Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 01:23:00 07/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2003 at 20:41:39, Keith Evans wrote: >On July 02, 2003 at 18:44:01, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>On July 02, 2003 at 18:25:22, Keith Evans wrote: >> >>>On July 02, 2003 at 17:58:58, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>For the most part, the chips are tested in a temperature controlled area with >>"average" cooling. That way you don't need some god-like cooler to run stable. >>Any old cooler rated for near what the chip is rated at will do fine. >> >>I understand your concerns about testing, however, temperature does make a >>massive difference. If the chips are that on edge in the first place, BurnK7 >>and/or Prime95 will produce errors, crash/lock/reboot the system, etc. > >That still doesn't mean that it's exercising the worst case path. Due to the >elevated temperature lot of paths could be failing which causes catastrophic >failures. But when you reduce the frequency a bit that doesn't mean that the >worst case path is then ok. What if the failure mode is obscure? > >Being close to the edge is ok as long as you know where the edge is. Eh, I'd have to disagree a bit there. You don't want to be too close to the edge. Intel keeps some chips at 5%, which is too close for me. Get someone with one of those chips... stuff that PC up under a table in a dusty house, after 6-12 months you'll start seeing massive dust all over the heatsink & inside the pc, clogging up fans. You'll then get a large temperature increase and eventually an unstable CPU. I like to run 10-15% away from the edge with my chips that way this doesn't happen. Sometimes Intel gets too close to the edge, which is what happened with the P3-1.13GHz chips that they recalled.. and the Itanium, and the P4-3GHz C :)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.