rec.autos.simulators

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)

Gonz

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)

by Gonz » Tue, 22 May 2001 11:34:05


> This PS problem is going to become more and more prominent as time goes
on,
> for all processors from all manufacturers. Until now PS's were just an
> install and forget item (i.e. a PS is a PS is a PS, etc.). But with
> electronic components requiring less and less voltages all of the time
these


> This is not so much because we need 300W+ PS's to power ever hungrier
> components, but because we need steadier and steadier electrical power
> characteristics. There's more tolerance in higher wattage PS's than in
lower
> wattage ones.

Yep, it's not as simple as it used to be.  Even 3D graphics cards are
requiring more juice and everything new seems to have a fan or two on it
now.  Look at the last Voodoo cards that came out.  3Dfx knew there would be
a problem so they simply added a power plug to the darn thing to nip it in
the bud.

Once we start moving over to 64bit systems we will need even more juice
unless AMD and Intel can shrink their silicone even more etc.

Jagg

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)

by Jagg » Tue, 22 May 2001 12:13:01



Didn't you read the article at the beginning of this thread? That was
a major part of the article. The link to the Q3A article is within
that article. I would consider running Q3A normal usage.
--
eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

Yousuf Kha

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)

by Yousuf Kha » Tue, 22 May 2001 15:42:02




> >Personally, given the choice I would rather have a chip throttle back in
> >order to save itself rather than burn up. I don't overclock so maybe

> >Allan

> Well, that's the problem. It does come into play as shown by the
> Quake3 test. I don't play Q3A, but I do overclcock and I just don't
> see this throttling back as a good thing. If I paid for a P4 1.5ghz
> then I would expect it to perform at 1.5ghz *all* the time. If it has
> problems with heat running at spec then it shouldn't be sold as a
> 1.5ghz cpu.

It's quite likely that this effect doesn't come into play on all Pentium
4's. Given the wide tolerances inside a diode, it's possible that depending
on the processor one gets, in some cases the diode will come into play well
before the actual thermal limit of the processor. That's why you wouldn't
want any automatic thermal throttling, just in case the diode is wrong.

It's interesting that the new Palomino Athlon 4's have a thermal diode in
them too, but you can set it all through software. You are not obligated to
use it.

    Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Kha

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)

by Yousuf Kha » Tue, 22 May 2001 15:52:04


Because of large tolerance limits of diodes, it's speculated that some P4's
might be triggering their thermal throttling even if the limit hasn't been
reached. If for example the thermal diode has a specified limit of 75C, but
it has a tolerance of +/-20C, the lower limit might be 55C rather than 75C.
In fact, if the tolerances are that large, and Intel knew about it, then
it's likely that Intel wouldn't want to reach the upper tolerance limit
(95C), so to be safe they might set the diode for 65C so the tolerances
would be between 45C-85C.

    Yousuf Khan

Ryan Mitchle

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)

by Ryan Mitchle » Tue, 22 May 2001 18:57:08


Obviously. My point was that the assessment of which CPU does THEIR JOB
better is generally quite straight forward. Choosing an appropriate
benchmark is usually the hardest problem, although this is pretty much a
solved problem for gamers.

Price and speed account for 99.9% of the criteria, which was exactly my
point. Compatibility is largely (and increasingly) a non-issue, especially
if only Intel and AMD processors are considered. Sure, there are subtleties
of upgrade options, etc, but I'm mainly responding to someone who chooses to
ignore one manufacture entirely on an irrational basis.

I think it's rather more close-minded to ignore ALL of the offerings from a
manufacturer with a fairly significant market share. I have nothing against
personal choice in general.

"Personal choice" is bandied about rather a lot in these postmodern times (I
am neither supporting nor criticising the trend). This is fine when you're
choosing furniture or clothes (or religion? ;-)   ), but blatantly stupid
when picking a CPU, unless your choice is supported by quality information.

Ryan

Allan Paren

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)

by Allan Paren » Tue, 22 May 2001 19:58:28

Yep, I read the article but I assumed that it was being overclocked for
some reason, otherwise there is no reason it should throttle back.

Allan




> >Ok, let me get this straight. It throttles back even when running at
> >spec and being cooled properly? I don't play Q3A either but why the hell
> >would it do that? Does it only happen in Q3A or has there been other
> >documented instances? I can see throttling back to save the chip but
> >during normal usage it shouldn't have to do that. I am missing
> >something?

> >Allan

> Didn't you read the article at the beginning of this thread? That was
> a major part of the article. The link to the Q3A article is within
> that article. I would consider running Q3A normal usage.
> --
> eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
> http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

Remco Moe

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)

by Remco Moe » Tue, 22 May 2001 20:14:17




>>What, actually. I've read the article. I don't see these "facts"
>>you mention supporting their conclusions. Sorry.

>>Regards, JD

>Did you also read the articel link to the problems with Q3A on a P4?

I did. I see this problem occured with one Mobo + CPU combination
only....

Remco

Yousuf Kha

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)

by Yousuf Kha » Wed, 23 May 2001 00:51:31


They mentioned it happened on a number of mobo combinations, although they
didn't mention which mobos they were (except that they were Intel mobos).

        Yousuf Khan

Jagg

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)

by Jagg » Wed, 23 May 2001 00:46:26

On Mon, 21 May 2001 06:42:02 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"


>It's interesting that the new Palomino Athlon 4's have a thermal diode in
>them too, but you can set it all through software. You are not obligated to
>use it.

>    Yousuf Khan

Is the P4 controllable through software too, or just the Athlon4? Is
that diode just for the mobile Palomino maybe?
--
eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Neal Shifflet

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)

by Neal Shifflet » Wed, 23 May 2001 01:09:15

On Mon, 21 May 2001 06:42:02 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"

<snip>

I've seen mention in a couple of places about Athlon's not having a
thermal diode.  Am I to assume that the diode you speak of is not the
same as the one that is telling me the core temperature on my 1.3
tbird?

I've had some confusion over this.  Clarification is welcome.

Neal

Neal "Headcrash" Shifflett

remove "NOTAT" to replay by email.

"I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure what you heard was what I meant!"

Jagg

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)

by Jagg » Wed, 23 May 2001 00:48:51

On Mon, 21 May 2001 06:52:04 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"


> then
>it's likely that Intel wouldn't want to reach the upper tolerance limit
>(95C), so to be safe they might set the diode for 65C so the tolerances
>would be between 45C-85C.

>    Yousuf Khan

I read the P4 has a max core of 70c, it's the T-Bird 1.33c that is
95c.

--
eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

M

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)

by M » Wed, 23 May 2001 01:26:31


><Slaps Pasha>  (e-mail me you looney so I can get your real address)

Ok, gib me a Manute.

=^)

Always wait, if you can stand it.

P

Yousuf Kha

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)

by Yousuf Kha » Wed, 23 May 2001 01:34:49


> On Mon, 21 May 2001 06:42:02 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"

> >It's interesting that the new Palomino Athlon 4's have a thermal diode in
> >them too, but you can set it all through software. You are not obligated
to
> >use it.

> Is the P4 controllable through software too, or just the Athlon4? Is
> that diode just for the mobile Palomino maybe?

The P4 is supposed to have a software controllable thermal sensor, but
apparently it's also got a secondary failsafe thermal diode which is not
controllable through software, which kicks in at the very highest limits of
temperature.

As for A4, I don't know if this is only for the mobile A4's, or if they will
retain these on the desktop versions, whenever they come out.

    Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Kha

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)

by Yousuf Kha » Wed, 23 May 2001 01:40:34


> On Mon, 21 May 2001 06:42:02 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"

> >It's interesting that the new Palomino Athlon 4's have a thermal diode in
> >them too, but you can set it all through software. You are not obligated
to
> >use it.

> I've seen mention in a couple of places about Athlon's not having a
> thermal diode.  Am I to assume that the diode you speak of is not the
> same as the one that is telling me the core temperature on my 1.3
> tbird?

> I've had some confusion over this.  Clarification is welcome.

Yeah, I am only referring to the newest Athlons, the Athlon 4's, with the
new Palomino cores. They were just introduced last week for the laptop
market only, so it's likely you haven't heard about it yet.

The existing Thunderbird Athlons don't have any thermal diodes in them.

        Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Kha

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)

by Yousuf Kha » Wed, 23 May 2001 01:40:34


> On Mon, 21 May 2001 06:52:04 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"

> > then
> >it's likely that Intel wouldn't want to reach the upper tolerance limit
> >(95C), so to be safe they might set the diode for 65C so the tolerances
> >would be between 45C-85C.

> >    Yousuf Khan

> I read the P4 has a max core of 70c, it's the T-Bird 1.33c that is
> 95c.

It was just an example I was using for illustration. Not necessarily based
on any real processor or their thermal diode settings. I don't even know
what the tolerances are on these diodes, I was just using +/-20C as an
example too. It could be +/-10C, but who knows?

The only point being that there is a tolerance and in some P4's the diode
might be at the lower regions of tolerance, whereas in others it might be in
the upper regions. It's a ***shoot whether you get a P4 with lower
tolerances or higher tolerances. The ones with higher tolerances might not
exhibit any performance deficiencies.

        Yousuf Khan


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.