PSU Fan Direction

[w_tom]

Large power supply does not increase computer performance.
That is classic urban myth. Either computer gets sufficient
power to execute the instruction at same speed - or computer
crashes. The PSU is not a motor. A bigger PSU does not make
the computer work faster. Either the computer executes at the
speed of that master crystal oscillator - or it crashes -
stops working.

Same applies to CPU heat. Again, either CPU runs as crystal
oscillator speed or it crashes. Cooling does not make a CPU
run faster.

Caroline wrote:

"Ricky Eck" <lizard7151971@verizon.net> wrote
Well, that "Could" increase performance. I would say that
putting a power supply two times the amount then you had was
the true increase of performance. However, the freezing up
problem can be caused by MANY things.

Yup.

snip
Furthermore, the cooler you can get that Processor, the better
it will run.

To use basic language: I assure you a definite upper limit to the
CPU's speed exists, and once this limit is reached, cooling
further will have no effect.

 

[Asimov]

"Caroline" bravely wrote to "All" (16 May 04 01:36:50)
--- on the heady topic of "Re: PSU Fan Direction"

Ca> From: "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net>

Ca> "Ricky Eck" <lizard7151971@verizon.net> wrote
Ca> C wrote

I am still getting
some spontaneous Internet disconnects but am now suspecting the phone
lines and
weather variations in my area.


I forgot to answer this. I wouldn't suspect anything to so with the
computer it's self. See the way how a modem works (I am going to use basic
language here), is a complex language that can be described as different
tones of noise. But there is a method to it's madness.

Ca> It's not madness. It's not complex. It is engineering, in which I have
Ca> three bachelor's and higher degrees. ;-)

What sounds like
static and noise to us, is really a complex language between the two modems.
If there is any type of interruption between this communication, it could
cause your internet connection to be lost.

Ca> Yup.

Ca> snip obvious

Ca> This Gateway 900c desktop as purchased in early September, 2001 has an
Ca> integrated modem. For a month I had terrible problems trying to get it
Ca> to connect to the internet. I spent dozens of hours working with
Ca> Gateway and America Online (my ISP then) to figure out why. They kept
Ca> blaming each other for the problem, of course. Finally a Gateway tech
Ca> and I narrowed it down to the strong possibility that the integrated
Ca> modem was too sensitive to my older home's phone line noise. Gateway
Ca> said, "Too bad your house can't make use of our superior modem." I
Ca> said, "Not so fast. Your modem is not superior; my old computer's
Ca> external modem works fine and is the superior one. I'm sending your
Ca> computer back for a full refund, per the warranty." The tech turned me
Ca> over to a manager who agreed to pay for an external modem. I kept the
Ca> computer.
Ca> I have used the external modem ever since.

Ca> I did a modem noise check of my phone lines (in my new home) several
Ca> months ago. It was somewhat high but then things settled down and I
Ca> wasn't getting disconnected. Now the problem has returned.

Ca> What I probably should do to troubleshoot further is graph disconnects
Ca> per day vs. weather trends. Also, maybe I'll try the internal modem.

Ca> Anyway, thanks for the suggestions. I have ideas where to go with
Ca> this. And as I mentioned in the other thread here on power supplies, my
Ca> computer is far from crippled.

Some modems have trouble with being too sensitive. I've heard of a
trick of using a variable L-pot to attenuate the phone line signal the
modem receives. I've never had to use this tip so I can't say.

However a common cause of noise in a phone line is dirty RJ phone
connections. Replace those that cleaning doesn't seem to help.
There can be a lot of connectors on a phone line and each is a
potential source of noise.

Asimov
******

.... If plugging it in doesn't help, turn it on.

 

[Asimov]

"LASERandDVDfan" bravely wrote to "All" (16 May 04 02:17:14)
--- on the heady topic of "Re: PSU Fan Direction"

LA> From: laseranddvdfan@aol.com (LASERandDVDfan)

LA> Call the phone company and have them correct the problem. They may
LA> perform a test and say that it's okay, but tell them that this is for a
LA> computer modem and while the line may be suitable for regular
LA> conversation, it is apparently too noisy and, therefore, unacceptable
LA> for use with a modem.
LA> You're paying for their services, so make them deliver you that
LA> service in the best way possible.

Oh, no don't tell them it is for a modem or they may charge you more.
The thing to tell them is that you hear noise and echos on the phone
line. When the tech person hears the word "echo" he will tend do an in
depth test for equalization and noise with the station rather than
simply picking up the receiver and listening to the line.

Asimov
******

.... I lurk quietly and carry a big OFF/ON switch.

 

[jakdedert]

w_tom wrote:

Large power supply does not increase computer performance.
That is classic urban myth. Either computer gets sufficient
power to execute the instruction at same speed - or computer
crashes. The PSU is not a motor. A bigger PSU does not make
the computer work faster. Either the computer executes at the
speed of that master crystal oscillator - or it crashes -
stops working.

Same applies to CPU heat. Again, either CPU runs as crystal
oscillator speed or it crashes. Cooling does not make a CPU
run faster.

Freeze up = crash...I think you're arguing semantics here. If the old p.s.
was undersized for the computer--or if the output had deteriorated for some
reason--the new, more powerful supply could well be the source of improved
performance.

As far as air flow: IIRC, AT supply fans *exhausted* air from the supply;
while ATX fans 'suck.' I don't know if that's a hard & fast rule, but I
seem to recall the above as one of the changes when the ATX standard took
effect.

If you have the technical chops, you can easily reverse the airflow by
opening the p.s. and turning the fan around. If your CPU has no fan, by all
means get one. If you are 'really' concerned about airflow within the
enclosure, buy an auxiliary case fan--orienting it so that the airflow
supports that of the p.s. fan. Every case with which I'm familiar already
has a cutout with screw holes for one. Any computer store, electronics
supply store or even Radio Shack carries these.

jak

Caroline wrote:
"Ricky Eck" <lizard7151971@verizon.net> wrote
Well, that "Could" increase performance. I would say that
putting a power supply two times the amount then you had was
the true increase of performance. However, the freezing up
problem can be caused by MANY things.

Yup.

snip
Furthermore, the cooler you can get that Processor, the better
it will run.

To use basic language: I assure you a definite upper limit to the
CPU's speed exists, and once this limit is reached, cooling
further will have no effect.

 

[LASERandDVDfan]

Large power supply does not increase computer performance.
That is classic urban myth.

True, a power supply that provides clean power will help make a system more
reliable, but it won't produce performance gains. - Reinhart

 

[LASERandDVDfan]

As far as air flow: IIRC, AT supply fans *exhausted* air from the supply;
while ATX fans 'suck.'

My ATX supply blows the air inside the case out, so it's an exhaust. -
Reinhart

 

[LASERandDVDfan]

The thing to tell them is that you hear noise and echos on the phone
line. When the tech person hears the word "echo" he will tend do an in
depth test for equalization and noise with the station rather than
simply picking up the receiver and listening to the line.

Good point. - Reinhart

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sun, 16 May 2004 01:36:50 GMT, "Caroline"
<caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and
composed:

This Gateway 900c desktop as purchased in early September, 2001 has an
integrated modem. For a month I had terrible problems trying to get it to
connect to the internet. I spent dozens of hours working with Gateway and
America Online (my ISP then) to figure out why. They kept blaming each other for
the problem, of course. Finally a Gateway tech and I narrowed it down to the
strong possibility that the integrated modem was too sensitive to my older
home's phone line noise. Gateway said, "Too bad your house can't make use of our
superior modem." I said, "Not so fast. Your modem is not superior; my old
computer's external modem works fine and is the superior one. I'm sending your
computer back for a full refund, per the warranty." The tech turned me over to a
manager who agreed to pay for an external modem. I kept the computer.

I have used the external modem ever since.

I did a modem noise check of my phone lines (in my new home) several months ago.
It was somewhat high but then things settled down and I wasn't getting
disconnected. Now the problem has returned.

What I probably should do to troubleshoot further is graph disconnects per day
vs. weather trends. Also, maybe I'll try the internal modem.

Anyway, thanks for the suggestions. I have ideas where to go with this. And as I
mentioned in the other thread here on power supplies, my computer is far from
crippled.

Most modems can produce a last call diagnostic report. This includes
data such as Tx/Rx signal levels, Tx/Rx error rates, S/N ratio,
numbers of speedshifts and retrains, etc.

http://www.modemsite.com/56k/x2-inf.asp
http://www.modemsite.com/56k/x2-hyperterm.asp
http://www.modemsite.com/56k/usehyper.asp
http://www.modemsite.com/56k/diag.asp
http://www.modemsite.com/56k/trouble.asp

My own Rockwell chipped modem produces the data below. Notice these
highly abbreviated data for a good session ...

TX/RX I-Frame count : 17654/21091
TX/RX I-Frame error count : 29/14
TX Rate (Last/Init/Min/Max) : 28800/26400/26400/28800
RX Rate (Last/Init/Min/Max) : 46667/46667/45333/46667
Modulation/Protocol/Compression : V.90/LAPM/V.42bis
Retrains (Issued/Granted/Fast) : 0/0/5
Renegs (Issued/Granted) : 2/0
Retrans per frame/Frames rejected : 1/14
Error control timeouts in TX : 16
Error control NAKs received : 29
Termination Cause : Dte Hangup Command

.... a not so good session ...

TX/RX I-Frame count : 10268/34101
TX/RX I-Frame error count : 15/47
TX Rate (Last/Init/Min/Max) : 28800/26400/26400/28800
RX Rate (Last/Init/Min/Max) : 38667/42667/38667/42667
Modulation/Protocol/Compression : V.90/LAPM/V.42bis
Retrains (Issued/Granted/Fast) : 0/0/0
Renegs (Issued/Granted) : 3/0
Retrans per frame/Frames rejected : 1/47
Error control timeouts in TX : 7
Error control NAKs received : 15
Termination Cause : Dte Hangup Command

.... and a bad session (water in the cable) ...

TX/RX I-Frame count : 784/4482
TX/RX I-Frame error count : 23/211
TX Rate (Last/Init/Min/Max) : 26400/26400/26400/28800
RX Rate (Last/Init/Min/Max) : 38667/44000/33333/44000
Modulation/Protocol/Compression : V.90/LAPM/V.42bis
Retrains (Issued/Granted/Fast) : 0/1/2
Renegs (Issued/Granted) : 12/0
Retrans per frame/Frames rejected : 8/211
Error control timeouts in TX : 16
Error control NAKs received : 23
Termination Cause : Retrain Failed


Notice that the initial CONNECT speed is not a reliable indicator of
modem performance, as modems will speedshift as line conditions
change. Notice also that the modem can tell you the reason for
disconnect. For example, a "Termination Cause" of "Disconnect Frame
Received" indicates that your ISP kicked you off.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sat, 15 May 2004 17:06:51 GMT, "Ricky Eck"
<lizard7151971@verizon.net> put finger to keyboard and composed:

There is also two different modems on the market.

Actually, there are three types, "soft", controllerless, and "hard"
(controller based). Softmodems have a DAA (telephone line interface),
controllerless modems have a DAA and DSP (digital signal processor),
and "hard" modems have a DAA, DSP, and controller.

Among other things, a modem's controller handles AT command parsing,
UART emulation, data compression and error correction. These functions
do not impact significantly on the host CPU. OTOH, the functions of a
DSP are highly CPU intensive, so a softmodem (which emulates the DSP
in software) may impact noticeably on CPU performance.

There is the "SoftModem" a.k.a. "WinModem".

Actually, to be pedantic, "Winmodem" is a USR trademark and refers to
their line of controllerless modems.

Examples of softmodem chipsets are PCtel HSP, Motorola SM56,
Smartlink, and Conexant HSF. Controllerless examples include Conexant
HCF, Intel HaM, Lucent Win Modem, and USR Winmodem.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On 16 May 2004 01:47:48 GMT, laseranddvdfan@aol.com (LASERandDVDfan)
put finger to keyboard and composed:

I personally have never seen a 56K reach 56K Maybe
someone out there has, but not me.

And you never will, at least in the U.S.A. FCC mandates restrict data
throughput rates on telephone lines to a maximum of 53k, and only if your phone
line is the cleanest that is possible with minimal or absolutely no D/A
conversion in the phone lines. - Reinhart

AFAIK, the FCC mandates restrictions on the maximum signal levels, not
the data rate. It's just that data rates in excess of 53333bps usually
require signal levels greater than those allowed. At least that's the
explanation that is often given at comp.dcom.modems.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On 16 May 2004 02:17:14 GMT, laseranddvdfan@aol.com (LASERandDVDfan)
put finger to keyboard and composed:

Gateway said, "Too bad your house can't make use of our
superior modem." I said, "Not so fast. Your modem is not superior

The only thing that would make the Gateway integrated modem superior is that
it's connected directly to the southgate on the motherboard through a local bus

.... which would make it an inferior AC97 softmodem.

as opposed to working through a PCI bus, USB port, or a parallel port.

Although "soft" USB and PCI modems do exist, they are most often
controllerless, which makes them better than softmodems. As for
"parallel" port modems, I've heard they exist, but I've never seen
one. Serial port modems are always "hard".

Other than that, I'm willing to bet it's a softmodem with a cruddy chipset,
like a PCTel or a Motorola or an Intel, and running with a sloppy set of
drivers.

The tech turned me over to a
manager who agreed to pay for an external modem. I kept the computer.

I have used the external modem ever since.

Good choice. All external modems are going to be hardware-based, at least for
the parallel port variety.

Don't you mean "serial", not "parallel"?

I did a modem noise check of my phone lines (in my new home) several months
ago.

What did this involve?

It was somewhat high but then things settled down and I wasn't getting
disconnected. Now the problem has returned.

Call the phone company and have them correct the problem. They may perform a
test and say that it's okay, but tell them that this is for a computer modem
and while the line may be suitable for regular conversation, it is apparently
too noisy and, therefore, unacceptable for use with a modem.

Tell them you are having trouble sending/receiving faxes. The telco is
not obliged to provide "computer" grade phone lines, only voice and
fax.

You're paying for their services, so make them deliver you that service in the
best way possible.

What I probably should do to troubleshoot further is graph disconnects per
day
vs. weather trends. Also, maybe I'll try the internal modem.

Query the modem's last call diagnostic report, as described elsewhere
in this thread.

Other things you could try is to use a different telephone cord that is the
shortest possible for your needs.

I wonder about this. Unless the phone cord is of extremely poor
quality, I can't see how adding even 10m to several km of cable is
going to affect a 4kHz connection ... assuming, of course, that you
keep the cable away from sources of electrical interference.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On 16 May 2004 05:36:53 GMT, laseranddvdfan@aol.com (LASERandDVDfan)
put finger to keyboard and composed:

No software can beat a hardware system. Especially not a winmodem.

No argument here. This understanding was the primary reason why I replaced my
Best Data Mach2 with a U.S. Robotics PerformancePro a few months ago when I was
able to.

Controllerless modems (eg USR and Lucent/Agere "winmodems") have
little impact on the host CPU. IMHO, their only significant down side
is that they require drivers which makes them OS specific. "Soft"
modems, though, are another story ...

Although the overhead gains were mainly negligible since I'm running a 2.08 GHz
Athlon XP with 1 gig of RAM onboard, I don't get blue screen warnings anymore
when I surf the net. The drivers for my old Best Data were probably badly
written.

And as for hardware modems, I'd recommend only 3Com/U.S. Robotics, which
generally use Texas Instruments solutions, or modems with an Agere (formerly
known as Lucent) solution. - Reinhart

I have always found ACF/ACF2 chipped Rockwell/Conexant "hard" modems
to be reliable perfomers.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[William R. Walsh]

Hi!

As far as air flow: IIRC, AT supply fans *exhausted* air from the supply;
while ATX fans 'suck.' I don't know if that's a hard & fast rule, but I
seem to recall the above as one of the changes when the ATX standard took
effect.

Every "regular" sized ATX supply I've ever seen pushes air out the back with
a fan mounted in the back of the supply, just like AT units have done for
years. It is usually the oddball sized or really cheap models that seem to
do things differently. Some ATX PSUs even seem to have fans at both ends,
which strikes me as odd.

If you have the technical chops, you can easily reverse the airflow by
opening the p.s. and turning the fan around. If your CPU has no fan, by
all
means get one. If you are 'really' concerned about airflow within the
enclosure, buy an auxiliary case fan--orienting it so that the airflow
supports that of the p.s. fan. Every case with which I'm familiar already
has a cutout with screw holes for one. Any computer store, electronics
supply store or even Radio Shack carries these.

My question is why do almost all computer manufacturers today bother putting
these holes in place? Some (like HP) use them and put a fan there, but many
do not. Most of them are even left open. I've only seen them closed up on
Gateway 2000 computers. I find that especially odd considering that the hole
for the extra fan is usually right under the PSU...which makes me think that
all the air comes in that hole and not necessarily through the case as it
should.

 

[William R. Walsh]

Hi!

Large power supply does not increase computer performance.
That is classic urban myth. Either computer gets sufficient
power to execute the instruction at same speed - or computer
crashes. The PSU is not a motor. A bigger PSU does not make
the computer work faster.

Perhaps not. For the basic concept of a bigger PSU not making the computer
work any faster I agree with you. Obviously it cannot do so. However, for a
system starved for power, a crash may not be the immediate result. The CPU
may operate with reduced efficiency and/or speed if the power supply is
insufficient as a protection measure.

Therefore the addition of a bigger PSU that can handle the load better than
the original can create the illusion of the PSU somehow making for a faster
computer.

Same applies to CPU heat. Again, either CPU runs as crystal
oscillator speed or it crashes. Cooling does not make a CPU
run faster.

Definitely not always. Some systems (especially laptops) are able to
downclock so as to protect themselves from heat damage. Even some "smarter"
desktop motherboards can monitor their temperature and fan RPMs so as to
shutdown or downclock in the event of a thermal problem.

As for the statement about cooling not making a CPU run faster, ask any
overclocker about that. The more you cool the chip, the harder you can push
it, up until a point of failure occurs or reliable operation can no longer
be acheived.


William

Caroline wrote:
"Ricky Eck" <lizard7151971@verizon.net> wrote
Well, that "Could" increase performance. I would say that
putting a power supply two times the amount then you had was
the true increase of performance. However, the freezing up
problem can be caused by MANY things.

Yup.

snip
Furthermore, the cooler you can get that Processor, the better
it will run.

To use basic language: I assure you a definite upper limit to the
CPU's speed exists, and once this limit is reached, cooling
further will have no effect.

 

[w_tom]

Computers do not work at reduced efficiency if starved for
power. This made so painfully obvious even from a data sheet
for any simple logic IC. Either the computer works 100% fine
or it crashes: 0% performance. Either it crashes / freezes or
it keeps working. There is no inbetween. CPU does not
change speed and efficiency like an eletric motor. Basic
computer knowledge makes that woefully obvious.

Either the PSU is insufficient and computer crashes - also
called a complete and total failure. Or the computer works
at 100% performance.

This discussion is not about laptops - that have properly
sized power supplies. Discussion limited to a system that
somehow will run faster by increasing power supply.

For that matter, take off the heatsink on an Intel CPU. It
too will run slower - and not destroy itself like an AMD. But
that is well beyond the context of this discussion - and
should not be discussed in this thread.

Will cooling a CPU that runs at the constant master clock
frequency work more efficiently or faster when cooled more?
No. But even worse, not one good technical reason is provided
to justify these erroneous speculations. Even the reasons for
cooling an overclocked CPU is not valid. Neither more cooling
nor more power in a supply is going to make a CPU run faster.
Either it works at full speed or it crashes.

Most every desktop system works just fine on a 250 watt
power supply. Not obvious from the so many technical experts
who never even learned basic electrical principles; then
advocated "More Power" as a solution. Far more damning are so
many clone computers missing essential power supply
functions. So instead of buying a supply with essential and
necessary functions, those computer assemblers recommed "More
Power". Just another reason for 500 watt power supplies that
often cannot even output 500 watts.

Bigger PSU is often a solution to failure by the computer
assembler - who failed to learn basic facts. Bigger PSU does
not make a CPU work more efficient or faster. Even concepts
in overclocking are being misrepresented.

"William R. Walsh" wrote:

Perhaps not. For the basic concept of a bigger PSU not making
the computer work any faster I agree with you. Obviously it
cannot do so. However, for a system starved for power, a crash
may not be the immediate result. The CPU may operate with
reduced efficiency and/or speed if the power supply is
insufficient as a protection measure.

Therefore the addition of a bigger PSU that can handle the
load better than the original can create the illusion of the
PSU somehow making for a faster computer.

Same applies to CPU heat. Again, either CPU runs as crystal
oscillator speed or it crashes. Cooling does not make a CPU
run faster.

Definitely not always. Some systems (especially laptops) are
able to downclock so as to protect themselves from heat damage.
Even some "smarter" desktop motherboards can monitor their
temperature and fan RPMs so as to shutdown or downclock in the
event of a thermal problem.

As for the statement about cooling not making a CPU run faster,
ask any overclocker about that. The more you cool the chip, the
harder you can push it, up until a point of failure occurs or
reliable operation can no longer be acheived.

 

[w_tom]

Franc is properly summarizing basic science as it conforms
to FCC regulation. Concept defined in one of the world's
greatest papers, written by Claude Shannon, reprinted in the
Bell Labs Technical Journal in July and Oct of 1948, then
reprinted again in Scientific American July 1949. IOW
Shannon's Law defines modem speed. Underlying concept should
be common knowledge to any computer power user. Concepts that
Franc Zabkar has properly summarized.

Power increases to permit 56K would create too much
crosstalk. Power is limited by FCC regulation. Shannon's Law
therefore says maximum data rates would be 53K.

Franc Zabkar wrote:

AFAIK, the FCC mandates restrictions on the maximum signal levels,
not the data rate. It's just that data rates in excess of 53333bps
usually require signal levels greater than those allowed. At least
that's the explanation that is often given at comp.dcom.modems.

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Ken Weitzel]

w_tom wrote:

Computers do not work at reduced efficiency if starved for
power. This made so painfully obvious even from a data sheet
for any simple logic IC. Either the computer works 100% fine
or it crashes: 0% performance. Either it crashes / freezes or
it keeps working. There is no inbetween. CPU does not
change speed and efficiency like an eletric motor. Basic
computer knowledge makes that woefully obvious.

Hi...

But with all due respect, that is less than half of the
story.

Imagine this if you will. My system is running as your
refer to it 100% fine. (the power supply is more than
adequate)

Then an additional demand is placed on the power supply,
ie Explorer spins up all HDD's, a cd reader, a dvd reader,
a floppy, and perhaps interrogates some USB devices.

The available current is now perhaps woefully inadequate,
voltage drops, and (in your words), is now 0% fine

Most will say that the system is frozen or crashed.

And they will say that the problem is in opening
Explorer

Take care.

Ken

 

[Ricky Eck]

This is what I originally meant, however, this discussion has made a major
turn for the worst, so I backed out of it. Everyone has their "Facts" and
"Opinion" that they read on papers and in magazines. However, I use true
actual life facts. Mostly what I can see and touch. I seen where people
built (including myself) their own computer. Well, like you said. The PSU
was perfect for the original config. However, it was just for a CD Rom,
Floppy, HDD, ect. The basic system. Then I added a CD Burner, A DVD Player
(A total of 3 CD Drive Units), then added two more HDDs. Before I knew it,
many of the apps I ran, were no longer running at the same rate (crashing,
dragging, ect.). I was thinking that maybe there were additional programs
running in the back ground. But there wasn't. So I started removing the
power cables from the units installed, and lowe and behold, locks almost
completely ceased. So I thought, what the heck, I upgraded the PSU, and I
connected a higher wattage unit to my main. Connected everything up, and
never had a problem with it.

Hi...

But with all due respect, that is less than half of the
story.

Imagine this if you will. My system is running as your
refer to it 100% fine. (the power supply is more than
adequate)

Then an additional demand is placed on the power supply,
ie Explorer spins up all HDD's, a cd reader, a dvd reader,
a floppy, and perhaps interrogates some USB devices.

The available current is now perhaps woefully inadequate,
voltage drops, and (in your words), is now 0% fine

Most will say that the system is frozen or crashed.

And they will say that the problem is in opening
Explorer

Take care.

Ken

 

[Ricky Eck]

I remember a while back, in the P1 chip days, a group of people built a
tower system, that used a form of coolant. I don't think it was Freon, but
something similar to it. I am not going to get fully into, mainly because I
forget all the logistics of it. But I know their studies proved to increase
the power of the chip almost 4 times the amount. It was a 75 MHz and ran at
a 300 MHz rate. Like I said, it was many years back, and I just remember
the basics. I seen only a year or so back, a tower case that used water to
cool the chip. It worked the same as a radiator on a car. There was a
"radiator" that sat on the chip, kinda like the Heat Sink does now. And
there was another one in the back of the Tower, that fans blew through,
blowing the heat out, and re-cooling the water, to be returned to the
"Radiator" on the chip. If I remember correctly, this was for a dual chip
system. But could be used for a single chip also.

Another thing, too. Ever since I can remember, computer rooms have been ran
around 68-72 degrees, to keep the computers cool. So, if cooling a chip is
not important, how come companies continue to improve on the cooling systems
of the Processor Chips in computers? How come Muti Million dollar companies
spend more money on the conditions of their computer rooms (not meaning
actual hardware), then they spend on insurance in a year (Just
exaggerating)? There has to be some logic to it. I am sure Microsoft would
not spend money where it is not needed.

Rick

Definitely not always. Some systems (especially laptops) are able to
downclock so as to protect themselves from heat damage. Even some
"smarter"
desktop motherboards can monitor their temperature and fan RPMs so as to
shutdown or downclock in the event of a thermal problem.

As for the statement about cooling not making a CPU run faster, ask any
overclocker about that. The more you cool the chip, the harder you can
push
it, up until a point of failure occurs or reliable operation can no longer
be acheived.


William

 

[LASERandDVDfan]

Computers do not work at reduced efficiency if starved for
power. This made so painfully obvious even from a data sheet
for any simple logic IC.

That is so, but a computer is composed of many more components than the CPU.
Power supply problems can cause errors not so much on the CPU but with the
drives, for one.

What do you think will happen on a modern computer when the hard disk trips on
account of inadequate power?

Every component in your computer requires power to run. If the power supply is
unable to operate to the demands of the entire system, you will have problems.
While the CPU may be running hunky-dory, other parts may not run so well and
you can have crashes and hangups. In power, you've got to deal with volts and
amps, and both indicates watts.

Volts measure flow potential, amps measure current level, and watts measure
actual ability to perform work.

Here's something for you to check out:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question501.htm

As for overclocking, pushing a CPU at a higher rate of oscillation will put
more strain on it. This effect is well documented.

Most every desktop system works just fine on a 250 watt
power supply.

Not if you are running a high end P4 system which requires more than 250 watts
and uses it's own dedicated power socket.

Bigger PSU is often a solution to failure by the computer
assembler - who failed to learn basic facts. Bigger PSU does
not make a CPU work more efficient or faster. Even concepts
in overclocking are being misrepresented.

A power supply that has a higher level of overhead helps the entire system run
without problems. Running a power supply that is insufficient for the demands
of the computer will strain it and the computer will not be reliable.

As for overclocking, all it's about is pushing the CPU and RAM to levels beyond
what the manufacturer had indicated. However, you need better cooling to pull
it off as you do operate them at higher bus and multiplier levels, which puts
more of a strain on them. - Reinhart