Re: Going to one HD
From: CWO4 Dave Mann (misterremovefixit_at_loveremovespamable.com)
Date: 08/25/05
- Next message: Mogens V.: "[OT[ Login to OCWorkbench forum fails"
- Previous message: Jean-David Beyer: "Re: Going to one HD"
- In reply to: mechdan_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Going to one HD"
- Next in thread: Robert Nichols: "Re: Going to one HD"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:57:30 -0500
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:51:37 -0700, mechdan wrote:
> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>>mechdan@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>
>>>>Then why does Intel suggest blowing cool air horizontally over the
>>>>heat sinks?
>
>>>Huh? That only makes sense if the heat sink is of a "tower" heat pipe
>>>design.
>
>>Not at all. If you blow down instead of parallel to the heat sink fins,
>>you need a larger heat sink, and more air flow from the fan, to get the
>>same amount of cooling.
>
> Put bluntly, you don't know what you're talking about. There are reasons
> why the overwhelming majority of heatsink fans are designed with fans
> blowing downward onto the heatsink fins. For one thing, they actually
> do indeed work, amazingly enough.
>
>>>Have you ever seen a stock CPU heatsink/fan? Why do you suppose they
>>>all have fans blowing into the heatsink?
>
>>Of course I have seen the ones you mean. For small slower processors,
>>they provide "enough" cooling and are simpler, mechanically, to install.
>>For something like a 166 MHz Pentium a tiny little fan blowing on a
>>trivial heat sink will do the job.
>
> The stock heatsink on even the fastest hottest Intel P4 Prescott core is
> of the same traditional heatsink/fan design as always. The fan blows
> downward onto the heatsink fins. The Prescotts generate more waste heat
> than just about any processer ever designed.
>
>>For a 90 watt 3.06 GHz Xeon, though, nothing like that will do the job.
>
> Wrong. Intel has stock Xeon heatsink/fans with the traditional layout:
>
> http://www.shop-intel.com/shop/product.asp?pid=SIPS1055&pfid=123&pindex=1&mscssid=3VA07WWPAEXG8JSN5M7UP42R6M7J9QR7
>
> These are not suitable for blade servers because of the physical
> constraints of a blade, but they're perfectly fine for a tower.
>
>>>>But is it cool enough?
>
>>>Yes. A processor is cool enough if it never suffers from the effects
>>>of overheating.
>
>>Maybe the O.P.'s processor is cool enough as is, but reversing the
>>fan(s) in the power supply could put it over the top in heat.
>
> Maybe so, maybe not. You don't know it.
>
>>And if heat is not a problem, why is he changing the cooling around in
>>his machine anyway? He must perceive it to be a problem.
>
> He also perceived the wattage rating on his PSU to be a problem--but he
> was wrong. Many of his other changes seem to be motivated more by
> capriciousness and a desire to tinker than anything else.
>
> I get the impression that he has a vague idea that "cooler is better",
> but he doesn't have a firm idea of WHY cooler is supposed to be better.
>
>>>There is absolutely no reason you NEED to run a processor cooler than
>>>you HAVE to.
>
>>For most things electronic, adding 10C to the temperature cuts its MTTF
>>in half, so you should never heat things more than necessary.
>
> Nonsense. If the MTTF is already far longer than the expected useful
> lifetime of the equipment, then who cares? I wouldn't expect to be using
> a particular CPU for more than a decade or so. And if a CPU fails after
> a few years, so what? By then replacing it is dirt cheap.
>
>>It just seems dumb to blow hot air on something that needs to be cooled.
>
> It happens all the time with PSUs in traditional layout computers. It's
> a serious problem, because CPUs generate more heat than PSUs, and PSUs
> require lower operating temperatures than CPUs for reliable operation.
>
> PSU failures are also more problematic than CPU failures. The symptoms
> of PSU problems are more difficult to recognize and diagnose, and they
> often cascade into causing mysterious hardware failures in other
> components. Worst of all, PSUs have greater potential for longer useful
> lifetimes, and don't depreciate in value quickly the way CPUs do.
> Replacing an old PSU costs more than replacing an old CPU.
>
>>>So what? Silent computing almost by definition means breaking the
>>>so-called "rules".
>
>>If a processor (actually a computer system) does not need to be
>>reliable, why cool it at all? Or why even turn it on?
>
> You continue to repeat this straw man. Quiet PC enthusiasts don't skimp
> on reliability.
>
>>>Why should I, when I can get my current processor to function perfectly
>>>fine in my quiet/silent computer?
>
>>Well my Xeons are redlined at 70C processor temperature, which implies a
>>lot lower ambient air temperature. When the inside of my box gets up to
>>about 52C, the processors go up to around 56C or so, and the cpu cooling
>>fans are screaming at about 6000 rpm.
>
> So what you're saying is that you have ~14 degrees to play with and you
> simply chose to not run it anywhere near the limits. That's your
> equipment and your decision. My equipment is different, and my decision
> is different.
>
> Me? My main workstation is a 2.5ghz Northwood. For various design
> reasons, the CPU ended up being at the end of the airflow chain,
> receiving the warmest air. The only fan in the system is an 80mm fan
> running silently at 5volts. I have a switch to flip it to 12v for
> reencoding video files, but other than that I run at 5volts. The
> machine is perfectly stable at all times.
>
> When I upgrade to 64bit, I'll be using an even cooler processor
> (probably a Venice core A64 unless something even better comes out). At
> the same time, it'll be using even better heatsinks that weren't
> available when I put together my Northwood, and the PSU will be
> significantly more efficient.
>
>>>You are blinded by dogmatic assumptions. Silent computing is simply
>>>not about following established recommended dogma. It's about actually
>>>UNDERSTANDING the interplay of heat and temperature and airflow, and
>>>creating new solutions using that understanding.
>
>>I am blinded only by Intel's recommended cooling practices for the
>>processors I am using.
>
> And yet you dogmatically advise us to blindly obey Intel's
> recommendations also.
>
>>Since those thing cost
>>something like $750 each (back when I got them; they are surely cheaper
>>now), I see no reason not to follow Intel's cooling recommendations.
>
> Since that's your equipment and your decision, that's fine for you. But
> other people are other people, with other equipment. I'm sure the OP's
> processor never cost him $750, ever, and certainly none of mine ever
> cost that much.
>
> Isaac Kuo
Isaac, you are very convincing and erudite. Between a few of you here you
should come together and write a book on cooling! I've saved all of the
postings in this thread (even the opnes which make me look very stupid)
and will add them printed to my loose-leaf binder.
Thanks again, you guys have really straightened me out on the cooling
issue.
Now, about the difference between Apple and ..... never mind, just
kidding!
Cheers,
Dave
- Next message: Mogens V.: "[OT[ Login to OCWorkbench forum fails"
- Previous message: Jean-David Beyer: "Re: Going to one HD"
- In reply to: mechdan_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Going to one HD"
- Next in thread: Robert Nichols: "Re: Going to one HD"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
