 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
>
> CRAP.
Oh, that's pretty sweet. :-D
> Wonder what would change if I ran the case open. I lose the fan in the
> case side, but maybe it'll give me adequate ventilation.
I'm told this tends to screw up the ventilation rather than help it. YMMV.
You might try taking a can of compressed air to it and just trying to
blow some dust out of it. (The PSU in particular tends to trap that
stuff very efficiently...)
> If I can just keep this thing from driving me bonkers (or possibly
> failing due to thermal stress) until I build the new one (BTW, I think
> I'm going to start with 4GB of DDR3 instead of 2GB... Might as
> well....Memory is cheap)
Indeed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> So, I bought a new heatsink from the local computer shop. It took the guy
> 15 minutes of rummaging around in the back to find one to fit my ancient
> system. Installed it.
>
>
> CRAP.
Why crap? You nicely proved that your CPU is not throttling itself to avoid
going over 78 degrees...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>
>> CRAP.
>
> Why crap? You nicely proved that your CPU is not throttling itself to
> avoid going over 78 degrees...
It does seem to run somewhat faster, now, though. Still waaay too hot
for my comfort, though. Maybe I'll bolt a peltier cooler on the case fan ;)
Fun fact: The screws to the heatsink mount can back out and loosen over
time. I only discovered this after I installed the new heatsink and
fired up the computer, only to have it shut itself down in the middle of
POST! After a few cycles of this and the occasional BIOS complaint that
overclocking failed (huh? I've never overclocked my system...) I finally
ripped of the new heatsink and noticed the screws were rather loose.
Thankfully, Intel processors will shut down the system if they get hot
enough to start a fire.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> (Bearing in mind that Pass Mark is a synthetic benchmark which measures
> CPU performance under idellic conditions... But even if you assume all
> your programs are single-threaded, divide pass marks by 4 gives you
> 1,040 pass marks, which is still 2.17x the Pentium IV above.)
2.55x faster for single threaded :) based on the Passmark for my 2.6ghz
P4.. Nice :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83GHz 12MB L2 Cache
Tom's Hardware has some good advice on how to cool it down.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/253233-28-intel-core-quad-q9550-temperature
HTH.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (Bearing in mind that Pass Mark is a synthetic benchmark which
>> measures CPU performance under idellic conditions... But even if you
>> assume all your programs are single-threaded, divide pass marks by 4
>> gives you 1,040 pass marks, which is still 2.17x the Pentium IV above.)
>
> 2.55x faster for single threaded :) based on the Passmark for my 2.6ghz
> P4.. Nice :)
Ever notice that the P4 reached almost 4 GHz... and no processor since
has ever been that fast? ;-)
Apparently it's really hard to go any faster than that for some reason.
So then AMD and Intel spent a while trying to make their CPUs go faster
at the same clock speed. (IIRC, that's roughly when this 64-bit
nonesense started happening.) And then once they'd done everything they
could with that, they started adding more cores.
Assuming that sometimes soon people will start writing programs that
actually utilise more than one core... (The Haskell people seriously
believe this to be THE killer feature of Haskell. We'll see...)
I suspect the future is NUMA. Adding more cores per chip just means that
there's even less memory bandwidth available per core... (Notice that
GPUs are NUMA.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Apparently it's really hard to go any faster than that for some reason.
One might suspect the speed of light.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Apparently it's really hard to go any faster than that for some reason.
>
> One might suspect the speed of light.
I'd suspect either heat or signal interference, personally... but I'm
not an Engineer. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Apparently it's really hard to go any faster than that for some reason.
>>
>> One might suspect the speed of light.
>
> I'd suspect either heat or signal interference, personally... but I'm
> not an Engineer. ;-)
Could be that too, but 4GHz is only 7.5cm in a vacuum, so on silicon I'd
expect significantly less.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> So, I bought a new heatsink from the local computer shop. It took the
>> guy 15 minutes of rummaging around in the back to find one to fit my
>> ancient system. Installed it.
>>
>>
>> CRAP.
>
> Why crap? You nicely proved that your CPU is not throttling itself to
> avoid going over 78 degrees...
>
>
Actually, I just proved it is throttling itself:
Ran a short CPU intensive task, then opened up the intel CPUID tool,
which reports the processor speed.
Expected Processor Frequency: 2.60 GHz
Reported Processor Frequency: 1.99 GHz
Expected System Bus Frequency: 800 MHz
Reported System Bus Frequency: 613 MHz
Yeah.. It's throttling alright.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
