Proposed System

[J.Clarke]

Ok, but the expense and unique system layout will prohibit it's use in
most systems. Unfortunately cost dictates most design decisions the
most.

You did not read the article. It works in any system as long as you
know how to design the thing and order the pieces.

Hmmm. Sometimes my writing seems easy to misinterpret... That's the
problem with usenet, you can't see the expressions on the faces of
those doing the writing... large amounts of info are condensed into a
few words to reduce post size and it comes out reading less friendly
when it wasn't meant to.




You mean quieter than that special, unusal, expensive heatsink you
linked, right?

No I do not. My point, is that if I can adequately cool a Thunderbird
1400 using a Papst 8412NGL, then it is highly unlikely that you are
going to get a machine to run any quieter by undervolting.

I'm not talking theory here, I'm talking practice...
in practice I've undervolted MANY different CPUs to cheaply and easily
get the needed performance per the specific appliction. Granted these
were usually special-purpose systems.

And I'm talking practice here too--in practice I have never needed to
undervolt a CPU to get a machine to run quietly.

Remember something about that passive cooler you linked- It is quite
likely to make the motherboard run hotter, have a shorter lifespan.

So how long will the motherboard last?

Products are designed to make $, not necessarily to benefit users,
only give the IMPRESSION of benefit to users. Sometimes that
impression is larger than the real benefit, or ignores the detriments.

And mairzy doats and dozey doats. Which has about as much relevance as
that statement.

CPUs can run pretty hot with no problems, so long as stable, but
motherboards benefit from the reduced power supply to CPU, reduced
heat from CPU exhaust, and cooler resulting air. There are two most
common failure points I see on modern systems (excluding defect and
power surges)- Capacitors wearing out and fan failure. I have STACKS
of systems that have failed in this way. Sometimes I'll replace the
caps and have a board as good as new again. These are not any of
those defective caps from Taiwan often mentioned.

Statistics please.

Please provide a link to a statement by an engineer working for Intel
that the P4 can only run stabily at the spec'd voltage.

You're the one making the assertion that chips can run undervolted.
It's up to you to support it.

The spec'd voltage is that at which Intel guarantees, warranties the
part to run at spec'd speed. Even using a different cooler voids
Intel's guarantee, but you seem to think a different cooler is OK.

Using a different cooler from what?

I don't need theories or statements, I've observed it myself many
times, and seen others have success in addition to plenty of reports
of it all over the 'net. I don't seek Intel's statements because I
have DIRECT evidence of it already.

So provide this evidence.

Systems I've set up undervolted
have run completely stable, including months, even over a year (maybe
two by now) of continuous uptime... Systems that have no instability
in actual operation or testing.

And you would stake your own life on the accuracy of the calculations
performed by those systems? Hint--there are malfunctions that do not
cause instability.

No, a guess is only a guess until you have plenty of evidence. I have
machines in my own home running undervolted right now.

So? You are still second-guessing the engineers.

I will repeat that Intel's engineers are NOT specifing the minimum
voltage possible for stable operation, in their own minds. They do
not test each CPU for undervoltage operation, only spec a voltage for
entire groups of CPUs.

Now, you have just made an assertion. So can you provide a verifiable
statement made by one of those engineers that supports your assertion or
did you just pull it out of your ass?

My own testing, other's testing, all over the place... Experience...
like everything else in life.

And what evidence do you have that those "tests" actually evaluated the
worst case conditions?

No, I stated what I know to be fact.

You are asserting that it is a fact. If it is such a well-known fact
then you should have little trouble providing the evidence to support
your assertion.

Constantly reproving what is fact is a wasteful endevor.

Your stating that something is fact does not make is so.

I could similarly aruge that when you disagree, you must provide
evidence that it is required to operate the CPU at the exact spec'd
voltage.

Nope. Doesn't work that way.

It is not my burden to educate someone. I already know it's
a fact because I've proven it time and time again, by actually doing
it, as have others.

So you claim. Since you can't present any evidence I am forced to
conclude that you are a liar.

Perception is subjective. Nobody is forced to undervolt. Nobody is
forced to build their own computer either.



Again, it is not my burden to educate, it is a choice, and I choose
not to do so because you can find this info with Google search or
asking in many hardware forums.

In other words you'd rather be thought a liar than support your claims.

I am perfectly content leaving you to disbelieve while my undervolted
systems continue to work great, as do other's systems.

You are assuming it can't be done, without doing any research, even
after you've (so far) only received feedback that it CAN be done.

No, I've received your unsupported assertion that it can be done.
And since you are providing much bluster and no evidence your
credibility is rapidly diminishing.

And the fact that something_can_ be done doesn't mean it's a
good idea.

No, it was an example of what some consider reasonable.

I see. So what relevance does it have to the making of quiet machines?

Yes, again these are usually rather expensive, not always fitting on
the motherboard. A better heatsink or quieter fan IS one alternative,
but not the only alternative.

Well, actually, a quieter fan is the only alternative since no matter
how much you undervolt if you don't put in a quieter fan the noise level
doesn't change.

Reread what I wrote. I specifically mentioned a minimum level of
performance needed, which would be exceeded by huge margin with a 3GHz
system.

The issue was motherboards becoming obsolete before they fail. I
remember a time when a 12 MHz system exceeded by a huge margin the
"minimum level of performance needed". Now those 12 MHz systems are
still running fine, but for what purpose are they useful today?

Low-powered systems do not need voltage reduction as much, the
power-density of the system is lower... see the commonality here? By
reducing the voltage, you're coming nearer to a low-powered system.

If you want a low powered system then just buy one.

I don't need to prove it to anyone because I have/had, dozens of
systems running fine undervolted.
Liar.

Again, it doesn't matter to me if you agree, because at this very
monent plenty of people use undervolted systems.

If I wrote that there is a sun in the sky, and you disagreed, would I
really need to prove it? Instead I tell you to "look up". Likewise,
here I tell you to "look IT up".

No, because it is generally accepted that there is a sun in the sky.
Your assertion that processors may be run reliably under conditions at
variance with the manufacturer's specification is akin to the assertion
that there is no sun.

s?

http://www.intel.com

All I get there is the Intel home page. So where is the spec sheet?

Since you aren't interested in meaningful comparisions, what's the
point?

So provide a "meaningful comparison".

"Temperature"

So an Intel system running at -25 C is running hotter than an AMD system
at 50C? Again _temperature_ depends on the efficacy of the cooling
system. Other factors determine just how efficacious that system must
be in order to provide a specified temperature.

As I've already mentioned in the prevous post, an entire education
about undervolting CPUs is beyond the scope of a newsgroup post or
even a few links. I wasn't trying to be rude, just stating that the
volume of information is large and make take anyone some time to
digest. Both Intel and AMD provide specs on their processors... go
to their websites and read the spec sheets.

If you have read them then surely you have links to them. Now would
you care to provide a quotation from one of those specification sheets
that supports your argument?

Sometimes it's needed, when someone doesn't seem to realize what's
already be stated... Which is greater- Merely having a theory based
on a spec sheet, narrowly interpreted, or actually having many working
demonstrations of it? I have many working systems undervolted, as do
others. They run fine so long as the voltage isn't decreased TOO
much, as verified by extensive testing and use over several years.

Sez you.

No, the device is designed to perform a function. If this device
continues to perform the function properly, it is not necessary to
have designed it yourself.

And of course you are qualified to determine that the device performs
properly. So what methodology do you use to make this determination and
in what manner did you validate that methodology?

You seem to be a little confused. I AM a source of this information,
as are others all over the 'net.

I see. And we should believe you why?

You have NO sources claiming it
can't be done, and have so far still argued against both this source
(and further extended, the original poster) without any evidence that
it can't be done.

I will repeat myself- You have evidence that it can be done, but no
evidence that it can't. Your argument is made in madness. If you
choose to disbelieve, that's your choice to make. I know it works.

No. I have your unsupported claim that it can be done. Your claim does
not constitute "evidence".

 

[kony]

<http://www.silentpcreview.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&fil
e=index&req=viewarticle&artid=114&page=1>

Ok, but the expense and unique system layout will prohibit it's use in
most systems. Unfortunately cost dictates most design decisions the
most.

Lighten up, OK?

Hmmm. Sometimes my writing seems easy to misinterpret... That's the
problem with usenet, you can't see the expressions on the faces of
those doing the writing... large amounts of info are condensed into a
few words to reduce post size and it comes out reading less friendly
when it wasn't meant to.

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

You mean quieter than that special, unusal, expensive heatsink you
linked, right? I'm not talking theory here, I'm talking practice...
in practice I've undervolted MANY different CPUs to cheaply and easily
get the needed performance per the specific appliction. Granted these
were usually special-purpose systems.

Remember something about that passive cooler you linked- It is quite
likely to make the motherboard run hotter, have a shorter lifespan.
Products are designed to make $, not necessarily to benefit users,
only give the IMPRESSION of benefit to users. Sometimes that
impression is larger than the real benefit, or ignores the detriments.

CPUs can run pretty hot with no problems, so long as stable, but
motherboards benefit from the reduced power supply to CPU, reduced
heat from CPU exhaust, and cooler resulting air. There are two most
common failure points I see on modern systems (excluding defect and
power surges)- Capacitors wearing out and fan failure. I have STACKS
of systems that have failed in this way. Sometimes I'll replace the
caps and have a board as good as new again. These are not any of
those defective caps from Taiwan often mentioned.

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

Please provide a link to a statement by an engineer working for Intel
that the P4 can only run stabily at the spec'd voltage.

The spec'd voltage is that at which Intel guarantees, warranties the
part to run at spec'd speed. Even using a different cooler voids
Intel's guarantee, but you seem to think a different cooler is OK.

I don't need theories or statements, I've observed it myself many
times, and seen others have success in addition to plenty of reports
of it all over the 'net. I don't seek Intel's statements because I
have DIRECT evidence of it already. Systems I've set up undervolted
have run completely stable, including months, even over a year (maybe
two by now) of continuous uptime... Systems that have no instability
in actual operation or testing.

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

No, a guess is only a guess until you have plenty of evidence. I have
machines in my own home running undervolted right now.

I will repeat that Intel's engineers are NOT specifing the minimum
voltage possible for stable operation, in their own minds. They do
not test each CPU for undervoltage operation, only spec a voltage for
entire groups of CPUs.

And where do you get that "knowledge"?

My own testing, other's testing, all over the place... Experience...
like everything else in life.

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

No, I stated what I know to be fact. Constantly reproving what is
fact is a wasteful endevor. I could similarly aruge that when you
disagree, you must provide evidence that it is required to operate the
CPU at the exact spec'd voltage. It is not my burden to educate
someone. I already know it's a fact because I've proven it time and
time again, by actually doing it, as have others.

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

Perception is subjective. Nobody is forced to undervolt. Nobody is
forced to build their own computer either.

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

Again, it is not my burden to educate, it is a choice, and I choose
not to do so because you can find this info with Google search or
asking in many hardware forums.

I am perfectly content leaving you to disbelieve while my undervolted
systems continue to work great, as do other's systems.

You are assuming it can't be done, without doing any research, even
after you've (so far) only received feedback that it CAN be done.

I see. So the alternatives are to undervolt or to "sound like a leaf
blower"? Sorry, but now you're engaging in hyperbole.

No, it was an example of what some consider reasonable.

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.

Yes, again these are usually rather expensive, not always fitting on
the motherboard. A better heatsink or quieter fan IS one alternative,
but not the only alternative.

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.

Reread what I wrote. I specifically mentioned a minimum level of
performance needed, which would be exceeded by huge margin with a 3GHz
system.

Low-powered systems do not need voltage reduction as much, the
power-density of the system is lower... see the commonality here? By
reducing the voltage, you're coming nearer to a low-powered system.

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

I don't need to prove it to anyone because I have/had, dozens of
systems running fine undervolted.

Again, it doesn't matter to me if you agree, because at this very
monent plenty of people use undervolted systems.

If I wrote that there is a sun in the sky, and you disagreed, would I
really need to prove it? Instead I tell you to "look up". Likewise,
here I tell you to "look IT up".

s?

Please be kind enough to provide a link to this spec sheet.
http://www.intel.com



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?

Since you aren't interested in meaningful comparisions, what's the
point?

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

"Temperature"

As I've already mentioned in the prevous post, an entire education
about undervolting CPUs is beyond the scope of a newsgroup post or
even a few links. I wasn't trying to be rude, just stating that the
volume of information is large and make take anyone some time to
digest. Both Intel and AMD provide specs on their processors... go
to their websites and read the spec sheets.

You're repeating yourself.

Sometimes it's needed, when someone doesn't seem to realize what's
already be stated... Which is greater- Merely having a theory based
on a spec sheet, narrowly interpreted, or actually having many working
demonstrations of it? I have many working systems undervolted, as do
others. They run fine so long as the voltage isn't decreased TOO
much, as verified by extensive testing and use over several years.

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.

No, the device is designed to perform a function. If this device
continues to perform the function properly, it is not necessary to
have designed it yourself.

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.

You seem to be a little confused. I AM a source of this information,
as are others all over the 'net. You have NO sources claiming it
can't be done, and have so far still argued against both this source
(and further extended, the original poster) without any evidence that
it can't be done.

I will repeat myself- You have evidence that it can be done, but no
evidence that it can't. Your argument is made in madness. If you
choose to disbelieve, that's your choice to make. I know it works.


Dave


Dave

 

[JAD]

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.


You've lost your mind

 

[kony]

You did not read the article. It works in any system as long as you
know how to design the thing and order the pieces.

True, all I needed to do was glance at it to know it's more expensive
than worthwhile.

No I do not. My point, is that if I can adequately cool a Thunderbird
1400 using a Papst 8412NGL, then it is highly unlikely that you are
going to get a machine to run any quieter by undervolting.

So you're changing to the argument to be that it's just not worthwhile
to undervolt?

You are of course aware that Intel's newer CPUs produce more heat than
the T-Bird 1400, so it's somewhat irrelevant what fan can cool a
T-Bird 1400.

And I'm talking practice here too--in practice I have never needed to
undervolt a CPU to get a machine to run quietly.

Need? If you can't appreciate a power and thermal reduction, can only
see the fan noise as an issue in a PC, then don't undervolt. Please
let us know if someone tries to force you to undervolt.

So how long will the motherboard last?

That's like asking how long a set of tires will last... it will last
until it fails, and the inevitable failure will occur from long-term
heat stress if some anomaly doesn't occur first. Running a high-heat
CPU with only a low-flow fan "can" reduce the motherboard's lifespan
to under 3 years, but usually a few more, depending on several
variables. Heat is one of the most significant variables.

And mairzy doats and dozey doats. Which has about as much relevance as
that statement.

It would be relevant if you understood what happens when using such a
cooler, that the airflow reduction on the motherboard allows it retain
more heat. My writing above was in regard to this, that it's not of
benefit to have a passively cooled system if the motherboard dies from
overheating. Several people have reported their capacitors run quite
hot to the touch with passively cooled high-heat CPUS... a sure sign
the capacitors will fail prematurely.

Statistics please.

You seem confused. I don't need to prove anything. I am content
knowing that undervolting CPUs can be beneficial, and content to have
you disagree, even thinking I'm wrong, and run 'em at stock voltage.

It is a fact that most CPUs will run undervolted. It's a fact that it
reduces heat output. If you can't appreciate these reductions then
there's where we depart in philosophy.

There are several CPU thermal calculators on the 'net, you might
search for one and see what kind of heat reduction your present CPU
(or it's replacement) would have if undervolted.

You're the one making the assertion that chips can run undervolted.
It's up to you to support it.

How dense can you possibly be? I am STARING at a system in front of
me that is running undervolted, not to mention any of the others here.
There is evidence all over the 'net too. Putting on blinders then
claiming you can't see anything doesn't place a burden on anyone else
to prove there's more out there than you can see.

Using a different cooler from what?

You didn't previously link a heatsink?

So provide this evidence.

Again, you are confused. I have the evidence in front of me, and a
Google search will find more, so I can make the statement. You have
no evidence that it can't be done, yet you argue that it can't. Do
you not even see the illogical position you're taking?

And you would stake your own life on the accuracy of the calculations
performed by those systems? Hint--there are malfunctions that do not
cause instability.

After I have tested them, yes I will. I would rather trust a system
I've undervolted then evtensively tested for stability, over a sytem
running at stock voltage but not so extensively tested.

The same problems detectable on a stock voltage system, are likewise
detectable on an undervolted one. If you are referring to data
corruption, I have done extensive CRC checks on files, as well as
write/read/compare on backups. Any vague suspicions you have, but
can't specify, are of course pointless, the "unknown" undetectable
error elusive to any testing and unseen in long-term use is not a
realistic consideration.

So? You are still second-guessing the engineers.

Gain a little more experience then come back and talk about
undervolting. You read a spec sheet then suddenly pretend to be
knowledgable. No, you DIDN'T read the spec sheet since you had to be
told where to find it... I HAVE read the spec sheets, for years, and
tested, and hacked away... in short, I have more information. It
would appear that the only thing you have is the ability to read a
number stamped on a CPU, and a theory about what that number means.

Now, you have just made an assertion. So can you provide a verifiable
statement made by one of those engineers that supports your assertion or
did you just pull it out of your ass?

In case it hasn't dawned on you yet, it does not matter what you think
to the extent that your thoughts do not change reality. The reality
is that undervolting is not just a theory, it is proven, and
reproducible by anyone who cares to educate themselves and make the
effort.

And what evidence do you have that those "tests" actually evaluated the
worst case conditions?

Worst case conditions of what, undervolting? Here's a hint: If it
isn't stable, increase the voltage or decrease the frequency. Testing
much include worst-case scenarios the system will encounter, including
temp variations.

There is extensive testing to be done, but I would do such testing
before relying on any system for serious work, not just an undervolted
one..

You are asserting that it is a fact. If it is such a well-known fact
then you should have little trouble providing the evidence to support
your assertion.

On the contrary, you are making a claim that has been disproven by
MANY people. We already know but you are still making assumtions in
ignorance. Do the testing yourself, read the spec sheets... it's
incredible to me that you haven't even read the spec sheets yet have
this attitude.

Your stating that something is fact does not make is so.

The thing is, I don't care if you understand or agree, because it
doesn't change the fact that I and many others have undervolted
systems running fine. I was trying to be helpful but you choose to be
ignorant instead. You have no evidence that it won't work, yet you
argue it... you lack sanity.

Nope. Doesn't work that way.

It does when there's already evidence that it works.
I try not to flame you, but you must be extremely stupid to not
understand that having sytsems that run fine underclocked, is evidence
of it.

So you claim. Since you can't present any evidence I am forced to
conclude that you are a liar.

So you're also a troll?
Again, your disbelief is your own problem, does not change the facts.
Since you haven't bothered to accumulate any facts, it's pretty easy
for you to ignore them.

In other words you'd rather be thought a liar than support your claims.

I've already mentioned that it doesn't matter what you think. Only an
idiot would act as you have, calling someone a liar when there's only
evidence to the contrary. Have you never eve

 

[kony]

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.


You've lost your mind

Nope. Do you understand the relationship between voltage and heat
production, energy usage? Where do you think that energy comes from?
The motherboard's onboard regulation circuits, including the
capacitors. It's not only Taiwanese or other defective capacitors
that fail, they all do eventually, that rate depending on the stresses
on them... Talk to someone from a large volume PC shop, most have
plenty of systems coming in DOA... I get dead boards from a a few
regularly, replace the caps, they work like new again.


Dave

 

[J.Clarke]

True, all I needed to do was glance at it to know it's more expensive
than worthwhile.


So you're changing to the argument to be that it's just not worthwhile
to undervolt?

You are the one presenting the "argument". I'm simply questioning your
statements.

You are of course aware that Intel's newer CPUs produce more heat than
the T-Bird 1400, so it's somewhat irrelevant what fan can cool a
T-Bird 1400.

So how much more heat do they produce? And what affect do you believe
that that has on the cooling requirements?

Need? If you can't appreciate a power and thermal reduction, can only
see the fan noise as an issue in a PC, then don't undervolt. Please
let us know if someone tries to force you to undervolt.

Why should anyone care about "a power and thermal reduction" enough to
run a processor out of spec to achieve it? You keep talking about these
things like they are the Holy Grail but you have so far not provided a
comparison of the actual energy consumption of a system operated in spec
vs one that is undervolted--you've made some claims about the CPU, which
is not the system, and you've made some claims about how you increase
the longevity of motherboards, without providing any reason to believe
that such an increase is necessary or desirable, but you haven't
provided any real support for your argument.

That's like asking how long a set of tires will last... it will last
until it fails, and the inevitable failure will occur from long-term
heat stress if some anomaly doesn't occur first. Running a high-heat
CPU with only a low-flow fan "can" reduce the motherboard's lifespan
to under 3 years, but usually a few more, depending on several
variables. Heat is one of the most significant variables.

And your basis for this belief is?

And how is it that the old CP/M machine that I put together in 1979 is
still running fine if the inevitable result of neglecting to undervolt
is motherboard failure in 3 years?

It would be relevant if you understood what happens when using such a
cooler, that the airflow reduction on the motherboard allows it retain
more heat. My writing above was in regard to this, that it's not of
benefit to have a passively cooled system if the motherboard dies from
overheating.

So provide some statistics on machines that are run undervolted vs in
spec and explain why many of us have 10-20 year old machines running
fine without undervolting.

Several people have reported their capacitors run quite
hot to the touch with passively cooled high-heat CPUS... a sure sign
the capacitors will fail prematurely.

Several people have reported that they were abducted by aliens too. The
fact that "several people have reported" is meaningless unless you
provide more details. So how hot were these capacitors? Did they cool
upon undervolting? By what percentage do you believe their life was
shortened and on what information do you base this belief?

You seem confused. I don't need to prove anything. I am content
knowing that undervolting CPUs can be beneficial, and content to have
you disagree, even thinking I'm wrong, and run 'em at stock voltage.

You have no idea what I think.

It is a fact that most CPUs will run undervolted. It's a fact that it
reduces heat output. If you can't appreciate these reductions then
there's where we depart in philosophy.

Why should anyone "appreciate these reductions" when all we have to
suggest that they are beneficial is you waving your arms around and
saying "Believe Me Because I Know The Truth".

There are several CPU thermal calculators on the 'net, you might
search for one and see what kind of heat reduction your present CPU
(or it's replacement) would have if undervolted.

Links please?

How dense can you possibly be? I am STARING at a system in front of
me that is running undervolted, not to mention any of the others here.

You are staring a system that booted and has not crashed since being
booted. That is not the same as a system which performs all specified
operations correctly. Have you tested all states of the system to
confirm that none of them have been compromised?

There is evidence all over the 'net too.

So you keep claiming yet you don't seem to be able to provide one single
solitary link to such evidence.

Putting on blinders then
claiming you can't see anything doesn't place a burden on anyone else
to prove there's more out there than you can see.

Uh huh, now you're trying to personalize the discussion. Sorry, but
that doesn't fly either. You're asserting that undervolting does not
compromise correct operation and that there are benefits. But so far
all that we have from you to support those assertions is lots of arm
waving.

You didn't previously link a heatsink?

So you're saying that Intel guarantees their processors to work with the
homebrew heatsink to which I provided a link and no others? Do tell.

Again, you are confused. I have the evidence in front of me, and a
Google search will find more, so I can make the statement. You have
no evidence that it can't be done,

One cannot prove a negative. Defending your argument by demanding that
one do so pretty much destroys any credibility that you might otherwise
have had.

yet you argue that it can't.

I see. So when did I argue "that it can't"? Please provide either a
quotation or a link.

Do
you not even see the illogical position you're taking?

I'm sorry, but the position that "you have made assertions, so defend
them" is hardly "illogical".

After I have tested them, yes I will.

Good. Please do.

I would rather trust a system
I've undervolted then evtensively tested for stability, over a sytem
running at stock voltage but not so extensively tested.

"Stability" is not the only issue. Are you completely sure that
calcuations performed on one of your undervolted systems are accurate?
If so, how did you determine this?

The same problems detectable on a stock voltage system, are likewise
detectable on an undervolted one. If you are referring to data
corruption, I have done extensive CRC checks on files, as well as
write/read/compare on backups.

So you have tested your disk drives and you have tested your RAM. Now
how did you test your floating point unit? Or your multiplier? Or your
divider?

Any vague suspicions you have, but
can't specify, are of course pointless, the "unknown" undetectable
error elusive to any testing and unseen in long-term use is not a
realistic consideration.

But such errors are detectable. So how did you go about confirming that
they were not present?

Gain a little more experience then come back and talk about
undervolting. You read a spec sheet then suddenly pretend to be
knowledgable. No, you DIDN'T read the spec sheet since you had to be
told where to find it... I HAVE read the spec sheets, for years, and
tested, and hacked away... in short, I have more information. It
would appear that the only thing you have is the ability to read a
number stamped on a CPU, and a theory about what that number means.

Personalizing the argument again I see. You have no idea what I may or
may not have read. For all you know I might have _written_ those spec
sheets. You claim that you have tested, and yet when asked how you have
confirmed that various possible problems do not occur you have either
blustered or simply claimed that looking for such problems was "not a
realistic consideration". So what tests have you used and how did you
go about validating those tests to confirm that they do indeed evaluate
worst-case conditions?

In case it hasn't dawned on you yet, it does not matter what you think
to the extent that your thoughts do not change reality.

I did not say anything about "what I think". You asserted that certain
test procedure was used by Intel. I asked you how you came to be in the
possession of this information. Instead of answering "Joe Blow at Intel
told me" or "I read it in thus and so paper" or some such, you instead
chose to inform me that it does not matter what I think.

If that is the sort of reasoning that you have applied to your testing
then forgive me if I do not accept your results as being authoritative.

The reality
is that undervolting is not just a theory, it is proven, and
reproducible by anyone who cares to educate themselves and make the
effort.

And yet you can't provide a single solitary link to support your
argument.

Worst case conditions of what, undervolting? Here's a hint: If it
isn't stable, increase the voltage or decrease the frequency. Testing
much include worst-case scenarios the system will encounter, including
temp variations.

By "worst case conditions" I mean have you tested those states of the
system which are most likely to be affected by operating at insufficient
voltage so as to ensure that correct operation is achieved for those
states?

There is extensive testing to be done, but I would do such testing
before relying on any system for serious work, not just an undervolted
one..

Well that's nice. But how do we know that your tests in fact verify
correctness of operation?

On the contrary, you are making a claim that has been disproven by
MANY people.

Please be kind enough to refresh my memory. What claim am I making and
where and when did I make it?

We already know but you are still making assumtions in
ignorance.

And those "assumtions" are?

Do the testing yourself, read the spec sheets... it's
incredible to me that you haven't even read the spec sheets yet have
this attitude.

Why would I want to perform such tests? And where did I state that I
had not "even read the spec sheets"?

The thing is, I don't care if you understand or agree, because it
doesn't change the fact that I and many others have undervolted
systems running fine.

Fine, prove it.

I was trying to be helpful but you choose to be
ignorant instead.

And when questioned, instead of supporting your argument you chose to
start telling other people what to do.

You have no evidence that it won't work, yet you
argue it... you lack sanity.

I'm sorry, but I still don't seem to recall presenting any viewpoint
with regard to the viability of the procedure you propose. What I have
done is ask you a number of questions, which you have chosen not to
address except by telling me "do your own homework".

It does when there's already evidence that it works.

You keep claiming that there is such evidence, but you have yet to
present anything except your claims to that effect.

I can claim to be sitting in Ten-Forward drinking something green but
that doesn't mean that anyone should believe such a claim.

I try not to flame you, but you must be extremely stupid to not
understand that having sytsems that run fine underclocked, is evidence
of it.

Flame away. I developed a nomex butt a long time ago.

So you're also a troll?

Well, actually, the person who makes assertions and then refuses to
support those assertions is the one who is engaging in trollish
behavior.

Again, your disbelief is your own problem, does not change the facts.
Since you haven't bothered to accumulate any facts, it's pretty easy
for you to ignore them.

Since you haven't bothered to present any verifiable evidence it's
pretty easy to conclude that you don't have any.

I've already mentioned that it doesn't matter what you think. Only an
idiot would act as you have, calling someone a liar when there's only
evidence to the contrary. Have you never eve

What evidence? You keep going on about this evidence and yet you have
not presented any of it.

<remainder, which consists entirely of quoted material, snipped>

 

[J.Clarke]

Nope. Do you understand the relationship between voltage and heat
production, energy usage? Where do you think that energy comes from?
The motherboard's onboard regulation circuits, including the
capacitors. It's not only Taiwanese or other defective capacitors
that fail, they all do eventually, that rate depending on the stresses
on them... Talk to someone from a large volume PC shop, most have
plenty of systems coming in DOA... I get dead boards from a a few
regularly, replace the caps, they work like new again.

Do you understand that making modifications to increase the longevity of
systems which are normally disposed of as obsolete before they quit
working is a waste of time and effort?

As for systems coming in DOA, what percentage of systems and how old
were they and to what extent would those statistics change if someone
reduced the operating voltage and how do you know that the change would
be of the magnitude you claim?

I know--look it up, it's all over the Internet.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Do you understand the relationship between voltage and heat
production, energy usage? Where do you think that energy comes
from? The motherboard's onboard regulation circuits, including

Correct me if I am wrong (I haven't seen any schematics) but since
todays power supplies provide only 5 and 3.3 volts, any reduced
voltages for the CPU must come from on-board regulators. This
means that the net power reduction with undervoltaged CPUs is
strictly proportional to V, rather than V*V, because some of the
dissipation is shifted to the regulator.


It may even be worse, if undervolting requires using the 5 V
source rather than the 3.3 V source. It would be very hard to
design a reliable regulator with less than 0.5V drop. In this
area I doubt that a switcher would have any advantage over a
series regulator, in fact it might be inferior.

 

[Thunder9]

Quit wasting your time, kony.



Regards,
Thunder9

 

[J.Clarke]

<snip a whole lot of J. Clarke's argument with a man who knows his
stuff>


Prime95 torture-test. The widely accepted standard.

And how was that validated? What agency published the standard?

 

[J.Clarke]

Ah, the historical argument. Most of today's sytems will continue to
be usable for many years, decades even, as long as you're not talking
about dediacted gaming machines that will be used for the latest and
greatest new-release games. This is not so true of systems produced
last century.--

And you base this opinion on what information?

 

[~misfit~]

"Stability" is not the only issue. Are you completely sure that
calcuations performed on one of your undervolted systems are accurate?
If so, how did you determine this?

Prime95 torture-test. The widely accepted standard.

 

[~misfit~]

Do you understand that making modifications to increase the longevity of
systems which are normally disposed of as obsolete before they quit
working is a waste of time and effort?

Ah, the historical argument. Most of today's sytems will continue to be
usable for many years, decades even, as long as you're not talking about
dediacted gaming machines that will be used for the latest and greatest
new-release games. This is not so true of systems produced last century.

 

[kony]

Correct me if I am wrong (I haven't seen any schematics) but since
todays power supplies provide only 5 and 3.3 volts, any reduced
voltages for the CPU must come from on-board regulators. This
means that the net power reduction with undervoltaged CPUs is
strictly proportional to V, rather than V*V, because some of the
dissipation is shifted to the regulator.

We can treat the CPU and onboard SMPS as separate subsystems each with
their own voltage and current requirements. The CPU still sees a power
reduction proportional to the V² reduction. The motherboard's onboard
regulation subsystem ALSO sees a separate reduction, possibly
approaching proportionality to the V² reduction, but I think there may
be a few more variables involved based on the design of the SMPS.

It may even be worse, if undervolting requires using the 5 V
source rather than the 3.3 V source. It would be very hard to
design a reliable regulator with less than 0.5V drop. In this
area I doubt that a switcher would have any advantage over a
series regulator, in fact it might be inferior.

The (main) power supply rail suppling the motherboard onboard
regulation circuitry is fixed by the [ATX connector and connected
copper traces to the regulator], can not change based on the
(undervolted) Vcore. It's always 5V or 12V... more often 5V for older
systems and some current AMD boards, but other, more often newer AMD
motherboards use 12V. All P4 platforms now use 12V.

There is never a situation (AFAIK) where needed Vdrop is less than
~1.5V, and usually quite a bit higher when for CPU Vcore. Typically
the total CPU Vcore drop would be in the range of ~3.25-10.75V

The Vcore that can be stability produced (assuming proper design) is
any in the range supported by the switching regulator controller used.
It is a programmable controller, an example of which can be seen here:
http://www.intersil.com/data/fn/fn4765.pdf

Of course this is the physical limitation of the hardware
(motherboard), but doesn't necessarily mean the motherboard (by
jumpers or BIOS settings) will allow the user to change, specify all
(or even any) of these voltages.


Dave

 

[J.Clarke]

The agency of don't be a ****wit. It is the standard of system
tweakers and overclockers world-wide.

And you would trust your life to "the standard of system tweakers and
overclockers world-wide"? Goody.

<sigh> But I bet you keep arguing. Always with questions, never with
facts.--

Can you say "shifting the burden of proof"?

 

[kony]

Quit wasting your time, kony.



Regards,
Thunder9

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

 

[JAD]

Yes you have if you think i'm going to spend money on a cpu and the turn it down so it doesnt overheat....

 

[~misfit~]

And how was that validated? What agency published the standard?

The agency of don't be a ****wit. It is the standard of system tweakers and
overclockers world-wide.

<sigh> But I bet you keep arguing. Always with questions, never with facts.

 

[~misfit~]

And you base this opinion on what information?

Intelligence. Observation. Deduction. Hands-on experience coupled with age.
But I'm sure that you, lacking somewhat in most of those need 'hard facts'.

Yep, Ad Hominum argument. The only way to deal with someone who argues
whilst acting like a child saying "But why mommy? Why?"

 

[~misfit~]

Top posting fixed.

Yes you have if you think i'm going to spend money on a cpu and the

turn it down so it doesnt overheat....

Your money, your choice.