've (so far) only received feedback that it CAN be done. As for "reasonable", that depends on the user... for some people it's reasonable to have a system sounding like a leaf-blower, but for others it's unfortunate when they have to replace their failed P2 system. I see. So the alternatives are to undervolt or to "sound like a leaf blower"? Sorry, but now you're engaging in hyperbole. No, it was an example of what some consider reasonable. There are a number of heat sinks on the market which can be used to cool any processor currently in production using the quietest fans currently in production, without operating the processor at a voltage level outside the specified range. Yes, again these are usually rather expensive, not always fitting on the motherboard. A better heatsink or quieter fan IS one alternative, but not the only alternative. "Obsolete" is relative to the users needs, but also the overall speed of the system, and the capabilities of the OS it can effectively run. Many people need a minimal level of basic function that requires faster than a couple hundred MHz CPU, but moving forward to today, a 3GHz system could be useful to them for much longer than it'll last. So how many users _are_ still running 1975-vintage CP/M machines? And yet those motherboards, running at full specified voltage, are still going strong. Reread what I wrote. I specifically mentioned a minimum level of performance needed, which would be exceeded by huge margin with a 3GHz system. Low-powered systems do not need voltage reduction as much, the power-density of the system is lower... see the commonality here? By reducing the voltage, you're coming nearer to a low-powered system. Go read capacitor manufacturer's spec sheets if you think it doesn't matter. I don't need to provide a link because you can pick any manufacturer you wish, go to their website... for example the caps on your best motherboard. In other words you don't have a link that supports your assertion. I don't need to prove it to anyone because I have/had, dozens of systems running fine undervolted. Again, it doesn't matter to me if you agree, because at this very monent plenty of people use undervolted systems. If I wrote that there is a sun in the sky, and you disagreed, would I really need to prove it? Instead I tell you to "look up". Likewise, here I tell you to "look IT up". s? Energy consumption of the CPU is proportional to the square of the voltage. It's not a huge difference, but IS a significant difference. Do the math yourself, see Intel's spec sheet and calculate out how much power reduction results from a given voltage drop. Typical results can be from 5-25 percent reduction, but depend on the CPU core, speed it's running. A 3.2GHz P4 isn't going to tolerate as much voltage drop as a 2.5GHz for example. Please be kind enough to provide a link to this spec sheet. http://www.intel.com Current Intel CPUs run hotter at full load. Read the spec sheets, they're on the respective manufacturer's websites. At idle a P4 "can" run cooler, but the system must run at up to full-load also. I see. Intel CPUs runn hotter at full load? So an Intel CPU with a Vapochill attached will run hotter than an Athlon with no heat sink? Since you aren't interested in meaningful comparisions, what's the point? Now, would you care to use a term that is more precise than "run hotter"? "Temperature" As I've already mentioned in the prevous post, an entire education about undervolting CPUs is beyond the scope of a newsgroup post or even a few links. I wasn't trying to be rude, just stating that the volume of information is large and make take anyone some time to digest. Both Intel and AMD provide specs on their processors... go to their websites and read the spec sheets. I used to have an XP1600 running at 1.6V, o'c to 1.6 GHz. The main reason you don't see many people undervolting, is that typically the knowledge gained towards understanding the frequency/voltage relationship, is gained as a result of a desire to o'c the CPU as much as reasonably possible. You're repeating yourself. Sometimes it's needed, when someone doesn't seem to realize what's already be stated... Which is greater- Merely having a theory based on a spec sheet, narrowly interpreted, or actually having many working demonstrations of it? I have many working systems undervolted, as do others. They run fine so long as the voltage isn't decreased TOO much, as verified by extensive testing and use over several years. Yes, it works fine if you _know_ _what_ _you_ _are_ _doing_, which means that you are an electrical engineer with IC design experience, an intimate familiarity with the particular device under consideration, and you know what constitute the worst cases that need to be tested to confirm reliable operation. No, the device is designed to perform a function. If this device continues to perform the function properly, it is not necessary to have designed it yourself. So provide a source for this information. Skepticism can also be due to having seen more than one cocky young kid standing on his weenie after his wild assertions proved to be somewhat in error. You seem to be a little confused. I AM a source of this information, as are others all over the 'net. You have NO sources claiming it can't be done, and have so far still argued against both this source (and further extended, the original poster) without any evidence that it can't be done. I will repeat myself- You have evidence that it can be done, but no evidence that it can't. Your argument is made in madness. If you choose to disbelieve, that's your choice to make. I know it works. Dave Dave |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Undervoltage not only decreases heat, it lessens wear on the
motherboard, uses less energy overall, including a slight bit less to re-cool the room the system is in during the warmer months. Given Intel's path towards even hotter CPUs I expect we'll see more and more people undervolting their CPUs. You've lost your mind "kony" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:45:11 +0000, "J.Clarke" wrote: |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:54:44 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote: You did not read the article. It works in any system as long as you know how to design the thing and order the pieces. True, all I needed to do was glance at it to know it's more expensive than worthwhile. You mean quieter than that special, unusal, expensive heatsink you linked, right? No I do not. My point, is that if I can adequately cool a Thunderbird 1400 using a Papst 8412NGL, then it is highly unlikely that you are going to get a machine to run any quieter by undervolting. So you're changing to the argument to be that it's just not worthwhile to undervolt? You are of course aware that Intel's newer CPUs produce more heat than the T-Bird 1400, so it's somewhat irrelevant what fan can cool a T-Bird 1400. I'm not talking theory here, I'm talking practice... in practice I've undervolted MANY different CPUs to cheaply and easily get the needed performance per the specific appliction. Granted these were usually special-purpose systems. And I'm talking practice here too--in practice I have never needed to undervolt a CPU to get a machine to run quietly. Need? If you can't appreciate a power and thermal reduction, can only see the fan noise as an issue in a PC, then don't undervolt. Please let us know if someone tries to force you to undervolt. Remember something about that passive cooler you linked- It is quite likely to make the motherboard run hotter, have a shorter lifespan. So how long will the motherboard last? That's like asking how long a set of tires will last... it will last until it fails, and the inevitable failure will occur from long-term heat stress if some anomaly doesn't occur first. Running a high-heat CPU with only a low-flow fan "can" reduce the motherboard's lifespan to under 3 years, but usually a few more, depending on several variables. Heat is one of the most significant variables. Products are designed to make $, not necessarily to benefit users, only give the IMPRESSION of benefit to users. Sometimes that impression is larger than the real benefit, or ignores the detriments. And mairzy doats and dozey doats. Which has about as much relevance as that statement. It would be relevant if you understood what happens when using such a cooler, that the airflow reduction on the motherboard allows it retain more heat. My writing above was in regard to this, that it's not of benefit to have a passively cooled system if the motherboard dies from overheating. Several people have reported their capacitors run quite hot to the touch with passively cooled high-heat CPUS... a sure sign the capacitors will fail prematurely. CPUs can run pretty hot with no problems, so long as stable, but motherboards benefit from the reduced power supply to CPU, reduced heat from CPU exhaust, and cooler resulting air. There are two most common failure points I see on modern systems (excluding defect and power surges)- Capacitors wearing out and fan failure. I have STACKS of systems that have failed in this way. Sometimes I'll replace the caps and have a board as good as new again. These are not any of those defective caps from Taiwan often mentioned. Statistics please. You seem confused. I don't need to prove anything. I am content knowing that undervolting CPUs can be beneficial, and content to have you disagree, even thinking I'm wrong, and run 'em at stock voltage. It is a fact that most CPUs will run undervolted. It's a fact that it reduces heat output. If you can't appreciate these reductions then there's where we depart in philosophy. There are several CPU thermal calculators on the 'net, you might search for one and see what kind of heat reduction your present CPU (or it's replacement) would have if undervolted. Please provide a link to a statement by an engineer working for Intel that that is the case for the P4. Please provide a link to a statement by an engineer working for Intel that the P4 can only run stabily at the spec'd voltage. You're the one making the assertion that chips can run undervolted. It's up to you to support it. How dense can you possibly be? I am STARING at a system in front of me that is running undervolted, not to mention any of the others here. There is evidence all over the 'net too. Putting on blinders then claiming you can't see anything doesn't place a burden on anyone else to prove there's more out there than you can see. The spec'd voltage is that at which Intel guarantees, warranties the part to run at spec'd speed. Even using a different cooler voids Intel's guarantee, but you seem to think a different cooler is OK. Using a different cooler from what? You didn't previously link a heatsink? I don't need theories or statements, I've observed it myself many times, and seen others have success in addition to plenty of reports of it all over the 'net. I don't seek Intel's statements because I have DIRECT evidence of it already. So provide this evidence. Again, you are confused. I have the evidence in front of me, and a Google search will find more, so I can make the statement. You have no evidence that it can't be done, yet you argue that it can't. Do you not even see the illogical position you're taking? Systems I've set up undervolted have run completely stable, including months, even over a year (maybe two by now) of continuous uptime... Systems that have no instability in actual operation or testing. And you would stake your own life on the accuracy of the calculations performed by those systems? Hint--there are malfunctions that do not cause instability. After I have tested them, yes I will. I would rather trust a system I've undervolted then evtensively tested for stability, over a sytem running at stock voltage but not so extensively tested. The same problems detectable on a stock voltage system, are likewise detectable on an undervolted one. If you are referring to data corruption, I have done extensive CRC checks on files, as well as write/read/compare on backups. Any vague suspicions you have, but can't specify, are of course pointless, the "unknown" undetectable error elusive to any testing and unseen in long-term use is not a realistic consideration. No, a guess is only a guess until you have plenty of evidence. I have machines in my own home running undervolted right now. So? You are still second-guessing the engineers. Gain a little more experience then come back and talk about undervolting. You read a spec sheet then suddenly pretend to be knowledgable. No, you DIDN'T read the spec sheet since you had to be told where to find it... I HAVE read the spec sheets, for years, and tested, and hacked away... in short, I have more information. It would appear that the only thing you have is the ability to read a number stamped on a CPU, and a theory about what that number means. I will repeat that Intel's engineers are NOT specifing the minimum voltage possible for stable operation, in their own minds. They do not test each CPU for undervoltage operation, only spec a voltage for entire groups of CPUs. Now, you have just made an assertion. So can you provide a verifiable statement made by one of those engineers that supports your assertion or did you just pull it out of your ass? In case it hasn't dawned on you yet, it does not matter what you think to the extent that your thoughts do not change reality. The reality is that undervolting is not just a theory, it is proven, and reproducible by anyone who cares to educate themselves and make the effort. My own testing, other's testing, all over the place... Experience... like everything else in life. And what evidence do you have that those "tests" actually evaluated the worst case conditions? Worst case conditions of what, undervolting? Here's a hint: If it isn't stable, increase the voltage or decrease the frequency. Testing much include worst-case scenarios the system will encounter, including temp variations. There is extensive testing to be done, but I would do such testing before relying on any system for serious work, not just an undervolted one.. No, I stated what I know to be fact. You are asserting that it is a fact. If it is such a well-known fact then you should have little trouble providing the evidence to support your assertion. On the contrary, you are making a claim that has been disproven by MANY people. We already know but you are still making assumtions in ignorance. Do the testing yourself, read the spec sheets... it's incredible to me that you haven't even read the spec sheets yet have this attitude. Constantly reproving what is fact is a wasteful endevor. Your stating that something is fact does not make is so. The thing is, I don't care if you understand or agree, because it doesn't change the fact that I and many others have undervolted systems running fine. I was trying to be helpful but you choose to be ignorant instead. You have no evidence that it won't work, yet you argue it... you lack sanity. I could similarly aruge that when you disagree, you must provide evidence that it is required to operate the CPU at the exact spec'd voltage. Nope. Doesn't work that way. It does when there's already evidence that it works. I try not to flame you, but you must be extremely stupid to not understand that having sytsems that run fine underclocked, is evidence of it. So you claim. Since you can't present any evidence I am forced to conclude that you are a liar. So you're also a troll? Again, your disbelief is your own problem, does not change the facts. Since you haven't bothered to accumulate any facts, it's pretty easy for you to ignore them. In other words you'd rather be thought a liar than support your claims. I've already mentioned that it doesn't matter what you think. Only an idiot would act as you have, calling someone a liar when there's only evidence to the contrary. Have you never eve I am perfectly content leaving you to disbelieve while my undervolted systems continue to work great, as do other's systems. You are assuming it can't be done, without doing any research, even after you've (so far) only received feedback that it CAN be done. No, I've received your unsupported assertion that it can be done. And since you are providing much bluster and no evidence your credibility is rapidly diminishing. And the fact that something_can_ be done doesn't mean it's a good idea. As for "reasonable", that depends on the user... for some people it's reasonable to have a system sounding like a leaf-blower, but for others it's unfortunate when they have to replace their failed P2 system. I see. So the alternatives are to undervolt or to "sound like a leaf blower"? Sorry, but now you're engaging in hyperbole. No, it was an example of what some consider reasonable. I see. So what relevance does it have to the making of quiet machines? There are a number of heat sinks on the market which can be used to cool any processor currently in production using the quietest fans currently in production, without operating the processor at a voltage level outside the specified range. Yes, again these are usually rather expensive, not always fitting on the motherboard. A better heatsink or quieter fan IS one alternative, but not the only alternative. Well, actually, a quieter fan is the only alternative since no matter how much you undervolt if you don't put in a quieter fan the noise level doesn't change. "Obsolete" is relative to the users needs, but also the overall speed of the system, and the capabilities of the OS it can effectively run. Many people need a minimal level of basic function that requires faster than a couple hundred MHz CPU, but moving forward to today, a 3GHz system could be useful to them for much longer than it'll last. So how many users _are_ still running 1975-vintage CP/M machines? And yet those motherboards, running at full specified voltage, are still going strong. Reread what I wrote. I specifically mentioned a minimum level of performance needed, which would be exceeded by huge margin with a 3GHz system. The issue was motherboards becoming obsolete before they fail. I remember a time when a 12 MHz system exceeded by a huge margin the "minimum level of performance needed". Now those 12 MHz systems are still running fine, but for what purpose are they useful today? Low-powered systems do not need voltage reduction as much, the power-density of the system is lower... see the commonality here? By reducing the voltage, you're coming nearer to a low-powered system. If you want a low powered system then just buy one. Go read capacitor manufacturer's spec sheets if you think it doesn't matter. I don't need to provide a link because you can pick any manufacturer you wish, go to their website... for example the caps on your best motherboard. In other words you don't have a link that supports your assertion. I don't need to prove it to anyone because I have/had, dozens of systems running fine undervolted. Liar. Again, it doesn't matter to me if you agree, because at this very monent plenty of people use undervolted systems. If I wrote that there is a sun in the sky, and you disagreed, would I really need to prove it? Instead I tell you to "look up". Likewise, here I tell you to "look IT up". No, because it is generally accepted that there is a sun in the sky. Your assertion that processors may be run reliably under conditions at variance with the manufacturer's specification is akin to the assertion that there is no sun. s? Energy consumption of the CPU is proportional to the square of the voltage. It's not a huge difference, but IS a significant difference. Do the math yourself, see Intel's spec sheet and calculate out how much power reduction results from a given voltage drop. Typical results can be from 5-25 percent reduction, but depend on the CPU core, speed it's running. A 3.2GHz P4 isn't going to tolerate as much voltage drop as a 2.5GHz for example. Please be kind enough to provide a link to this spec sheet. http://www.intel.com All I get there is the Intel home page. So where is the spec sheet? Current Intel CPUs run hotter at full load. Read the spec sheets, they're on the respective manufacturer's websites. At idle a P4 "can" run cooler, but the system must run at up to full-load also. I see. Intel CPUs runn hotter at full load? So an Intel CPU with a Vapochill attached will run hotter than an Athlon with no heat sink? Since you aren't interested in meaningful comparisions, what's the point? So provide a "meaningful comparison". Now, would you care to use a term that is more precise than "run hotter"? "Temperature" So an Intel system running at -25 C is running hotter than an AMD system at 50C? Again _temperature_ depends on the efficacy of the cooling system. Other factors determine just how efficacious that system must be in order to provide a specified temperature. As I've already mentioned in the prevous post, an entire education about undervolting CPUs is beyond the scope of a newsgroup post or even a few links. I wasn't trying to be rude, just stating that the volume of information is large and make take anyone some time to digest. Both Intel and AMD provide specs on their processors... go to their websites and read the spec sheets. If you have read them then surely you have links to them. Now would you care to provide a quotation from one of those specification sheets that supports your argument? I used to have an XP1600 running at 1.6V, o'c to 1.6 GHz. The main reason you don't see many people undervolting, is that typically the knowledge gained towards understanding the frequency/voltage relationship, is gained as a result of a desire to o'c the CPU as much as reasonably possible. You're repeating yourself. Sometimes it's needed, when someone doesn't seem to realize what's already be stated... Which is greater- Merely having a theory based on a spec sheet, narrowly interpreted, or actually having many working demonstrations of it? I have many working systems undervolted, as do others. They run fine so long as the voltage isn't decreased TOO much, as verified by extensive testing and use over several years. Sez you. Yes, it works fine if you _know_ _what_ _you_ _are_ _doing_, which means that you are an electrical engineer with IC design experience, an intimate familiarity with the particular device under consideration, and you know what constitute the worst cases that need to be tested to confirm reliable operation. No, the device is designed to perform a function. If this device continues to perform the function properly, it is not necessary to have designed it yourself. And of course you are qualified to determine that the device performs properly. So what methodology do you use to make this determination and in what manner did you validate that methodology? So provide a source for this information. Skepticism can also be due to having seen more than one cocky young kid standing on his weenie after his wild assertions proved to be somewhat in error. You seem to be a little confused. I AM a source of this information, as are others all over the 'net. I see. And we should believe you why? You have NO sources claiming it can't be done, and have so far still argued against both this source (and further extended, the original poster) without any evidence that it can't be done. I will repeat myself- You have evidence that it can be done, but no evidence that it can't. Your argument is made in madness. If you choose to disbelieve, that's your choice to make. I know it works. No. I have your unsupported claim that it can be done. Your claim does not constitute "evidence". -- |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 00:55:16 GMT, "JAD" wrote:
Undervoltage not only decreases heat, it lessens wear on the motherboard, uses less energy overall, including a slight bit less to re-cool the room the system is in during the warmer months. Given Intel's path towards even hotter CPUs I expect we'll see more and more people undervolting their CPUs. You've lost your mind Nope. Do you understand the relationship between voltage and heat production, energy usage? Where do you think that energy comes from? The motherboard's onboard regulation circuits, including the capacitors. It's not only Taiwanese or other defective capacitors that fail, they all do eventually, that rate depending on the stresses on them... Talk to someone from a large volume PC shop, most have plenty of systems coming in DOA... I get dead boards from a a few regularly, replace the caps, they work like new again. Dave |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 08:26:52 GMT
kony wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:54:44 +0000, "J.Clarke" wrote: You did not read the article. It works in any system as long as you know how to design the thing and order the pieces. True, all I needed to do was glance at it to know it's more expensive than worthwhile. You mean quieter than that special, unusal, expensive heatsink you linked, right? No I do not. My point, is that if I can adequately cool a Thunderbird 1400 using a Papst 8412NGL, then it is highly unlikely that you are going to get a machine to run any quieter by undervolting. So you're changing to the argument to be that it's just not worthwhile to undervolt? You are the one presenting the "argument". I'm simply questioning your statements. You are of course aware that Intel's newer CPUs produce more heat than the T-Bird 1400, so it's somewhat irrelevant what fan can cool a T-Bird 1400. So how much more heat do they produce? And what affect do you believe that that has on the cooling requirements? I'm not talking theory here, I'm talking practice... in practice I've undervolted MANY different CPUs to cheaply and easily get the needed performance per the specific appliction. Granted these were usually special-purpose systems. And I'm talking practice here too--in practice I have never needed to undervolt a CPU to get a machine to run quietly. Need? If you can't appreciate a power and thermal reduction, can only see the fan noise as an issue in a PC, then don't undervolt. Please let us know if someone tries to force you to undervolt. Why should anyone care about "a power and thermal reduction" enough to run a processor out of spec to achieve it? You keep talking about these things like they are the Holy Grail but you have so far not provided a comparison of the actual energy consumption of a system operated in spec vs one that is undervolted--you've made some claims about the CPU, which is not the system, and you've made some claims about how you increase the longevity of motherboards, without providing any reason to believe that such an increase is necessary or desirable, but you haven't provided any real support for your argument. Remember something about that passive cooler you linked- It is quite likely to make the motherboard run hotter, have a shorter lifespan. So how long will the motherboard last? That's like asking how long a set of tires will last... it will last until it fails, and the inevitable failure will occur from long-term heat stress if some anomaly doesn't occur first. Running a high-heat CPU with only a low-flow fan "can" reduce the motherboard's lifespan to under 3 years, but usually a few more, depending on several variables. Heat is one of the most significant variables. And your basis for this belief is? And how is it that the old CP/M machine that I put together in 1979 is still running fine if the inevitable result of neglecting to undervolt is motherboard failure in 3 years? Products are designed to make $, not necessarily to benefit users, only give the IMPRESSION of benefit to users. Sometimes that impression is larger than the real benefit, or ignores the detriments. And mairzy doats and dozey doats. Which has about as much relevance as that statement. It would be relevant if you understood what happens when using such a cooler, that the airflow reduction on the motherboard allows it retain more heat. My writing above was in regard to this, that it's not of benefit to have a passively cooled system if the motherboard dies from overheating. So provide some statistics on machines that are run undervolted vs in spec and explain why many of us have 10-20 year old machines running fine without undervolting. Several people have reported their capacitors run quite hot to the touch with passively cooled high-heat CPUS... a sure sign the capacitors will fail prematurely. Several people have reported that they were abducted by aliens too. The fact that "several people have reported" is meaningless unless you provide more details. So how hot were these capacitors? Did they cool upon undervolting? By what percentage do you believe their life was shortened and on what information do you base this belief? CPUs can run pretty hot with no problems, so long as stable, but motherboards benefit from the reduced power supply to CPU, reduced heat from CPU exhaust, and cooler resulting air. There are two most common failure points I see on modern systems (excluding defect and power surges)- Capacitors wearing out and fan failure. I have STACKS of systems that have failed in this way. Sometimes I'll replace the caps and have a board as good as new again. These are not any of those defective caps from Taiwan often mentioned. Statistics please. You seem confused. I don't need to prove anything. I am content knowing that undervolting CPUs can be beneficial, and content to have you disagree, even thinking I'm wrong, and run 'em at stock voltage. You have no idea what I think. It is a fact that most CPUs will run undervolted. It's a fact that it reduces heat output. If you can't appreciate these reductions then there's where we depart in philosophy. Why should anyone "appreciate these reductions" when all we have to suggest that they are beneficial is you waving your arms around and saying "Believe Me Because I Know The Truth". There are several CPU thermal calculators on the 'net, you might search for one and see what kind of heat reduction your present CPU (or it's replacement) would have if undervolted. Links please? Please provide a link to a statement by an engineer working for Intel that that is the case for the P4. Please provide a link to a statement by an engineer working for Intel that the P4 can only run stabily at the spec'd voltage. You're the one making the assertion that chips can run undervolted. It's up to you to support it. How dense can you possibly be? I am STARING at a system in front of me that is running undervolted, not to mention any of the others here. You are staring a system that booted and has not crashed since being booted. That is not the same as a system which performs all specified operations correctly. Have you tested all states of the system to confirm that none of them have been compromised? There is evidence all over the 'net too. So you keep claiming yet you don't seem to be able to provide one single solitary link to such evidence. Putting on blinders then claiming you can't see anything doesn't place a burden on anyone else to prove there's more out there than you can see. Uh huh, now you're trying to personalize the discussion. Sorry, but that doesn't fly either. You're asserting that undervolting does not compromise correct operation and that there are benefits. But so far all that we have from you to support those assertions is lots of arm waving. The spec'd voltage is that at which Intel guarantees, warranties the part to run at spec'd speed. Even using a different cooler voids Intel's guarantee, but you seem to think a different cooler is OK. Using a different cooler from what? You didn't previously link a heatsink? So you're saying that Intel guarantees their processors to work with the homebrew heatsink to which I provided a link and no others? Do tell. I don't need theories or statements, I've observed it myself many times, and seen others have success in addition to plenty of reports of it all over the 'net. I don't seek Intel's statements because I have DIRECT evidence of it already. So provide this evidence. Again, you are confused. I have the evidence in front of me, and a Google search will find more, so I can make the statement. You have no evidence that it can't be done, One cannot prove a negative. Defending your argument by demanding that one do so pretty much destroys any credibility that you might otherwise have had. yet you argue that it can't. I see. So when did I argue "that it can't"? Please provide either a quotation or a link. Do you not even see the illogical position you're taking? I'm sorry, but the position that "you have made assertions, so defend them" is hardly "illogical". Systems I've set up undervolted have run completely stable, including months, even over a year (maybe two by now) of continuous uptime... Systems that have no instability in actual operation or testing. And you would stake your own life on the accuracy of the calculations performed by those systems? Hint--there are malfunctions that do not cause instability. After I have tested them, yes I will. Good. Please do. I would rather trust a system I've undervolted then evtensively tested for stability, over a sytem running at stock voltage but not so extensively tested. "Stability" is not the only issue. Are you completely sure that calcuations performed on one of your undervolted systems are accurate? If so, how did you determine this? The same problems detectable on a stock voltage system, are likewise detectable on an undervolted one. If you are referring to data corruption, I have done extensive CRC checks on files, as well as write/read/compare on backups. So you have tested your disk drives and you have tested your RAM. Now how did you test your floating point unit? Or your multiplier? Or your divider? Any vague suspicions you have, but can't specify, are of course pointless, the "unknown" undetectable error elusive to any testing and unseen in long-term use is not a realistic consideration. But such errors are detectable. So how did you go about confirming that they were not present? No, a guess is only a guess until you have plenty of evidence. I have machines in my own home running undervolted right now. So? You are still second-guessing the engineers. Gain a little more experience then come back and talk about undervolting. You read a spec sheet then suddenly pretend to be knowledgable. No, you DIDN'T read the spec sheet since you had to be told where to find it... I HAVE read the spec sheets, for years, and tested, and hacked away... in short, I have more information. It would appear that the only thing you have is the ability to read a number stamped on a CPU, and a theory about what that number means. Personalizing the argument again I see. You have no idea what I may or may not have read. For all you know I might have _written_ those spec sheets. You claim that you have tested, and yet when asked how you have confirmed that various possible problems do not occur you have either blustered or simply claimed that looking for such problems was "not a realistic consideration". So what tests have you used and how did you go about validating those tests to confirm that they do indeed evaluate worst-case conditions? I will repeat that Intel's engineers are NOT specifing the minimum voltage possible for stable operation, in their own minds. They do not test each CPU for undervoltage operation, only spec a voltage for entire groups of CPUs. Now, you have just made an assertion. So can you provide a verifiable statement made by one of those engineers that supports your assertion or did you just pull it out of your ass? In case it hasn't dawned on you yet, it does not matter what you think to the extent that your thoughts do not change reality. I did not say anything about "what I think". You asserted that certain test procedure was used by Intel. I asked you how you came to be in the possession of this information. Instead of answering "Joe Blow at Intel told me" or "I read it in thus and so paper" or some such, you instead chose to inform me that it does not matter what I think. If that is the sort of reasoning that you have applied to your testing then forgive me if I do not accept your results as being authoritative. The reality is that undervolting is not just a theory, it is proven, and reproducible by anyone who cares to educate themselves and make the effort. And yet you can't provide a single solitary link to support your argument. My own testing, other's testing, all over the place... Experience... like everything else in life. And what evidence do you have that those "tests" actually evaluated the worst case conditions? Worst case conditions of what, undervolting? Here's a hint: If it isn't stable, increase the voltage or decrease the frequency. Testing much include worst-case scenarios the system will encounter, including temp variations. By "worst case conditions" I mean have you tested those states of the system which are most likely to be affected by operating at insufficient voltage so as to ensure that correct operation is achieved for those states? There is extensive testing to be done, but I would do such testing before relying on any system for serious work, not just an undervolted one.. Well that's nice. But how do we know that your tests in fact verify correctness of operation? No, I stated what I know to be fact. You are asserting that it is a fact. If it is such a well-known fact then you should have little trouble providing the evidence to support your assertion. On the contrary, you are making a claim that has been disproven by MANY people. Please be kind enough to refresh my memory. What claim am I making and where and when did I make it? We already know but you are still making assumtions in ignorance. And those "assumtions" are? Do the testing yourself, read the spec sheets... it's incredible to me that you haven't even read the spec sheets yet have this attitude. Why would I want to perform such tests? And where did I state that I had not "even read the spec sheets"? Constantly reproving what is fact is a wasteful endevor. Your stating that something is fact does not make is so. The thing is, I don't care if you understand or agree, because it doesn't change the fact that I and many others have undervolted systems running fine. Fine, prove it. I was trying to be helpful but you choose to be ignorant instead. And when questioned, instead of supporting your argument you chose to start telling other people what to do. You have no evidence that it won't work, yet you argue it... you lack sanity. I'm sorry, but I still don't seem to recall presenting any viewpoint with regard to the viability of the procedure you propose. What I have done is ask you a number of questions, which you have chosen not to address except by telling me "do your own homework". I could similarly aruge that when you disagree, you must provide evidence that it is required to operate the CPU at the exact spec'd voltage. Nope. Doesn't work that way. It does when there's already evidence that it works. You keep claiming that there is such evidence, but you have yet to present anything except your claims to that effect. I can claim to be sitting in Ten-Forward drinking something green but that doesn't mean that anyone should believe such a claim. I try not to flame you, but you must be extremely stupid to not understand that having sytsems that run fine underclocked, is evidence of it. Flame away. I developed a nomex butt a long time ago. So you claim. Since you can't present any evidence I am forced to conclude that you are a liar. So you're also a troll? Well, actually, the person who makes assertions and then refuses to support those assertions is the one who is engaging in trollish behavior. Again, your disbelief is your own problem, does not change the facts. Since you haven't bothered to accumulate any facts, it's pretty easy for you to ignore them. Since you haven't bothered to present any verifiable evidence it's pretty easy to conclude that you don't have any. In other words you'd rather be thought a liar than support your claims. I've already mentioned that it doesn't matter what you think. Only an idiot would act as you have, calling someone a liar when there's only evidence to the contrary. Have you never eve What evidence? You keep going on about this evidence and yet you have not presented any of it. remainder, which consists entirely of quoted material, snipped -- -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 08:32:26 GMT
kony wrote: On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 00:55:16 GMT, "JAD" wrote: Undervoltage not only decreases heat, it lessens wear on the motherboard, uses less energy overall, including a slight bit less to re-cool the room the system is in during the warmer months. Given Intel's path towards even hotter CPUs I expect we'll see more and more people undervolting their CPUs. You've lost your mind Nope. Do you understand the relationship between voltage and heat production, energy usage? Where do you think that energy comes from? The motherboard's onboard regulation circuits, including the capacitors. It's not only Taiwanese or other defective capacitors that fail, they all do eventually, that rate depending on the stresses on them... Talk to someone from a large volume PC shop, most have plenty of systems coming in DOA... I get dead boards from a a few regularly, replace the caps, they work like new again. Do you understand that making modifications to increase the longevity of systems which are normally disposed of as obsolete before they quit working is a waste of time and effort? As for systems coming in DOA, what percentage of systems and how old were they and to what extent would those statistics change if someone reduced the operating voltage and how do you know that the change would be of the magnitude you claim? I know--look it up, it's all over the Internet. -- -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
kony wrote:
.... snip ... Do you understand the relationship between voltage and heat production, energy usage? Where do you think that energy comes from? The motherboard's onboard regulation circuits, including Correct me if I am wrong (I haven't seen any schematics) but since todays power supplies provide only 5 and 3.3 volts, any reduced voltages for the CPU must come from on-board regulators. This means that the net power reduction with undervoltaged CPUs is strictly proportional to V, rather than V*V, because some of the dissipation is shifted to the regulator. It may even be worse, if undervolting requires using the 5 V source rather than the 3.3 V source. It would be very hard to design a reliable regulator with less than 0.5V drop. In this area I doubt that a switcher would have any advantage over a series regulator, in fact it might be inferior. -- Chuck F ) ) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. http://cbfalconer.home.att.net USE worldnet address! |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quit wasting your time, kony.
Regards, Thunder9 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:08:57 +1300
"~misfit~" wrote: "J.Clarke" wrote in message ... snip a whole lot of J. Clarke's argument with a man who knows his stuff "Stability" is not the only issue. Are you completely sure that calcuations performed on one of your undervolted systems are accurate? If so, how did you determine this? Prime95 torture-test. The widely accepted standard. And how was that validated? What agency published the standard? -- ~misfit~ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003 -- -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:12:30 +1300
"~misfit~" wrote: "J.Clarke" wrote in message ... Do you understand that making modifications to increase the longevity of systems which are normally disposed of as obsolete before they quit working is a waste of time and effort? Ah, the historical argument. Most of today's sytems will continue to be usable for many years, decades even, as long as you're not talking about dediacted gaming machines that will be used for the latest and greatest new-release games. This is not so true of systems produced last century.-- And you base this opinion on what information? ~misfit~ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003 -- -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unexpected system switch off | Tony Cooper | General | 3 | September 8th 03 06:21 AM |
dead win2k system | paulwatt | General | 0 | September 6th 03 05:56 PM |
Opnion about buying vs building desktop system | Joseph | General | 3 | August 29th 03 02:45 AM |
newbie - advice for CAD translation system | Talha | General | 1 | August 28th 03 03:50 PM |
System temps | Ed Coolidge | General | 2 | August 20th 03 05:22 AM |