Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:

> > Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> >> I'm pretty sure a lot of people on this newsgroup knows what horror it
> >> is to see an idle CPU. I keep mine busy.
> >
> > keep it up and it won't hold for long... ;)
>
> This heavy usage indeed lowers CPU life, but not enough to be an issue,
> because it would become obsolete way before that anyway. Quote:
>
> > 2) Anything wears out faster when in action than when iddle (and
> > especially when switching between active and iddle). The question isn't
> > really relevant, you should rather ask if anything wears out faster than
> > when its replacement would otherwise have been expected. (Whether a
> > harddrive lasts 20 years or 10 years doesn't matter if you replace it in
> > 5...)

hmm, yes.  But geeks don't think that way:  we want to optimize and be
lightweight!  If I can save my CPU from a burning death, I will do go out of my
way to do it.  Other than halting povray, that is... :)

Post a reply to this message