A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Proposed System



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old October 12th 03, 02:09 PM
J.Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:01:07 GMT
(Thunder9) wrote:

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.


Well, let's see, I suggested that nobody was being done a service by
being led to believe that running a component out of specification was
anything except "getting away with something" and you argued vehemently
that thousands of people were being done a disservice by such a
statement. That would imply that you believe that it is _not_ "getting
away with something" and if it is not then it should be suitable for
mission-critical tasks and there should be no need for the purchaser to
be made aware that it has been done. So which is it?

Regards,
Thunder9



--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  #62  
Old October 12th 03, 02:34 PM
Thunder9
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 12th 03, 02:50 PM
Thunder9
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 12th 03, 03:01 PM
Thunder9
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #66  
Old October 12th 03, 03:09 PM
Thunder9
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 12th 03, 03:31 PM
J.Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 13th 03, 12:11 AM
kony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 13th 03, 12:49 AM
JAD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 13th 03, 02:41 AM
J.Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.