Proposed System

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)