RamTurbo???

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Robert Baer, Dec 23, 2003.

  1. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    Anyone with real experience on using this program?
    Any of it true?
     
    Robert Baer, Dec 23, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert Baer

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    Robert Baer <> wrote in
    news::

    > Anyone with real experience on using this program?
    > Any of it true?


    Nope, all lies. No program can reclaim memory that has leaked. The
    program works by faking a demand for lots and lots of memory. Windows
    swaps almost everything it can to the swap file, including the leaked
    bytes, and then you get shit performance for a few minutes while the stuff
    you really need gets swapped back in.

    --
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    website: under construction
    Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    email/IM for rates/services
     
    DeMoN LaG, Dec 23, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Baer

    derek / nul Guest

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:11:00 GMT, Robert Baer <> wrote:

    > Anyone with real experience on using this program?
    > Any of it true?


    I have spent a lot of time trying to prove that it works as suggested, I don't
    see any difference.

    Derek
     
    derek / nul, Dec 23, 2003
    #3
  4. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    DeMoN LaG wrote:
    >
    > Robert Baer <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > Anyone with real experience on using this program?
    > > Any of it true?

    >
    > Nope, all lies. No program can reclaim memory that has leaked. The
    > program works by faking a demand for lots and lots of memory. Windows
    > swaps almost everything it can to the swap file, including the leaked
    > bytes, and then you get shit performance for a few minutes while the stuff
    > you really need gets swapped back in.
    >
    > --
    > AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    > email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    > website: under construction
    > Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    > email/IM for rates/services


    I did not believe the bit about memory leaks.
    Please forgive me, i do not know the exact definitionof a "memory
    leak".
    Is it the following?
    Say i allocate 3 different sized blocks of RAM, released the "middle"
    block, and then attempt to allocate a new block of that same size, it
    will not be in the same place because itwillnot fit.
    And then i de-allocate all of that, and find that i have even less
    than at any stage of the mentioned process.
    Almost like a fragmented hard drive, where the first file sectors get
    lost..
     
    Robert Baer, Dec 23, 2003
    #4
  5. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    derek / nul wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:11:00 GMT, Robert Baer <> wrote:
    >
    > > Anyone with real experience on using this program?
    > > Any of it true?

    >
    > I have spent a lot of time trying to prove that it works as suggested, I don't
    > see any difference.
    >
    > Derek


    Thanks to both of you; i was hoping that it might allow my programs to
    use more than 2Gbytes of RAM.
     
    Robert Baer, Dec 23, 2003
    #5
  6. Robert Baer

    Spajky® Guest

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:11:00 GMT, Robert Baer
    <> wrote:

    > Anyone with real experience on using this program?


    I tried a bunch of them, but usually are useless.
    But I found usefull RAMpage for myself, it shows me in tray the
    ammount of free ram since I have set with 256Mb ram & W98seLiTE
    & defragments me Ram data & cleans it up when memory leaks occur even
    if I have set in the registry to always unload *.dll-s from memory
    when using problematic progs; I mostly defragment ram manually
    clicking on that tray icon before loading a huge picture to edit or so
    ....& swap file in sistem properties to only 1Mb set on another
    drive...

    it helps me a bit & so works for me, but this is the only proggy that
    I found useful, all others are IMHO ... (you know what...)

    but I also have settings like this:

    setting in a sistem ini under

    [386Enh]
    ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1
    PageBuffers=32
    DMABufferSize=64
    PerVMFiles=200
    PagingDrive=x: (letter refers where the swap file is located)
    MaxPagingFileSize=1024
    MinPagingFileSize=0

    [vcache]
    NameCache=2048
    MinFileCache=32768
    MaxFileCache=49152
    chunksize=4096

    (yes only 1Mb of swap file! not to disable it cause some progs do not
    like that)

    Try this & see if it suitable for you ... & yep, it´s a FREEware!


    -- Regards, MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR, SPAJKY ®
    & visit my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
    Celly-III OC-ed,"Tualatin on BX-Slot1-MoBo!"
    E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##
     
    Spajky®, Dec 23, 2003
    #6
  7. Robert Baer

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    Robert Baer <> wrote in
    news::

    > Almost like a fragmented hard drive, where the first file sectors get
    > lost..


    No. It is like this:
    I write a program. It allocates a few arrays of characters, let's say it
    takes 100 KB of RAM for this. The program loses track of it, and Windows
    doesn't realize what program owns it (as in, the program called a Windows
    function to create and manage it), so Windows doesn't know the program is
    not using it. The program exits and doesn't clean up after itself, so now
    that 100 KB of RAM is permanently in use by nothing. Thus, the memory
    "leaked"

    --
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    website: under construction
    Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    email/IM for rates/services
     
    DeMoN LaG, Dec 23, 2003
    #7
  8. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    "Spajky®" wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:11:00 GMT, Robert Baer
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > Anyone with real experience on using this program?

    >
    > I tried a bunch of them, but usually are useless.
    > But I found usefull RAMpage for myself, it shows me in tray the
    > ammount of free ram since I have set with 256Mb ram & W98seLiTE
    > & defragments me Ram data & cleans it up when memory leaks occur even
    > if I have set in the registry to always unload *.dll-s from memory
    > when using problematic progs; I mostly defragment ram manually
    > clicking on that tray icon before loading a huge picture to edit or so
    > ...& swap file in sistem properties to only 1Mb set on another
    > drive...
    >
    > it helps me a bit & so works for me, but this is the only proggy that
    > I found useful, all others are IMHO ... (you know what...)
    >
    > but I also have settings like this:
    >
    > setting in a sistem ini under
    >
    > [386Enh]
    > ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1
    > PageBuffers=32
    > DMABufferSize=64
    > PerVMFiles=200
    > PagingDrive=x: (letter refers where the swap file is located)
    > MaxPagingFileSize=1024
    > MinPagingFileSize=0
    >
    > [vcache]
    > NameCache=2048
    > MinFileCache=32768
    > MaxFileCache=49152
    > chunksize=4096
    >
    > (yes only 1Mb of swap file! not to disable it cause some progs do not
    > like that)
    >
    > Try this & see if it suitable for you ... & yep, it´s a FREEware!
    >
    > -- Regards, MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR, SPAJKY ®
    > & visit my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
    > Celly-III OC-ed,"Tualatin on BX-Slot1-MoBo!"
    > E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##


    ????
    In Win98 SE, I have tried to add MinFileCache and MaxFileCache
    statemente under vcache using MSconfig, and i get the pencil icon;
    meaning the statements are ignored by the system
    How the heck did you get vcache to accept anything?
     
    Robert Baer, Dec 24, 2003
    #8
  9. Robert Baer

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    Robert Baer <> wrote in news:3FE93766.FBBF6374
    @earthlink.net:

    > In Win98 SE, I have tried to add MinFileCache and MaxFileCache
    > statemente under vcache using MSconfig, and i get the pencil icon;
    > meaning the statements are ignored by the system
    > How the heck did you get vcache to accept anything?


    Don't use MSConfig, try just opening the file in notepad and adding the
    lines.

    BTW, do you know how much I laugh when people "defragment" their RAM? A
    hard disk needs defragmenting, as a head has to be repositioned to read
    data that is not contiguous. Unless Spajiky has got some RAM with moving
    parts, I don't see how defragmenting RAM to save what would amount to a max
    of about 20 nanoseconds if the stuff was "fragmented" in memory is worth
    anything.

    --
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    website: under construction
    Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    email/IM for rates/services
     
    DeMoN LaG, Dec 24, 2003
    #9
  10. Robert Baer

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    Spajky® <Spajky##@volja.net> wrote in
    news::

    > But I found usefull RAMpage for myself, it shows me in tray the
    > ammount of free ram since I have set with 256Mb ram & W98seLiTE
    > & defragments me Ram data & cleans it up when memory leaks occur even


    There is no possible way under any version of Windows to clean up a
    memory leak by an application. None. Anyone who thinks there is does
    not understand what "memory leak" means. These programs have a half ass
    solution that if they demand 200 megs of RAM, windows will swap out all
    the stuff that isn't being used (including the leaked memory), thereby
    freeing it up. But it isn't freed, now instead of taking space in RAM
    (where it would be swapped out if needed anyway), it is sitting in the
    swap file, Windows still considers it allocated and the memory is still
    in use.

    > if I have set in the registry to always unload *.dll-s from memory


    Why? Windows unloads these on it's own when the RAM they are occupying
    is needed. Forcing them to be unloaded immediately wastes CPU time
    unloading them when there is no reason to, and if you immediately need
    them again (close program, re-open), they have to be reloaded into memory
    again, when they should not have been removed in the first place.

    > when using problematic progs; I mostly defragment ram manually


    Defragmenting RAM is a myth, it accomplishes nothing. RAM is solid
    state, and has no moving parts, the max time you would save by
    defragmenting RAM is a few nanoseconds. I don't understand how a program
    can even claim to defragment RAM. There is no way a program can know
    what memory module a piece of memory is in. It doesn't know the column
    or row it is in, it knows nothing. The only thing that does is the
    memory controller in the northbridge (or on the CPU in the AMD64
    scenario). How does the program know it didn't just take two pieces of
    memory that were on different modules and could be accessed
    simultaneously and stuck them next to each other on the same module,
    meaning that it now takes two read operations to get both pieces of data?
    It doesn't.

    > clicking on that tray icon before loading a huge picture to edit or so
    > ...& swap file in sistem properties to only 1Mb set on another
    > drive...


    Another drive, or another partition on the same drive? The former is a
    good idea, the latter wastes performance. Also, setting a 1 MB swap file
    is pointless, since I'm assuming you have it set at 1 MB max. Are you
    really hurting for disk space so badly that you can't set a min of 10 MB
    and leave the max uncapped and let Windows manage it? So many people
    these days come up with asinine schemes that they think make Windows
    better at managing RAM, and everyone appears to consider themselves an
    expert, but most people just randomly repeat BS they heard on a website
    and do dumb things like set up 1 MB max swap files not understanding that
    "max" means if Windows needs to swap out 1,025KB of stuff and you have a
    1 MB max on the swap file, either your program or your entire system will
    crash.

    No matter how much RAM is in a system, there is never a reason to disable
    or inhibit the swap file. Despite having 512 megs of RAM in this
    machine, and 338 megs of that memory either unallocated or being used in
    the system cache, I still have ~20 megs of swap file usage of stuff that
    Windows simply does not need to have around. If you don't have 50 megs
    of HD space to spare, you need a larger disk.

    --
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    website: under construction
    Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    email/IM for rates/services
     
    DeMoN LaG, Dec 24, 2003
    #10
  11. Robert Baer

    Spajky® Guest

    On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 07:18:56 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:

    >BTW, do you know how much I laugh when people "defragment" their RAM? A
    >hard disk needs defragmenting, as a head has to be repositioned to read
    >data that is not contiguous. Unless Spajiky has got some RAM with moving
    >parts, I don't see how defragmenting RAM to save what would amount to a max
    >of about 20 nanoseconds if the stuff was "fragmented" in memory is worth
    >anything.


    the data in the ram are also written in "cells" almost like on sectors
    on HD & after loading/unloading files there are also fragmented just
    like on a HD. But on HD this has much more impact on performance
    because of mechanical searching for pieces of data to read.

    But with ram (or Flash Solid state HDs) there is much less impact
    (just somekind of "electronic actuator arm for searching data" -
    electronic paging matrix involved which is very fast) & practically
    not noticable, but in Benchmarks there is noticable:
    since sequencial reads are faster than random ones, the compacted data
    are read faster. ... & if someone tryes to squeze the maximum from it
    sistem, that could be useful ...

    -- Regards, MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR, SPAJKY ®
    & visit my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
    Celly-III OC-ed,"Tualatin on BX-Slot1-MoBo!"
    E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##
     
    Spajky®, Dec 24, 2003
    #11
  12. Robert Baer

    Spajky® Guest

    On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:52:40 GMT, Robert Baer
    <> wrote:

    > ????
    > In Win98 SE, I have tried to add MinFileCache and MaxFileCache
    >statemente under vcache using MSconfig, and i get the pencil icon;
    >meaning the statements are ignored by the system
    > How the heck did you get vcache to accept anything?


    start/run/sysedit
    edit-change-save ...

    -- Regards, MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR, SPAJKY ®
    & visit my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
    Celly-III OC-ed,"Tualatin on BX-Slot1-MoBo!"
    E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##
     
    Spajky®, Dec 24, 2003
    #12
  13. Robert Baer

    Spajky® Guest

    On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 07:34:54 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:

    >Spajky?<Spajky##@volja.net> wrote in
    >news::


    >> & defragments me Ram data & cleans it up when memory leaks occur even


    .....with Win9x versions, w2k & XP have much better ram management...

    >There is no possible way under any version of Windows to clean up a
    >memory leak by an application. None. Anyone who thinks there is does
    >not understand what "memory leak" means. These programs have a half ass
    >solution that if they demand 200 megs of RAM, windows will swap out all
    >the stuff that isn't being used (including the leaked memory), thereby
    >freeing it up. But it isn't freed, now instead of taking space in RAM
    >(where it would be swapped out if needed anyway), it is sitting in the
    >swap file, Windows still considers it allocated and the memory is still
    >in use.


    yes, you are right IMHO &

    this program also does that... IF you do not disable swap file (not
    recommended); but I set it to min value !!! & here is the difference
    in my case & observations with this particular program.

    where are these files going than instead of going to file win386.swp
    if there is only 1Mb of space in it? It moves data (compacts them as I
    see) in the ram, so Win sees the place upper than the last file in the
    ram as free ... same as would be w/o that but would see less free ram
    from last file to the end of ram & the ram with unnecessary data
    unloaded would look like a swiss cheese which takes a tiny tiny piece
    of time more for chipset to read it if necessary & ready to load a
    huger file (like large bmp) compacted to ram w/o being spread across
    free ram "holes"...

    >> if I have set in the registry to always unload *.dll-s from memory

    >
    >Why? Windows unloads these on it's own when the RAM they are occupying
    >is needed. Forcing them to be unloaded immediately wastes CPU time
    >unloading them when there is no reason to, and if you immediately need
    >them again (close program, re-open), they have to be reloaded into memory
    >again, when they should not have been removed in the first place.


    the problem here stands in multiple IE windows for example I use much;
    this damn program (5.01updated&patched); whenever you open a new
    window, it doubles some its files unnecessary in the ram insted of
    using already ones from first IE window loaded ... (yes I could use
    Avant shell for it with tabs, but I like it this way & reading mostly
    in text only mode with just background). Before with a lot of progs
    loaded I could open only less than 20 IE windows w/o a crash of a
    system; now I can do more than 40 of them...

    >> when using problematic progs; I mostly defragment ram manually

    >
    >Defragmenting RAM is a myth, it accomplishes nothing. RAM is solid
    >state, and has no moving parts, the max time you would save by
    >defragmenting RAM is a few nanoseconds. I don't understand how a program
    >can even claim to defragment RAM. There is no way a program can know
    >what memory module a piece of memory is in. It doesn't know the column
    >or row it is in, it knows nothing. The only thing that does is the
    >memory controller in the northbridge (or on the CPU in the AMD64
    >scenario). How does the program know it didn't just take two pieces of
    >memory that were on different modules and could be accessed
    >simultaneously and stuck them next to each other on the same module,
    >meaning that it now takes two read operations to get both pieces of data?
    >It doesn't.


    not sure, but that program it looks like it does it (hardware does
    what the programs tell them to do mostly if OS alows that ...

    I reccomend trying that particular program which I do not advertise it
    really, since I am not anyway affiliated to the author of it ...
    It just works for me & my well tweaked sistem & my needs, which means
    that is not necessary to be found useful for somebody else, but is
    worth a try.

    >> clicking on that tray icon before loading a huge picture to edit or so
    >> ...& swap file in sistem properties to only 1Mb set on another
    >> drive...


    >Another drive, or another partition on the same drive? The former is a
    >good idea, the latter wastes performance.


    not necessary in my case since swap file is practically unused & in
    another partition & is not always C:\ partition the fastest on the
    drive; in my case (benchmark tested) is in the middle of the drive;
    must be firmware stuff with this QuantumF+AS (also has a very quite
    flat diagram of read/write response thru a whole capacity of it; it
    was not the case with other HDs I tried (there was always C part the
    fastest & speed droping going to the end of the drive).

    >Also, setting a 1 MB swap file
    >is pointless, since I'm assuming you have it set at 1 MB max.


    yes, I set it so (for my kind of use I have enaugh of ram -256Mb)
    & my Win98seLite takes only 40Mb in ram (+ram for Vcache limited)
    fully loaded with all startup progs I need (in TL 72Mb!)...

    [& yes, I also incorporated/replaced a bunch of files with those from
    W2k sistem, believe or not certain ones can be used & works better]
    :)

    >Are you
    >really hurting for disk space so badly that you can't set a min of 10 MB
    >and leave the max uncapped and let Windows manage it? So many people
    >these days come up with asinine schemes that they think make Windows
    >better at managing RAM, and everyone appears to consider themselves an
    >expert, but most people just randomly repeat BS they heard on a website
    >and do dumb things like set up 1 MB max swap files not understanding that
    >"max" means if Windows needs to swap out 1,025KB of stuff and you have a
    >1 MB max on the swap file, either your program or your entire system will
    >crash.


    in my case does NOT ! & normally I do not just randomly repeat BS I
    heard on a website, but tweaked & "organized" (hardware/software) my
    sistem by time by myself experimenting a lot ... yes sometimes I
    have/had a lot of free time .. :), but I now have a very responsive
    machine w/o spending a fortune for it ... money is a problem here in
    my case ...

    >No matter how much RAM is in a system, there is never a reason to disable
    >or inhibit the swap file. Despite having 512 megs of RAM in this
    >machine, and 338 megs of that memory either unallocated or being used in
    >the system cache, I still have ~20 megs of swap file usage of stuff that
    >Windows simply does not need to have around. ...


    20megs swap? Wow ...

    BTW if you do not limit your Vcache settings (for last recent accessed
    HD files) - if there is not anything in the sistem.ini set, Win9x
    will grab all awailable ram for that & when it needs more or ram, will
    just swap the momentary unnecessary files to a swap file back & forth
    slowing down a machine, since HD is basicaly mecchanical stuff &
    slowest thing inside the case making the sistem less responsive.

    Thats why win9x crash without limiting that having more than 512Mb
    ram! (known problem).

    setting a max Vcache (as I experimented) is individual setting for
    every type of use, ammount of ram & type of HD involved ...

    For myself I get best results with settings I mentioned before...

    But this "theory" I "developed" could be wrong, I do not wanna start a
    flame & I could be wrong, but since it works for me, for me it Ok &
    now I do not care what others say; I just expressed my opinion...


    -- Regards, MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR, SPAJKY ®
    & visit my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
    Celly-III OC-ed,"Tualatin on BX-Slot1-MoBo!"
    E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##
     
    Spajky®, Dec 24, 2003
    #13
  14. Robert Baer

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    Spajky® <Spajky##@volja.net> wrote in
    news::

    > not sure, but that program it looks like it does it (hardware does
    > what the programs tell them to do mostly if OS alows that ...
    >


    No, that is not what the program does. I'm not saying that the OS won't
    let the program see the physical RAM, but that the chipset does not say
    "hey, this is RAM module #2" when it returns a memory request.



    >>No matter how much RAM is in a system, there is never a reason to
    >>disable or inhibit the swap file. Despite having 512 megs of RAM in
    >>this machine, and 338 megs of that memory either unallocated or being
    >>used in the system cache, I still have ~20 megs of swap file usage of
    >>stuff that

    >
    >Windows simply does not need to have around. ...>


    > 20megs swap? Wow .> ..


    >BTW if you do not limit your Vcache settings (for last recent acce> ssed
    >HD files) - if there is not anything in the sistem.ini set, > Win9x
    >will grab all awailable ram for that & when it needs more or r> am, will
    >just swap the momentary unnecessary files to a swap file ba> ck & forth
    >slowing down a machine, since HD is basicaly mecchan> ical stuff &
    >slowest thing inside the case making the sistem less responsive.


    A) I don't use Windows 9x, I use Windows 2000.
    B) Windows swapping stuff to disk does not happen for no reason. The
    only time anything goes to disk is when RAM is needed, and the code/data
    has not been used for a substantial amount of time (unless you don't have
    enough RAM at all, at which point running programs are swapped out).

    > Thats why win9x crash without limiting that having more than 512Mb
    > ram! (known problem).


    Windows 9x crashes with > 512 megs of RAM because of a bug in how Vcache
    works that MS never intended. It really has nothing to do with how much
    RAM, but how much address space. VCache, on a system with >512 megs of
    RAM, will attempt to snag enough address space to address the maximum
    size of a cache it will create with that much memory. Unfortunately, due
    to the design of Win 9x, that leaves little to no addresses to be
    allocated to other things, like progams and the OS itself.

    > But this "theory" I "developed" could be wrong, I do not wanna start a
    > flame & I could be wrong, but since it works for me, for me it Ok &
    > now I do not care what others say; I just expressed my opinion...


    Your "theory" is based on false information. Considering you are calling
    every motherboard maker a liar by saying their temp reports are
    intentionally falsified (and you've done nothing to back that up despite
    my calling your bluff), and now you are preaching about Windows memory
    management, stating things as fact and following with "this 'theory' I
    'developed' could be wrong". Good cover.

    --
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    website: under construction
    Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    email/IM for rates/services
     
    DeMoN LaG, Dec 25, 2003
    #14
  15. Robert Baer

    Spajky® Guest

    On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 00:58:24 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:

    >... Considering you are calling
    >every motherboard maker a liar by saying their temp reports are
    >intentionally falsified (and you've done nothing to back that up despite
    >my calling your bluff).....


    where the hell did you get that!
    (I admit, English is not my native mother language, but only one of 5
    I use, so there could be some misunderstanding or misinterpretation
    involved!) &
    -- Regards, MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR, SPAJKY ®
    & visit my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
    Celly-III OC-ed,"Tualatin on BX-Slot1-MoBo!"
    E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##
     
    Spajky®, Dec 25, 2003
    #15
  16. Robert Baer

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    Spajky® <Spajky##@volja.net> wrote in
    news::

    > where the hell did you get that!


    Where did I get that? When I said my 2500+ barton core runs at 42C idle
    and you said that mobo makers do not give correct readings of the thermal
    diode inside the chip. Is this not your page:
    http://freeweb.siol.net/jerman55/HP/CalibAd.htm
    which you directed me to recently? You even cite Epox as not showing the
    correct temp, which is not true at all. Up until I replaced my Epox 8K3A
    with my Asus A7N8X-Deluxe, the Epox board gave me up to the second
    information about the internal temperature of my CPU. I could even look at
    it and watch it jump instantly from 42C one second to 52C a second later
    when the chip went from idle to 100% usage.

    Where is your proof?

    --
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    website: under construction
    Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    email/IM for rates/services
     
    DeMoN LaG, Dec 25, 2003
    #16
  17. Robert Baer

    Spajky® Guest

    On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 07:34:49 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:

    >... you said that mobo makers do not give correct readings of the thermal
    >diode inside the chip...You even cite Epox as not showing the
    >correct temp, which is not true at all.


    IMHO not all of them, not all ...

    >.. the Epox board gave me up to the second
    >information about the internal temperature of my CPU. I could even look at
    >it and watch it jump instantly from 42C one second to 52C a second later
    >when the chip went from idle to 100% usage.


    in just one second? Naaaahhh ... !

    "Don´t Worry, Be Happy" & Nice Hollidays, DeMoN LaG ... :)

    -- Regards, MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR, SPAJKY ®
    & visit my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
    Celly-III OC-ed,"Tualatin on BX-Slot1-MoBo!"
    E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##
     
    Spajky®, Dec 25, 2003
    #17
  18. Robert Baer

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    Spajky® <Spajky##@volja.net> wrote in
    news::

    > in just one second? Naaaahhh ... !


    Yes, in just one second. The internal temperature of a chip changes very
    quickly, while it takes the surface temps a few seconds to heat up or cool
    down.

    --
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    website: under construction
    Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    email/IM for rates/services
     
    DeMoN LaG, Dec 25, 2003
    #18
  19. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    DeMoN LaG wrote:
    >
    > Spajky® <Spajky##@volja.net> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > in just one second? Naaaahhh ... !

    >
    > Yes, in just one second. The internal temperature of a chip changes very
    > quickly, while it takes the surface temps a few seconds to heat up or cool
    > down.
    >
    > --
    > AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    > email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
    > website: under construction
    > Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
    > email/IM for rates/services


    I have been an electronic technician for over 40 years, and i can say
    that your observation is correct, but limited.
    If one could read the CPU chip temperature in real time, the increase
    would be seen in a few milliseconds or less; a thermal scanner looking
    at the chip surface would see the hot spots and see them grow in size in
    ten microseconds or less.
    Temperature decreases are a little slower due to the poor thermal
    conductivity of glass (silicon, to be picky).
     
    Robert Baer, Dec 26, 2003
    #19
  20. Robert Baer

    Spajky® Guest

    On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:36:13 GMT, Robert Baer
    <> wrote:

    >DeMoN LaG wrote:
    >>
    >> Spajky® <Spajky##@volja.net> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >> > in just one second? Naaaahhh ... !

    >>
    >> Yes, in just one second. The internal temperature of a chip changes very
    >> quickly, while it takes the surface temps a few seconds to heat up or cool
    >> down.


    > I have been an electronic technician for over 40 years, ....


    Myself beeing a hobby electronic technician for 30y ..

    > If one could read the CPU chip temperature in real time, the increase
    >would be seen in a few milliseconds or less; a thermal scanner looking
    >at the chip surface would see the hot spots and see them grow in size in
    >ten microseconds or less.
    > Temperature decreases are a little slower due to the poor thermal
    >conductivity of glass (silicon, to be picky).


    correct IMHO; but differences for an not so rich guy to have that
    equipment, can be seen also from onDie diode voltage/bias current thru
    it using a good analog oscilloscope or thru my "Gadget" & everage old
    analog oscilloscope too to check the behavior of that internal diodes
    voltage like I did time ago, when checking my innovative gadget
    behavior too ... :) /well not so fast & accurate like with expensive
    lab thermal scanner, but anyway ... / :)

    .... nice hollidays Robert ! ...


    -- Regards, MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR, SPAJKY ®
    & visit my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
    Celly-III OC-ed,"Tualatin on BX-Slot1-MoBo!"
    E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##
     
    Spajky®, Dec 26, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page