Proposed System

[Thunder9]

The following is my first home built system (proposed):

Goals: Home theater, versatility, fast, quiet. Budget: $2000

$80 Full Tower Case http://www.directron.com/ma01bd.html
Black is awesome. Full tower allows me to put this on the floor next
to my digital piano (Clavinova CVP 109) and have easy access to
optical media at the top of the box. Also, full tower makes air flow
easier to manage for better cooling = quieter.

$20 Wheel set to go with above.

$70 Super Tornado 300. Silent power supply.

?? Video Board. Probably an ATI AIW.

$170 CPU. P4 2.4 Ghz 800 Mhz FSB. The lowest speed CPU that has 800
MHz FSB will be the lowest heat producing CPU in that class.
Undervolt this baby for even less heat.

$200 Motherboard. Gigabyte GA-8KNXP. 800 MHz front side bus.
Integrated audio. BIOS can undervolt (this isn't confirmed yet) the
CPU which will allow me to possible shave off a few degrees
(cooler=quieter). Underclocking may be required, and is supported.
Heat sensors and intelligent fan control. A separate bus for onboard
SATA means fast access to hard drive for data/media that won't be
interrupted by PCI info (Operating system drives, optical media, etc.)
Onboard sound, firewire and USB.

$200 Kingston 512MB 400MHz DDR X 2.

$300 Three Seagate 120GB SATA Serial ATA Barracuda 7200.7 drives.
Very quiet drives.

$80 CDRW. Plextor PX-W4824TA 48X24X48. This optical drive is CD+G
compatible (I want to do some Karaoke).

$500 17" LCD. Hyundai ImageQuest Q17 17" TFT Flat Panel. 20 ms pixel
response insures fast media and game playing action. Wall mountable
option will allow me to mod a set up to place this on my digital piano
where my music stand is! If it weren't for the 20ms systems, I would
most certainly be going for an EIZO L565.

Total Cost: $1700. Still need to decide on: Video board. DVD ROM.
Good heat sinks. Good fans. Grand Total Cost: Right about $2000

Regards,
Thunder9

 

[Strontium]

-
Thunder9 stood up at show-n-tell, in (e-mail address removed),
and said:

The following is my first home built system (proposed):

Goals: Home theater, versatility, fast, quiet. Budget: $2000

$80 Full Tower Case http://www.directron.com/ma01bd.html
Black is awesome. Full tower allows me to put this on the floor next
to my digital piano (Clavinova CVP 109) and have easy access to
optical media at the top of the box. Also, full tower makes air flow
easier to manage for better cooling = quieter.

$20 Wheel set to go with above.

$70 Super Tornado 300. Silent power supply.

?? Video Board. Probably an ATI AIW.

$170 CPU. P4 2.4 Ghz 800 Mhz FSB. The lowest speed CPU that has 800
MHz FSB will be the lowest heat producing CPU in that class.
Undervolt this baby for even less heat.

$200 Motherboard. Gigabyte GA-8KNXP. 800 MHz front side bus.
Integrated audio. BIOS can undervolt (this isn't confirmed yet) the
CPU which will allow me to possible shave off a few degrees
(cooler=quieter). Underclocking may be required, and is supported.
Heat sensors and intelligent fan control. A separate bus for onboard
SATA means fast access to hard drive for data/media that won't be
interrupted by PCI info (Operating system drives, optical media, etc.)
Onboard sound, firewire and USB.

Take a look at the Asus P4P800. Also, check out tomshardware.com concerning
this motherboard. Sweet deal, at $150.

$200 Kingston 512MB 400MHz DDR X 2.

$300 Three Seagate 120GB SATA Serial ATA Barracuda 7200.7 drives.
Very quiet drives.

$80 CDRW. Plextor PX-W4824TA 48X24X48. This optical drive is CD+G
compatible (I want to do some Karaoke).

$500 17" LCD. Hyundai ImageQuest Q17 17" TFT Flat Panel. 20 ms pixel
response insures fast media and game playing action. Wall mountable
option will allow me to mod a set up to place this on my digital piano
where my music stand is! If it weren't for the 20ms systems, I would
most certainly be going for an EIZO L565.

Total Cost: $1700. Still need to decide on: Video board. DVD ROM.
Good heat sinks. Good fans. Grand Total Cost: Right about $2000

If quiet is your desire:

CPU: Zalman Cu
Video card sink: Again, Zalman ZM80A-HP
Case fans: Again, Zalman ZM-MFC1 fan regulator.

www.zalmanusa.com

The only thing I can hear, in my case (which is very close to my ears-it's a
server tower with 7x80mm fans total) is the slight whir of my Antec PSU and
hard drive reads/writes.

 

[WooduCoodu]

consider finding a motherboard with passive northbridge cooling or replacing
the heatsink fan on the motherboard. same goes for the video card.

the new samsung p80 hard drives are quieter than the seagates and still have
a 3 year warranty but i dont think the SATA versions are out yet.

look at lite-on for DVD-ROM and CD-RW and thermalright or zalman for the CPU
heatsink and panaflo for fans.

 

[John]

The following is my first home built system (proposed):

Goals: Home theater, versatility, fast, quiet. Budget: $2000

$80 Full Tower Case http://www.directron.com/ma01bd.html
Black is awesome. Full tower allows me to put this on the floor next
to my digital piano (Clavinova CVP 109) and have easy access to
optical media at the top of the box. Also, full tower makes air flow
easier to manage for better cooling = quieter.

$20 Wheel set to go with above.

I want to get some wheels too. They have some at COMPUSA now for
around $20 that look OK. .

$70 Super Tornado 300. Silent power supply.

$70 for a 300 watt - yow.

?? Video Board. Probably an ATI AIW.

Id probably get a separate card for capturing Video
but there is no guarantee it will be compatible with the radeon of
course.

$170 CPU. P4 2.4 Ghz 800 Mhz FSB. The lowest speed CPU that has 800
MHz FSB will be the lowest heat producing CPU in that class.
Undervolt this baby for even less heat.

$80 CDRW. Plextor PX-W4824TA 48X24X48. This optical drive is CD+G
compatible (I want to do some Karaoke).

From posts Ive seen the Liteon 52x can copy CD+G . I think Id find a
cheap deal on one $20-40 and spend the rest on a NEC 1300a
$116 at accupc.com - gets high ratings too at reseller ratings.
The 1300a is one of the more popular DVD writers - dual format + and -
and also writes CDRs and CDRWs.

 

[kony]

$70 Super Tornado 300. Silent power supply.

Overpriced for what it is, and too low a capacity to be appropriate
for a modern full-tower system.


Dave

 

[J.Clarke]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 00:58:09 GMT

The following is my first home built system (proposed):

Goals: Home theater, versatility, fast, quiet. Budget: $2000

Other than home theater what do you plan to be doing with it?

If you're looking for quiet, do you know about

$80 Full Tower Case http://www.directron.com/ma01bd.html
Black is awesome. Full tower allows me to put this on the floor next
to my digital piano (Clavinova CVP 109) and have easy access to
optical media at the top of the box. Also, full tower makes air flow
easier to manage for better cooling = quieter.

If you want quiet optimize for quiet and then put it on a stand to get
the height. The MA01BD is probably not the best starting point for a
quiet machine. If you want a reasonably quiet case out of the box then
go with an Antec Sonata, which you can further silence with suitable
mods. An SLK-3700 or an Evercase 4252 would be a good starting point if
you're planning on modding though. The Sonata, SLK, and Evercase all
have provision for rubber-mounting the drives--the Antecs come with the
pieces, I'm not clear on whether the Evercase does--it's cut to fit the
E.A.R. drive mounts available from McMaster though.

$20 Wheel set to go with above.

$70 Super Tornado 300. Silent power supply.

Depends on your current draw--if in normal operation you're going to be
above 150 watts draw then the Super Silencer 400 might be a better bet.
If you mod it with a Panaflo fan it might end up as quiet as the 300 at
low power as well.

?? Video Board. Probably an ATI AIW.

The AIW may be problematical--they work fine, but your choices are a
low-end board with poor gaming performance, a high end with excellent
gaming performance but also high power draw and a need for heavy
cooling, or a midrange that hasn't shipped yet with no DVI output.

If you are planning on using the machine to view off-the-air HDTV (if
you haven't _seen_ HDTV then see it--it's worthwhile) then a Sapphire
9600 Ultimate with a Dvico FusionHDTV II board might be a good bet. The
9600 isn't as fast as the 9800s but it's still no slouch, and consumes
less power and generates less heat--the "ultimate" version is
passive-cooled.

If you decide to go with an All-In-Wonder your choice is pretty much the
9800 Pro AIW--if you want quiet replace the stock cooler with a Zalman
ZM-80C-HP (note the "C"--some of the earlier Zalman ZM-80 models won't
fit the AIW because they aren't cut to clear the tuner). If you go with
the 9800 though the 300 watt power supply is very likely to prove
inadequate.

$170 CPU. P4 2.4 Ghz 800 Mhz FSB. The lowest speed CPU that has 800
MHz FSB will be the lowest heat producing CPU in that class.
Undervolt this baby for even less heat.

Good bet--probably not necessary to undervolt or underclock though. Put
an SLK-900 on it with a 92mm fan and either a fan speed controller or a
power reducer it and it should be fine.

$200 Motherboard. Gigabyte GA-8KNXP. 800 MHz front side bus.
Integrated audio. BIOS can undervolt (this isn't confirmed yet) the
CPU which will allow me to possible shave off a few degrees
(cooler=quieter). Underclocking may be required, and is supported.
Heat sensors and intelligent fan control. A separate bus for onboard
SATA means fast access to hard drive for data/media that won't be
interrupted by PCI info (Operating system drives, optical media, etc.)
Onboard sound, firewire and USB.

If the separate bus is important to you (in the real world it isn't
going to make much difference unless you're doing something _really_
heavy duty) then consider an Opteron machine.

For most folks onboard sound with a good board is adequate these
days--given that you mention a piano it's possible that your standards
are higher than "most people's" and you may need to consider an
audiophile board. Can't really advise there.

$200 Kingston 512MB 400MHz DDR X 2.

Personally I'd go with Crucial.

$300 Three Seagate 120GB SATA Serial ATA Barracuda 7200.7 drives.
Very quiet drives.

Check the numbers--I don't recall whether the 7200.7s are currently the
quietest Seagates or not. In any case, do be aware that the
single-platter Barracudas are quieter than the multiple-platter. On a
case with shock-mounts for the drives this won't make a lot of
difference, on a case with rigid mounts it might.

$80 CDRW. Plextor PX-W4824TA 48X24X48. This optical drive is CD+G
compatible (I want to do some Karaoke).

$500 17" LCD. Hyundai ImageQuest Q17 17" TFT Flat Panel. 20 ms pixel
response insures fast media and game playing action. Wall mountable
option will allow me to mod a set up to place this on my digital piano
where my music stand is! If it weren't for the 20ms systems, I would
most certainly be going for an EIZO L565.

Total Cost: $1700. Still need to decide on: Video board. DVD ROM.

If you can afford it the LG-GSA-4040B might be a good bet--it's the only
one on the market that handles _all_ current DVD formats--DVD+/-R/RW
_and_ DVD-RAM.

Good heat sinks. Good fans.

In addition to the fans, consider a fan controller if you're going for
quiet.

 

[ToolPackinMama]

If you want quiet optimize for quiet and then put it on a stand to get
the height. The MA01BD is probably not the best starting point for a
quiet machine. If you want a reasonably quiet case out of the box then
go with an Antec Sonata, which you can further silence with suitable
mods. An SLK-3700 or an Evercase 4252 would be a good starting point if
you're planning on modding though. The Sonata, SLK, and Evercase all
have provision for rubber-mounting the drives--the Antecs come with the
pieces, I'm not clear on whether the Evercase does--it's cut to fit the
E.A.R. drive mounts available from McMaster though.

(etc.)

Earplugs are cheaper.

 

[D'Vint]

The following is my first home built system (proposed):
--->8

$200 Motherboard. Gigabyte GA-8KNXP. 800 MHz front side bus.
Integrated audio. BIOS can undervolt (this isn't confirmed yet) the
CPU which will allow me to possible shave off a few degrees
(cooler=quieter). Underclocking may be required, and is supported.
Heat sensors and intelligent fan control. A separate bus for onboard
SATA means fast access to hard drive for data/media that won't be
interrupted by PCI info (Operating system drives, optical media, etc.)
Onboard sound, firewire and USB.

Try the Asus P4C800-E Deluxe....

Sin...
Thomas

 

[Strontium]

-
D'Vint stood up at show-n-tell, in [email protected],
and said:

Try the Asus P4C800-E Deluxe....

Or Asus P4P800, for $100 less...

Minimal advantage, huge price tag for the P4C800.

But, then again this guy is saying 200 bucks, for a motherboard. Either not
cost-concsious, rich, or just doesn't give a flip. So, if he wants to toss
$100, in to the shitwater, I'll stand by your suggestion.

Otherwise, it's foolish and money thrown in the trash.

 

[MikeW]

If you want a full tower case, look at the Antec 1080. Can be had for
<$120, and comes with lots of features, and a very high quality 420
watt PS. If you want quieter, but could live with a mid tower, look
at the Antec SLK3700AMB slightly smaller PS (350 watt), but uses 120
mm fan(s), turning more slowly but moving more air.

For motherboards, I would prefer Abit. Look at anything in the IC7
line (pick your features and price. I've heard bad things about
stability with Gigabyte MBs (as one Fry's salesman put it "Step away
from the Gigabyte and nobody gets hurt!").

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.

 

[J.Clarke]

(etc.)

Earplugs are cheaper.

Yeah, but then he can't hear his Karaoke. But that might be a blessing

 

[kony]

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.


Dave

 

[J.Clarke]

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.

 

[kony]

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.

It really is only for simplicities' sake that most CPUs use the
excessive voltage that they do. It would be more confusing if Intel
released CPUs each using only as much voltage as needed, instead of
same voltage per family, up until more voltage is needed at a certain
speed-grade to keep initial yields up.

Undervoltage not only decreases heat, it lessens wear on the
motherboard, uses less energy overall, including a slight bit less to
re-cool the room the system is in during the warmer months. Given
Intel's path towards even hotter CPUs I expect we'll see more and more
people undervolting their CPUs.


Dave

 

[J.Clarke]

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. Not off-the-shelf items but it has
been done.

Regardless, I've been running a Thunderbird 1400, which is one of the
hardest CPUs to keep cool, for several years now using the quietest fan
that Papst makes and it's been working fine. And there are bigger and
better heat sinks available now than there were then.

It really is only for simplicities' sake that most CPUs use the
excessive voltage that they do. It would be more confusing if Intel
released CPUs each using only as much voltage as needed, instead of
same voltage per family, up until more voltage is needed at a certain
speed-grade to keep initial yields up.

Uh-huh. Generally speaking I prefer stable systems, and to me that
means running everything within spec and not second guessing engineers
who have vastly more resources at their disposal than I do. But to each
his own. If you are certain that all CPUs run at "excessive voltage" I
would like to see your sources, and don't show me some overclocker site,
show me the calculations that demonstrate this and the test results that
confirm them.

Undervoltage not only decreases heat, it lessens wear on the
motherboard,

ROF,L. Any motherboard you buy today, unless something is defective,
will still be running fine long after it is so far obsolete that you
won't be able to give it away.

uses less energy overall, including a slight bit less to
re-cool the room the system is in during the warmer months.

How much less?

Given
Intel's path towards even hotter CPUs I expect we'll see more and more
people undervolting their CPUs.

Why? We don't see many AMD people undervolting, and they've got more
incentive than Intel people.

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.

 

[J.Clarke]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:27:47 GMT

I would like to see a standard in which components could be set to
limit their watts by throttling down their speed or voltage or
whatever. I know some systems do this internally, but an industry
wide standard for *setting* a component via software would be cool.
Thus you could have a control panel and click on "web browsing" and
voila each component would be told to operate at a certain maximum
performance/energy ratio. Click on "Extreme Gaming" and components
will be allowed to use more energy, along with the fans speeding up to
compensate.

Well it will probably never happen because then the average consumer
might discover that they don't need a P4 3.0 Ghz + 1GB RAM to surf the
web and check on email

All the pieces to do this are in place--there are boards that allow
voltage and clock speed changes while in operation, most boards today
have SMBus connectors that allow the temperatures to be reported to an
external device, all that you need to do is put together the necessary
software and the external fan controller and you're there. Do it and
make yourself rich.

But so far thermally controlled fans seem to be doing an adequate job so
nobody seems to have seen a need for the added complexity.

 

[Thunder9]

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.

It really is only for simplicities' sake that most CPUs use the
excessive voltage that they do. It would be more confusing if Intel
released CPUs each using only as much voltage as needed, instead of
same voltage per family, up until more voltage is needed at a certain
speed-grade to keep initial yields up.

Undervoltage not only decreases heat, it lessens wear on the
motherboard, uses less energy overall, including a slight bit less to
re-cool the room the system is in during the warmer months. Given
Intel's path towards even hotter CPUs I expect we'll see more and more
people undervolting their CPUs.

I would like to see a standard in which components could be set to
limit their watts by throttling down their speed or voltage or
whatever. I know some systems do this internally, but an industry
wide standard for *setting* a component via software would be cool.
Thus you could have a control panel and click on "web browsing" and
voila each component would be told to operate at a certain maximum
performance/energy ratio. Click on "Extreme Gaming" and components
will be allowed to use more energy, along with the fans speeding up to
compensate.

Well it will probably never happen because then the average consumer
might discover that they don't need a P4 3.0 Ghz + 1GB RAM to surf the
web and check on email

Thunder9

 

[J.Clarke]

Please link a passive cooler that doesn't require a dedicated
fan/airflow as I described.
<http://www.silentpcreview.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&fil
e=index&req=viewarticle&artid=114&page=1>

Nobody knows that Intel runs cooler, it's been untrue from the point
when AMD stopped making Palominos.

Lighten up, OK?

OK, and that is near the ceiling speed of the given core, which as I
wrote just below this, could need that stock voltage for AMD to
likewise get a good yield.

Uh, you miss the point--you are not going to get anything to run quieter
than that by undervolting.

Reread what I wrote just above this paragraph. Engineers do NOT
choose the voltage that particular CPU needs to run,

Please provide a link to a statement by an engineer working for Intel
that that is the case for the P4.

they set the
voltage for a family, subgoup of CPUs, you are not second-guessing
them when the spec'd operating voltage is offset like this.

If you are using a voltage other than the one that they tell you to use
then you are indeed second-guessing them.

Some CPUs
DO need the spec'd voltage but others don't. Knowledge and/or
experience with the given CPU can be needed.

And where do you get that "knowledge"?

This is common knowledge for many years. I'll let you do your own
Google search instead of re-educating you myself.

Nope, doesn't work that way, you made the assertion it's up to you to
back it up.

The primary reason
people don't as often undervolt is that they're looking to INCREASE
performance, not looking for cooler operation at the same performance
or lowering performance a little for even more heat reduction.

The primary reason that "people don't as often undervolt" is that there
is no percieved need for it.

There's more info needed to bring you "up to speed" than a newsgroup
post of a couple of links could provide. HERE you have already seen
evidence of it, with NO evidence that it isn't possible.

I have seen no "evidence". I have seen you make some unsupported
assertions.

As for
"reasonable", that depends on the user... for some people it's
reasonable to have a system sounding like a leaf-blower, but for
others it's unfortunate when they have to replace their failed P2
system.

I see. So the alternatives are to undervolt or to "sound like a leaf
blower"? Sorry, but now you're engaging in hyperbole. There are a
number of heat sinks on the market which can be used to cool any
processor currently in production using the quietest fans currently in
production, without operating the processor at a voltage level outside
the specified range.

"Obsolete" is relative to the users needs, but also the overall speed
of the system, and the capabilities of the OS it can effectively run.
Many people need a minimal level of basic function that requires
faster than a couple hundred MHz CPU, but moving forward to today, a
3GHz system could be useful to them for much longer than it'll last.

So how many users _are_ still running 1975-vintage CP/M machines? And
yet those motherboards, running at full specified voltage, are still
going strong.

Go read capacitor manufacturer's spec sheets if you think it doesn't
matter. I don't need to provide a link because you can pick any
manufacturer you wish, go to their website... for example the caps on
your best motherboard.

In other words you don't have a link that supports your assertion.

Energy consumption of the CPU is proportional to the square of the
voltage. It's not a huge difference, but IS a significant difference.
Do the math yourself, see Intel's spec sheet and calculate out how
much power reduction results from a given voltage drop. Typical
results can be from 5-25 percent reduction, but depend on the CPU
core, speed it's running. A 3.2GHz P4 isn't going to tolerate as much
voltage drop as a 2.5GHz for example.

Please be kind enough to provide a link to this spec sheet.

Current Intel CPUs run hotter at full load. Read the spec sheets,
they're on the respective manufacturer's websites. At idle a P4 "can"
run cooler, but the system must run at up to full-load also.

I see. Intel CPUs runn hotter at full load? So an Intel CPU with a
Vapochill attached will run hotter than an Athlon with no heat sink?

Now, would you care to use a term that is more precise than "run
hotter"?

I used to have an XP1600 running at 1.6V, o'c to 1.6 GHz. The main
reason you don't see many people undervolting, is that typically the
knowledge gained towards understanding the frequency/voltage
relationship, is gained as a result of a desire to o'c the CPU as much
as reasonably possible.

You're repeating yourself.

It's not an "error" of the designer, the designers know this. It is
for practicality, and in some cases, initially for yields. This
makes it easier to implement the CPU in a broad range of motherboards
and providing a large stability margin to ensure the entire line of
CPUs will work, even in poor systm environments, including those that
might not work at a lower voltage because of poor yields earlier in
the production. Nobody knows what exact gear user "X" is going to
have except for user X.

It's a choice... nobody is focing you to undervolt your CPU. It works
fine if you know what you're doing.

Yes, it works fine if you _know_ _what_ _you_ _are_ _doing_, which means
that you are an electrical engineer with IC design experience,
an intimate familiarity with the particular device under
consideration, and you know what constitute the worst cases
that need to be tested to confirm reliable operation.

Skepticism could be due to lack
of information... at one point in history there were plenty of
skeptics that thought the world was flat.

So provide a source for this information. Skepticism can also be due to
having seen more than one cocky young kid standing on his weenie after
his wild assertions proved to be somewhat in error.

 

[kony]

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. Not off-the-shelf items but it has
been done.

Please link a passive cooler that doesn't require a dedicated
fan/airflow as I described.

Nobody knows that Intel runs cooler, it's been untrue from the point
when AMD stopped making Palominos.

Regardless, I've been running a Thunderbird 1400, which is one of the
hardest CPUs to keep cool, for several years now using the quietest fan
that Papst makes and it's been working fine. And there are bigger and
better heat sinks available now than there were then.

OK, and that is near the ceiling speed of the given core, which as I
wrote just below this, could need that stock voltage for AMD to
likewise get a good yield.

Uh-huh. Generally speaking I prefer stable systems, and to me that
means running everything within spec and not second guessing engineers
who have vastly more resources at their disposal than I do. But to each
his own. If you are certain that all CPUs run at "excessive voltage" I
would like to see your sources, and don't show me some overclocker site,
show me the calculations that demonstrate this and the test results that
confirm them.

Reread what I wrote just above this paragraph. Engineers do NOT
choose the voltage that particular CPU needs to run, they set the
voltage for a family, subgoup of CPUs, you are not second-guessing
them when the spec'd operating voltage is offset like this. Some CPUs
DO need the spec'd voltage but others don't. Knowledge and/or
experience with the given CPU can be needed.

This is common knowledge for many years. I'll let you do your own
Google search instead of re-educating you myself. The primary reason
people don't as often undervolt is that they're looking to INCREASE
performance, not looking for cooler operation at the same performance
or lowering performance a little for even more heat reduction.

There's more info needed to bring you "up to speed" than a newsgroup
post of a couple of links could provide. HERE you have already seen
evidence of it, with NO evidence that it isn't possible. As for
"reasonable", that depends on the user... for some people it's
reasonable to have a system sounding like a leaf-blower, but for
others it's unfortunate when they have to replace their failed P2
system.

ROF,L. Any motherboard you buy today, unless something is defective,
will still be running fine long after it is so far obsolete that you
won't be able to give it away.

"Obsolete" is relative to the users needs, but also the overall speed
of the system, and the capabilities of the OS it can effectively run.
Many people need a minimal level of basic function that requires
faster than a couple hundred MHz CPU, but moving forward to today, a
3GHz system could be useful to them for much longer than it'll last.

Go read capacitor manufacturer's spec sheets if you think it doesn't
matter. I don't need to provide a link because you can pick any
manufacturer you wish, go to their website... for example the caps on
your best motherboard.

How much less?

Energy consumption of the CPU is proportional to the square of the
voltage. It's not a huge difference, but IS a significant difference.
Do the math yourself, see Intel's spec sheet and calculate out how
much power reduction results from a given voltage drop. Typical
results can be from 5-25 percent reduction, but depend on the CPU
core, speed it's running. A 3.2GHz P4 isn't going to tolerate as much
voltage drop as a 2.5GHz for example.

Why? We don't see many AMD people undervolting, and they've got more
incentive than Intel people.

Current Intel CPUs run hotter at full load. Read the spec sheets,
they're on the respective manufacturer's websites. At idle a P4 "can"
run cooler, but the system must run at up to full-load also.

I used to have an XP1600 running at 1.6V, o'c to 1.6 GHz. The main
reason you don't see many people undervolting, is that typically the
knowledge gained towards understanding the frequency/voltage
relationship, is gained as a result of a desire to o'c the CPU as much
as reasonably possible.

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.

It's not an "error" of the designer, the designers know this. It is
for practicality, and in some cases, initially for yields. This
makes it easier to implement the CPU in a broad range of motherboards
and providing a large stability margin to ensure the entire line of
CPUs will work, even in poor systm environments, including those that
might not work at a lower voltage because of poor yields earlier in
the production. Nobody knows what exact gear user "X" is going to
have except for user X.

It's a choice... nobody is focing you to undervolt your CPU. It works
fine if you know what you're doing. Skepticism could be due to lack
of information... at one point in history there were plenty of
skeptics that thought the world was flat.


Dave

 

[kony]

I would like to see a standard in which components could be set to
limit their watts by throttling down their speed or voltage or
whatever. I know some systems do this internally, but an industry
wide standard for *setting* a component via software would be cool.
Thus you could have a control panel and click on "web browsing" and
voila each component would be told to operate at a certain maximum
performance/energy ratio. Click on "Extreme Gaming" and components
will be allowed to use more energy, along with the fans speeding up to
compensate.

Well it will probably never happen because then the average consumer
might discover that they don't need a P4 3.0 Ghz + 1GB RAM to surf the
web and check on email

Thunder9

It would be nice, and I think we're moving in that direction. For a
long time now the HALT instructions would reduce heat, power usage,
but of course the actual frequency needs dropped for the most sizeable
voltage decrease. I assume we'll see the most work on this put into
notebooks initially, but as an automatic function, not something the
user would have to manually change.


Dave