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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
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. Regards, Thunder9 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. 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. 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. Regards, Thunder9 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 07:07:43 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote: On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:35:11 GMT (Thunder9) wrote: 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). Of course they can--add a couple of more heat pipes, use both sides of the case instead of just one, . . . Not off-the-shelf items but it has been done. Exactly the point of using alternative cooling solutions. Uh, custom built passive cooling devices _are_ "alternative cooling solutions". Alternative was intended to mean... "alternative to what you are suggesting... alternative to the (current) complexity and cost of using a completely passive solution using not-off-the-shelf items..." Simple semantic misunderstanding... lets not make a big deal over it.. 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. In what way? In the way that I described in the very next sentance. 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. Reading comprehension a bit lacking? No. Its "above average". Is is your contention that running a CPU outside the manufacturer's specified operating range is a normal procedure and that a reseller selling machines so constructed without informing the purchaser is behaving ethically and that such machines are to be trusted with mission-critical tasks? No that is not my contention. I don't know how you dreamed that up. Regards, Thunder9 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 06:54:04 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote: On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:17:03 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. 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? Why should I undervolt when I can achieve my requirements with a nice slow fan and no undervolting? There is no reason to undervolt when you can achieve your requirements with a nice slow fan. Regards, Thunder9 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:09:40 GMT
(Thunder9) wrote: 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. I missed that it was your first home built machine. As a person who has built many machines and has taught classes in which others have built their own first machines, may I _strongly_ suggest that you keep things as simple as possible--get it working with adequate cooling and at normal voltage before you try to get fancy. I'm not saying not to experiment with undervolting if it's something that you want to do, but do not _count_ on it working--it often does, but there are manufacturing tolerances on semiconductors which affect their operating margins and so one processor might undervolt fine and another from the same lot but a different part of the wafer might not under the same conditions, just as one might overclock fine but another not. And when running out of spec, unless one knows specifically what to test one can never be completely sure that the processor performs all operations properly--this risk is acceptable for many purposes but not for all. And I apologize if I seemed to be attacking you, that was not my intent--I was attacking the fellow who did not seem to understand that his claims (such as that the processors are _designed_ to run at lower voltage than specified and that undervolting will result in a useful increase in the service life of a system) were sufficiently outrageous to merit a request for justification. Hang around USENET long enough and you'll probably end up treating people who won't support their claims the same way that I do. Regards, Thunder9 -- -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:31:08 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote: And I apologize if I seemed to be attacking you, that was not my intent--I was attacking the fellow who did not seem to understand that his claims (such as that the processors are _designed_ to run at lower voltage than specified and that undervolting will result in a useful increase in the service life of a system) were sufficiently outrageous to merit a request for justification. Hang around USENET long enough and you'll probably end up treating people who won't support their claims the same way that I do. Your attitude is exactly why you received supportive evidence. People who are willing to learn are worth the time, but those who aren't, aren't. You'll remain ignorant because you have a fixed idea in your mind that's not based on fact, but argue as if it were. I very seldom call someone an idiot, but it applies here, because you've never even bothered to TEST your theories. That is a basic requirement for any kind of scientific method, instead of voodo superstition. If you don't know how to do this extensive testing yourself, and your system isn't CERTIFIED to be suitable for these critical uses you seem to need, then you are not eliminating risk by running at spec'd voltage. Instead you are assuming it, instead of proving it to any extent at all... not necessarily to me, but even to yourself. Dave |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
the Dahli Llama has spoken!
"kony" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:31:08 +0000, "J.Clarke" wrote: And I apologize if I seemed to be attacking you, that was not my intent--I was attacking the fellow who did not seem to understand that his claims (such as that the processors are _designed_ to run at lower voltage than specified and that undervolting will result in a useful increase in the service life of a system) were sufficiently outrageous to merit a request for justification. Hang around USENET long enough and you'll probably end up treating people who won't support their claims the same way that I do. Your attitude is exactly why you received supportive evidence. People who are willing to learn are worth the time, but those who aren't, aren't. You'll remain ignorant because you have a fixed idea in your mind that's not based on fact, but argue as if it were. I very seldom call someone an idiot, but it applies here, because you've never even bothered to TEST your theories. That is a basic requirement for any kind of scientific method, instead of voodo superstition. If you don't know how to do this extensive testing yourself, and your system isn't CERTIFIED to be suitable for these critical uses you seem to need, then you are not eliminating risk by running at spec'd voltage. Instead you are assuming it, instead of proving it to any extent at all... not necessarily to me, but even to yourself. Dave |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:11:02 GMT
kony wrote: On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:31:08 +0000, "J.Clarke" wrote: And I apologize if I seemed to be attacking you, that was not my intent--I was attacking the fellow who did not seem to understand that his claims (such as that the processors are _designed_ to run at lower voltage than specified and that undervolting will result in a useful increase in the service life of a system) were sufficiently outrageous to merit a request for justification. Hang around USENET long enough and you'll probably end up treating people who won't support their claims the same way that I do. Your attitude is exactly why you received supportive evidence. People who are willing to learn are worth the time, but those who aren't, aren't. You'll remain ignorant because you have a fixed idea in your mind that's not based on fact, but argue as if it were. And that "fixed idea" (other than that you are a twit) is what? I very seldom call someone an idiot, but it applies here, because you've never even bothered to TEST your theories. What theories are those? That is a basic requirement for any kind of scientific method, instead of voodo superstition. Coming from someone who has not posted one single verifiable fact to support his argument that's a real hoot. If you don't know how to do this extensive testing yourself, and your system isn't CERTIFIED to be suitable for these critical uses you seem to need, then you are not eliminating risk by running at spec'd voltage. Instead you are assuming it, instead of proving it to any extent at all... not necessarily to me, but even to yourself. So how does one "CERTIFY" such a system? And how do you know that your "extensive testing" has in fact confirmed correct operation? And you have no idea what I am assuming. The fact that I want you to answer certain questions does not mean that I do not know the correct answers, it means that I want to know _your_ answers. You don't seem to be able to understand that I am not trying to sell a particular viewpoint, I'm trying to find out if you know what you're talking about, and it's becoming increasingly clear that you do not. -- -- --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 |