CPU Cooler designs?

[Vanguard]

While we can all argue our points on what we think or might like to
happen regarding air flow and cooling, the easiest way to know for
sure is to buy a case that has ports all over so you can actually test
the effect of changing the airflow. I like to get one with a port
(i.e., grill) over the card cage, over the CPU (preferrably with a
removable shroud or collar), a backpanel grill, and a case top grill.
To each of these you can leave as is (i.e., just a hole) or add a fan,
and when adding the fan you could try either direction (suck in or
blow out). One case that I like is the Lian (http://snipurl.com/xmyq)
but there are some cheaper ones with well-placed ports, too. If you
don't like the CPU shroud, you can remove it for the more traditional
airflow. If your case doesn't have a shroud, you can make one or get
ductwork (http://snipurl.com/xmzp). If you don't like the side fan,
remove it. If you don't like the side panel hole, cover it (a plate
sprayed to match the case color and hot-glued in place works great).
If you don't want the top fan, leave it off, or remove it and cover
that hole if you want. Use the front fan or not. If you don't use
the CPU shroud, decide on whether to use a fan on the backpanel. You
get to test to your heart's content, or to the depth of your patience
or obstinence.

Then get something to actually go measure the temperatures (and
control the fans). Get something like
http://www.directron.com/t3lcd2.html, a wireless temperature monitor,
or other monitoring gadgetry (like http://snipurl.com/xmza). There
are lots of ways to monitor various temperatures either singly or
concurrently as there are to also control the fans. It gets pretty
easy to figure out what works best but you'll need to get a case that
gives you all the options at the start unless you like nibbling out
holes for ports and drilling holes for screws in sheet metal.

Right now, I find that cooling is best with the side port covered, a
front fan, the CPU shroud, the top fan, and a PSU that does NOT have a
grill on its front face. When I go to higher-end video cards (2 of
them for SLI) then I'll experiment again to see if leaving the port
covered, leaving it uncovered, or adding a fan (and in which
direction) help cool the video cards best but also check what happens
elsewhere. We can argue all we want but quantitative testing proves
what is best for your setup. But it makes experimenting a lot easier
if you start with a case that gives you all the options up front.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

While we can all argue our points on what we think or might like to
happen regarding air flow and cooling, the easiest way to know for
sure is to buy a case that has ports all over so you can actually test
the effect of changing the airflow.

Good point. I called Korn Ball's bluff on that about 1 1/2 yrs ago,
when he said he'd prove his point with an "experiment", but he
never reported the results of his "experiment".

Right now, I find that cooling is best with the side port covered, a
front fan, the CPU shroud, the top fan, and a PSU that does NOT
have a grill on its front face.

As one would expect - if by "front face" you mean the exit
surface at the back of the case. I, too, found that the flow
rate increased when I snipped the grills away from both
the case exhaust fan and the power supply exhaust fan.
The result was that the main hard drive, which is mounted
just behind the main air intake at the lower front of the case,
runs very cool to the touch. The downside was a slight
increase in audible fan "whoosh" that could be heard
reflecting off the wall behind the PC. I found that a blanket
hung on the wall behind the PC absorbed the sound
considerably, but I haven't gotten around to hanging a
blanket, yet.

If you find the various plug-in cards running too warm,
try an intake fan at the front of the case. The turbulence
it would add will help to cool the cards while not raising
the internal pressure to cut down the overall air flow.

As for added turbulence, it would be interesting to see the
effect of a fan at the center of the case blowing on the
cards. It wouldn't change the overall air flow through the
case, but it would put the air more in touch with the cards
by adding localized turbulence - which is the same as
ventilating "dead spots". It would be analogous to what
CPU fans and graphic card fans do, neither of which
change the overall flow rate.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

I hacked out all the metal corresponding to the fans swept area
plus the central cylinder (the motor) and then found that cooling
was, not surprisingly greatly improved.

I also found flow rate greatly increased after removing the
the grills over both the case and power supply exhaust fans.

can anyone suggest a better tool than a drill and hacksaw for
the metal removal please ?

I was also leary of metal particles, so I used an electrician's cable
snip. The punched metal grills over the exhaust fans are pretty soft,
so the snips will bite right through them, and I didn't have to use any
plastic or other kind of sheeting to catch any metal bits.

If you want to experiment with increasing laminar flow at the exit,
try using putty or modeling clay to smooth the step between the fan
venturi and the case lip. My guess is that it will decrease the
"whoosh" sound noticeably, and it might increase the flow rate
by not having the air "trip" as it exits the case.

*TimDaniels*

 

[kony]

Then get something to actually go measure the temperatures (and
control the fans). Get something like
http://www.directron.com/t3lcd2.html, a wireless temperature monitor,
or other monitoring gadgetry (like http://snipurl.com/xmza). There
are lots of ways to monitor various temperatures either singly or
concurrently as there are to also control the fans. It gets pretty
easy to figure out what works best but you'll need to get a case that
gives you all the options at the start unless you like nibbling out
holes for ports and drilling holes for screws in sheet metal.

Yes, of course it can be measured and that's exactly what I
meant when I wrote that the other parts run hotter. That
is, unless you don't mind noise, will be running the system
with higher fan RPM or more fans than it'd otherwise need.

Right now, I find that cooling is best with the side port covered, a
front fan, the CPU shroud, the top fan, and a PSU that does NOT have a
grill on its front face.

Cooling _what_ is best?
Are you still assuming the CPU temp is some evidence?
There is no need to get the CPU cooler if cool enough, if it
is nowhere near it's instability threshold. This is the
point you seem to keep ignoring, that once it is cool
ENOUGH, trying to divert airflow away from other things to
further cool it, has no benefit for the CPU, only detriment
for the parts then receiving less airflow.

I don't dismiss the possibility someone could have a CPU
'sink poor enough that it just can't provide sufficient
cooling without an alteration to chassis airflow, but the
problem is more directly addressed by replacing the marginal
heatsink rather than sacrificing the temp of other parts
instead.

When I go to higher-end video cards (2 of
them for SLI) then I'll experiment again to see if leaving the port
covered, leaving it uncovered, or adding a fan (and in which
direction) help cool the video cards best but also check what happens
elsewhere. We can argue all we want but quantitative testing proves
what is best for your setup. But it makes experimenting a lot easier
if you start with a case that gives you all the options up front.

Yes, if we assume some odd case, but normally the case is
not so odd, the intake rate through the front directly
corresponds to that flowing through the HDD racks, meeting
the chipset or at least southbridge portion.

 

[kony]

Good point. I called Korn Ball's bluff on that about 1 1/2 yrs ago,
when he said he'd prove his point with an "experiment", but he
never reported the results of his "experiment".

Oh? Seems like every time I provide evidence you just start
trolling and whining and fail to provide even a shred of
evidence for your own argument.

Unlike you Tim, I test things BEFORE claiming I know unless
there is directly applicable data. Take for example my
recommendation for you to create that piece of plastic to
produce turbulence. If I had made the claim you did about
pre-part turbulence, I'd have tested it first. You never do
Tim, and then get backed into corners where you have no way
out.

 

[Vanguard]

Oh? Seems like every time I provide evidence you just start
trolling and whining and fail to provide even a shred of
evidence for your own argument.

Unlike you Tim, I test things BEFORE claiming I know unless
there is directly applicable data. Take for example my
recommendation for you to create that piece of plastic to
produce turbulence. If I had made the claim you did about
pre-part turbulence, I'd have tested it first. You never do
Tim, and then get backed into corners where you have no way
out.

You did not provide any evidence. You only exhibited your opinions.
Even when I showed a link to the spec that itself says that you must
provide additional cooling based on your needs and that the ATX spec
does itself define cooling you kept claiming the ATX spec defines
effective cooling. It's like buying eggs: you decide how you are
going to cook them and them coming in a particular shape does not
itself dictate what is best.

 

[kony]

You did not provide any evidence.

I present the world's ATX systems running fine. Millions of
them. If you want a more specific piece of evidence, do two
things:

1) Specify the specific scenario. You have continually
speculated but never an example of a properly set up ATX
system that needed such changes. Even one example of such a
system would be a bare necessity on your part as you have
made the grand claims about problems with ATX, while ATX
systems themselves are running everywhere right now.

When I wrote specific above, I meant it. You have made
arbitrary claims and never once any problem being addressed.
I mean a specific problem actually exhibited in ANY system
that is set up without obvious flaws in the ATX spec and the
latitude it allows. Essentially, you're trying to argue a
solution for which there is no problem, but a solution that
can CAUSE problems itself.

So provide a very detailed example of ANY system that has
the problems you vaguely allude to. We've seen quite a few
systems in this newsgroup and elsewhere that are ATX, and
run fine. Are you actualy claiming you know better than
everyone with a working system, that it's a problem?

2) Do your own work too, since you made the claim and have
at least as much obligation to counter with evidence, given
the above truth- that there are millions of ATX systems
running fine, AND at very low noise from several OEMs.

When we have this broad topic, that is true because there
are many points of evidence.

However, there ARE some things we can see clearly as already
proven, general knowledge. For example, given same exhaust
fans and rate, introducing an intake next to the CPU will
necessarily reduce intake at the bottom front of the case.

Does this really need proven? It is a pretty clear thing.

When this intake rate is reduced, does it need proven that a
lower intake rate at same (ambient room) temp will reduce
cooling in that area? I had thought we could rely on past
thermal testing to concede this, or do we need to rediscover
science all over again?

Even when I showed a link to the spec that itself says that you must
provide additional cooling based on your needs ...

"must"?
Only valid "based on your needs".

In other words, it's a nonsense statement, it's ALWAYS the
situation that if one needs more cooling, they must provide
it.

What this does not address, is that providing more cooling
and altering the chassis airflow paths and rates
disproportionately are two different things. It also
ignores noise:airflow, or in an optimally designed cooling
system, noise:temp ratio.

... and that the ATX spec
does itself define cooling you kept claiming the ATX spec defines
effective cooling.

It is a standard with some latitude in it to accomdate
different thermal loads. None of what you have written
validates changing the airflow and then assuming it is
better merely by judging temp of a part that is thus far,
not necessarily overheating at all (CPU), and if it were,
also with a historically proven way to address this, the
step-by-step analysis of each portion of the cooling
subsystem.

A true *fix* to a cooling problem is not robbing Peter to
pay Paul- taking away front intake airflow so it can go to a
CPU, that again, has never been mentioned to be overheating
at all! You've posed some hypothetical yet generic
situation and even at that, have not described any problem
with CPU temp.

Instead, entire world plus dog uses the standards and
instead of theories about "we could" measure, actually DO
measure temps before deciding something needs to be changed,
and then there must be the consideration of how this change
effects the other parts.

It's like buying eggs: you decide how you are
going to cook them and them coming in a particular shape does not
itself dictate what is best.

Except, cases aren't fluid, and no matter what shape you
like best, there has been extensive study and millions upon
millions of systems built to demonstrate good low noise
cooling. So if you _CHOOSE_ to have a suboptimal cooling
system, and can accept any detractions from it, that is your
own personal decision. That is an entirely different matter
from suggesting that decision is better without any evidence
that it actually is.

 

[Vanguard]

Yes, of course it can be measured and that's exactly what I
meant when I wrote that the other parts run hotter. That
is, unless you don't mind noise, will be running the system
with higher fan RPM or more fans than it'd otherwise need.

I've yet to see my other parts get hotter when I cool off the hottest
parts first and expel their heat immediately. Why do you think the
ATX spec has the CPU put right next to the PSU fan? So its heat gets
expelled immediately. If it weren't for the PSU fan, I'd have to use
a side port to bring the cool outside air to the CPU and then use a
shroud to vent it out the backpanel rather than let that hot air go
warm up other parts. The other parts do not necessarily get hotter
just because you decide to better cool the hottest parts.

Cooling _what_ is best?
Are you still assuming the CPU temp is some evidence?

Stop focusing on the CPU. You keep coming back to that in the hopes
to divert attention that the rest of the insides get cooler if the CPU
is cooled with outside air directly and then its heat is expelled
immediately (through a shroud, duct, or through the PSU). I wasn't
the one that focused on just the CPU temp. I'm the one saying to
monitor ALL the temps. Well, you can monitor everything (or enough to
be sure) by using the CPU with its thermistor, the system temp
thermistor, and along with 2 or 4 more measuring probes (that you can
move around, like to hard drives, memory, video card etc.) to guage
the health of your machine. Even just 2 extra measuring probes that
you can move around will let you guage effects of changing your
airflows. Just measure, move them, measure again, and so on and after
you get what's best for your setup then you leave them on the more
critical components (since I only have two, I leave them on the video
card and whichever hard drive was found to run hottest). The CPU's
thermistor is a measure of its temperature, not of anything else. Its
probe, while not super accurate, doesn't need to be that accurate. I
don't care about absolute temperature when making case modifications.
I want to see if temps go up or down, and by how much, and in SEVERAL
different locations.

There is no need to get the CPU cooler if cool enough, if it
is nowhere near it's instability threshold. This is the
point you seem to keep ignoring, that once it is cool
ENOUGH, trying to divert airflow away from other things to
further cool it, has no benefit for the CPU, only detriment
for the parts then receiving less airflow.

I am not diverting airflow. I am zoning the airflow plus I am
*adding* MORE airflow. The hottest parts get their own airflow using
cooler outside air and preferrably to expel their heated air as soon
as possible. The rest of the components get their normal level of
cooling by using the incidental airflow or using their own added
airflow. Because the backpanel fan ends up bringing in cooler outside
air to the CPU which gets expelled through the PSU (which is the
normal exhaust path), yes, it is possible that the loss of the
backpanel fan would reduce airflow drawn around the upper card cage;
however, the ATX spec did not specify a rear backpanel fan but relied
on the PSU's fan (and why some PSUs provide 2 fans so if one fails
then the other is the backup). That's why I have the top exhaust fan
that ensures air is drawn through the front across the lower drive
cage, past the chipset and memory sticks, and even ensures air passes
the upper drive cage that normally has very stagnant airflow - and,
yes, sometimes hard drives do get put up there rather than just CD/DVD
drives, like to use silenced mounts (so the 3.5" drive has to be
mounted inside a cage that is LARGER than provided by the lower cage),
and even tape drives generate heat. Not everyone just puts a single
DVD drive up in a 4-drive cage. I get BETTER airflow with a case that
offers me more options than just one that stuck to the ATX spec and
ignored the statement regarding having to mod the case per your own
cooling requirements.

I don't dismiss the possibility someone could have a CPU
'sink poor enough that it just can't provide sufficient
cooling without an alteration to chassis airflow, but the
problem is more directly addressed by replacing the marginal
heatsink rather than sacrificing the temp of other parts
instead.

Stop buying cheap cases and get some thermocouples or a monitoring
kit. You don't have to sacrifice cooling to anything. It doesn't
have to be a loud case with more fans, either. Because you are simply
ensuring that airflow exists to the other components, and because the
ATX has stagnant spots anyway (card cage and upper drive cage), you
can use larger or slower moving fans to reduce noise. I like the
Scythe 120mm fans (http://snipurl.com/xoap) better than the Panaflow
(which don't particularly sound that quiet to me).

Obviously the ATX design is not the best or even a good cooling
solution when just taking off the side panel and pointing a table fan
to the inside will cool all components better than relying on a single
twisting and bending airflow that majorly travels upward from the
lower front intake to just midway up and then out past the CPU and the
PSU. If that pattern was so excellent, why don't air conditioned
buildings simply blow in the cold air into the bottom floor and have
grilled floors to suck it out the top floor (or at a mid-level floor
as does the ATX case)? Air conditioning buildings are zoned.

You can get a smoke gun at many hobby shops. The one that I got was
from Dad who is an HVAC contractor. It uses glass cartridges that get
their tip broken off. When the chemical inside hits the atmosphere it
produces what looks like stranded smoke (since normal smoke is a
particulate that disperses quickly and becomes hard to see any airflow
but can show stagnant areas). You use either tubing or a metal tube
to inject the smoke at any point inside the case to instantly *see*
the airflow. I'm not a fan of windowed side panels but it's easy to
fab up a sheet of plexiglass and use foam weatherstriping and a bungie
cord to seal it against the case. Under the old ATX design, the front
air got sucked past the lower drive cage and moved upward. The card
area wasn't overlay stagnant but it also didn't receive much airflow.
If you add a fan at the front and with no drives, the air would whoosh
into the card area and then become turbulent and slowly rise past the
cards toward the CPU. With drives added to the lower cage, the air
got more turbulent so a bit more would get sucked up towards the CPU
and PSU. With or without a front fan, the upper drive cage was always
stagnant unless you added an opening (by removing a bay cover or
adding a grill there. A top hole by itself didn't seem to much reduce
the stagnant airflow for the upper cage but adding a fan (exhaust
mode) worked well. I didn't play around with what happens when using
a fan in a bay slot (to see if intake or exhaust was better). The
stagnant upper cage isn't a problem unless you put hard drives or tape
drives up there but obviously there is no harm in NOT having stagnant
airflow up there and you don't have to worry if you latter ass a
larger heat producer up there. With a side panel port (exhaust mode,
NOT intake) and a top fan (exhaust mode) and no front fan, some of the
air got sucked across the cards and out and some got sucked up towards
the PSU and top fan, but most went out the side port and why I the fan
at the top helped pull it up that way to both go over the chipset and
memory and also de-stagnate the upper drive cage.

Even low RPM fans improved airflow through the case and they are
quiet. Yeah, I know they tend to say they are whisper quiet but the
constant "whisper" is still there. Yet my new case with its 3 added
fans (plus the CPU and PSU fans) is quieter than my traditional setups
using a standard "closed" ATX case that has to use much higher CFM
fans but still doesn't cool as well. As you mention, there is no
point in moving more air than necessary around ANY part plus some
folks get ridiculously attached to having the lowest temperature.
Some think they must have the CPU below 40 C and yet its *working*
range goes up to 80 C. I've had the CPU running stable for 4 years at
55 C (at which point the fan RPM gets raised). I don't overclock.
While I won't touch Dad's airflow meters that measure rate or bother
to check effective CFM, the lower temperatures measured at several
places for my new setup clearly shows that adding the low RPM, low
noise fans (which have lower CFM but cumulatively are greater) along
with adding or zoning the airflows has helped to reduce tempertures
(notice the plural since I'm not talking about just the CPU's
temperature).

System impedance (to airflow) is different with every case and changes
(worsens) depending on what you put into the case and how sloppy or
neat you are regarding cabling. So the ATX spec'ed case will NOT
always have the best cooling and may not even have good cooling. The
spec even tells you to mod to ensure proper cooling. Also, you want
to setup an exhaust-to-intake CFM ratio of 2:1 (i.e., your [potential]
exhaust rate is twice your intake rate). This will provide negative
pressure inside the case. Cooling works better at lower pressures.
The biggest impedance are those stupid front panel grills (which are
few, small, and too much metal between them) and/or doors. Being
pretty often obviates good cooling. Sometimes its too hard (and
becomes too ugly) to fix that problem; however, sometimes you can snip
out the slot holes to make a bigger hole (and then put over a filter
over the hole to make it look nicer and reduce dust intake). As
opposed to cases that have a pretty, smooth, and rather restrictive
front and which often rely on sucking in from the bottom through an
area that is half, or less, of the intake surface of the 120mm intake
fan, I like cases that are open in the front (like the Lian case at
http://snipurl.com/xobg) or change them to put a grill right in front
of the intake fan.

While I may play around trying to reduce temperatures, I don't go nuts
trying to get the coldest temperatures, just something better than the
default setup but the system must still be whisper quiet. If noise
were of no concern then, yes, a completely sealed case with one intake
and one exhaust port (and perhaps vanes to ensure no stagnant areas)
would be best but the noise from the high CFM fans (higher for the
exhaust) would mean having to bury it in a closest. So far I haven't
been attracted to water-cooled setups. And something like Zalman TNN
500AF is just too damn pricey for me (plus its PSU is too weak for
me).

 

[kony]

I've yet to see my other parts get hotter when I cool off the hottest
parts first and expel their heat immediately.

Wrong, you have not measured.

It is NECESSARILY so, that when you create that short loop,
it reduces front air intake rate. The only way around that
is to either exhaust out the side instead of in (with a fan
added), or put addt'l fans on the front intake. Either way,
you have increased the noise, without any demonstrated need.

"Demonstrated need" is a key element you seem to keep
ignoring. CPU temp is NOT A CONTEST. You WIN NO PRIZE for
getting it lower than it needs to be to stay stable and have
acceptible lifespan.

Why do you think the
ATX spec has the CPU put right next to the PSU fan? So its heat gets
expelled immediately.

You fail to understand that the issue is not whether it's
expelled immediately, it's how that is implemented, where
the air is coming from, how you are altering chassis airflow
and the resultant noise levels from doing so.

Further, both Intel and AMD guidelines for implementation of
their CPUs include a separate chassis exhaust fan because it
is not so desirable to have that heat most immediately
removed through the PSU.

If it weren't for the PSU fan, ...

No, you have made another design mistake if you have a CPU
that produces even a moderate amount of heat- enough to be
finding any kind of significant cooling issue, then trying
to use the PSU to remove the majority of it. While it is
possible to do so, you are already painting a picture of a
system that deviates from the guidelines of the product
manufacturer.

... I'd have to

No, you do not "HAVE TO" do any of this.
MILLIONS OF SYSTEMS prove you wrong by running fine without
this presumed need you presuppose.

... use
a side port to bring the cool outside air to the CPU and then use a
shroud to vent it out the backpanel rather than let that hot air go
warm up other parts. The other parts do not necessarily get hotter
just because you decide to better cool the hottest parts.

You continue to ignore that by creating the short loop, you
are reducing airflow in other parts of the system, chiefly
the lower to mid front 1/2 which typically includes the hard
drive rack, the mainboard chipset (on more modern boards),
and the rear of the video card (and the rest of it as well
if your side hole is too high up).

Stop focusing on the CPU.

That is exactly what you are doing!

Above you did it, previously you did with mention of the
placement of this hole in the side. It is your mistake.

You keep coming back to that in the hopes
to divert attention ...

<snip>

Sorry but you are deluded.

I point out the millions of systems running fine RIGHT NOW.
They are real world examples that clearly prove you wrong
without any possible diversion from reality. They are
perfect real existing evidence instead of your vague
untested ideas (which are wrong- you are not measuring front
intake rate).

To whatever extent the front parts heated up that air (which
you supposed was a bad thing), prior to reaching the area
where you wanted your short loop , that was EXACTLY WHAT WE
WANTED TO HAVE HAPPEN, TO HAVE THOSE PARTS COOLED DOWN!

There is no diversion from real world evidence all around
you. There is no diversion by considering inescapable
truths about airflow, that you will change the chassis
airflow path and to get more (or even some, new intake) air
in one area, you will either reduce intake in another, or
have to increase the active portion of the cooling system
(fan rate or numbers of).

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Take for example my recommendation for you to create
that piece of plastic to produce turbulence.

What recommendation was that? And where and when
did you make such a recommendation? And why plastic?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

You have continually speculated but never an example
of a properly set up ATX system that needed such changes.

Weasel walking again. If anyone demonstrated an ATX
system with inadequate cooling, you'd just say "it wasn't
properly set up".

The truth is that ANY design can be improved - especially
when the requirements that it must satisfy are continually
changing. The ATX design is old. The heat loads from
CPUs and graphic cards have climbed hugely. What worked
in 1998 doesn't work so well now. Meanwhile, Apple has
gone to ducting and channeling and zoned cooling. But
Kone-head? He's still defending the ATX design.

*TimDaniels*

 

[kony]

Weasel walking again. If anyone demonstrated an ATX
system with inadequate cooling, you'd just say "it wasn't
properly set up".

If "inadequate", yes there is a possibility of it, and then
the ACTUAL DETAILS of the cooling system would be considered
to find out why that system isn't cool enough, while other
ATX, _ARE_.

The truth is that ANY design can be improved

Depends on the subjective definition of improved.
If the only goal is getting CPU cooler regardless of the
effect on the other parts, sure, put that duct in.

If the only goal is increase in airflow, throw a dozen fans
into a system if it makes you happy, since it IS your system
to do with as you please.

HOWEVER, there still remains the fact that optimally
efficient cooling with lowest noise, does not use short
loops for hot zones, it takes in the cool air at the
opposite end of the system from the exhaust.

The amazing part is that even after AMD, Intel, and too many
websites to mention have even make cute little diagrahms
showing proper airflow paths, some people still don't
understand.

When someone can't get a system cooled doing what they think
everyone else was doing, the solution is not to reject the
ATX standard, it is to assess where that failure in cooling
deviated from what everyone else was doing.

How many times does it need to be repleated, that MILLIONS
OF ATX SYSTEMS PROVE IT WORKS.

- especially
when the requirements that it must satisfy are continually
changing. The ATX design is old.

So is x86, 110V AC power, steel and aluminum for cases, etc,
etc. Arbitrarily calling something old is pointless when
MILLIONS OF ATX SYSTEMS PROVE YOU WRONG!

These are not old system builds, so your "old" idea is
useless.

The heat loads from
CPUs and graphic cards have climbed hugely.

Yes, and that is why they have larger heatsinks and the
total chassis airflow rate increased. It also means that
now more than ever, to have an efficiently and quietly
cooled system, you need to make the most out of each CFM of
airflow.

What worked
in 1998 doesn't work so well now.

Disproven everywhere by everyone except those who can't
accept they made some system integration mistake.

When two people can both run same CPU and video (or similar
enough), same # and age of (similar enough) hard drives,
etc, etc, and one ATX system has cooling problems while the
other does not, the VARIABLE WAS NOT ATX.

Only an idiot could ignore that plenty of ATX systems work
fine and when some do and some don't, ATX IS NOT THE
VARIABLE. This might be considered troubleshooting 101.

Pity Tim spends more time trolling than anything else.

 

[kony]

What recommendation was that?

When you foolishly suggested that creating turbulence prior
to the surface being cooled would help, I proposed a simple
test or rather, an obvious indicator that it isn't
effective.

Of course you ignored that, because you dont' want to
consider anything but the fiction you originated.

Fortunately the industry is not caring what Tim thinks, and
seeks to reduce turbulence inside a chassis when feasible.

where and when
did you make such a recommendation?

Can you get someone over to your monitor who will read the
replies to you?

And why plastic?

Because it's cheap, and because if your theory is true, it
wouldn't matter if plastic or not, only that it create the
turbulence. If you prefer metal, use metal instead... and
it still won't do anything but hinder cooling.

 

[Vanguard]

Some folks find driving a Geo Metro is quite sufficient for their
commuter and personal needs. Look around. Others like to have
something BETTER that just the design spec. Yeah, I could go with a
case that's a third the cost, and a PSU based on its peak output
rather than continuous output, and slower memory, and slower spinning
drives, and ad nauseum. I don't go bleeding edge but neither am I a
lemming.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

The amazing part is that even after AMD, Intel, and too many
websites to mention have even make cute little diagrahms
showing proper airflow paths, some people still don't
understand.

There is no "proper" airflow path, only efficient ones
for the given heat load, heat distribution, and size of
the components acting as obstacles. These factors
change from configuration to configuration.

How many times does it need to be repleated, that
MILLIONS OF ATX SYSTEMS PROVE IT WORKS.

Only most of the time, and components still suffer
shortened lives from prolonged high temperatures.
But your geriatric brain says "If it don't fail immediately,
it's gotta be good".


Arbitrarily calling something old is pointless when

MILLIONS OF ATX SYSTEMS PROVE YOU WRONG!

Not in the least. What is old in PCs is overdue for a
revaluation, not blind adherence that disregards
changing conditions. Admit it, Kone-head, heat loads
have changed, sizes of components and their heatsinks
have changed. But you haven't. You've just gotten
older along with your ATX design.

Yes, and that is why they have larger heatsinks and the
total chassis airflow rate increased.

And that changes the path and distribution of airflow,
so no "One size fits all" case design will suffice for
all systems.

It also means that now more than ever, to have an efficiently
and quietly cooled system, you need to make the most out
of each CFM of airflow.

What a vacuous statement! "To have a good system, you
have to be careful in airflow planning." Duhhh.....

Disproven everywhere by everyone except those who can't
accept they made some system integration mistake.

And you continue to do things the "old way" and to not
investigate or try new approaches. Your investment is
clearly in the past - where you remain.

When two people can both run same CPU and video (or similar
enough), same # and age of (similar enough) hard drives,
etc, etc, and one ATX system has cooling problems while the
other does not, the VARIABLE WAS NOT ATX.

And, uhhh, what system was this, kornball?

Only an idiot could ignore that plenty of ATX systems work
fine and when some do and some don't, ATX IS NOT THE
VARIABLE.

Airflow is such a complex phenomenon, that small changes
in component positioning can account for large changes in
flow (and stagnation) patterns - something you refuse to
consider.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

When you foolishly suggested that creating turbulence prior
to the surface being cooled would help, I proposed a simple
test or rather, an obvious indicator that it isn't effective.

Uhhh...., let me interpret your "English": You say that I
suggested that air turbulence created upstream of the
surface that is to be cooled would help in cooling the
surface more than a smooth laminar flow of air past
that surface would cool it. Hmmm... that sounds like
an excellent idea, not foolish at all!

But you proposed that YOU would perform the experiment,
after which nothing more has been heard from you. What
happened? Did you prove yourself to be wrong? How
embarrassing that must have been for you.


*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

"Demonstrated need" is a key element you seem
to keep ignoring. CPU temp is NOT A CONTEST.
You WIN NO PRIZE for getting it lower than it needs
to be to stay stable and have acceptible lifespan.

And who defines "acceptible lifespan"? You?
Always leaving yourself an escape hatch, aren't you?
If alternate cooling methods double the lifespan,
you'd say "double isn't worth striving for". Wot an
intellectual fraud you are, kone-head.

*TimDaniels*

 

[kony]

There is no "proper" airflow path,

Wrong, there is if you're using ATX.
If using some other fixed chassis design, there would again
be a most-optimal airflow path and deviating would again be
less effective, require more airflow and/or noise for the
same result.

 

[kony]

Uhhh...., let me interpret your "English": You say that I
suggested that air turbulence created upstream of the
surface that is to be cooled would help in cooling the
surface more than a smooth laminar flow of air past
that surface would cool it. Hmmm... that sounds like
an excellent idea, not foolish at all!

This is why you never do anything useful- you pretend to
know something unproven, untested, then begin arguing with
zero evidence of this theory implemented.

You desperately need to learn about a process called
scientific method.

But you proposed that YOU would perform the experiment,
after which nothing more has been heard from you.

Which one Tim?

Link this and if there is data missing I'll provide that
data.

Naturally it will only be reasonable to expect you to
provide some data supporting your claims too.

What
happened? Did you prove yourself to be wrong? How
embarrassing that must have been for you.

Tim, you're not fooling anyone. Your nonsense statements
are NEVER backed by anything, no real world examples, nor
used by an industry that has studied cooling far more than
you.

 

[kony]

Some folks find driving a Geo Metro is quite sufficient for their
commuter and personal needs. Look around.

Non-applicable.

Randomly adding holes and fans is a not some advanced
solution, it's a failure to implement the things everyone
else did, as well.

Millions of systems- not just Geo Metro class.

Others like to have
something BETTER that just the design spec.

So you continue to claim with ALL evidence against you and
not a single problem needing solved.

Yeah, I could go with a
case that's a third the cost,

Nobody ever claimed "use some cheap case", you're trying to
introduce entirely non-applicable situations. We we talking
about REAL SYSTEMS and whether when set up as most people
and OEMs do, they work.

and a PSU based on its peak output
rather than continuous output, and slower memory, and slower spinning
drives, and ad nauseum. I don't go bleeding edge but neither am I a
lemming.

These things have nothing to do with whether you start
creating short loops that decrease the cooling that
previously existed in same areas of any typical case- cheap
OR expensive.