Why Pentium?

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Talal Itani, Jul 3, 2006.

  1. Talal Itani

    Rod Speed Guest

    Nope, its just a basic recognition of how many users operate.
    Thats a completely silly claim.
    Wrong with most personal desktop systems which dont need any
    careful choice of cpu at all. What happens in reality with the absolute
    vast bulk of those is a choice based on value for money instead.
    It makes a hell of a lot more sense to have the cpu
    behave gracefully when the shit hits the fan instead.
    Have fun explaining how come even amd
    now have a decent shutdown mechanism.

    Its nothing like as black and white as you are claiming.
    Nope, not if its a value for money personal desktop
    system where there are no considerations in the
    choice of the cpu except whats currently decent value
    for money with minimal hassles with chipset quirks etc.
    You clearly dont have a clue about what value
    for money personal desktop systems are about.
    It wouldnt have happened if it was just an awkwardly
    designed heatsink which could be installed improperly.
    He would have had the chance to see that the cpu temp
    was way out of line and check the heatsink to see why.

    Its completely mad that an awkwardly designed heatsink
    should see the cpu dead, particularly with the amd cpus
    that didnt at that stage come with boxed HS and fan.
    Mindlessly silly.
    Mindlessly silly.

    Nothing like the same thing as an awkwardly
    designed HS which can be improperly installed.
    Gets sillier by the minute.
    Gets sillier by the minute.
    Gets sillier by the minute.
    Not a clue, as always.
    There are ALWAYS problems.
    Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.
    No its not, its evidence of how that company does things.
    Gets sillier by the minute.
    Doesnt cost me a cent.
    What I choose to buy for myself is an entirely separate
    matter to what I have seen problems with.
    Gets sillier by the minute.
    Or it makes much more sense to buy on the basis of value
    for money instead with systems known to be reliable.
    Never said it was.
    In practice with what is done on most personal desktop systems,
    benchmarks are completely irrelevant. The user wont even notice
    any difference between any of the sensible alternatives in practice.
    And most users of personal desktop systems wont even notice if they
    arent running demanding games or stuff like transcoding video files.
    In practice with what is done on most personal desktop systems,
    benchmarks are completely irrelevant. The user wont even notice
    any difference between any of the sensible alternatives in practice.
    In practice games and transcoding video files are about
    the only things that are done much on most personal desktop
    systems where you will notice any effect of the cpu at all.
    Or just pick what's best value for money instead.

    That sort of benchmarking is a complete wank in the real world.
    Rod Speed, Jul 5, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Talal Itani

    Rod Speed Guest

    No I'm not, thats just one area where there
    isnt anything in it between intels and amds.
    Nothing marginal about it when the cpu fan
    fails or the heatsink isnt installed properly.
    Wrong again. Its quite common with fur buildup on the cpu fan.
    And if the thermal pad has just got damaged, it may well handle it fine.
    Duh, obviously since the current amds do now have a decent thermal shutdown mechanism.

    He was clearly commenting on the downsides of not having a decent
    thermal shutdown mechanism, and amd clearly NOW agrees with him.
    Rod Speed, Jul 5, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Talal Itani

    BC Guest

    BC, Jul 5, 2006
  4. Talal Itani

    kony Guest

    Cost is one major factor, considering notebook drives tend
    to be around $1 per GB still and the proposed fileserver
    will have at least a TB mirrored. Then there's the 40/44
    pin adapters dangling in air behind the drives, something
    I'd like to avoid for reliability's sake.

    I'd expect the notebook drives to be the most significant
    bottleneck, that I can underclock/undervolt the CPU and
    mainboard and still have over 30MB/s with desktop drives.
    It won't be necessary to underclock it but can't hurt in
    achieving long lifespan either, the system can remain viable
    for at least 10 years on GbE and a PCI based PATA & SATA
    card(s). Whatever I come up with for AC power conditioning
    will probably cost more than the entire system (sans drive
    costs). Plus, if I keep power consumption below a certain
    threshold, I have plenty of parts for building a redundant
    power board. Beyond that threshold, it becomes yet another
    expense, and same situation with some UPS I already have.
    I could justify the expenses if necessary, if I didn't have
    any fileservers yet but I do, so... It becomes more a matter
    of a creative exercise during a routine pre-planned
    obsolescence of one of my older fileservers. They run fine
    but I'd rather replace while they work rather than after one
    had failed, especially when it can be done at my leasure
    instead of an immediate necessity. That just allows playing
    around a bit before it's done.

    Essentially I'll be leveraging the most cost effective
    modern technologies and ignoring those with a high
    cost:benefit ratio. I can underclock to lengthen service
    intervals (except the inevitable drive failures over several
    years use) and promote longest motherboard lifespan. A
    light duty filesever just doesn't need much in the way of
    CPU performance and the software raid may be an issue but on
    a similar existing box with a Celeron 500, it never reaches
    100% CPU utilization more than momentarily, fractions of a
    second with averages (during transfers) well below 75% (I
    forget the exact percentage at the moment).

    If higher CPU performance had significant gain I could just
    put a higher performance platform to use but I expect the
    biggest bottleneck to be the 32bit/33MHz PCI bus as it was
    the case with post-1GHz Tualatin fileservers and it would
    raise costs by an order of magnitude to overcome that PCI
    limitation with a newer PCI Express or ported GbE platform &
    complimentary CPU. I'll have to benchmark it, maybe it
    won't perform well enough underclocked but it's hard to
    speculate as too few people have benchmarked C3 in these
    kinds of uses. I'd seen some filesystem benchmarks that
    make C3 look fine but not with software raid. So I'll
    underclock then compare and see...
    kony, Jul 5, 2006
  5. Talal Itani

    kony Guest

    Isn't anything in what?

    Either platform has had overheat shutdown for years now.
    Early socket A didn't but were you buying an early socket A
    based system new today?

    Marginally better means that with the thermal sensor in the
    CPU, it will react faster, but it need not react that fast
    if the fan failed or 'sink was clogged with dust, because
    the temp doesn't rise so fast in these conditions.

    Yes and that scenario you post IS handled by AMD's solution.
    Did you think there was NO thermal shutdown at all? Perhaps
    this is where you are mislead.

    So how do you propose to damage it?

    Again this is a very narrow change in thermal rise, "IF" it
    were too fast for one thermal sensor to handle shutdown but
    still slow enough for another to do so safely.

    .... and the XPs did too on the motherboard. Fan fails?
    Motherboard shuts it down. Dust? Again, motherboard shuts
    it down. Heatsink falls off? CPU may fry but so have P4s.

    You have to reach to find a realistic scenario where it'll
    make a real-world difference.
    He was commenting about it as if it's a reason not to choose
    AMD, now. Instead, it is a reason not to choose that one
    old platform, which is same thing I've commented on all
    along, that a particular issue with some old platform is not
    an indictment against an entire company's line of products,
    particularly later generation products. Again, same thing
    applies to any earlier generation Intel bugs, it in now way
    reflects on what you'd buy today as a current gen. part.
    kony, Jul 5, 2006
  6. Talal Itani

    kony Guest

    On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 14:32:15 +1000, "Rod Speed"

    Is this why you need backup systems in place?

    For over a decade systems managed to run without CPU
    shutdown mechanisms, and do so fine so long as the fans
    worked and dust was kept in check. It's really that simple,
    elimination of the failure points is what makes a good
    system, not trying to fail gracefully then having system
    downtime till the failure point is fixed.

    Again, I didn't claim a CPU shutdown mechanism is worthless,
    rather than it should never be considered until after "there
    were ... good fans installed". One is necessary for a
    long-term reliable system, the other only if the system
    wasn't reliable in the first place.
    kony, Jul 5, 2006
  7. Talal Itani

    Rod Speed Guest

    With cpus that dont burn up if the cpu fan fails.
    And few bother to do a damned thing about dust.
    More mindlessly silly stuff. Anyone with a clue designs a
    system so that the most expensive component in the system
    doesnt die if something as basic as a cpu fan fails.
    More fool you. Plenty, including intel and now amd, have enough of a
    clue to ensure that the the most expensive component in most systems,
    the cpu, doesnt die when something as basic as the cpu fan dies.
    More mindlessly silly stuff.

    Just as well that you dont get any say on the design of anything, ever.
    Rod Speed, Jul 5, 2006
  8. Talal Itani

    Rod Speed Guest

    You cant actually be THAT stupid.

    Anything in the brand of the cpu, stupid.
    So much for your stupid pig ignorant claim that that has no value.
    Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether cpus that
    will die if the cpu fan stops, should have overheat shutdown.
    Have fun explaining why even amd has that now.
    Or perhaps not.

    Having fun thrashing that straw man are you ?
    By taking the heatsink off and replacing it again.
    Have fun explaining why even amd has that now.
    Have fun explaining why even amd has thermal shutdown now.
    Have fun explaining why even amd has thermal shutdown now.
    No he wasnt.
    Have fun explaining why even amd has thermal shutdown now.
    Rod Speed, Jul 5, 2006
  9. Talal Itani

    Trent Guest

    Yes, it's much more preferable to have your computer shut down without
    notice, and lose any work in progress.

    (*rolls eyes*)
    Trent, Jul 5, 2006
  10. Talal Itani

    Conor Guest

    You'd only lose more than 10 minutes or so work.

    Decent software autosaves periodically.

    Backup software configured correctly monitors changes in document
    folders, would see the autosave and back it up.

    So what you're actually indicating by that comment is that you're quite

    Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
    and/or Windows Vista is released.

    Cashback on online purchases:
    Conor, Jul 5, 2006
  11. Huh? I would think that an engineer/artist in the business of
    producing CAD/animation would consider "that" a business activity. A
    lot of people use the same systems for more than one role especially
    for small businesses. Furthermore, large spreadsheets can take a
    pretty long time to update with every change (I've seen some that
    takes like over a minute for each refresh).
    The little lost angel, Jul 5, 2006
  12. Talal Itani

    JAD Guest

    WORK IN PROGRESS.....get it? 10 15 minuters... whatever its WORK IN
    PROGRESS..... and hang around a video rendering machine and listen to the
    lab SCREAM when a system goes down......
    JAD, Jul 5, 2006
  13. Talal Itani

    kony Guest

    I claim there is no value in considering it until after the
    problems you cite are addressed, the REASON it would be even
    slightly useful.

    Again, that is not what I was discussing, rather the
    incompetence of someone who gives this a thought before
    setting up a system properly, reliably.

    .... because some people who shouldn't be building systems,
    do. Same people tend to make other mistakes as well, and in
    the end AMD and Intel took a step that guards them against
    some forms of incompetence but the system itself still
    suffered the downtime.
    kony, Jul 5, 2006
  14. Talal Itani

    kony Guest

    Maybe if you lose enough you'll learn to just set a system
    up right instead of trying to shift the burden?
    kony, Jul 5, 2006
  15. Talal Itani

    kony Guest

    You routinely run large jobs on systems not proven to be
    stable? Find a mirror when it's time to scream.
    kony, Jul 5, 2006
  16. Talal Itani

    kony Guest

    On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 20:14:38 +1000, "Rod Speed"

    You are actually suggesting that someone is SO reckless that
    they're buying an expensive CPU for a box they arent'
    bothering to fit with good fans?

    Apparently so, as I did not argue there was no benefit at
    all to the shutdown mechanism, rather it is an unrealistic
    concern in a properly configured (from a hardware
    standpoint) system. I argued it shouldn't be considered
    BEFORE you had the system set up properly against the kinds
    of problems you suggest would make the feature of benefit.

    Note the word "before" above. You argued against that, and
    in doing so, show no clue about system uptime. A down
    system in itself can cost more than the loss of the CPU,
    even multiple times as much.
    kony, Jul 5, 2006
  17. That's a very limited view of "business computing". As a broad category,
    e.g., decision support systems can do some very heavy duty calculations,
    whether it be financial analysis or strategic & tactical planning for any
    part of a manufacturing business.
    George Macdonald, Jul 5, 2006
  18. Talal Itani

    Rod Speed Guest

    Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.
    Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.
    Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.
    Lying now.
    Never ever could bullshit its way out of its predicament.
    Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.
    Rod Speed, Jul 5, 2006
  19. Talal Itani

    Rod Speed Guest

    Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.
    You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
    Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.
    Wrong, as always.
    Or they actually have enough of a clue to realise that it makes
    absolutely no sense for the cpu to die when something as basic
    as a fan failure can do that to the most expensive component,
    particularly when thermal shutdown costs peanuts.

    Just as well you get no say what so ever on anything at all, ever.
    Rod Speed, Jul 5, 2006
  20. Talal Itani

    Mike T. Guest

    Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.
    Because cooling fans fail. (duh) -Dave
    Mike T., Jul 5, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.