View Full Version : Cooling
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/09/strip_out_the_fans/
Haha, I saw a TV report about that some months ago but I personally think it's a bit of a mess especially when upgrading(and when you want to sell your old hardware to someone else).
That may be a temporary not available Caravel, the URL works.
A few years ago there was a joking topic in some forum about watercooling: a guy said without laughing that he sealed his case and filled it to the brim with water. I think the board got an extra 10,000 hits every day, including upset people that this was very dangerous. Some saw the joke though and made it more absurd by saying he should better use petrol as that wasn't corrosive.
It's interesting to see this now. Also read the article about extreme oc and nitrogen cooling again. It's a good thing that Intel/AMD manage to make their CPU's smarter and thus more powerful without skyrocketing the powerconsumption and thus the impractical cooling requirements (not to mention the environment). This coolingproblem may become yet another motivation to split the CPU again. I guess it's easier to cool two 'smaller' seperate sockets/CPU than one. You could say that this is already achieved by the GPU(s).
Well, the GPUs do seem to get warmer and warmer and use more and more energy unlike CPUs where all that is being reduced lately.
I wonder whether one can keep the fans running inside that soup.
If you have a Pentium D, maybe you can supply everybody on a LAN with french fries...:2thumbsup:
Vladimir
02-05-2007, 00:43
Is this some kind of sick joke? Coating electrodes with something as flamable as cooking oil is never a good idea. Not to mention the bacteria that would turn it into their version of the Roman Empire.
I've used cooking oil in my chainsaw as chain oil. When it hits the blade and heats up, make the whole place smell like french fries.
Then you wonder why you're hungry all day.
Well, the GPUs do seem to get warmer and warmer and use more and more energy unlike CPUs where all that is being reduced lately.
I wonder whether one can keep the fans running inside that soup.
If you have a Pentium D, maybe you can supply everybody on a LAN with french fries...:2thumbsup:
The initial Intel Core2Duo dropped from over 100 to 65 Watt (or is there a catch somewhere?). But the latest are already over 100 again. Indeed though, it's good that the performance grew without simply increasing powerinput. We would be at 250 Watt just for the CPU? :shocked: How to cool that?
Imagine todays 125 Watt GPU to be part (if possible) of the CPU.
A Pentium D should do the trick ~:)
Is this some kind of sick joke? Coating electrodes with something as flamable as cooking oil is never a good idea. Not to mention the bacteria that would turn it into their version of the Roman Empire.
I doubt, possible though. It links to Tomshardware, not prank.com. It's about technically possible, not about practical. It will be run for a period to prove it's possible. Some hours, a few days or even weeks, but not months.
Cooking oil needs to be heated to way over 300 degrees Fahrenheit to boil. It will not burn quickly. That would mean it can't be used for what it is for: boil food. A gasflame initiating the burning is much hotter.
Watercooling is also prone to bacteria/algae grow (you have to add something to slow that).
I've used cooking oil in my chainsaw as chain oil. When it hits the blade and heats up, make the whole place smell like french fries.
Then you wonder why you're hungry all day.
~:) In that case you have a little bit of oil on a large hot metal surface. The oild will heat quickly and evaporate. In the PC case you have a eight gallons of oil to cool a few hot parts. Even a 300 F CPU surface won't spark the oil to burn. The locally heated up oil around the CPU will quickly be replaced by cooler oil from the tank.
Page11 mentions the temperature to be around 100 Fahrenheit at maximum load. The oil temperature around the CPU will be higher, perhaps even 300directly at the surface (it's a bit unclear to me whether they still used the heatsink?).
It won't be my DIY project and I won't recommend anyone to try this at home, but I think it's quite possible in a 'lab'.
Talking about cooling, I saw a heatsink for a CPU weighing 960 grams (~2 lbs). Imagine that being fitted in your tower, breaking loose and having a $400gfx. http://www.xoxide.com/scythe-infinity-cpu-cooler.html
A little off topic, i remember reading about using ethanol and dry ice for cooling.
It was tested in an australian magazine some months back and it got the computer so cold it didnt' boot :laugh4:
The initial Intel Core2Duo dropped from over 100 to 65 Watt (or is there a catch somewhere?). But the latest are already over 100 again. Indeed though, it's good that the performance grew without simply increasing powerinput. We would be at 250 Watt just for the CPU? :shocked: How to cool that?
The new the newest stepping of the Core 2 Duos uses even less energy than the initial stepping(and I read the TDP, 65W, is usually not reached, same for AMD CPUs). The one that uses more is the QuadCore because that consists of two DualCores linked via the FSB so each DualCore has a TDP of 65W and together they have 130W. A native QuadCore design could reduce that of course but Intel wants to stick to this for a while. MADs next QuadCore should be a native design though IIRC.
I doubt, possible though. It links to Tomshardware, not prank.com. It's about technically possible, not about practical. It will be run for a period to prove it's possible. Some hours, a few days or even weeks, but not months.
I saw a TV report long ago where a guy was using this on his Athlon XP 2000 or so. I think he changed the oil sometimes but he was running his computer like this all the time.
Talking about cooling, I saw a heatsink for a CPU weighing 960 grams (~2 lbs). Imagine that being fitted in your tower, breaking loose and having a $400gfx. http://www.xoxide.com/scythe-infinity-cpu-cooler.html
I had a Zalman weighing around 750 grams(CNPS7000-CU) it deformed the mainboard a bit but I don't think it could have fallen, it was fastened quite well onto the mainboard, keep in mind that there is usually even a pressure applied to keep it in close contact with the CPU, otherwise your CPU would burn before the cooler falls.
The new the newest stepping of the Core 2 Duos uses even less energy than the initial stepping(and I read the TDP, 65W, is usually not reached
The Conroe and Allendale E4300 and E6xxx?
The one that uses more is the QuadCore because that consists of two DualCores linked via the FSB so each DualCore has a TDP of 65W and together they have 130W. A native QuadCore design could reduce that of course but Intel wants to stick to this for a while. MADs next QuadCore should be a native design though IIRC.
Yes, those are Quadcores and Extreme versions.
I had a Zalman weighing around 750 grams(CNPS7000-CU) it deformed the mainboard a bit but I don't think it could have fallen, it was fastened quite well onto the mainboard, keep in mind that there is usually even a pressure applied to keep it in close contact with the CPU, otherwise your CPU would burn before the cooler falls.
Yes.
Too cold to boot, install a bootheater :)
The Conroe and Allendale E4300 and E6xxx?
They have a TDP of 65W.
The power consumption of these processors is much lower than the Pentium desktop line of products. With a TDP of only 65 W, Core 2 features a significantly reduced power consumption compared to its predecessor desktop chip, the Pentium 4 Prescott with a TDP of 130 W.
Here is a pic from AMD which shows what I mean, it does of course show that AMDs are supposedly better but the new stepping of the Core 2 Duo should use even less energy IIRC.
http://pics.krawall.de/4/amd_brisbane_vs_core2duo.jpg
Also keep in mind that the Core 2 Duo offers a bit more speed than any of the low-energy AMDs which is the part AMD leave out on the above chart. And they don't mention what power saving methods they used. My E6600 runs only at 1600MHz idle
:dizzy: yet another catfight to confuse the customer.
What is meant with the TDP rating? The energy consumption by the CPU when 100% stressed?
You have a E6600, nice. What was your previous CPU?
And Athlon XP 2400+ and you may be right about the TDP, but I'm not sure what it means exactly.
Does the E6600 perform much better in your applications and experience?
TDP = thermal design power. How much heat energy the thing is designed to be able to dissappate.
The AMD picture is intentionally designed to make AMD look good, of course. The power use at idle isn't an accident - it's chosen over load or partial load power uses, because it's one of the places AMD actually wins.
Does the E6600 perform much better in your applications and experience?
Yes, I think the main limiting factor is now my HDD, whenever something takes time, the HDD is making noises, M2TW doesn't even use both cores to full extend(yet gives me a message my CPU would be insufficient for reinforcements to come).
It's by far the strongest part of my system now with the graphicscard limiting games and the HDD limiting loading of programs etc.
I couldn't really find any game that seemed to be limited by the CPU, I have 2GB DDR2 667 and a 7950GT(connected with PCIe x4 only).
When I upgraded from the 2400+ I initially kept my old 1GB DDR1 400 and GeForce 6600GT and even with that config I noticed that Gothic 2 for example was suddenly completely smooth(before it felt a bit slow while not exactly lagging either, uses only one core anyway).
Well, I think the CPU is seldom running at 100% and if it is, something else limits the performance anyway. I don't regret buying it.:2thumbsup:
TDP = thermal design power. How much heat energy the thing is designed to be able to dissappate.
Thank you you Phatose. So, the Core2Duo has a TDP of 65 Watt. That means it's designed to dissipate that amount of heat. It's safe (?) to assume all Watts put into a CPU are finally in some way converted to heat and needs to be dissipated. So when it can dissipate 65 Watts of heat, the maximum input (the maximum power consumption) is also 65 Watts. Or am I totally wrong here?
Yes, I think the main limiting factor is now my HDD, whenever something takes time, the HDD is making noises,
The HD will be the bottleneck anyway, how about a Raptor or if money isn't a problem http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=792&cid=4
You already have 1 GB dimm to start filling her up. The product is limited to 4 GB though and M2TW is more than that?
M2TW doesn't even use both cores to full extend(yet gives me a message my CPU would be insufficient for reinforcements to come).
Can't help you Milord, your CPU isn't strong.
I couldn't really find any game that seemed to be limited by the CPU, I have 2GB DDR2 667 and a 7950GT(connected with PCIe x4 only).
You don't have a PCIe x16 lane?
When I upgraded from the 2400+ I initially kept my old 1GB DDR1 400 and GeForce 6600GT and even with that config I noticed that Gothic 2 for example was suddenly completely smooth(before it felt a bit slow while not exactly lagging either, uses only one core anyway).
Well, I think the CPU is seldom running at 100% and if it is, something else limits the performance anyway. I don't regret buying it.:2thumbsup:
Sounds good.
The HD will be the bottleneck anyway, how about a Raptor or if money isn't a problem http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=792&cid=4
You already have 1 GB dimm to start filling her up. The product is limited to 4 GB though and M2TW is more than that?
That sounds like a waste of money, Medieval 2 is more than 10GB but the loading times are really low. The game I had in mind was Gothic 3 which loads quite a lot from the HDD since the world is completely seamless, it works rather fine since I got 2GB RAM but a faster HDD might help.
Money is a big issue though, I'll either get a usual SATA drive or wait until i can afford one of those solid state disks if they turn out to be decent, I think.
Can't help you Milord, your CPU isn't strong.
:laugh4:
It's just weird to see that it is never ever up to 100% but it still lags with many thosand men in custom battle while I get that message in campaign battles with huge stacks involved. I would guess the graphicscard is too weak or the game somehow uses the Dual core in a wrong way so that it cannot use the full potential. what is weird about that though is that it does use both cores but one more than the other.:dizzy2:
You don't have a PCIe x16 lane?
No, I got the cheapo AsRock 775Dual VSTA which allowed to upgrade all parts from DDR1 to DDR2 and from AGP to PCIe with the downside that it is limited to DDR2 667 and a PCIe x16 slot that is only connected with four lanes. The performance gain over the old 6600GT was still huge though.
I'm going to buy a decent NForce 6 board(Asus P5N-E SLI, don't need much more) somewhen but I need to pay for a few other things first.
Wiki info about the Pentium, interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4
However, it was cancelled a few months after the release of Prescott due to extremely high power consumption (a 2.8 GHz Tejas consumed 150 W of power, compared to around 80 W for a Northwood of the same speed, and 100 W for a comparably clocked Prescott) and development on the NetBurst architecture as a whole ceased, with the exception of the dual-core Pentium D/Extreme Edition and Cedar Mill.
Glad they cancelled that.
TDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Power
The TDP is typically set not to be the most power the chip could ever draw (such as by a power virus), but rather the maximum power that it would draw when running real applications.
A power virus? :book2:
Hmm, a power virus can cause the CPU to generate more heat than it would ever be able to dissipate (not even when there's an overkill of cooling). Uh oh.
How many pv are there? Seems rare, can't find anything even.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.