Proposed System

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 05:57:57 GMT, "JAD" wrote:

reality check....first your saying that everyone is going to have those options in their bios 2nd even if they did all they would
have to do is have an Intel chip, OEM cooler and the machine runs for 4 years. There is absolutely no need for the average user to
have to go through any of what your saying to have a long lasting, cool running, stable machine. Can it be done? yes is what your
saying true? most of it....the big question is WHY? I have abused My PIII in the garage-90+f ambiant temps, stock cooler, filthy
inside
4 years so far......


I never claimed that everyone has these BIOS options. Anyone spec'ing
their own components can choose. I have presented yet another
possible reason to want these BIOS options, beyond just overclocking.

Even so, there are multiple other methods for adjusting voltage for
most any motherboard, just not as easily.

I certainly don't recommend that EVERYONE undervolt, only those
informed enough to make an intelligent decision, and still, it's a
decision. It is NOT the ultimate answer to anything, is only another
method to tweak a system, finely tune it, but also has real benefits
directly adressing one of the biggest problems facing Intel's high-end
and near-future desktop processors, that they create never-before-seen
amounts of heat, and more strain on other components like the power
supply.

Consider your PIII box... already 4 years running. A newer
motherboard built to the same price-point, grade of onboard
components, will not last as long, because the power usage went up...
a bit like burning two candles, but one with a longer wick so it burns
hotter, faster. A new system bought today should have enough
performance to be viable for even longer than the PIII did/does,
possibly a LOT longer, except that it's lifespan isn't expected to
match, seems to be going DOWN compared to Coppermine boxes.

In the past year or so I've seen QUITE a few posts about dead/dying
semi-modern systems... a lot more than back in the PIII days, and at a
greater rate than these (now older) PIII systems are failing today,
which is backwards, the older systems should be failing more often
being nearer the end of their lifespan.


Dave

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:49:29 GMT
(Thunder9) wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:49:59 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:


The primary reason that "people don't as often undervolt" is that
there is no percieved need for it.

Wrong. There is a growing perception of need for it. Evidence is
this discussion. Also see
http://www.bluecouch.com.au/reviews/nf7s/nf7s.asp or just Google for
"undervolt heat cpu".

A few of hobbyists talking about their projects does not constitute a
perceived need to undervolt anymore than a few automobile enthusiasts
their land speed record attempts constitutes a perceived need for
supersonic rocket cars.

In any case the guy you linked says up front that the board he started
with was running things considerably _above_ the manufacturer's
specified operating range.

I see. So the alternatives are to undervolt or to "sound like a leaf
blower"? Sorry, but now you're engaging in hyperbole. 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.

And if I purchase a quiet fan and my system is still running on the
hot side of the specification, then rather than spending more money on
another cooling system (ie expensive water cooling system) I'll be
happy to see if undervolting can help.

Personally I'd try a little bit more powerful fan. The second quietest
fan on the market moves a good deal more air but is still very quiet.

It's a choice... nobody is focing you to undervolt your CPU. It
works fine if you know what you're doing.

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.

Wrong. Plenty of non-engineers run their systems out of spec (ie
overclocking, overvolting) and they know what they are doing.

Yes, many of them know what they are doing, and one thing that they are
not doing is using those out-of-spec machines for mission-critical
tasks or recommending that others do so.

They
also know the consequences (ie shorter cpu life).

Yes, the ones who know what they are doing are aware that there are
consequences and they are also aware that the fact that their machine
posts and runs a few tests without crashing does not mean that it is
ready to be installed as a mission-critical server whose failure would
cost large amounts of money or an engineering-design workstation in
which inaccurate calculations could cost lives.

Regards,
Thunder9



--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 10:02:27 GMT
(Thunder9) wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:54:44 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:


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.

Wrong. Undervolting can allow a fan to run slower, which makes it
quieter.

How does undervolting a processor make a fan run slower?

Regards,
Thunder9



--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

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.

But for my P4 2.4 GHz why go to all that trouble of making a huge home
made passive cooler when I can achieve my requirements with a nice low
noise fan and undervolting?

Regards,
Thunder9

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.

Regards,
Thunder9

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 08:58:01 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 08:11:20 GMT
kony 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.


There aren't truely passive coolers available for AMD or Intel though,
they require a very dedicated fan, airflow, might as well be
considered active coolers with the fan simply moved or put to take for
multiple functions as with Dell ducted systems.

Well, actually passive coolers have been constructed for AMD CPUs. And
since "everybody knows" that "Intel runs cooler" there should be no
problem doing the same for an Intel.

Wrong. Just because passive coolers were constructed for AMD CPU's in
the past doesn't mean that passive coolers can easily be created for
the newer, hotter Intels (or AMDs).

Not off-the-shelf items but it has
been done.

Exactly the point of using alternative cooling solutions.

Running a CPU or any other component out of spec is something you get
away with, not correction of an error on the part of the designers.
Trying to sell it as anything else does nobody a service.

Wrong. Trying to sell it as something else does thousands of people a
service. That's why, for example, motherboard designers allow
features like "automatic overclocking". They wouldn't provide such
features unless it was providing many people a useful service.

Regards,
Thunder9

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:49:59 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:


The primary reason that "people don't as often undervolt" is that there
is no percieved need for it.

Wrong. There is a growing perception of need for it. Evidence is
this discussion. Also see
http://www.bluecouch.com.au/reviews/nf7s/nf7s.asp or just Google for
"undervolt heat cpu".

I see. So the alternatives are to undervolt or to "sound like a leaf
blower"? Sorry, but now you're engaging in hyperbole. 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.

And if I purchase a quiet fan and my system is still running on the
hot side of the specification, then rather than spending more money on
another cooling system (ie expensive water cooling system) I'll be
happy to see if undervolting can help.


It's a choice... nobody is focing you to undervolt your CPU. It works
fine if you know what you're doing.

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.

Wrong. Plenty of non-engineers run their systems out of spec (ie
overclocking, overvolting) and they know what they are doing. They
also know the consequences (ie shorter cpu life).

Regards,
Thunder9

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:34:03 GMT
(Thunder9) wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 07:23:51 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 10:02:27 GMT
(Thunder9) wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:54:44 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:


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.

Wrong. Undervolting can allow a fan to run slower, which makes it
quieter.

How does undervolting a processor make a fan run slower?

Undervolting the processor does not *make* the fan run slower.

If you have a cooler CPU, you can run the fan slower through a variety
of mechanisms.

Do you have a concrete example?

Regards,
Thunder9



--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:54:44 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:


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.

Wrong. Undervolting can allow a fan to run slower, which makes it
quieter.

Regards,
Thunder9

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:50:53 GMT
(Thunder9) wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 07:22:47 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:49:29 GMT
(Thunder9) wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:49:59 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:


The primary reason that "people don't as often undervolt" is that
there is no percieved need for it.

Wrong. There is a growing perception of need for it. Evidence is
this discussion. Also see
http://www.bluecouch.com.au/reviews/nf7s/nf7s.asp or just Google
for "undervolt heat cpu".

A few of hobbyists talking about their projects does not constitute a
perceived need to undervolt anymore than a few automobile enthusiasts
their land speed record attempts constitutes a perceived need for
supersonic rocket cars.

Wrong. It only takes one person for there to *be* a "perceived need".
The number of people undervolting is proportional to the number of
people perceiving the need for it.

You seem to be confusing "need" and "want".

In any case the guy you linked says up front that the board he
started with was running things considerably _above_ the
manufacturer's specified operating range.

Irrelevent. He switched to another board specifically so he could
undervolt. Which is why I posted it as an example.

However he did not say anywhere that he had a _need_ to undervolt, only
that he wanted to.

I see. So the alternatives are to undervolt or to "sound like a
leaf blower"? Sorry, but now you're engaging in hyperbole. 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.

And if I purchase a quiet fan and my system is still running on the
hot side of the specification, then rather than spending more money
on another cooling system (ie expensive water cooling system) I'll
be happy to see if undervolting can help.

Personally I'd try a little bit more powerful fan. The second
quietest fan on the market moves a good deal more air but is still
very quiet.

It's a choice... nobody is focing you to undervolt your CPU. It
works fine if you know what you're doing.

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.

Wrong. Plenty of non-engineers run their systems out of spec (ie
overclocking, overvolting) and they know what they are doing.

Yes, many of them know what they are doing, and one thing that they
are not doing is using those out-of-spec machines for
mission-critical tasks or recommending that others do so.

Irrelevent. Nobody suggested running a machine for mission-critical
tasks.

Reread the thread.

They
also know the consequences (ie shorter cpu life).

Yes, the ones who know what they are doing are aware that there are
consequences and they are also aware that the fact that their machine
posts and runs a few tests without crashing does not mean that it is
ready to be installed as a mission-critical server whose failure
would cost large amounts of money or an engineering-design
workstation in which inaccurate calculations could cost lives.

I'll agree with this, even though its somewhat irrelevent since nobody
suggested such a scenario.

Again, reread the thread.

Regards,
Thunder9

--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)