rec.autos.simulators

by **Jagg** » Sun, 27 May 2001 02:57:25

>cliche'
>My great-great-great grandaddy (Moses) did that trick eons ago. Got any fresh
>material? Visit Sigfreid and Roy in LV if ya need some inspiration.

That was the Red Sea, I'm talking aobut the Atlantic Ocean dammit!
What Moses did is nothing compared to my great abilities.

--
eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
http://www.racesimcentral.net/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

by M » Sun, 27 May 2001 03:51:13

.

uhhh.... Moses used a 286.

Pasha

by **Vernon Peller** » Sun, 27 May 2001 16:22:15

>..

>>That was the Red Sea, I'm talking aobut the Atlantic Ocean dammit!
>>What Moses did is nothing compared to my great abilities.

>uhhh.... Moses used a 286.

Running on DR-DOS

by JD » Sun, 27 May 2001 22:45:41

Sat, 26 May 2001 07:22:15 GMT, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy
that P4 just yet! :)"

Yeah, but those Egyptians in hot pursuit there were running CP/M
powered chariots.... it wasn't exactly a fair fight.

Regards, JD

by **jalo** » Sun, 03 Jun 2001 00:37:51

And this my friends is exactly why intel put this feature in. It's all
marketing. I've built many, many computers. My friends also build there own
computers. I have never seen a CPU fail. I'm not saying it doesn't happen,
just that when a CPU fails, it's a very rare thing. I personally wouldn't
want a CPU that will throttle back when playing a game. Kinda defeats the
purpose of buying a high end CPU, actually. I mean, a P4 1.7 is what, maybe
10% faster than a P4 1.5, then if it throttles back 30%, what do you have? A
P4 1.2. So why is the P4 better than the Athlon again?

by **Bad-Bo** » Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:12:20

....

If you do the sensible thing and put an efficient cooling system on the chip
then it will never need to throttle back.

Chip density is now making cooling critical. A number of companies offer
differing cooling solutions with differing reliability and performance.

You do know that if your case fan dies and you have a new m/board
it may well shut the whole system off as the temp rises !!

It's called "protecting your investment", it's been done in high-end servers
for decades. Now that we're putting that kind of heat generation on our
desks, we're needing similar protection. It should be recognised that
Intel are giving a benefit in providing this insurance and we should make
sure our ancillaries are good enough that it's never needed !

Me ? I'll go with the fastest for the $$$ and THEN add the BEST cooler
I can find. ( work for a company who's just patented one of the best :-)
and *THEN* I'll overclock :-). Find out when it throttles back and then
adjust speed ( or cooling ) to keep below that threshold.

I don't care who's logo is on the "li'l black thing with legs/pads" :-)

BB

by **Alai** » Mon, 04 Jun 2001 01:13:25

It's VERY easy to have a CPU fail... I was at the computer store a month
ago, and this newbie tech. guy installed a new CPU HSF in the wrong
direction, so the the HSF pad was not in contact with the CPU die. The CPU
was an Athlon-C 1.2GHz. Within 30 seconds it started smelling like burnt
metal... the CPU died just as the PC finished booting. It was really dead,
the dumb tech. couldn't believe it. Obviously your experience doesn't
include the latest generation of CPUs!

by **Gonz** » Mon, 04 Jun 2001 06:30:21

Yep, I have even burned a K6-2 300 one time because I ran it for less than a
min without a heat sink. Well, that's all it took and poof it was dead.

IMHO, AMD and Intel need to get their die down small enough so that these
things will run cooler like back in the 486 days when a heat sink wasn't
really required.

Luckily, most newer motherboards are smart enough to either warn you and /
or turn themselves off before you fry your CPU.

> It's VERY easy to have a CPU fail... I was at the computer store a month
> ago, and this newbie tech. guy installed a new CPU HSF in the wrong
> direction, so the the HSF pad was not in contact with the CPU die. The
CPU
> was an Athlon-C 1.2GHz. Within 30 seconds it started smelling like burnt
> metal... the CPU died just as the PC finished booting. It was really
dead,
> the dumb tech. couldn't believe it. Obviously your experience doesn't
> include the latest generation of CPUs!

> > [...]
> > marketing. I've built many, many computers. My friends also build there
> own
> > computers. I have never seen a CPU fail. I'm not saying it doesn't
happen,
> > just that when a CPU fails, it's a very rare thing. I personally
wouldn't
> >[...]

by **Eldre** » Mon, 04 Jun 2001 06:53:09

>It's VERY easy to have a CPU fail... I was at the computer store a month
>ago, and this newbie tech. guy installed a new CPU HSF in the wrong
>direction, so the the HSF pad was not in contact with the CPU die. The CPU
>was an Athlon-C 1.2GHz. Within 30 seconds it started smelling like burnt
>metal... the CPU died just as the PC finished booting. It was really dead,
>the dumb tech. couldn't believe it. Obviously your experience doesn't
>include the latest generation of CPUs!

>> [...]
>> marketing. I've built many, many computers. My friends also build there
>own
>> computers. I have never seen a CPU fail. I'm not saying it doesn't happen,
>> just that when a CPU fails, it's a very rare thing. I personally wouldn't
>>[...]

But that's not a hardware error. That's a *technician* error... No offense,
but that's not the same thing.

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
F1 hcp. +24.63...F2 +151.26...

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Alai** » Mon, 04 Jun 2001 07:59:59

Yes, I agree, but I was replying to a guy who said that a CPU will not
easily die from overheating so CPU throttling was not necessary. I'm simply
saying that if a CPU is allowed to overheat, it will die...

by **Nos** » Mon, 04 Jun 2001 08:18:56

>Yes, I agree, but I was replying to a guy who said that a CPU will not
>easily die from overheating so CPU throttling was not necessary. I'm simply
>saying that if a CPU is allowed to overheat, it will die...

My mb will shut down the computer if it gets too hot (user setting) so
I don't need, or want, a cpu that throttles back 50% just because it's
getting warm.

by **Alai** » Mon, 04 Jun 2001 08:28:46

Hehehe... you're basically saying that you would rather have your PC
instantly shutdown on you and lose all of your work instead of simply having
the CPU throttle if your CPU were to overheat... that's funny. Think about
it. If, that is *IF* your CPU WERE to overheat for some reason, how would
you want your PC to handle it? Come on.

> My mb will shut down the computer if it gets too hot (user setting) so
> I don't need, or want, a cpu that throttles back 50% just because it's
> getting warm.

by **Nos** » Mon, 04 Jun 2001 13:10:24

>Hehehe... you're basically saying that you would rather have your PC
>instantly shutdown on you and lose all of your work instead of simply having
>the CPU throttle if your CPU were to overheat... that's funny. Think about
>it. If, that is *IF* your CPU WERE to overheat for some reason, how would
>you want your PC to handle it? Come on.

OK, you have a point. :-) But, I can change that to just warn me so it
is preventable and still have some protection. The problem here though
is that the P4 has been shown to throttle back before it reaches a
critical point. That may be no big deal to a person using a computer
for business apps, but for a gamer that is a really bad thing. That is
what this thread is really about, not whether the theory of throttling
back is a bad or good thing. I just don't want a cpu that might affect
*** performance.

by **Alai** » Mon, 04 Jun 2001 23:16:54

I didn't hear about the P4 throttling back in normal circumstances... I
heard it was just a safety feature that was included "in case of" the worst
circumstances. If what you say is true, and that is the case, then the P4
is not functioning as advertised, and I agree with you. But you say "that
the P4 has been shown to throttle back before it reaches a critical
point"... can you point me to some reliable info about this? I'm really
surprised at this, it's news to me. I mean, I'm not a P4 fan, but I'm still
surprised.

> [...]
> OK, you have a point. :-) But, I can change that to just warn me so it
> is preventable and still have some protection. The problem here though
> is that the P4 has been shown to throttle back before it reaches a
> critical point. That may be no big deal to a person using a computer
> for business apps, but for a gamer that is a really bad thing. That is
> what this thread is really about, not whether the theory of throttling
> back is a bad or good thing. I just don't want a cpu that might affect
> *** performance.

by **Nos** » Tue, 05 Jun 2001 00:59:05

>I didn't hear about the P4 throttling back in normal circumstances... I
>heard it was just a safety feature that was included "in case of" the worst
>circumstances. If what you say is true, and that is the case, then the P4
>is not functioning as advertised, and I agree with you. But you say "that
>the P4 has been shown to throttle back before it reaches a critical
>point"... can you point me to some reliable info about this? I'm really
>surprised at this, it's news to me. I mean, I'm not a P4 fan, but I'm still
>surprised.

That is how this thread started. An article was posted at the front of
this thread about throttleing problems on the P4. Get the very first
header of this thread for the link. I don't have it anymore so can't
direct you to the article, sorry.

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)