Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: bloodline on October 08, 2003, 11:39:50 AM
-
Since AROS Runs on AMD processors, Intel Processors and Motorola Processors, here is a funny thing I found on the Inquirer
Top Ten Reasons not to buy an AMD Chip:
1 Only INQUIRER readers have heard of AMD
2 Its silk screen printing has been outsourced to India
3 Like Carly Fiorina's HP, it's using SITEL
4 There are too many pins on its chips
5 There are too few pins on its chips
6 It hasn't got Pat Goldfinger working for it
7 Its executives run away from Maureen Gara, Charlie Demerjian and Mike Magee
8 It doesn't know how to throw good parties any more
9 Hector Ruiz is the CEO now
10 Err... that's it. µ
Top Ten Reasons not to buy an Intel Chip:
1 Intel chips don't warm the room up as much as Athlons
2 Athlons do more per clock cycle
3 Intel CPUs make a bigger hole in your pocket.
4 Intel changes form factors/slots/ pinouts more frequently than Hector changes his underwear
5 RMBS Inc
6 Intel supplies chips used in a mass market games console designed by Microsoft
7 It's not as exclusive as AMD
8 Intel tried to force everyone to use expensive RDRAM
9 Did we mention Rambus ?
10 Intel is not suffering as much as the rest of the IT industry (very British, I know) µ
Top Ten Reasons not to buy a Motorola Chip:
1 It soon won't make semiconductors any more
2 It soon won't make semiconductors any more
3 It soon won't make semiconductors any more
4 It soon won't make semiconductors any more
5 It soon won't make semiconductors any more
6 It soon won't make semiconductors any more
7 It soon won't make semiconductors any more
8 It soon won't make semiconductors any more
9 Er, that's it, except for...
10 Hector Ruiz used to be in charge of Power PC chips there..
Made me laugh anyway :)
-
I like the Athlon one. Using an Athlon 1800-based PC has actually cut my gas heating bill :-D
-
Do you know what core AthlonXP you're running? There have been two available for the 1800+: Palomino and Thoroughbred-A.
They can be identified easily by the shape of the die. Palomino is square, Thoroughbred is rectangular.
Palomino cores output tonnes more heat. First hand experience.
-
I like the Athlon one. Using an Athlon 1800-based PC has actually cut my gas heating bill
Yeah, I closed the heat vent to my back room, it was getting too warm! It was good that the gas bill went down... Helps free up some money to pay for the hellish electric bill. ;-)
-
Palomino cores output tonnes more heat. First hand experience.
I absolutely loved my 1600+ Palomino. Wonderful performer and heat wasn't really so bad. Then I upgraded to a 2600+ Thouroghbred B. The die is so much smaller that it cooked under the copper heatsink. The aftermarket heatsink I tried was even louder and didn't cool much better, so I replaced it with a P4. My machine is now very cool and quiet, but suffers from many performance issues, including studdering and very slow performance in older games than the Athlon.
I would've added another line to the AMD list: they don't cap their cores. Of course, that's changing with Athlon 64. I might very well go back to AMD, after all.
PS - Anybody know about P4 or i865 stability problems? With my Athlons I haven't seen a BSOD in more than a year. Now that I have a P4, I've seen 4 catastrophic crashes in two weeks! I know some apps like Flash Player 6 crash like crazy on the P4, but is there a bigger problem, here? :-?
-
P4s and their chipsets are really picky about installing INF and chipset patches as soon as the os is installed, in fact somewhere on their site is an actual list of what to install in what specific order. I'm not sure if it's such a big deal now as it was when the first s423 P4s came out. I do know there really is a performance hit if you don't do it right tho. I wonder why? :-?
-
mikeymike wrote:
Palomino cores output tonnes more heat. First hand experience.
I have a Thoroughbred. You mean it could have run hotter? :-o ;-) One good thing I have to say about my Athlon machine is I haven't had a single BSOD since I bought it about 5 months ago :-) (Running Win2k. Now if only Bill would opensource that... he he... oh well.)
-
The Thunderbird core had more heat and heat related issues than the Palomino core. I use a Thermaltake Volcano 7 on my XP 1900+ and always run under 42 C even when maxing it.. The same on my old 1.2 Thunderbird would yeild low 50's... Even the newer P 4's have has some heat issues.... But then the stock fan and heat sinks on AMD aren't really that good anyway....I wonder how the clawhammer 64 bit processor is? I still think G5 (as well as G4 and G3) are much cooler anyway 8-)
-
I have an athlon4 1.4 Ghz here with a thunderbird core, boy it runs hot. about 50 degrees at idle, and that goes up to about 58 to 60 degrees under heavy load!
-
There hot, i know :-)
I have an Athlon 1800XP, no idea what core it has but i bet it's the hot one, at the moment it idles around 50/53 c, under load much higher.
During the summer my idle time was easily 60+ and under load was around 70. For cooling i use Volcano 7.
Did i mention we had a hot summer? ;-)
Ah well...this could be me well sorted for heating this winter :-)
-
Yep, Athlons have been warm. The thing people forget is, they're rated to *take* the heat they produce. As long as it's kept within the range specified in the datasheets, you can expect it to tick away as long as anything else, or until your Taiwanese capacitors explode.
Meanwhile, if you've missed the chatter on the brit sites (Inq/Reg), they're doing something ridiculously smart. Everything in the Hammer (AMD64) line runs cold now, but they won't specify the current dissipations - only the *peak* they'll ever allow for the model line, capped at a toasty 89W.
Wait, isn't that ridiculous?
http://theinquirer.net/?article=11948 (http://theinquirer.net/?article=11948)
Aha! Any "Opteron/A64-ready" heatsink ever made actually *will* be ready to take the load a year or more down the line.
http://theinquirer.net/?article=11964 (http://theinquirer.net/?article=11964) - Third letter down.
Future-proofing from an x86 vendor. Who'd've thunk.
-
I have an athlon4 1.4 Ghz here with a thunderbird core, boy it runs hot. about 50 degrees at idle, and that goes up to about 58 to 60 degrees under heavy load!
id be worried about that my old ahlon 1.2 never got that hot and my ahlon xp2400 does not get above 32 at idle.I use a thermaltake heatsink and a cheap 3000rpm fan due to something i should not have done ill get a proper fan later old one could be adjusted up to 5000 something rpm. :-)
-
I use Spire EagleRockII with my 1.666GHz AMD plug. 41 degrees w/o load, 44 with load (2800 rpm). The bad stats is probably related to me not able to remove all of the old thermal pad from the chip :-(
I really reccomend the EagleRockII. Technicly well designed with a big fat lump of copper in the middle and the fan chassi is cast in aluminum. It's relatively cheap and very quiet too. Not to mention that it's one of the few that actually fits my Epox mobo.
-
JetRacer wrote:
I use Spire EagleRockII with my 1.666GHz AMD plug. 41 degrees w/o load, 44 with load (2800 rpm). The bad stats is probably related to me not able to remove all of the old thermal pad from the chip :-(
I wouldn't say that those are bad stats.
My two Palomino AthlonMP 1900+ (oc'd to ~1750MHz, or something like "2200+") weigh in at ~60 deg. C under max load (i.e. always ;)).
Spire Whisperrock II HSFs here.
As long as it's below what AMD says is the max (80-85 deg. IIRC), I don't worry about it.
-
@calen
Yeh its still running good :-)
@amigamad
No reason to be worried, it's one of the hottest in the series and it's rated to run fine at 90 degrees C, although it shouldn't get anywhere near that.
-
In spanish "Palomino" means "stain of s.h.i.t." so I laugh a lot when I heard the name of that core :-D
-
LOL really :-D
-
> AMD says is the max (80-85 deg. IIRC)
Seriusly..? I replaced the old one (aluminum cheapo enherited from a 1GHz Duron) because my CPU became unstable already at 58-59 degrees.
-
>Reasons
Hello
REAL REASON not to buy MOTOROLA COLDFIRE:
1. Go to local Motorola office in Asia:
"Sorry, WE DO NOT SELL ANY ELECTRONIC IC!"
We ONLY SELL Cell phone. Perhaps you are
looking for V60, V66, V70. THERE IS NO PRODUCT
SUCH AS V4, V4e, V5 or V5e!
2. Go to their REGIONAL HQ:
Sorry we don't handle negotiation about IC
Design / copyright, please contact US Office.
3. US Office:
We only sell to FORTUNE 500 US companies.
We only manufacture and sell in large quantities
(ie 10 millions IC / more!)
-
Reasons to not buy a CPU
yadda ...
yadda ...
yadda ...
...No. Buy a hard disk drive instead! :-P
-
@asian1: You're not supposed to buy them directly from Motorola you know. The answer would be the same if you'd ask Intel or AMD. Heck, try phoning Whirlpool for a dishwasher and you still wouldn't get anywhere. Ask whatever corporation for a list of local distributors (else try US ones), then ask the distributor(s) for a reseller that would accept single piece orders. It's not harder than that.
If none exists, then it's another matter. Try scamming the corporation; say you're a student working on a project and ask them to make an exception (very efficient) =)
-
JetRacer wrote:
> AMD says is the max (80-85 deg. IIRC)
Seriusly..? I replaced the old one (aluminum cheapo enherited from a 1GHz Duron) because my CPU became unstable already at 58-59 degrees.
Yes, seriously. There are PDFs over at AMD.com which I can't be bothered to search through again... :) But it just means that the CPU won't be damaged as long as it's below the max rated tempereature. It doesn't guarantee it'll be stable though. I'd say your 44 deg. under load is normal, if not even low. It's not a good idea to compare with the peltier/water/extra-terrestrial-technology cooling freaks (who often seem to have misunderstood the original idea of overclocking; getting good performance while paying less).
My system is rock stable now. If I push up the FSB 1 more MHz, I get the occasional lockup in Linux (WinXP seems to be more tolerant). The CPU temperature OTOH changes much more with my room temperature than with increasing/decreasing the FSB with a MHz. My system stability seems to be more dependent on the actual frequency than temperature.
-
I've got a ThunderBird 1.4 over here, had to install
a water cooling system, as it got up to 68C, no matter
which cooler I tried, even fop38. I got a ThermalTake
Aquarious II and it's now down to 33idle, 37full load +
5 if the ambient temp rises a lot.
The "fridge" that cools the water is a really nice heater:-)
-
@Varius people: I know that 41-44 is fully acceptable (thanks anyway). Some people who use similar coolers only get figures like 33-37. The temp difference between my old 1GHz Duron and my 1.6GHz Atlhon using the same cooler wasn't that radical; a few degrees perhaps. I just thought I would get similar stats.
>>> Lightbulb <<< -thermal paste (instead of thermal pad)?
@AmiGR: You're supposed to take off that plastic thingy on the thermal pad, you know :-)
-
Yep, Athlons have been warm. The thing people forget is, they're rated to *take* the heat they produce. As long as it's kept within the range specified in the datasheets, you can expect it to tick away as long as anything else, or until your Taiwanese capacitors explode.
The processor might be able to take it, but what about every other component in the system?
1 - electrical conductivity improves if components are cold. Equals faster.
2 - if you switch the computer off at night, all the components cool down, and with today's machines that can mean a reduction in temp by about 20 degrees C. Heating up and cooling down something repetitively is a great way to damage it, killing it far more dramatically than if it was on all the time.
3 - Hard disks die much quicker if they're running hotter. They may be rated to work at {insert high temperature here}, but the specs don't show you how that effects the MTBF (mean time before failure). Personally I care far more about the data than most of the other components in my system.
-
mikeymike wrote:
1 - electrical conductivity improves if components are cold. Equals faster.
BIG pet peeve. "Faster," yes; but the 'fastness' is the switching speed the transistors can reach without frying. (More technically, transistors require a certain amount of current, interconnects have to handle a certain amount of current, get things too warm and resistance goes up, interconnects toast, and you're out a chip.) In other words, the clock rate.
Cooling lets you, or the manufacturer, bump the clock rate. ("Overclocking," when it's done by a user without industrial-grade testing and QA.) It won't make your 2GHz faster than anyone else's.
2 - if you switch the computer off at night, all the components cool down, and with today's machines that can mean a reduction in temp by about 20 degrees C. Heating up and cooling down something repetitively is a great way to damage it, killing it far more dramatically than if it was on all the time.
Quite true. We shouldn't forget that top-tier vendors have and do throw a lot of money at these issues; I recall AMD had a batch of Athlons where the BGA? of the core didn't register properly on the package (pop, fizzle, zzt) and Intel's had rumors of melting Xeons, but quite frankly, you see a lot more of it from vendors forced to play catch-up. I've seen a lot of iBooks with heat?-warped touchpads, the original 1000 was a first-run design with its share of little issues like that (okay, grounding, not so much heat), and so on.
Reliability is so important to the top tier that, barring the occasional lemon (end-of-line cores, from either vendor), they've made it pretty hard for people *to* screw up. What causes the most pain these days are the unpredictables - Taiwanese capacitors, the bad package material that brought Fujitsu down, whatever the heck it was that made the IBM Deathstars so flaky (predictable or not?) - and so on. If you follow the datasheets and design guidelines, your design will probably make it to the MTBF. Even without any common sense.
3 - Hard disks die much quicker if they're running hotter. They may be rated to work at {insert high temperature here}, but the specs don't show you how that effects the MTBF (mean time before failure). Personally I care far more about the data than most of the other components in my system.
There's a lot of chaos at work there. To some degree, heat can be good; it keeps the oil thin and slick in your car engine, for instance. Crank it up too far, and you turn it to gum, or cause some other aspect of the mechanism to fail before its time. Drives die for so many reasons that it's hard to say what degree of cooling you really want; ventilation surely helps, but running 20 case fans or Peltiers is enough to cause a voltage sag that can screw you up in other ways.
-
Ehm, I always use high quality thermal compound:-)
Anyway, that is to be expected by a cpu that consumes almost 80Watts...
The heat was transfered fine to the heatsink, it was
VERY hot, even when I installed 3 cpu fans... Watercooling worked though...
PS: The same coolers I used on the Thunderbird
are now in use on AthlonXPs and they get normal
temps...
-
1 - electrical conductivity improves if components are cold. Equals faster.
BIG pet peeve. "Faster," yes; but the 'fastness' is the switching speed the transistors can reach without frying. (More technically, transistors require a certain amount of current, interconnects have to handle a certain amount of current, get things too warm and resistance goes up, interconnects toast, and you're out a chip.) In other words, the clock rate.
How can they fry if they're cold? I'm not saying that because they're cold that the clock speed can be raised, while that does stand to a certain extent, I'm saying that components that are running very cold make better conductors of electricity.
whatever the heck it was that made the IBM Deathstars so flaky
I think that must have been well and truly IBM's fault, as they haven't fired off a silo of lawsuits at anyone. :-)
To some degree, heat can be good; it keeps the oil thin and slick in your car engine, for instance
PCBs and electronic components are NOT care engines! They don't share any common characteristics! Car engines contain 99.9% moving parts. Computer components have very few.
-
mikeymike wrote:
1 - electrical conductivity improves if components are cold. Equals faster.
BIG pet peeve. "Faster," yes; but the 'fastness' is the switching speed the transistors can reach without frying. (More technically, transistors require a certain amount of current, interconnects have to handle a certain amount of current, get things too warm and resistance goes up, interconnects toast, and you're out a chip.) In other words, the clock rate.
How can they fry if they're cold? I'm not saying that because they're cold that the clock speed can be raised, while that does stand to a certain extent, I'm saying that components that are running very cold make better conductors of electricity.
They're called 'semiconductors' for a reason; they have to be able to create resistance to function.
So if we extrapolate ad absurdum, turning your CPU into a superconductor ain't gonna help. (Turning the *interconnects* into superconductors might be a bonus, sure; ring me when you've found a way that can be implemented with current processes.) Now, keeping the temperature within a range may in turn lower resistive losses during the 'on' state, but that's the range they came up with when they binned your processor and wrote the datasheet. "Improving the flow of electricity" is really not something that concerns the end-user here; if you're freaking out while running the chip at its rated spec, direct the cryogenics to the voltage regulators and the traces that deliver current to your graphics card.
Also note that, while, yes, ultimate cooling might prevent destruction, *point heating* is a big concern. If you can demonstrate any cooling solution that allows you to shunt wall current through a CPU and have it live to tell about it, again, pick up the phone. In practice, there's a law of diminishing returns; eventually, the thermal conductance of the chip package and silicon itself become limiting factors. Addressing this is of major interest to the chip industry - it's nice to be able to keep following Moore's Law without causing an exponential increase in the price/mass/size of cooling solutions to the consumer - but under normal circumstances, it should've been long-since vetted before it got in your hands, and there's not much you're going to be able to do about it afterwards. (Unless you have a miracle thermal conductor, and the equipment to shave the package down to apply it - no, Arctic Silver and some sandpaper for lapping doesn't really count, see opinion in the next paragraph.)
In other words, if your chip is hanging on by one transistor that'll die if the temperature rises a degree K (while still being within the rated spec for the chip) ... Cripes man, let it go. Better the core kicks the bucket than you risk subtle bit errors the moment your fan collects dust and loses an RPM. I'll make an exception for 'rare' chips (and an exception from 'normal circumstances' when they get to the end of core lifetimes and just start seeing what they can bin up and dump on the market), but really, either everything's going to take well in excess of what it's rated, or you're living every minute near the brink of disaster anyway.
And yes, this is why I bought a Thunderbird at 850, not 1.4GHz or wherever they took it near the end. (But SOI seems to change the game again; reducing leakage currents seems to imply you hit architectural clock limits long before you hit killer heat.)
whatever the heck it was that made the IBM Deathstars so flaky
I think that must have been well and truly IBM's fault, as they haven't fired off a silo of lawsuits at anyone. :-)
The world may never know, more's the pity.
To some degree, heat can be good; it keeps the oil thin and slick in your car engine, for instance
PCBs and electronic components are NOT care engines! They don't share any common characteristics! Car engines contain 99.9% moving parts. Computer components have very few.
Yes, and they're all in the HD.
Now, from what I can find, heat is apparently a joykill with fluid dynamic bearings (though what "heat" involves isn't clear), but running them below 273K probably wouldn't be any healthier than pouring liquid N2 down your pants.