T
Timothy Daniels
Mxsmanic said:
How about for apps that do audio or video editing?
Aren't their I/Os for big hunks of data?
How about for compilers?
*TimDaniels*
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How about for apps that do audio or video editing?
Aren't their I/Os for big hunks of data?
How about for compilers?
*TimDaniels*
K
kony
My daughter's P3-1GHz, with stock Intel heatsink/fan, is 5 years old
and has had no such problem.
I'll bet it does but you dont' realize how much quieter it
could be. Every single one of them I've tried did.
K
kony
They need more memory.
Yes, but if the memory is used to store the data being
worked on by the CPU (as in photoediting or whatever), it
also takes that much longer to process with a slower CPU.
K
kony
Precisely, so there isnt any point in obsessing
about the cpu choice performance wise.
With that kind of thinking we can discount most any
performance aspect of a computer one-at-a-time. So are you
still running a Pentium 2 with only some SCSI or Raptors?
Most arent.
R
Rod Speed
Mxsmanic said:Rod Speed writes
No, it's the access time that matters.
Not with personal desktop systems.
Very few disk I/Os are large enough to profit from greater throughput.
Wrong, most obviously with the boot time.
The disk spends most of its time seeking for I/Os of only small blobs of data.
Yes, but your claim that access times havent improved
much over 30 or 40 years is clearly just plain wrong.
And doesnt explain why drives like the Raptors give a
worthwhile improvement in performance in many situations,
or why 7200 rpm drives are noticeably better performers
than the older 3600 rpm say 1G drives either, let alone the
noticeably slower 200M drives.
The difference is very noticeable if you say put an elderly 1G
drive into a system instead of the current 300G 7200 rpm drive.
In spades with a decent Access database for example.
Why did you just delete this from the quoting, it aint gunna go away.
30 milliseconds / 8 milliseconds = 300% improvement for disks
There is no difference in the access time between those two drives,
both Fujitsu MP*AT drives.
5000 MIPS / 4 MIPS = 12,400% improvement for processors
I was only commenting on your drive claims.
Yes, but it's much worse now,
Nope, disk delay was then and still is the main bottleneck in personal
desktop systems when it isnt what the user is actually doing.
because nothing else is holding the system back as much,
and because applications have bloated to the point where
they do hundreds or thousands of disk I/Os even for the
simplest functions.
Oh bullshit. Word and Excel dont. Neither does Access or Outlook.
K
kony
In the experiments I've tried, disk delays account for almost 100% of
the time spent waiting for many things to happen on the PC.
Not true, you're ignoring the bottlenecks INBETWEEN disk
accesses... the subsequent accesses only happen AFTER the
data being loaded from disk is processed in many cases. Not
ALL cases, but quite a few. Take adobe acrobat for
instance, or photoshop, or whatever. Just because the most
common tasks aren't such an issue, it doesn't rule out each
machine having some other demanding tasks that may not be as
common on all systems, but it is common for most systems to
have something more demanding.
Yes, but truly random access to the disk--as often occurs in
multiple-application environments--will rapidly make a file cache
useless.
No. Multiple application environments are exactly when the
filecache is of the most benefit.
K
kony
How about for apps that do audio or video editing?
Aren't their I/Os for big hunks of data?
How about for compilers?
*TimDaniels*
yes there are plenty of cases where larger files are read
and/or actively processed as read such that disk performance
is a secondary bottleneck if at all.
R
Rod Speed
Timothy Daniels said:Mxsmanic wrote
How about for apps that do audio or video editing?
Aren't their I/Os for big hunks of data?
Not really with audio, the files arent that large.
Certainly true of video editing and even just very basic editing
like chopping an entire evening's file into the individual programs.
How about for compilers?
Yes, its just plain wrong for that, but thats not something that most
do on personal desktop systems, its a tiny subset of the market.
K
kony
I've used multiprocessor systems before, and snappiness is not a
function of processor speed.
Lack of snappiness on a single CPU is due to lack of
processor speed and/or inproper process priority. There is
no reason these "most common" apps being mentioned so often
in this thread, cannot feel snappy enough (within limits of
human perception) on single CPU systems. There are of
course less common uses of a system that benefit more from
multicore or multiprocessor platforms.
R
Rod Speed
I'll bet it does but you dont' realize how much quieter it could be.
You've just lost that bet.
I went out of my way to make the PVR as quiet as
possible and that cpu fan certainly doesnt in mine.
Every single one of them I've tried did.
You need to get out more.
K
kony
Neither do I.
Havent seen that bearing whine you claim is
universal with Intel P3s boxed fans either.
Still using one in a PVR too.
When I received the first shippment I'd thought I got a bad
lot of fans but others in online forums and another computer
shop also confirmed it. Perhaps you have a latter fan that
corrected the problem but I dont' think so, as I'd mentioned
previously I still have later release brand new
heatsink/fans from P3 that I have tried to use on occasion.
Their noise is acceptible if throttled back with a fan speed
control method but the heatsink (metal portion) itself is
still more limiting due to the shape and clip.
R
Rod Speed
Yes, but if the memory is used to store the data being
worked on by the CPU (as in photoediting or whatever), it
also takes that much longer to process with a slower CPU.
Nothing like the original CHOKES.
R
Rod Speed
With that kind of thinking we can discount most any
performance aspect of a computer one-at-a-time.
Nope, most obviously with the hard drive.
So are you still running a Pentium 2
with only some SCSI or Raptors?
Nope. I do use Celerons tho.
Most arent.
For other reasons.
Plenty do use laptops with their rather downmarket cpus tho.
R
Rod Speed
When I received the first shippment I'd thought
I got a bad lot of fans but others in online forums
and another computer shop also confirmed it.
Pity was never UNIVERSALLY SEEN WITH ALL P3s.
Perhaps you have a latter fan that corrected the problem
No perhaps about it, and that PVR has been running 24/7 for
years and years now it used to be the main system at one time.
but I dont' think so, as I'd mentioned previously
I still have later release brand new heatsink/fans
from P3 that I have tried to use on occasion.
Have fun explaining mine and chrisv's.
Their noise is acceptible if throttled back with a fan
speed control method but the heatsink (metal portion)
itself is still more limiting due to the shape and clip.
I didnt do a damned thing to mine.
K
kony
Motherboard protection is less reliable, since it requires two working
components, not one.
You are merely posing theory without trying it. The latter
becomes necessary before a conclusion. Scientific method.
The lack of this important feature in the past was a direct reflection
of decisions made by AMD, and showed that some of those decisions were
very poor.
Nonsense, Intel also had CPUs without it.
How about the processor in your laser printer (if you have a
decent one, though they all have host processing)? Do you
know if it has this protection? How about in all your video
cards? You are citing a reason that you ignore for any
other part. Although a CPU produces more heat, the kind of
cooling system failure that will destroy one is not
exclusive to the highest heat CPUs, the others will fail
too.
Unless all AMD employees from that period have been
replaced, the decisions of that era must be taken into consideration
even for choices made today, as they indicate the quality of decisions
overall.
Nonsense. Same could be said of intel's past so-called
"decisions" not to have one, or Intel's "decisions" to
release a P3 1.13GHz.
You are illogically biased because one failure happened to
cost more money than others. I would be upset about it too,
but not illogically biased.
I lost two machines to overheated AMD processors, and each one cost me
a bit over a thousand dollars.
You lost certain parts of each machine. If you put over one
thousand into the board and CPU for each, you were naive to
use the OEM heatsink (same situation with intel).
I still think you are blaming the wrong parts. A CPU
overheat will NOT take out any other parts except "maybe"
(usually NOT) the motherboard. The odds are overwhelming
that you had another problem, and if that problem was
melting parts and you feel it could have ended up lighting
the system on fire, NO WONDER the fan failed too, AFTER the
problem not as the cause.
I would've loved to examine those old systems, I spend more
time on failure modes than anything else these days. Dead
serious about that, I'm more interested in system
reliability than Vista or gaming video cards, etc, etc, etc.
The entire machine, not just the motherboard and CPU.
You are either mistaken or lying. An overheated CPU will
not destroy the entire machine.
I am now pretty much discounting everything you are writing
because it is not reliable information.
These machines were SonBooks, and they used third-party heatsinks and
fans.
What's a SonBook? Google didn't turn up much.
If you bought a system with low quality fans, there is then
an immediate decision that needs be made:
- Return the system, unfit for long term use.
- Fit it with quality parts and those parts implementation
so it IS fit for the use.
Whatever happened, it seems SonBooks made the fan choice and
you didn't know the difference. AMD didn't cause your fault
and I still suspect the CPU wasn't even overheating of
itself, there was another failure point that cause the
problem and killed the CPU too (unless you just thew it all
out, as you seem to have randomly declared the entire system
a loss which would never happen from CPU overheat).
Again I suspect it was the board or PSU that failed.
Bad experiences with AMD = 2, bad experiences with Intel = 0.
Conclusion: buy Intel.
False conclusion.
Avoid SonBooks, avoid running a system without knowing if
it's in good operating order, avoid blaming anyone until you
know what actually happened. An overheated CPU will not
trash an entire system.
I now wonder if you are a paid endorser for Intel?
It just seems TOO SUSPICIOUS, your claims are beyond
unbelievable, you are actively assuming things not in
evidence at all.
Do you know what'll happen to a system when a CPU overheats?
Practically nothing. CPU dies, end of story. Severe
overheating may warp the CPU socket. It doesn't catch
anything on fire. The kind of power load that would cause
this should trip the PSU, I'd have focused on it first.
The odds were 100% if the CPU fans failed, which they did (both being
very cheap fans). One of the fans failed within days.
If these systems were burnt onto the point where you had a
compete loss as you suggested, you cannot assume the fan
failed first rather than during the failure event or even
towards the end. It would have been good to just come out
with these signficant details in the first place, rather
than only your unfounded, biased conclusion which is not
believable. Maybe you believe it but I don't accept these
details as supportive of your conclusion at all, and it is
an entirely separate issue from fans or AMD vs Intel.
K
kony
Might just be why all cpu manufacturers
with a clue include thermal shutdown now.
Out of pity I'll address this ONE LAST TIME.
They do it to cover their own asses because they're selling
products to clueless assemblers like yourself that don't pay
attention to failure points nor proper parts selection and
implementation.
If you find fans failing, only a fool would continue to
operate systems like that. Only a fool would buy same fans
again, not take the appropriate measures to combat system
downtime.
Lastly since you JUST DON'T GET IT, I'll repeat what I've
written about a half dozen times already. I never claimed
CPUs "shouldn't" have thermal shutdown. I never claimed one
should completely ignore the feature either. I claimed
something similar to "you are a negligent fool if you give
thermal shutdown even one moment's thought before ensuring
you have a quality cooling system set up". I stand by that,
and always will.
Gracefull recovery from failing is never as good as success.
R
Rod Speed
You are merely posing theory without trying it.
No he isnt. No need to try it to realise that at a minimum
the shutdown temp has to be specified in the bios and
that the cpu does actually have to be running in that
motherboard for the bios value to even get used.
Not so with the built in cpu thermal shutdown.
The latter becomes necessary before a conclusion.
Nope, not in this case.
Scientific method.
You clearly wouldnt know what the scientific
method was if it bit you on your lard arse.
Nonsense, Intel also had CPUs without it.
Not cpus that would burn out if the fan failed they didnt.
How about the processor in your laser printer (if you
have a decent one, though they all have host processing)?
Do you know if it has this protection? How about in all
your video cards? You are citing a reason that you
ignore for any other part.
Yes, if the most expensive component will die if something
as basic as the fan fails, it needs a thermal shutdown.
Although a CPU produces more heat, the kind of
cooling system failure that will destroy one is not
exclusive to the highest heat CPUs, the others will fail too.
And if the most expensive component will die if something
as basic as the fan fails, it needs a thermal shutdown.
Nonsense. Same could be said of intel's past
so-called "decisions" not to have one, or Intel's
"decisions" to release a P3 1.13GHz.
Nope, there is a fundament difference between
doing stuff on the cheap, when it costs peanuts
to include thermal shutdown, and other ****ups.
Particulary when those amds that didnt have thermal
shutdown mostly didnt have boxed fans either.
You are illogically biased because one failure
happened to cost more money than others. I
would be upset about it too, but not illogically biased.
You're even more mindlessly illogically biased when
you are stupid enough to claim that it makes any
sense to not include thermal shutdown when it
costs peanuts, in something as expensive as a cpu.
R
Rod Speed
Out of pity I'll address this ONE LAST TIME.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
They do it to cover their own asses because they're
selling products to clueless assemblers like yourself
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Nothing clueless about using the boxed fan that comes with the cpu.
that don't pay attention to failure points nor
proper parts selection and implementation.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Nothing clueless about using the boxed fan that comes with the cpu.
If you find fans failing,
I dont. I do however realise that NOTHING is perfect
and that even when the boxed fan is used, they CAN
fail and that I prefer not to have to replace that cpu
in the unlikely event that that does happen. Particularly
when I never turn systems off and I may well not be
around when the fan fails, statistically.
only a fool would continue to operate systems like that.
Only a fool would buy same fans again, not take the
appropriate measures to combat system downtime.
Lastly since you JUST DON'T GET IT, I'll repeat what I've
written about a half dozen times already. I never claimed
CPUs "shouldn't" have thermal shutdown. I never claimed one
should completely ignore the feature either. I claimed
something similar to "you are a negligent fool if you give
thermal shutdown even one moment's thought before ensuring
you have a quality cooling system set up". I stand by that,
and always will.
You can stand anywhere you like, child.
Since you JUST DON'T GET IT, I'll repeat what I've written about
a half dozen times already. ONLY A FOOL DOESNT HAVE
THERMAL SHUTDOWN WHEN THAT COSTS PEANUTS WITH
WHAT IS USUALLY THE MOST EXPENSIVE COMPONENT IN THE
SYSTEM. Even AMD eventually woke up and smelt the coffee on that.
You cant manage something as basic as that ? YOUR problem, child.
Gracefull recovery from failing is never as good as success.
Having to the replace the cpu when something as basic as the cpu
fan fails EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO USE THE BOXED
FAN THE MANUFACTURER SUPPLIES, IS TERMINALLY STUPID.
You qualify in spades.
P
paulmd
Trent said:10 to 20 years???!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
Yes 10 to 20 years. Obsolescense should always come before component
failure. The vast majority of pentuim 1 class systems are still
physically OK.
J
JAD
Yes 10 to 20 years. Obsolescense should always come before component
failure. The vast majority of pentuim 1 class systems are still
physically OK.
P1 eh? just how big a fan was on those P1's?