Proposed System

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:54:26 GMT
(Thunder9) wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:04:04 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:
=20
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:50:53 GMT
(Thunder9) wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 07:22:47 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:
=20
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:49:29 GMT
(Thunder9) wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:49:59 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:
=20
=20
The primary reason that "people don't as often undervolt" is
that there is no percieved need for it.
=20
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.
=20
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".
=20
Wrong. =20
Dictionary: Need - n. 1. A condition or situation in which something
is required or wanted. Source: The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of
the English Language, Fourth Edition=20
=20
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.
=20
I'll agree with this, even though its somewhat irrelevent since
nobody suggested such a scenario.

Again, reread the thread.
=20
For what? I googled on=20
mission OR critical intitle:"Proposed System"
=20
and the only relevent hits were you.

Try reading it instead of googling for keywords and you'll find that
other terms were used that translate to "mission critical". The thread
is not that long.

Regards,
Thunder9


--=20
--=20
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 02:10:06 GMT
(Thunder9) wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:09:32 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:

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?

Neither. I argued that thousands were being done a service.

So what was the nature of that service?

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 13:04:04 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:

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".

Wrong.
Dictionary: Need - n. 1. A condition or situation in which something
is required or wanted. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of
the English Language, Fourth Edition

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.

For what? I googled on
mission OR critical intitle:"Proposed System"

and the only relevent hits were you.

Regards,
Thunder9

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:09:32 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:

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?

Neither. I argued that thousands were being done a service.

Regards,
Thunder9

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:31:08 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:


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.


Thanks that's good advice.

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.

I doubt it. I've been on USENET longer than most. And the longer I'm
on it, the more I learn its a waste of time to engage in such
frivolous blather.

Regards,
Thunder9

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:02:24 GMT, kony wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:59:06 GMT, (Thunder9)
wrote:

Quit wasting your time, kony.

Well, if he's out to prove that he's a clueless idiot, it hasn't been
a total waste of time...



Regards,
Thunder9

LOL.
That's exactly what I was thinking... clicked send right in the
middle of a sentence.

Are all you clueless, logically-handicapped idiots still in grade
school? No, I'm sure you are all electrical engineers who really
understand how CPU's work. Guffaw.

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

For Christ's sake fix your line width. And stop top posting. And
learn how to spell. Maybe then someone will take what you have to say
seriously.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 05:58:21 GMT, "JAD" wrote:

(top posting fixed)

"~misfit~" wrote:

Top posting fixed.

Toady kill filed.....

*plonk* goes the stupid top poster.

all you can do is comment on your stupid nazi approach to communicating,
Most people's ignorance is only exceeded by their desire to express it... good job

"chrisv" wrote in message ...
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

For Christ's sake fix your line width. And stop top posting. And
learn how to spell. Maybe then someone will take what you have to say
seriously.

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:38:29 -0500, chrisv
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:02:24 GMT, kony wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:59:06 GMT, (Thunder9)
wrote:

Quit wasting your time, kony.

Well, if he's out to prove that he's a clueless idiot, it hasn't been
a total waste of time...



Regards,
Thunder9

LOL.
That's exactly what I was thinking... clicked send right in the
middle of a sentence.

Are all you clueless, logically-handicapped idiots still in grade
school? No, I'm sure you are all electrical engineers who really
understand how CPU's work. Guffaw.

You're not going to PLONK me?
Damn, now I'm disappointed.

At least I've never been called a "spanked monkey troll", unlike
yourself.


Dave