«

Sorry, thought you were one of those high performance geeks, Athlon owners
usually are.
My car is designed to take anything I dish out to it, and I throttle it when
I want it to slow down. Thought that was what throttling does. I've seen a
lot of lighning damage, it can defeat the best stuff we can throw at it.

Mike Stevenson wrote:
> 1. The surge protector was a "decent" brand I got from wal-mart. It
> cost about $35, so NOT an el-cheapo.
>
> 2. I am serious about the temp, 100 F was my average when I was just
> surfing or reading email. This was with the benefits of a CPU
> throttling program, the computer sitting near a crack in the wall
> that poured in cold air during the winter and spring, and that high
> volume 8000 RPM fan and the aluminum "ridged rod" heatsink with
> copper base. I paid almost $80 for that heatsink fan combo, and spent
> nearly 2 months researching before I choose it. Of course for $10
> more I could have gotten a water cooler but I didn't look into those
> at the time.
>
> 3. Yes I use thermal grease, Arctic Silver 3 to be exact, never an off
> brand.
>
> 4. Cheap is not always better, you usually get what you pay for...
>
> 5. Um who said anything about overclocking...I made it VERY clear I
> NEVER EVER EVER Overclock, I never have and never will. Gaming its a
> fact, but I've been doing that for years and its never been a real
> problem before. If anything I've toned down alot as I've gotten older.
>
> 6. That's a silly assessment the computer is designed to do just about
> anything I want it to, and computers provide gaming with smoother
> graphics and higher quality than can be offered by the gaming
> systems. The reason for this is becuase you can UPGRADE a computer,
> its not like I can slap a new video card in my PS2 anytime I want.
>
> "boy wonder" <> wrote in message
> news:3f043ae7$0$54854$...
>> 1. What kind of surge protection were you using? There's lots of
>> cheap ones out there in KMart land, you weren't using one of those
>> were you? I use a heavy duty Isobar with 6 outlets and a couple of
>> different filters. Don't know if this would stop a near direct
>> strike, but I would be surprised if it didn't.
>>
>> 2. You use Athlon, a known heat creator, I think 100 deg F, would be
>> ice cold even for an Intel, I bet you that's 100 deg C, = 212 deg F,
>> boiling point of water.
>>
>> 3. I haven't seen anything about you using heatsink compound [ heat
>> grease ], a vital ingredient if you're using a "hot" CPU type.
>>
>> 4. You can buy a MB + CPU at Fry's for $60, don't know if there's
>> any where you are, but there's bound to be some discount PC
>> Warehouse somewhere near you.'
>>
>> 5. You're description of what you're doing just made me cringe,
>> overclocking, gaming, you can't say your pc wasn't raced or abused.
>>
>> 6. If you want to play games, why not get a Sony Playstation 2 or X
>> Box, those systems are designed for game play.
>>
>> Mike Stevenson wrote:
>>> Now that was damn compelling. I will say in AMD's defense that video
>>> was from Sept 2001. One would assume some progress had been made by
>>> now. Also the Giga-byte GA-7VAX MB I was using does have the thermal
>>> protection diode in place that shuts down the system. I fact I ran
>>> into some trouble with it when I first got the system together. It
>>> was cutting off every 5 seconds becuase I didn't have the heatsink
>>> on tight enough. I'm starting to wonder though...
>>>
>>> That heatsink has stayed with me since before the lightning. The
>>> springs that were part of the mounting screws had started to rust
>>> out pretty badly. The humidity had been horrible inside myself for
>>> the
>>> past 2 months. The computer was only a year old, this was its first
>>> summer. I have had 3 other systems in this house but none have been
>>> so powerful. The second (still working) system is a Duron, and was
>>> bought retail, so has the AMD equiped fan. The system had cut off
>>> unexpectedly while running a high intensity game the day before the
>>> lightning strike. I had been using CPUIdle to throttle and monitor
>>> the CPU temp. It normally ran at 100F and this was with me running
>>> Everquest for sometimes 16-20 hours at a time (I was an addict
>>> hehe). But while playing Star Wars Galaxies (beta) the temperature
>>> kept shooting up as high as 158F. The game would always cut off if
>>> it got past 163, and sometimes the system would scratch. The day
>>> before it
>>> had actually shut down the computer. I just left it off the whole
>>> rest of the day. The computer was not actually on when the lightning
>>> hit. Only the monitors were. But it was plugged in. Other things in
>>> the house were destroyed by the lightning, the caller ID box, my
>>> cable modem, and my coffee pot. The next day the power converter for
>>> the wireless router/hub shut off. I got a replacement for that and
>>> the hub is just fine. Adelphia replaced the cable modem. It was then
>>> my computer stopped working, I had assumed it was becuase of the
>>> lightning. Why shouldn't I have, with all these other things messed
>>> up. I was awake when the lightning hit, I heard it. Sparks flew from
>>> a lightbulb in my bedroom BUT DID NOT BREAK THE BULB, that was wild.
>>>
>>> But after seeing this video and putting in the stuff about my heat
>>> problems before the lightning, I'm starting to wonder if I don't
>>> need
>>> a new heatsink.
>>>
>>> Thing is...do I get a new MB, and buy a retail AMD that has its own
>>> fan and heatsink (I do not overclock, not in this house.) Or go
>>> Intel, if you saw that video...
>>>
>>> I've always been an AMD man, I've been using AMD chips since the
>>> 386SX computers. I remember 286s. I grew using 8086s to play
>>> tic-tac-toe and Commodore 64s. I hope I'm not now being forced to
>>> go Intel becuase
>>> AMD chips are simply too delicate heat-wise.
>>>
>>> "w_tom" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>> AMD CPU heat not properly connected to heatsink can damage
>>>> motherboard in seconds:
>>>> http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20010917/index.html
>>>>
>>>> How good is that heatsink? Research should have demanded
>>>> one specification that answers the question: degree C per
>>>> watt. Is that spec provided by the heatsink? Speed of fan
>>>> has little effect on this critical 'degree C per watt' spec.
>>>> What is the rated 'degree C per watt' for that heatsink?
>>>>
>>>> Lightning damages only because it finds a specific circuit
>>>> through electronics. For example, lightning could have had an
>>>> incoming path through hard drive. But since no outgoing path
>>>> exists, then no hard drive damage. Same would apply to CPU.
>>>> However if power supply was defective when sold (did not
>>>> contain OVP) and if damaged by lightning, then power supply
>>>> could, in turn, damage other components.
>>>>
>>>> What was the incoming and outgoing path for lightning.
>>>> Everything was exposed to the incoming path. But only those
>>>> transistors that were also in the outgoing path were
>>>> damaged. Adding a new failure mode - AMD CPU without
>>>> heatsink - only complicates the solution.
>>>>
>>>> System with only CPU, motherboard, power supply, and speaker
>>>> should make noise. No keyboard; no monitor; no mouse; no
>>>> video controller; no Ram; and speaker should still make sound
>>>> if motherboard, CPU, and power supply are functional.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, if multimeter says power supply voltages are
>>>> good, then you are down to only two possible reasons for
>>>> failure - motherboard and CPU. It is that simple. Also that
>>>> simple is what is and is not damaged by lightning - if you
>>>> first learn the incoming and outgoing path of that surge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike Stevenson wrote:
>>>>> Hehe you got that right. As far as heat issues I haven't really
>>>>> had them, I have several fans and spent a good deal of time
>>>>> researching before I choose the heatsink and fan I am using with
>>>>> these chips.
>>>>> The HS is cast aluminum with a copper base, and uses a series of
>>>>> 50 or so ridged "rods" that stick of from the base. The fan is a
>>>>> high volume 8000 RPM (very noisey bastard), I also have a case fan
>>>>> behind it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now as far as the lightning there are only a few items left in the
>>>>> system from when the lightning came. Those being the HDD, the
>>>>> CD-ROM (neither are currently hooked up) the RAM (which I have
>>>>> tested now, its fine) and the video card (which was tested as well
>>>>> and appears fine). The MB, CPU, Powersupply, Sound Card, and NIC
>>>>> have all been replaced since then. I am basicly working with a new
>>>>> system. The MB was brand new retail, the CPU was brand new from
>>>>> AMD. The Powersupply is some brand X-Case and 500W (yes 500). I
>>>>> tested all the voltages from the PS going into the system with a
>>>>> multi-meter and everything came back good. The CPU COULD be bad,
>>>>> but I really doubt it. And I've even tried another CPU and another
>>>>> Video card in the system and it still will not boot.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the advice of the vendor I cleared the BIOS by leaving the
>>>>> battery out for several hours and shorting the pins for clearing
>>>>> the BIOS (there is no jumper for that on this board). NOW, instead
>>>>> of cutting off after 5 seconds, or staying on and not booting, it
>>>>> cuts off after half a second, and will not come back on unless I
>>>>> unplug it and plug it back in.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am going to send the MB back if the Vendor will take it. Nothing
>>>>> appears to be wrong with it, other than that it wont work for me.
>>>>> I'm done trying to fight with it. If I have to I will get another
>>>>> MB, buy a retail AMD CPU, and even replace my RAM if it comes to
>>>>> that. Or I may just say screw it all and go Intel...
>>
>> --
>> boy wonder

--
boy wonder

X-No-Archive: Yes
Errrrr...erm... boy wonder said:

> Sorry, thought you were one of those high performance geeks, Athlon owners
> usually are.
> My car is designed to take anything I dish out to it, and I throttle it when
> I want it to slow down. Thought that was what throttling does. I've seen a
> lot of lighning damage, it can defeat the best stuff we can throw at it.
>

Thats strange, usually when I "throttle it" in a car or on a bike, it goes
faster, I tend to use the brakes to slow it down

(snip)

Brian H¹© typed:

> X-No-Archive: Yes
> Errrrr...erm... boy wonder said:
>
>> Sorry, thought you were one of those high performance geeks, Athlon
>> owners usually are.
>> My car is designed to take anything I dish out to it, and I throttle
>> it when I want it to slow down. Thought that was what throttling
>> does. I've seen a lot of lighning damage, it can defeat the best
>> stuff we can throw at it.
>>
>
> Thats strange, usually when I "throttle it" in a car or on a bike, it
> goes faster, I tend to use the brakes to slow it down
>
> (snip)

No, noo. Throttling will slow an engine down due to its compression.
*Opening* the throttle, however...

--
Bri.

1) Price does not determine a surge protectors quality. A $5
surge protector with same joules is equivalent. Joules
determines surge protector quality. Distance to and quality
of central earth ground determines surge protector
effectiveness.

That plug-in protector (ie Isobar) is typically too far from
earth. No earth ground means no effective surge protection.
An adjacent surge protector simply provides the surge with
more destructive paths through an adjacent and powered off
computer. Yes, a plug-in surge protector can even contribute
to damage of the adjacent, powered off computer.

Never saw an effective surge protector sold in Walmart,
Kmart, Sears, Lowes, Office Max, or Staples. Ineffective
surge protectors make themselves obvious. No dedicated
connection to earth ground AND makes no mention of the most
critical component in any surge protection system - earth
ground. Where is the dedicated earth ground connection to that
Isobar? Why do they avoid all discussion about critical
earthing? They don't even claim to provide protection from
the destructive type of surge. Read and provide specs for
that Isobar recommendation. It does not even claim such
protection.

Then we have more myths - that a surge protector stops,
blocks, or absorbs lightning. Could not be done when
effective protection techniques were demonstrated in 1752. Is
not advocated in research papers on effective protection in
1930s. So why now will a surge protectors do what even its
manufacturer does not claim? That Isobar recommendation can
even contribute to damage of an adjacent computer - made
obvious if the poster knew, electrically, what was inside the
Isobar.


2) CPU temperatures are trivial. AMD processors typically
work fine at 90 degree C - well above reported temperatures.
However, if the AMD processor was not properly seated, then
actual CPU temperatures may not be accurately reported.

Again, a 'first fact' required is not fan RPM. Relevant
number (that is still required for this discussion to advance)
is the critical "degree C per watt" parameter for that
heatsink assembly.

AMD has always had a thermal weaknesses not found in Intel
486 CPUs. Intel processors have long ago protected themselves
from overheating damage as demonstrated in that Tom's Hardware
demonstration. Nothing new. What is new is that
motherboards can also be damaged in seconds by an AMD
overheating. Protection circuit in AMDs don't respond fast
enough if the heatsink is not properly attached.


3) Thermal compound is mostly hype. Arctic Silver 3 is a
classic example of hype - where numbers cannot be provided by
the recommender. Thermal compound applied to a properly
machined heatsink should result in single digit temperature
decrease; greater if heatsink is manufactured defective. But
then that is what the "degree C per watt" specification would
have made obvious.

How thermal compound works makes it obvious why any decent
heatsink can be used without thermal compound. Fact based
upon thermal conductivity and numerous, published
experiments. Most who advocate Arctic Silver don't even know
what thermal compound does let alone know thermal conductivity
numbers. They simply cite 'urban myth' reasons for Arctic
Silver. No numbers means the recommendation typically is
urban myth.

CPU or motherboard in original post is most likely a victim
of that 5 second operation without heatsink. Tom's Hardware
only demonstrated the latest example of what has long been an
AMD weakness - a problem that is easily resolved by knowing
consequences and therefore taking extra precaution to avoid
the failure.

Thermal compound and plug-in surge protector (then or now)
have no contribution to the problem or its solution. The
simple experiment posted previously determines if motherboard
and CPU are functional. That experiment is where debugging
begins now that important power supply numbers have been
established using a multimeter.

Honest facts first demand numbers. Numbers from a
multimeter verified (but not reported) a power supply as
good. Numbers demonstrate that those who recommend Arctic
Silver probably don't even know about another critical number
- "degree C per watt". Numbers (joules - not price) even
determines what is a quality surge protector and why effective
protection must be connected short ('less than 10 feet') to
central earth ground. That Tom's Hardware demonstration says
another number (seconds) can cause thermal destruction of AMD
processor - and motherboard.

Recommendations without numbers (no joules, no thermal
conductivity for Arctic Silver, no specs or underlying concept
of what the Isobar does, etc.) means the poster probably only
knows what he had read from urban myths and retail store
shelves.

But then if that poster reads carefully, then he would have
known that overclocking also is not part of this discussion.


Mike Stevenson wrote:
> 1. The surge protector was a "decent" brand I got from wal-mart. It cost
> about $35, so NOT an el-cheapo.
>
> 2. I am serious about the temp, 100 F was my average when I was just surfing
> or reading email. This was with the benefits of a CPU throttling program,
> the computer sitting near a crack in the wall that poured in cold air during
> the winter and spring, and that high volume 8000 RPM fan and the aluminum
> "ridged rod" heatsink with copper base. I paid almost $80 for that heatsink
> fan combo, and spent nearly 2 months researching before I choose it. Of
> course for $10 more I could have gotten a water cooler but I didn't look
> into those at the time.
>
> 3. Yes I use thermal grease, Arctic Silver 3 to be exact, never an off
> brand.
>
> 4. Cheap is not always better, you usually get what you pay for...
>
> 5. Um who said anything about overclocking...I made it VERY clear I NEVER
> EVER EVER Overclock, I never have and never will. Gaming its a fact, but
> I've been doing that for years and its never been a real problem before. If
> anything I've toned down alot as I've gotten older.
>
> 6. That's a silly assessment the computer is designed to do just about
> anything I want it to, and computers provide gaming with smoother graphics
> and higher quality than can be offered by the gaming systems. The reason for
> this is becuase you can UPGRADE a computer, its not like I can slap a new
> video card in my PS2 anytime I want.

"w_tom"
> 1) Price does not determine a surge protectors quality. A $5
> surge protector with same joules is equivalent. Joules
> determines surge protector quality. Distance to and quality
> of central earth ground determines surge protector
> effectiveness.


Are you talking about the cold water pipe used as the Service Ground, the
Grounding bus in the Electrical Panel, or just the equipment ground in the
wall outlet or ?

>
> That plug-in protector (ie Isobar) is typically too far from
> earth. No earth ground means no effective surge protection.
> An adjacent surge protector simply provides the surge with
> more destructive paths through an adjacent and powered off
> computer. Yes, a plug-in surge protector can even contribute
> to damage of the adjacent, powered off computer.
>
> Never saw an effective surge protector sold in Walmart,
> Kmart, Sears, Lowes, Office Max, or Staples. Ineffective
> surge protectors make themselves obvious.


So the surge protectors in WalMart, etc don't have a high enough 'joules'
rating?
What do you suggest for the minimum number of Joules?

[Snip
>Thermal compound applied to a properly
> machined heatsink should result in single digit temperature
> decrease; greater if heatsink is manufactured defective.

Remember, the surface of the cpu also has to be properly machined so that it
matches the properly machined heatsink mating surface.
That is why using a heatsink paste or pad can be very important, but I guess
you could do the experiment by first using no pad or compound and recording
the temps and then using the heatsink compound. I take it you did this?

> But
> then that is what the "degree C per watt" specification would
> have made obvious.
>
> How thermal compound works makes it obvious why any decent
> heatsink can be used without thermal compound.

Only if the surface of the heatsink that contacts the cpu is an almost
perfect mate for the surface of the cpu.

[Snip

Its not a secret that AMD cpu's run hotter. I think its silly that their
crowbar operates synchronously with the cpu, this is probably the reason
that its too slow to prevent second breakdown.

I'm not talking about shorting lightning to ground to an antenna, I'm only
interested in keeping the voltage spikes between hot and cold to less than
the amount needed to damage the equipment. My equipment is also far from
earth ground. I don't think that Isobar or anybody else is building
equipment that would contribute to surge damage. This is in keeping with my
personal observations which are not made in isolation. Many others have
made the same observations. I could claim that others supply numbers, but I
don't require the same of myself. Simple common sense and a refusal to be
defrauded are all I require.

Let others use $5 surge protection, and buy their equipment from the grocery
store.
To Brian : lookup Cpu Throttlers, like so much other pr, the name is exactly
the reverse from what it is describing.


w_tom wrote:
> 1) Price does not determine a surge protectors quality. A $5
> surge protector with same joules is equivalent. Joules
> determines surge protector quality. Distance to and quality
> of central earth ground determines surge protector
> effectiveness.
>
> That plug-in protector (ie Isobar) is typically too far from
> earth. No earth ground means no effective surge protection.
> An adjacent surge protector simply provides the surge with
> more destructive paths through an adjacent and powered off
> computer. Yes, a plug-in surge protector can even contribute
> to damage of the adjacent, powered off computer.
>
> Never saw an effective surge protector sold in Walmart,
> Kmart, Sears, Lowes, Office Max, or Staples. Ineffective
> surge protectors make themselves obvious. No dedicated
> connection to earth ground AND makes no mention of the most
> critical component in any surge protection system - earth
> ground. Where is the dedicated earth ground connection to that
> Isobar? Why do they avoid all discussion about critical
> earthing? They don't even claim to provide protection from
> the destructive type of surge. Read and provide specs for
> that Isobar recommendation. It does not even claim such
> protection.
>
> Then we have more myths - that a surge protector stops,
> blocks, or absorbs lightning. Could not be done when
> effective protection techniques were demonstrated in 1752. Is
> not advocated in research papers on effective protection in
> 1930s. So why now will a surge protectors do what even its
> manufacturer does not claim? That Isobar recommendation can
> even contribute to damage of an adjacent computer - made
> obvious if the poster knew, electrically, what was inside the
> Isobar.
>
>
> 2) CPU temperatures are trivial. AMD processors typically
> work fine at 90 degree C - well above reported temperatures.
> However, if the AMD processor was not properly seated, then
> actual CPU temperatures may not be accurately reported.
>
> Again, a 'first fact' required is not fan RPM. Relevant
> number (that is still required for this discussion to advance)
> is the critical "degree C per watt" parameter for that
> heatsink assembly.
>
> AMD has always had a thermal weaknesses not found in Intel
> 486 CPUs. Intel processors have long ago protected themselves
> from overheating damage as demonstrated in that Tom's Hardware
> demonstration. Nothing new. What is new is that
> motherboards can also be damaged in seconds by an AMD
> overheating. Protection circuit in AMDs don't respond fast
> enough if the heatsink is not properly attached.
>
>
> 3) Thermal compound is mostly hype. Arctic Silver 3 is a
> classic example of hype - where numbers cannot be provided by
> the recommender. Thermal compound applied to a properly
> machined heatsink should result in single digit temperature
> decrease; greater if heatsink is manufactured defective. But
> then that is what the "degree C per watt" specification would
> have made obvious.
>
> How thermal compound works makes it obvious why any decent
> heatsink can be used without thermal compound. Fact based
> upon thermal conductivity and numerous, published
> experiments. Most who advocate Arctic Silver don't even know
> what thermal compound does let alone know thermal conductivity
> numbers. They simply cite 'urban myth' reasons for Arctic
> Silver. No numbers means the recommendation typically is
> urban myth.
>
> CPU or motherboard in original post is most likely a victim
> of that 5 second operation without heatsink. Tom's Hardware
> only demonstrated the latest example of what has long been an
> AMD weakness - a problem that is easily resolved by knowing
> consequences and therefore taking extra precaution to avoid
> the failure.
>
> Thermal compound and plug-in surge protector (then or now)
> have no contribution to the problem or its solution. The
> simple experiment posted previously determines if motherboard
> and CPU are functional. That experiment is where debugging
> begins now that important power supply numbers have been
> established using a multimeter.
>
> Honest facts first demand numbers. Numbers from a
> multimeter verified (but not reported) a power supply as
> good. Numbers demonstrate that those who recommend Arctic
> Silver probably don't even know about another critical number
> - "degree C per watt". Numbers (joules - not price) even
> determines what is a quality surge protector and why effective
> protection must be connected short ('less than 10 feet') to
> central earth ground. That Tom's Hardware demonstration says
> another number (seconds) can cause thermal destruction of AMD
> processor - and motherboard.
>
> Recommendations without numbers (no joules, no thermal
> conductivity for Arctic Silver, no specs or underlying concept
> of what the Isobar does, etc.) means the poster probably only
> knows what he had read from urban myths and retail store
> shelves.
>
> But then if that poster reads carefully, then he would have
> known that overclocking also is not part of this discussion.
>
>
> Mike Stevenson wrote:
>> 1. The surge protector was a "decent" brand I got from wal-mart. It
>> cost about $35, so NOT an el-cheapo.
>>
>> 2. I am serious about the temp, 100 F was my average when I was just
>> surfing or reading email. This was with the benefits of a CPU
>> throttling program, the computer sitting near a crack in the wall
>> that poured in cold air during the winter and spring, and that high
>> volume 8000 RPM fan and the aluminum "ridged rod" heatsink with
>> copper base. I paid almost $80 for that heatsink fan combo, and
>> spent nearly 2 months researching before I choose it. Of course for
>> $10 more I could have gotten a water cooler but I didn't look into
>> those at the time.
>>
>> 3. Yes I use thermal grease, Arctic Silver 3 to be exact, never an
>> off brand.
>>
>> 4. Cheap is not always better, you usually get what you pay for...
>>
>> 5. Um who said anything about overclocking...I made it VERY clear I
>> NEVER EVER EVER Overclock, I never have and never will. Gaming its a
>> fact, but I've been doing that for years and its never been a real
>> problem before. If anything I've toned down alot as I've gotten
>> older.
>>
>> 6. That's a silly assessment the computer is designed to do just
>> about anything I want it to, and computers provide gaming with
>> smoother graphics and higher quality than can be offered by the
>> gaming systems. The reason for this is becuase you can UPGRADE a
>> computer, its not like I can slap a new video card in my PS2 anytime
>> I want.

--
boy wonder

More thoughts:

Sorry, Stevenson, I thought you were like w tom, and had simply picked up a
$5 surge protector, you wouldn't believe how many people do. There's not a 1
to 1 correspondence between price and quality, but I have seen the inside
of my surge protector. I'm impressed. Also, I used to have lightning damage
that has gone away with its use.

I don't have an AMD system, but several people I know do, one that had his
pc in cabinet had to take it outside and put a fan on it. Gaming and
overclocking, [ which apparently you don't do ] make things worse.

On compound, if you forget to put it on a power hi fi stereo amp transistor,
or a power transistor for the high voltage supply for a TV, it will self
destruct from heat eventually, ask any electronic tech. If you touch a
device thats overdriven and greater than 212F, you will instantly brand your
finger. I used to drop a bead of spit on the device in question, if it
sizzled, thats too hot! CPU temperatures shouldn't ever be close to 212
internally. The silicon chips themselves are fired at around 350F, so
anything approaching this completely reforms the material.

I also used to design circuits with power devices. I know that 10w or more
in a one square inch area is a lot of power per square inch. I'm pretty sure
those AMDs use even more than 10W. Those heat sinks and fans are definitely
not for decorative purposes only. Apparently they can only think of a way to
shut down that has to use interrupts and cpu intervention, which means that
the regulators are regulating themselves, leaving the door open for failure.

boy wonder wrote:
> Its not a secret that AMD cpu's run hotter. I think its silly that
> their crowbar operates synchronously with the cpu, this is probably
> the reason that its too slow to prevent second breakdown.
>
> I'm not talking about shorting lightning to ground to an antenna, I'm
> only interested in keeping the voltage spikes between hot and cold to
> less than the amount needed to damage the equipment. My equipment is
> also far from earth ground. I don't think that Isobar or anybody
> else is building equipment that would contribute to surge damage.
> This is in keeping with my personal observations which are not made
> in isolation. Many others have made the same observations. I could
> claim that others supply numbers, but I don't require the same of
> myself. Simple common sense and a refusal to be defrauded are all I
> require.
>
> Let others use $5 surge protection, and buy their equipment from the
> grocery store.
> To Brian : lookup Cpu Throttlers, like so much other pr, the name is
> exactly the reverse from what it is describing.
>
>
> w_tom wrote:
>> 1) Price does not determine a surge protectors quality. A $5
>> surge protector with same joules is equivalent. Joules
>> determines surge protector quality. Distance to and quality
>> of central earth ground determines surge protector
>> effectiveness.
>>
>> That plug-in protector (ie Isobar) is typically too far from
>> earth. No earth ground means no effective surge protection.
>> An adjacent surge protector simply provides the surge with
>> more destructive paths through an adjacent and powered off
>> computer. Yes, a plug-in surge protector can even contribute
>> to damage of the adjacent, powered off computer.
>>
>> Never saw an effective surge protector sold in Walmart,
>> Kmart, Sears, Lowes, Office Max, or Staples. Ineffective
>> surge protectors make themselves obvious. No dedicated
>> connection to earth ground AND makes no mention of the most
>> critical component in any surge protection system - earth
>> ground. Where is the dedicated earth ground connection to that
>> Isobar? Why do they avoid all discussion about critical
>> earthing? They don't even claim to provide protection from
>> the destructive type of surge. Read and provide specs for
>> that Isobar recommendation. It does not even claim such
>> protection.
>>
>> Then we have more myths - that a surge protector stops,
>> blocks, or absorbs lightning. Could not be done when
>> effective protection techniques were demonstrated in 1752. Is
>> not advocated in research papers on effective protection in
>> 1930s. So why now will a surge protectors do what even its
>> manufacturer does not claim? That Isobar recommendation can
>> even contribute to damage of an adjacent computer - made
>> obvious if the poster knew, electrically, what was inside the
>> Isobar.
>>
>>
>> 2) CPU temperatures are trivial. AMD processors typically
>> work fine at 90 degree C - well above reported temperatures.
>> However, if the AMD processor was not properly seated, then
>> actual CPU temperatures may not be accurately reported.
>>
>> Again, a 'first fact' required is not fan RPM. Relevant
>> number (that is still required for this discussion to advance)
>> is the critical "degree C per watt" parameter for that
>> heatsink assembly.
>>
>> AMD has always had a thermal weaknesses not found in Intel
>> 486 CPUs. Intel processors have long ago protected themselves
>> from overheating damage as demonstrated in that Tom's Hardware
>> demonstration. Nothing new. What is new is that
>> motherboards can also be damaged in seconds by an AMD
>> overheating. Protection circuit in AMDs don't respond fast
>> enough if the heatsink is not properly attached.
>>
>>
>> 3) Thermal compound is mostly hype. Arctic Silver 3 is a
>> classic example of hype - where numbers cannot be provided by
>> the recommender. Thermal compound applied to a properly
>> machined heatsink should result in single digit temperature
>> decrease; greater if heatsink is manufactured defective. But
>> then that is what the "degree C per watt" specification would
>> have made obvious.
>>
>> How thermal compound works makes it obvious why any decent
>> heatsink can be used without thermal compound. Fact based
>> upon thermal conductivity and numerous, published
>> experiments. Most who advocate Arctic Silver don't even know
>> what thermal compound does let alone know thermal conductivity
>> numbers. They simply cite 'urban myth' reasons for Arctic
>> Silver. No numbers means the recommendation typically is
>> urban myth.
>>
>> CPU or motherboard in original post is most likely a victim
>> of that 5 second operation without heatsink. Tom's Hardware
>> only demonstrated the latest example of what has long been an
>> AMD weakness - a problem that is easily resolved by knowing
>> consequences and therefore taking extra precaution to avoid
>> the failure.
>>
>> Thermal compound and plug-in surge protector (then or now)
>> have no contribution to the problem or its solution. The
>> simple experiment posted previously determines if motherboard
>> and CPU are functional. That experiment is where debugging
>> begins now that important power supply numbers have been
>> established using a multimeter.
>>
>> Honest facts first demand numbers. Numbers from a
>> multimeter verified (but not reported) a power supply as
>> good. Numbers demonstrate that those who recommend Arctic
>> Silver probably don't even know about another critical number
>> - "degree C per watt". Numbers (joules - not price) even
>> determines what is a quality surge protector and why effective
>> protection must be connected short ('less than 10 feet') to
>> central earth ground. That Tom's Hardware demonstration says
>> another number (seconds) can cause thermal destruction of AMD
>> processor - and motherboard.
>>
>> Recommendations without numbers (no joules, no thermal
>> conductivity for Arctic Silver, no specs or underlying concept
>> of what the Isobar does, etc.) means the poster probably only
>> knows what he had read from urban myths and retail store
>> shelves.
>>
>> But then if that poster reads carefully, then he would have
>> known that overclocking also is not part of this discussion.
>>
>>
>> Mike Stevenson wrote:
>>> 1. The surge protector was a "decent" brand I got from wal-mart. It
>>> cost about $35, so NOT an el-cheapo.
>>>
>>> 2. I am serious about the temp, 100 F was my average when I was just
>>> surfing or reading email. This was with the benefits of a CPU
>>> throttling program, the computer sitting near a crack in the wall
>>> that poured in cold air during the winter and spring, and that high
>>> volume 8000 RPM fan and the aluminum "ridged rod" heatsink with
>>> copper base. I paid almost $80 for that heatsink fan combo, and
>>> spent nearly 2 months researching before I choose it. Of course for
>>> $10 more I could have gotten a water cooler but I didn't look into
>>> those at the time.
>>>
>>> 3. Yes I use thermal grease, Arctic Silver 3 to be exact, never an
>>> off brand.
>>>
>>> 4. Cheap is not always better, you usually get what you pay for...
>>>
>>> 5. Um who said anything about overclocking...I made it VERY clear I
>>> NEVER EVER EVER Overclock, I never have and never will. Gaming its a
>>> fact, but I've been doing that for years and its never been a real
>>> problem before. If anything I've toned down alot as I've gotten
>>> older.
>>>
>>> 6. That's a silly assessment the computer is designed to do just
>>> about anything I want it to, and computers provide gaming with
>>> smoother graphics and higher quality than can be offered by the
>>> gaming systems. The reason for this is becuase you can UPGRADE a
>>> computer, its not like I can slap a new video card in my PS2 anytime
>>> I want.

--
boy wonder

link to mythical quality surge protection device :
http://www.tripplite.com/products/pr...?productID=106
They also have a hospital grade of higher quality!

boy wonder wrote:
> More thoughts:
>
> Sorry, Stevenson, I thought you were like w tom, and had simply
> picked up a $5 surge protector, you wouldn't believe how many people
> do. There's not a 1 to 1 correspondence between price and quality,
> but I have seen the inside of my surge protector. I'm impressed.
> Also, I used to have lightning damage that has gone away with its use.
>
> I don't have an AMD system, but several people I know do, one that
> had his pc in cabinet had to take it outside and put a fan on it.
> Gaming and overclocking, [ which apparently you don't do ] make
> things worse.
>
> On compound, if you forget to put it on a power hi fi stereo amp
> transistor, or a power transistor for the high voltage supply for a
> TV, it will self destruct from heat eventually, ask any electronic
> tech. If you touch a device thats overdriven and greater than 212F,
> you will instantly brand your finger. I used to drop a bead of spit
> on the device in question, if it sizzled, thats too hot! CPU
> temperatures shouldn't ever be close to 212 internally. The silicon
> chips themselves are fired at around 350F, so anything approaching
> this completely reforms the material.
>
> I also used to design circuits with power devices. I know that 10w or
> more in a one square inch area is a lot of power per square inch. I'm
> pretty sure those AMDs use even more than 10W. Those heat sinks and
> fans are definitely not for decorative purposes only. Apparently they
> can only think of a way to shut down that has to use interrupts and
> cpu intervention, which means that the regulators are regulating
> themselves, leaving the door open for failure.
>
> boy wonder wrote:
>> Its not a secret that AMD cpu's run hotter. I think its silly that
>> their crowbar operates synchronously with the cpu, this is probably
>> the reason that its too slow to prevent second breakdown.
>>
>> I'm not talking about shorting lightning to ground to an antenna, I'm
>> only interested in keeping the voltage spikes between hot and cold to
>> less than the amount needed to damage the equipment. My equipment is
>> also far from earth ground. I don't think that Isobar or anybody
>> else is building equipment that would contribute to surge damage.
>> This is in keeping with my personal observations which are not made
>> in isolation. Many others have made the same observations. I could
>> claim that others supply numbers, but I don't require the same of
>> myself. Simple common sense and a refusal to be defrauded are all I
>> require.
>>
>> Let others use $5 surge protection, and buy their equipment from the
>> grocery store.
>> To Brian : lookup Cpu Throttlers, like so much other pr, the name is
>> exactly the reverse from what it is describing.
>>
>>
>> w_tom wrote:
>>> 1) Price does not determine a surge protectors quality. A $5
>>> surge protector with same joules is equivalent. Joules
>>> determines surge protector quality. Distance to and quality
>>> of central earth ground determines surge protector
>>> effectiveness.
>>>
>>> That plug-in protector (ie Isobar) is typically too far from
>>> earth. No earth ground means no effective surge protection.
>>> An adjacent surge protector simply provides the surge with
>>> more destructive paths through an adjacent and powered off
>>> computer. Yes, a plug-in surge protector can even contribute
>>> to damage of the adjacent, powered off computer.
>>>
>>> Never saw an effective surge protector sold in Walmart,
>>> Kmart, Sears, Lowes, Office Max, or Staples. Ineffective
>>> surge protectors make themselves obvious. No dedicated
>>> connection to earth ground AND makes no mention of the most
>>> critical component in any surge protection system - earth
>>> ground. Where is the dedicated earth ground connection to that
>>> Isobar? Why do they avoid all discussion about critical
>>> earthing? They don't even claim to provide protection from
>>> the destructive type of surge. Read and provide specs for
>>> that Isobar recommendation. It does not even claim such
>>> protection.
>>>
>>> Then we have more myths - that a surge protector stops,
>>> blocks, or absorbs lightning. Could not be done when
>>> effective protection techniques were demonstrated in 1752. Is
>>> not advocated in research papers on effective protection in
>>> 1930s. So why now will a surge protectors do what even its
>>> manufacturer does not claim? That Isobar recommendation can
>>> even contribute to damage of an adjacent computer - made
>>> obvious if the poster knew, electrically, what was inside the
>>> Isobar.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) CPU temperatures are trivial. AMD processors typically
>>> work fine at 90 degree C - well above reported temperatures.
>>> However, if the AMD processor was not properly seated, then
>>> actual CPU temperatures may not be accurately reported.
>>>
>>> Again, a 'first fact' required is not fan RPM. Relevant
>>> number (that is still required for this discussion to advance)
>>> is the critical "degree C per watt" parameter for that
>>> heatsink assembly.
>>>
>>> AMD has always had a thermal weaknesses not found in Intel
>>> 486 CPUs. Intel processors have long ago protected themselves
>>> from overheating damage as demonstrated in that Tom's Hardware
>>> demonstration. Nothing new. What is new is that
>>> motherboards can also be damaged in seconds by an AMD
>>> overheating. Protection circuit in AMDs don't respond fast
>>> enough if the heatsink is not properly attached.
>>>
>>>
>>> 3) Thermal compound is mostly hype. Arctic Silver 3 is a
>>> classic example of hype - where numbers cannot be provided by
>>> the recommender. Thermal compound applied to a properly
>>> machined heatsink should result in single digit temperature
>>> decrease; greater if heatsink is manufactured defective. But
>>> then that is what the "degree C per watt" specification would
>>> have made obvious.
>>>
>>> How thermal compound works makes it obvious why any decent
>>> heatsink can be used without thermal compound. Fact based
>>> upon thermal conductivity and numerous, published
>>> experiments. Most who advocate Arctic Silver don't even know
>>> what thermal compound does let alone know thermal conductivity
>>> numbers. They simply cite 'urban myth' reasons for Arctic
>>> Silver. No numbers means the recommendation typically is
>>> urban myth.
>>>
>>> CPU or motherboard in original post is most likely a victim
>>> of that 5 second operation without heatsink. Tom's Hardware
>>> only demonstrated the latest example of what has long been an
>>> AMD weakness - a problem that is easily resolved by knowing
>>> consequences and therefore taking extra precaution to avoid
>>> the failure.
>>>
>>> Thermal compound and plug-in surge protector (then or now)
>>> have no contribution to the problem or its solution. The
>>> simple experiment posted previously determines if motherboard
>>> and CPU are functional. That experiment is where debugging
>>> begins now that important power supply numbers have been
>>> established using a multimeter.
>>>
>>> Honest facts first demand numbers. Numbers from a
>>> multimeter verified (but not reported) a power supply as
>>> good. Numbers demonstrate that those who recommend Arctic
>>> Silver probably don't even know about another critical number
>>> - "degree C per watt". Numbers (joules - not price) even
>>> determines what is a quality surge protector and why effective
>>> protection must be connected short ('less than 10 feet') to
>>> central earth ground. That Tom's Hardware demonstration says
>>> another number (seconds) can cause thermal destruction of AMD
>>> processor - and motherboard.
>>>
>>> Recommendations without numbers (no joules, no thermal
>>> conductivity for Arctic Silver, no specs or underlying concept
>>> of what the Isobar does, etc.) means the poster probably only
>>> knows what he had read from urban myths and retail store
>>> shelves.
>>>
>>> But then if that poster reads carefully, then he would have
>>> known that overclocking also is not part of this discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike Stevenson wrote:
>>>> 1. The surge protector was a "decent" brand I got from wal-mart. It
>>>> cost about $35, so NOT an el-cheapo.
>>>>
>>>> 2. I am serious about the temp, 100 F was my average when I was
>>>> just surfing or reading email. This was with the benefits of a CPU
>>>> throttling program, the computer sitting near a crack in the wall
>>>> that poured in cold air during the winter and spring, and that high
>>>> volume 8000 RPM fan and the aluminum "ridged rod" heatsink with
>>>> copper base. I paid almost $80 for that heatsink fan combo, and
>>>> spent nearly 2 months researching before I choose it. Of course for
>>>> $10 more I could have gotten a water cooler but I didn't look into
>>>> those at the time.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Yes I use thermal grease, Arctic Silver 3 to be exact, never an
>>>> off brand.
>>>>
>>>> 4. Cheap is not always better, you usually get what you pay for...
>>>>
>>>> 5. Um who said anything about overclocking...I made it VERY clear I
>>>> NEVER EVER EVER Overclock, I never have and never will. Gaming its
>>>> a fact, but I've been doing that for years and its never been a
>>>> real problem before. If anything I've toned down alot as I've
>>>> gotten
>>>> older.
>>>>
>>>> 6. That's a silly assessment the computer is designed to do just
>>>> about anything I want it to, and computers provide gaming with
>>>> smoother graphics and higher quality than can be offered by the
>>>> gaming systems. The reason for this is becuase you can UPGRADE a
>>>> computer, its not like I can slap a new video card in my PS2
>>>> anytime
>>>> I want.

--
boy wonder

Point 1) Thermal compound works because most of a heatsink
makes direct contact with CPU. By filling microscopic air
holes with more conductive compound, then CPU temperature is
decreased only by single digit degrees. If thermal compound
results in a greater temperature decrease, then heatsink was
not properly machined or mounted - too little heatsink was
making less contact with CPU. Numbers demonstrated in
experiments at:
http://www.dansdata.com/goop.htm

He also states that:
> More grease is, at best, wasted. At worst, it gets in the way of
> direct chip-to-sink contact and impedes heat transfer.
Thermal compound works because so little actually sits between
CPU and heatsink.

Many heatsinks have no machine surfacing - to cut costs.
They use thermal pads or thermal tape to compensate for an
unmachined, inferior surface. Then avoid the so important
'degree C per watt' specification on package.


Important heatsinks airflow is LFM. At a so gentle 200 LFM,
most heat is transferred from heatsink to air. Quadruple this
number to only double heat transfer. Drastic airflow
increases only produce marginal cooling improvement. However
if the 'degree C per watt' number is not provided and if a
large CFM number is advertised, then too many computer
assemblers will seek higher CFM rather than 'degree C per
watt'.

Design factors such as CFM and proper surfacing are
summarized in one critical parameter - 'degree C per watt'.
Designer worries about CFM and surfacing. The fruits of his
labor result in two critical parameters - 'degree C per watt'
and dB.

Copper provides higher thermal conductivity. But copper
only provides more design freedom. Copper means heat can be
carried farther inside the heatsink. Therefore a designer has
more freedom to increase heatsink size and surface area.
Bottle neck is not inside conductivity. Bottleneck is the
heatsink to air thermal interface. A copper based heatsink
designed identical to a well designed aluminum heatsink
provides near zero advantage. The heatsink designer must use
copper to spread heat over a larger heatsink so that he can
provide more surface area.

Again 'copper verse aluminum' makes little difference to a
consumer since a properly designed copper heatsink will have
either a better 'degree C per watt' number, or merely be
equivalent to the aluminum version.

Another copper heatsink design advantage means that less
airflow is required for same cooling. IOW a fan with less
noise on a properly designed heatsink can cool as well as
aluminum using a higher dB fan. A second parameter in
heatsink selection is dB - decibels - audio noise. How the
designer got less noise is irrelevant to the computer
assembler who is only concerned with the dB bottom line.

'Copper verses aluminum' is only hype to the consumer.
Consumer is concerned with how a heatsink fan designer
optimized his design. Again, computer assembler need only be
concerned with two numbers - 'degree C per watt' and dBs -
assuming the heatsink is designed for that CPU and not too
heavy for that CPU socket.

Too many technically uneducated reviewers and computer
assemblers will hype copper, CFM, fan RPM, Arctic Silver, and
other irrelevant parameters because too many heatsink
manufacturers would rather avoid any discussion of 'degree C
per watt', decibels, and thermal conductivity numbers. A
smart computer assembler demands 'the beef' - those
fundamental specifications.


Point 3) I have no special preference to Intel over AMD even
though I did not like how AMD got into the business, and since
Intel school and databooks taught me the technology so many
decades previously. There are many advantages to both
products. For example, the Pentium 4 design has one curious
weakness. If code is compiled without proper consideration,
then some improperly ordered instructions can bring down
Pentium 4 performance. Special attention given to how
pipelining handles SI and DI instructions.

Traditionally, AMD processors tend to optimized for older
existing software. Intel is more optimized for latest and
future software. But AMD is essential to Intel's health just
as Cyrix, PowerPC, and Motorola 68000 series were so important
in keeping Intel from getting complacent. Intel products are
that good which is why AMD has so much trouble earning
consistent profits. And yet Intel is so good that only AMD
(not IBM, Motorola, MIPS, Zilog, etc) could remain
competitive.

Point 2) about surge protectors will be discussed in another
post.

Mike Stevenson wrote:
> Well Tom, you are quite right on several points. I do not know the
> numbers involved. My use of thermal compound is in fact based on
> advice that can be called "urban myth". I do at least know what it
> does, or think I do at least. The thermal compound or "phase-change"
> materials are designed to fill small microscopic gaps in the
> material of the heatsink to provide a better seam where it touches
> the CPU core. Please tell me if I am wrong there. As to your C per
> watt, I don't have that information. The rating I was given for my
> fan was 52 CFM. I don't recall what it literally stood for but had
> to do with the amount of air the fan was capable of moving in one
> minute. I do not have such numbers for the heatsink, I only know
> that I spent a good deal of time reading on the various advantages
> and disadvantages of the many heatsink designs. My research
> concluded that the common "orb" style heatsinks are fairly
> ineffective. The basis of this was the poor qualities of the
> materials and the many poor designs in terms of the airflow
> provided around the heatsink. I settled on the one I bought becuase
> copper and gold were listed as the best materials in terms of
> thermal conductivity. Aluminum was listed as a moderate material,
> and steel and other metals as poor conductors. There are heatsinks
> available with gold plating and even solid gold, but naturally I
> could not afford those. The "ridged rod" design was determined to be
> a good one since it allowed a greater surface area for heat
> dissapation and airflow. The copper base allows excellent thermal
> conductivity. This is what I believe at least, you seem to know
> quite a bit about this and I would welcome you telling me what you
> know, even if it means that you dispell some of the myths I may hold
> to...
>
> As far as the surge protector I knew very little about how
> ineffective they really are in general and you give me alot to
> think about. You are quite right to say price does not determine
> surge protector quality, or anything for that matter. I mentioned
> it to illustrate to Wonder Boy that I hadn't simply pulled any old
> surge protector off the shelf. The mention of the RPMs on my fan
> were also to illustrate that it was not a standard stock fan but
> rather one I (thought at least) took great care in choosing over
> the many many fans available on the consumer market.
>
> I would assume that you personally prefer Intel CPU's over AMD.
> After this discussion of heat, I can see why. I am now trying to
> make the decision as to whether to try again with AMD, or switch
> to Intel CPUs. I would like your personal recommendations for fans
> and heatsink should I choose to get another AMD CPU.

w_tom wrote:
>
> Surge protector is not a surge protection. Surge protection
> is earth ground. A surge protector is effective when it

Hi w_tom

Perhaps home "surge protector" units should be called "surge inhibitor
units" eh?

More accurate according to the science/physics right?