Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

removing heatsink with Arctic Silver Ceramique...?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 30, 2004 4:49:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

when assembling my system i used a thermaltake cooler with arctic silver
ceramique. if i want to try out a new heatsink can it actually be
removed...? the specs on ceramique say it can be cleaned off and doesn't
mention adhesive properties... but i've tried and although it swivels a
bit indicating its not set like glue, its seems pretty stuck on there...
i don't want to pull too hard and tear my Athlon64 to shreds... hmm what
to do.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 30, 2004 4:49:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

gimp wrote:

> when assembling my system i used a thermaltake cooler with arctic silver
> ceramique. if i want to try out a new heatsink can it actually be
> removed...? the specs on ceramique say it can be cleaned off and doesn't
> mention adhesive properties... but i've tried and although it swivels a
> bit indicating its not set like glue, its seems pretty stuck on there...
> i don't want to pull too hard and tear my Athlon64 to shreds... hmm what
> to do.

I think all the heat over the months/years must have hardened it on.

I had the same problem while removing a heatsink from a P4 which had
Arctic Silver 3 on it, I wrenched the heatsink and processor (one unit)
out of the socket, and had to use a craft knife to get the buggers
apart, upon doing so the CPU fell several feet to the floor, bending
several pins. I haven't tested that processor, I hope it still works!

Anyway, my advice to you is to run a torture test on the processor for a
decent time, that should make it easier to get off. Failing that: use
some violence :) 

Anton
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 30, 2004 4:49:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"gimp" <anonymous@smeg.com> wrote in message
news:cqvj9u$911$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> when assembling my system i used a thermaltake cooler with arctic silver
> ceramique. if i want to try out a new heatsink can it actually be
> removed...? the specs on ceramique say it can be cleaned off and doesn't
> mention adhesive properties... but i've tried and although it swivels a
> bit indicating its not set like glue, its seems pretty stuck on there... i
> don't want to pull too hard and tear my Athlon64 to shreds... hmm what to
> do.

Try letting the system run for a while until the heatsink is good and warm
but not so hot that you can't handle it. Then disassemble quickly.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 30, 2004 5:11:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <cr0e9n$s2b$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, from the wonderful person gimp
<anonymous@smeg.com> said
>removed it :)  heh it pulled the cpu right out despite the fact the
>lever was closed... at least it works ok with the new cooler which is
>good ;)  bizarely enough the cpu slid off easy sideways, just doesn't
>seem to come off vertically with that ceramique stuff.

That's due to surface tension + vacuum/air pressure effect .. haven't
you ever stuck two sheets of window glass together using plain tap
water? If you can achieve a really good seal you get ~15lbs Sq Inch ..
i.e. a ton per square foot!

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 30, 2004 7:05:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

carl wrote:
> are you sure that you have used ceramique,

yes. :)  it came in the 2.7g tube as shown on that link.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 30, 2004 8:11:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Anton Gÿsen wrote:
> I had the same problem while removing a heatsink from a P4 which had
> Arctic Silver 3 on it, I wrenched the heatsink and processor (one unit)
> out of the socket[snip]

yeah if the ceramique is stuck on how come it doesn't pull my cpu right
out of the socket - i guess there must be a cpu lever which i can't
reach/see.

i'll get the cpu heat up a bit and then try it :) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2004 12:29:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

removed it :)  heh it pulled the cpu right out despite the fact the lever
was closed... at least it works ok with the new cooler which is good ;) 
bizarely enough the cpu slid off easy sideways, just doesn't seem to
come off vertically with that ceramique stuff.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2004 12:29:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

gimp wrote:

> removed it :)  heh it pulled the cpu right out despite the fact the lever
> was closed.

Yeah, that's what happened to me (see above). I'm amazed that it doesn't
damage the socket.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2004 1:35:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Anton Gÿsen" wrote in message...
> Yeah, that's what happened to me (see above). I'm amazed that it
> doesn't damage the socket.

Heh, the ZIF socket closure is designed only to create a decent contact, not
hold the CPU into the socket (that's partly why LGA775 looks the way it
does).
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2004 2:08:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Richard Hopkins wrote:

> "Anton Gÿsen" wrote in message...
>
>> Yeah, that's what happened to me (see above). I'm amazed that it
>> doesn't damage the socket.
>
>
> Heh, the ZIF socket closure is designed only to create a decent contact,
> not hold the CPU into the socket (that's partly why LGA775 looks the way
> it does).

LGA775 is strange, I think Intel have lost the plot at the moment, and
I'm as much of an Intel fanboy as the next person, I'm typing this on a
3.06ghz P4 which I'm very pleased with.

I mean, why bother changing to some strange T-shaped socket when the old
socket technology is tried and tested. After all, Athlon64s seem to be
alright, don't they?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2004 3:53:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:49:00 +1300, gimp <anonymous@smeg.com> wrote:

>when assembling my system i used a thermaltake cooler with arctic silver
>ceramique. if i want to try out a new heatsink can it actually be
>removed...? the specs on ceramique say it can be cleaned off and doesn't
>mention adhesive properties... but i've tried and although it swivels a
>bit indicating its not set like glue, its seems pretty stuck on there...
>i don't want to pull too hard and tear my Athlon64 to shreds... hmm what
>to do.

Let the system run for a good 10-15 minutes, ideally actually doing
something that will make the CPU work for a bit (one of those
distributed computing programs should do the trick, or a quick round
of your favorite game). After the stuff has heated up it should come
free with no trouble. Alternatively you can use a hair dryer to heat
it up.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2004 4:11:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Anton Gÿsen" wrote in message...
> LGA775 is strange, I think Intel have lost the plot at the moment,

Intel are definitely on a bit of a downer at the mo, but that's down to
their desktop CPU design not panning out. The LGA775 package is actually one
of the better things they've done this year!

> I mean, why bother changing to some strange T-shaped socket

It's square, really, despite the nickname! ;-)

> After all, Athlon64s seem to be alright, don't they?

Just wait and see what AMD's *next* package looks like!

The reasons behind LGA775 looking the way it does are numerous, and they're
for the better - largely for Intel, but for end users too. Probably the most
important advance is that the CPU is held in the socket from the top, and
the structural integrity of the entire motherboard-socket-CPU-heatsink
sandwich is much improved. The changes greatly reduce the chance of the
heatsink breaking away from the board and taking the processor with it.

The fact that the pins are on the motherboard instead of the processor also
makes the CPU's cheaper to make, and shifts warranty responsibility for pin
failures away from Intel to the board manufacturers, which is obviously a
good thing for Intel.
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
December 31, 2004 12:54:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:11:19 +0000, Richard Hopkins wrote:

> "Anton Gÿsen" wrote in message...
>> LGA775 is strange, I think Intel have lost the plot at the moment,
>
> Intel are definitely on a bit of a downer at the mo, but that's down to
> their desktop CPU design not panning out. The LGA775 package is actually one
> of the better things they've done this year!

LGAs aren't new. Thre's a reason they haven't been used in the PC market
though. Decent LGA sockets aren't cheap. I'd want to see how this one
plays for a while before jumping on.
>
>> I mean, why bother changing to some strange T-shaped socket
>
> It's square, really, despite the nickname! ;-)
>
>> After all, Athlon64s seem to be alright, don't they?
>
> Just wait and see what AMD's *next* package looks like!

Ok...

> The reasons behind LGA775 looking the way it does are numerous, and
> they're for the better - largely for Intel, but for end users too.
> Probably the most important advance is that the CPU is held in the
> socket from the top, and the structural integrity of the entire
> motherboard-socket-CPU-heatsink sandwich is much improved. The changes
> greatly reduce the chance of the heatsink breaking away from the board
> and taking the processor with it.

Huh? Have you looked at the Opteron stack? If the fansink goes west,
it's taking the board, or a good portion, with it. The fansink is
screwed down to the board.
>
> The fact that the pins are on the motherboard instead of the processor
> also makes the CPU's cheaper to make, and shifts warranty responsibility
> for pin failures away from Intel to the board manufacturers, which is
> obviously a good thing for Intel.

.....but has no benefit to the end user, other than another place for the
board maker (the one making close to nothing) to screw up. Again, there
is good reason LGA's didn't make it to the PC space before. This is a
definite wait-n-see.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2005 2:47:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Richard Hopkins wrote:

> "Anton Gÿsen" wrote in message...
>
>> LGA775 is strange, I think Intel have lost the plot at the moment,
>
>
> Intel are definitely on a bit of a downer at the mo, but that's down to
> their desktop CPU design not panning out. The LGA775 package is actually
> one of the better things they've done this year!
>
>> I mean, why bother changing to some strange T-shaped socket
>
>
> It's square, really, despite the nickname! ;-)

Square, but the pins are in a "T" shaped arrangement, IIRC.

>> After all, Athlon64s seem to be alright, don't they?
>
>
> Just wait and see what AMD's *next* package looks like!

Do you know something that every else doesn't?

> The reasons behind LGA775 looking the way it does are numerous, and
> they're for the better - largely for Intel, but for end users too.
> Probably the most important advance is that the CPU is held in the
> socket from the top, and the structural integrity of the entire
> motherboard-socket-CPU-heatsink sandwich is much improved. The changes
> greatly reduce the chance of the heatsink breaking away from the board
> and taking the processor with it.

That does sound like a good idea, I was put off LGA775 when I heard that
you could only take the CPU in and out of the socket 20 or so times. I
don't know how accurate that is.
Although I'll admit I don't know much about LGA775.

> The fact that the pins are on the motherboard instead of the processor
> also makes the CPU's cheaper to make, and shifts warranty responsibility
> for pin failures away from Intel to the board manufacturers, which is
> obviously a good thing for Intel.

Indeed. Cheaper CPUs = happy customers.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2005 2:47:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Richard Hopkins wrote:

> "Anton Gÿsen" wrote in message...
>
>> LGA775 is strange, I think Intel have lost the plot at the moment,
>
>
> Intel are definitely on a bit of a downer at the mo, but that's down to
> their desktop CPU design not panning out. The LGA775 package is actually
> one of the better things they've done this year!
>
>> I mean, why bother changing to some strange T-shaped socket
>
>
> It's square, really, despite the nickname! ;-)

Square, but the pins are in a "T" shaped arrangement, IIRC.

>> After all, Athlon64s seem to be alright, don't they?
>
>
> Just wait and see what AMD's *next* package looks like!

Do you know something that every else doesn't?

> The reasons behind LGA775 looking the way it does are numerous, and
> they're for the better - largely for Intel, but for end users too.
> Probably the most important advance is that the CPU is held in the
> socket from the top, and the structural integrity of the entire
> motherboard-socket-CPU-heatsink sandwich is much improved. The changes
> greatly reduce the chance of the heatsink breaking away from the board
> and taking the processor with it.

That does sound like a good idea, I was put off LGA775 when I heard that
you could only take the CPU in and out of the socket 20 or so times. I
don't know how accurate that is.
Although I'll admit I don't know much about LGA775.

> The fact that the pins are on the motherboard instead of the processor
> also makes the CPU's cheaper to make, and shifts warranty responsibility
> for pin failures away from Intel to the board manufacturers, which is
> obviously a good thing for Intel.

Indeed. Cheaper CPUs = happy customers.

Anton
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2005 5:41:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:54:42 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:11:19 +0000, Richard Hopkins wrote:

>> The reasons behind LGA775 looking the way it does are numerous, and
>> they're for the better - largely for Intel, but for end users too.
>> Probably the most important advance is that the CPU is held in the
>> socket from the top, and the structural integrity of the entire
>> motherboard-socket-CPU-heatsink sandwich is much improved. The changes
>> greatly reduce the chance of the heatsink breaking away from the board
>> and taking the processor with it.
>
>Huh? Have you looked at the Opteron stack? If the fansink goes west,
>it's taking the board, or a good portion, with it. The fansink is
>screwed down to the board.

Agree - the heatsink frame attached to the mbrd has been around for a while
with Athlon64 and Intel CPUs. I haven't seen a P4 up close but the
Athlon64 has a reinforcing plate under the mbrd.

>> The fact that the pins are on the motherboard instead of the processor
>> also makes the CPU's cheaper to make, and shifts warranty responsibility
>> for pin failures away from Intel to the board manufacturers, which is
>> obviously a good thing for Intel.
>
>....but has no benefit to the end user, other than another place for the
>board maker (the one making close to nothing) to screw up. Again, there
>is good reason LGA's didn't make it to the PC space before. This is a
>definite wait-n-see.

I think LGA775 and its retention mechansim may be a preamble to BTX -
no?... and on looking at BTX with an eye to the future, it appears to me
that it could be a preamble to more proprietary system integration...
ultimately, maybe even some form of encapsulated multi-chip "module",
including graphics, MCH and IOCH, for the mass market at least. How else
is Intel going to compete?;-) They've been dreaming of a SOC since 1986 or
so but the pace of CPU advances, due to competition, has precluded it.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
January 2, 2005 2:33:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:47:27 +0000, Anton Gÿsen wrote:

> Richard Hopkins wrote:
>
>> "Anton Gÿsen" wrote in message...

<snip>

>> The reasons behind LGA775 looking the way it does are numerous, and
>> they're for the better - largely for Intel, but for end users too.
>> Probably the most important advance is that the CPU is held in the
>> socket from the top, and the structural integrity of the entire
>> motherboard-socket-CPU-heatsink sandwich is much improved. The changes
>> greatly reduce the chance of the heatsink breaking away from the board
>> and taking the processor with it.
>
> That does sound like a good idea, I was put off LGA775 when I heard that
> you could only take the CPU in and out of the socket 20 or so times. I
> don't know how accurate that is.
> Although I'll admit I don't know much about LGA775.

Tha't always been the problem with LGA sockets. LGA is basically a BGA
wihtout the Bs.

>> The fact that the pins are on the motherboard instead of the processor
>> also makes the CPU's cheaper to make, and shifts warranty
>> responsibility for pin failures away from Intel to the board
>> manufacturers, which is obviously a good thing for Intel.
>
> Indeed. Cheaper CPUs = happy customers.

Why? First, the cost of the package has nothing to do with the price
you pay (cost <> price). Second, if the cost of the connector is
transferred from the processor to the motherboard, how does that help you?

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 2, 2005 8:40:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

keith wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:47:27 +0000, Anton Gÿsen wrote:
>
>
>>Richard Hopkins wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Anton Gÿsen" wrote in message...
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>The reasons behind LGA775 looking the way it does are numerous, and
>>>they're for the better - largely for Intel, but for end users too.
>>>Probably the most important advance is that the CPU is held in the
>>>socket from the top, and the structural integrity of the entire
>>>motherboard-socket-CPU-heatsink sandwich is much improved. The changes
>>>greatly reduce the chance of the heatsink breaking away from the board
>>>and taking the processor with it.
>>
>>That does sound like a good idea, I was put off LGA775 when I heard that
>>you could only take the CPU in and out of the socket 20 or so times. I
>>don't know how accurate that is.
>>Although I'll admit I don't know much about LGA775.
>
>
> Tha't always been the problem with LGA sockets. LGA is basically a BGA
> wihtout the Bs.
>
>
>>>The fact that the pins are on the motherboard instead of the processor
>>>also makes the CPU's cheaper to make, and shifts warranty
>>>responsibility for pin failures away from Intel to the board
>>>manufacturers, which is obviously a good thing for Intel.
>>
>>Indeed. Cheaper CPUs = happy customers.
>
>
> Why? First, the cost of the package has nothing to do with the price
> you pay (cost <> price). Second, if the cost of the connector is
> transferred from the processor to the motherboard, how does that help you?
>

And if there are pins to be broken, I'd as soon have
them broken on a CPU. It takes a heck of a lot less
time to replace a CPU than it takes for a motherboard swap.

Breaking a pin off a CPU socket would be a real ... umm ...
annoyance after you told the customer that his server would
only be down for ten minutes while you upgraded the
processors and added some RAM. You almost always have
a spare CPU on hand, but even if you have a spare
motherboard on hand it can cost the customer a lot of money
if his server is down for an hour instead of the 10 minutes
you promised him. The price difference between a
CPU and a motherboard can be trivial in that situation.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2005 1:10:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Anton Gÿsen" wrote in message...
> Square, but the pins are in a "T" shaped arrangement, IIRC.

They're not really "pins", they're fingers. IIRC the "Socket T" nickname
originally came from the fact that the hole in the top of the CPU retainer
is sorta "T"-shaped.

>> Just wait and see what AMD's *next* package looks like!
>
> Do you know something that every else doesn't?

Yes and no. Intel's transition to this design is nothing more than a logical
side effect of increasing pin counts and decreasing CPU package sizes. More
connections in a smaller package means higher pin density, so you have to
cram the pin, insulation and (if you keep the ZIF socket) all the contacts
and sliding stuff into ever decreasing spaces. Intel obviously decided the
time was right to re-evaluate things, and design something that'll work for
the current and a number of future generations of CPU's.

So yes, as AMD's CPU's are also transitioning to smaller packages and larger
pin counts, it's only a matter of time before they adopt a similar design.
Probably sooner rather than later, seeing as Intel have now done all the
R&D, and taken the initial lumps for daring to reinvent the wheel.

> That does sound like a good idea, I was put off LGA775 when I
> heard that you could only take the CPU in and out of the socket 20
> or so times. I don't know how accurate that is.

Just another bullshit scare story that stupid people like to spread. This
all comes from Intel specifying that the design should be capable of at
least 20 successful insert/extract procedures. It doesn't mean that your
socket will self-destruct the 21st time you pull the chip out.

The thing the stupid people forget to mention is that Socket 478, Socket
370, Socket 7, basically every ZIF socket Intel ever designed was also only
ever specified for 20 operations, so in this respect it's no worse any any
of its predecessors. Provided you're not ham-fisted or simply unlucky,
there's no reason to expect you'd have problems with it.
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2005 4:41:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.12.31.14.54.40.9079@att.bizzzz...
> Decent LGA sockets aren't cheap.

There's no fundamental reason why this design of socket should be
fundamentally more expensive than the mPGA solution, as the requirements are
basically the same.

IIRC Foxconn charges something like four times as much for a Socket 775
assembly as they do for an mPGA478 at the moment, so in some ways you're
right. However, pretty much anything gets cheap if you make enough of 'em,
so as volumes ramp and production techniques improve, I'm sure the cost will
drop.

> Huh? Have you looked at the Opteron stack?

Of course. However, how AMD do their stuff is AMD's business. This thread's
about LGA775, and why Intel chose the design they did as the successor to
mPGA478.

>> The fact that the pins are on the motherboard instead of the processor
>> also makes the CPU's cheaper to make, and shifts warranty responsibility
>> for pin failures away from Intel to the board manufacturers, which is
>> obviously a good thing for Intel.
>
> ....but has no benefit to the end user, other than another place for the
> board maker (the one making close to nothing) to screw up.

Don't forget the biggest manufacturer of motherboards for Intel processors
is... Intel. It's not in their interests to make a socket design that'll
come back to bite them, while it's also unlikely that they'd set out to make
a socket that'd annoy their chipset customers.

> Again, there is good reason LGA's didn't make it to the PC space
> before.

Sure, the reason was that ZIF sockets were a proven solution that met the
requirements of previous technologies. The PC industry doesn't stand still,
and from time to time solutions need to be rethought. This is just one of
those occasions. Did you react with equal skepticism when PCI replaced ISA
and VL-Bus?

> This is a definite wait-n-see.

It's difficult not to see this as flat-earthism of a sort. Sure, the new
socket looks very different, but from a system integrity and electrical
standpoint it looks good. All the scaremongering that's been going on is
frankly ridiculous, and very difficult to understand.
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
January 3, 2005 4:41:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 01:41:20 +0000, Richard Hopkins wrote:

> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.12.31.14.54.40.9079@att.bizzzz...
>> Decent LGA sockets aren't cheap.
>
> There's no fundamental reason why this design of socket should be
> fundamentally more expensive than the mPGA solution, as the requirements are
> basically the same.

DO you have experience in this area? I have a little. LGAs sockets
aren't all that wonderful. They are expensive.

> IIRC Foxconn charges something like four times as much for a Socket 775
> assembly as they do for an mPGA478 at the moment, so in some ways you're
> right. However, pretty much anything gets cheap if you make enough of
> 'em, so as volumes ramp and production techniques improve, I'm sure the
> cost will drop.

Perhaps. I'll wait for the dummies to pay, thanks. LGA doesn't pay
unless you're going to bond 'em right to the board, in which case BGA is a
better solution, IMO. Unfortunately, the PC marketplace doesn't allow
this.

>> Huh? Have you looked at the Opteron stack?
>
> Of course. However, how AMD do their stuff is AMD's business. This
> thread's about LGA775, and why Intel chose the design they did as the
> successor to mPGA478.

Didn't you say the fansink was going to rip out the pins and bend 'em or
sonething equally silly? Hell, even the PII had better retention than
this. Or are you saying that Intel has completely lost their marbles?

My point is that there *are* ways of securing the stack, better than a
LGA. In fact the LGA package, by itself, solves nothing. The brackets
around it still have minimize the forces on the chip/socket interface.

>>> The fact that the pins are on the motherboard instead of the processor
>>> also makes the CPU's cheaper to make, and shifts warranty
>>> responsibility for pin failures away from Intel to the board
>>> manufacturers, which is obviously a good thing for Intel.
>>
>> ....but has no benefit to the end user, other than another place for
>> the board maker (the one making close to nothing) to screw up.
>
> Don't forget the biggest manufacturer of motherboards for Intel
> processors is... Intel.

Wrong! Intel hasn't made a board in *years* (five or six, IIRC). They
rely on the same board makers as everyone else.

> It's not in their interests to make a socket
> design that'll come back to bite them, while it's also unlikely that
> they'd set out to make a socket that'd annoy their chipset customers.

Their track record of "not getting bitten" isn't too great these days.

>> Again, there is good reason LGA's didn't make it to the PC space
>> before.
>
> Sure, the reason was that ZIF sockets were a proven solution that met
> the requirements of previous technologies. The PC industry doesn't stand
> still, and from time to time solutions need to be rethought. This is
> just one of those occasions. Did you react with equal skepticism when
> PCI replaced ISA and VL-Bus?

Irrelevant posturing. LGAs are *not* new. Just because Intel now makes a
stink about them only makes it new stink.
>
>> This is a definite wait-n-see.
>
> It's difficult not to see this as flat-earthism of a sort. Sure, the new
> socket looks very different, but from a system integrity and electrical
> standpoint it looks good. All the scaremongering that's been going on is
> frankly ridiculous, and very difficult to understand.

LGA is *NOT* new. Can't you get that through your mind?! I
worked with LGAs five-six years ago. I didn't like them then (only BGA
sockets were worse) and don't see how they're going to be magically
improved by Intel. ZIFs aren't all that wonderful, but large pinout ZIFs
are well known, and cheap.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2005 4:55:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Rob Stow" wrote in message...
> And if there are pins to be broken, I'd as soon have
> them broken on a CPU.

The thing you're forgetting is that ZIF sockets are also full of little
fiddly components, many of which are effectively moving parts. The higher
the pin density gets, the more fiddly and fragile they get. If Intel had
stuck with the pinned CPU/ZIF design for the 775 conductor socket, there's
every likelihood that socket damage would have been *more* of an issue than
whatever results from Socket 775.

> It takes a heck of a lot less time to replace a CPU than it takes for
> a motherboard swap.

I can see where your concern is coming from, but bitching about what we got
while failing to consider what the alternative would have been seems a
little unrealistic. The pinned CPU/ZIF socket concept becomes increasingly
difficult to implement as the pin density rises.

In any case, have you actually broken an LGA775 assembly yet? While outright
ham-fistedness probably wouldn't do them any good, they're not chronically
fragile as some seem to be fearing/painting them as.

> Breaking a pin off a CPU socket would be a real ... umm ...
> annoyance after you told the customer that his server would
> only be down for ten minutes while you upgraded the
> processors and added some RAM.

Come again? You reckon you can take a server out of service, strip it,
upgrade two (for the sake of example) processors, add at least one DIMM,
reassemble the case and get it back into service within ten minutes? You
might get it done in the time if you rush, but if you're rushing, there's
more chance of screwing something up.

Provided you're not terminally clumsy or somewhat unlucky you won't break an
LGA775 socket. Surely the way to go would be to tell your client that the
server will be down for 20 minutes, and take the extra to make sure you get
everything right without having to rush. That way you'll probably take less
time than the estimate so leaving the customer smiling and impressed with
your apparently rapid handiwork.

> You almost always have a spare CPU on hand, but even if you have
> a spare motherboard on hand it can cost the customer a lot of money
> if his server is down for an hour instead of the 10 minutes you
> promised him. The price difference between a CPU and a
> motherboard can be trivial in that situation.

If anything, the Socket 775 design is probably *more* robust than the
obvious alternative. By simplifying the design of the socket and
re-orienting the conductor "fingers" horizontally instead of vertically,
Intel have effectively freed up more space for the conductors, which allows
them to be larger than they otherwise would have been, and hence
stronger/more durable.

Yes I know AMD stuck with the "old way" for their 939/940 pin designs, but
their CPU substrates are appreciably bigger than Intel's, and they also use
the full area of the socket for pins, something that either apparently
wasn't an option for Intel, or if it was, one they didn't feel was as good
as what they went with. As I said further up, just wait and see what AMD's
next package looks like...
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
January 3, 2005 4:55:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 01:55:49 +0000, Richard Hopkins wrote:

> "Rob Stow" wrote in message...
>> And if there are pins to be broken, I'd as soon have
>> them broken on a CPU.
>
> The thing you're forgetting is that ZIF sockets are also full of little
> fiddly components, many of which are effectively moving parts. The higher
> the pin density gets, the more fiddly and fragile they get. If Intel had
> stuck with the pinned CPU/ZIF design for the 775 conductor socket, there's
> every likelihood that socket damage would have been *more* of an issue than
> whatever results from Socket 775.

....and we had 1800 pin ZIFs 30 years ago. They were a tad on the
expensive side, but they worked fine. They still work and are cheap.

The 940 pin Opteron package is quite robust. I don't see a couple of
hundred more pins to be any big problem. Keeping that many pins planar,
I see to be a real problem though.

>> It takes a heck of a lot less time to replace a CPU than it takes for a
>> motherboard swap.
>
> I can see where your concern is coming from, but bitching about what we
> got while failing to consider what the alternative would have been seems
> a little unrealistic. The pinned CPU/ZIF socket concept becomes
> increasingly difficult to implement as the pin density rises.

No more so than a pinned socket. Something has to make up for the
difference in planarity between the board and the chip. A pin in a clip
is proven to work very well.

> In any case, have you actually broken an LGA775 assembly yet? While
> outright ham-fistedness probably wouldn't do them any good, they're not
> chronically fragile as some seem to be fearing/painting them as.

I havent' touched a 775, and am never likely to do so. However Iv'e seen
a fair share of LGAs wasted half that size. ...adn they were *expensife*
sockets ($50 each). We spend upwards of $3K each for good
low-inductance BGA/LGA sockets.

> Yes I know AMD stuck with the "old way" for their 939/940 pin designs,
> but their CPU substrates are appreciably bigger than Intel's, and they
> also use the full area of the socket for pins, something that either
> apparently wasn't an option for Intel, or if it was, one they didn't
> feel was as good as what they went with. As I said further up, just wait
> and see what AMD's next package looks like...

Ah, there you have it. The "new" way (which isn't) is *always* better
than the "old" way. ...that works perfectly well. Thre is a reason LGA
didn't take the world by storm 5-10 years ago.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2005 5:42:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 22:10:23 -0000, "Richard Hopkins"
<richh@dsl.nospam.co.uk> wrote:

>"Anton Gÿsen" wrote in message...
>> Square, but the pins are in a "T" shaped arrangement, IIRC.
>
>They're not really "pins", they're fingers. IIRC the "Socket T" nickname
>originally came from the fact that the hole in the top of the CPU retainer
>is sorta "T"-shaped.
>
>>> Just wait and see what AMD's *next* package looks like!
>>
>> Do you know something that every else doesn't?
>
>Yes and no. Intel's transition to this design is nothing more than a logical
>side effect of increasing pin counts and decreasing CPU package sizes. More
>connections in a smaller package means higher pin density, so you have to
>cram the pin, insulation and (if you keep the ZIF socket) all the contacts
>and sliding stuff into ever decreasing spaces. Intel obviously decided the
>time was right to re-evaluate things, and design something that'll work for
>the current and a number of future generations of CPU's.
>
>So yes, as AMD's CPU's are also transitioning to smaller packages and larger
>pin counts, it's only a matter of time before they adopt a similar design.
>Probably sooner rather than later, seeing as Intel have now done all the
>R&D, and taken the initial lumps for daring to reinvent the wheel.

AMD's pin density has been higher for some time - we'll see if they follow
Intel or not -- and you've already been told that Intel did not invent
anything. I don't see much R&D here.

>> That does sound like a good idea, I was put off LGA775 when I
>> heard that you could only take the CPU in and out of the socket 20
>> or so times. I don't know how accurate that is.
>
>Just another bullshit scare story that stupid people like to spread. This
>all comes from Intel specifying that the design should be capable of at
>least 20 successful insert/extract procedures. It doesn't mean that your
>socket will self-destruct the 21st time you pull the chip out.
>
>The thing the stupid people forget to mention is that Socket 478, Socket
>370, Socket 7, basically every ZIF socket Intel ever designed was also only
>ever specified for 20 operations, so in this respect it's no worse any any
>of its predecessors. Provided you're not ham-fisted or simply unlucky,
>there's no reason to expect you'd have problems with it.

Anyone can tell at a glance that the mechanism is more fragile and prone to
damage... though it does make reqts. for handling & packaging of the CPU
less rigorous.

>Richard Hopkins
>Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
>(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
>
>The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
>Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com

I'm not sure how other people feel about direct advertising in this
newsgroup but I'm sure there are a number of other people -- not me -- who
would like to benefit from the privilege if accorded. If it comes to a
question of all or none I'd think the choice would have to be the latter...
but maybe others can comment??

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
January 4, 2005 1:55:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:42:19 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

<snip all content>

>>Richard Hopkins
>>Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
>>(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
>>
>>The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
>>Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
>
> I'm not sure how other people feel about direct advertising in this
> newsgroup but I'm sure there are a number of other people -- not me -- who
> would like to benefit from the privilege if accorded. If it comes to a
> question of all or none I'd think the choice would have to be the latter...
> but maybe others can comment??


I think the usual Usenet rules are to allow a short advert in the siggy.
>
> Rgds, George Macdonald

Though a siggy delimiter (dash-dash-space) would be ,umm nice George! ;-)

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 4, 2005 11:14:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:55:31 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:42:19 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>
><snip all content>
>
>>>Richard Hopkins
>>>Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
>>>(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
>>>
>>>The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
>>>Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
>>
>> I'm not sure how other people feel about direct advertising in this
>> newsgroup but I'm sure there are a number of other people -- not me -- who
>> would like to benefit from the privilege if accorded. If it comes to a
>> question of all or none I'd think the choice would have to be the latter...
>> but maybe others can comment??
>
>
>I think the usual Usenet rules are to allow a short advert in the siggy.

DABS is probably the largest computer parts e-tailer in the U.K. I don't
think we need this... or expect NewEgg, Monarch, Dell<gawp>,
Overclockers.xxxx et.al. to follow. I can't find a newsgroup charter and
the guidelines are: if you can't find a FAQ, don't do it.

>Though a siggy delimiter (dash-dash-space) would be ,umm nice George! ;-)

I've been thinking about dropping mine for a bit now - probably given the
poor folks searching on the keywords enough bother.:-)

Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 4, 2005 6:43:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:55:31 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:42:19 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>><snip all content>
>>
>>>>Richard Hopkins
>>>>Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
>>>>(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
>>>>
>>>>The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
>>>>Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
>>>
>>>I'm not sure how other people feel about direct advertising in this
>>>newsgroup but I'm sure there are a number of other people -- not me -- who
>>>would like to benefit from the privilege if accorded. If it comes to a
>>>question of all or none I'd think the choice would have to be the latter...
>>>but maybe others can comment??
>>
>>
>>I think the usual Usenet rules are to allow a short advert in the siggy.
>
>
> DABS is probably the largest computer parts e-tailer in the U.K. I don't
> think we need this... or expect NewEgg, Monarch, Dell<gawp>,
> Overclockers.xxxx et.al. to follow.

It appears to be generally accepted that people
can use their sig file to /briefly/ promote businesses
that the own or work for.

> I can't find a newsgroup charter and
> the guidelines are: if you can't find a FAQ, don't do it.

Police states work on "Everything is forbidden
unless explicitly stated otherwise." Here in the
"free" world it is supposed to be the other way
around.


In any case, the charter can be found at
http://www.landfield.com/ftp/pub/usenet/control/comp/co...

Once the headers are stripped out it is amazingly brief:

Description: Discussion of processor, cache & memory chips for the ibm-pc.

This newsgroup will be for the discussion of those topics directly related to
computer chips and technologies. "Chips" is a broad term to include memory
chips (such as SIMMs) as well as new system chips from Intel (such as the
Pentium) or other chip manufacturers (such as AMD). Topics may include chip
pricing & availability, clock speeds (eg.- overclocking), and future chip
releases.


Charters in general are easy to find by using Yahoo to search for
newsgroup charter "newsgroup.name.goes.here"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 4, 2005 7:07:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
> It appears to be generally accepted that people can use
> their sig file to /briefly/ promote businesses that the
> own or work for.

General netiquette (RFC?) is to keep USENET sig files down
to 4 lines. No limit on content.

> Police states work on "Everything is forbidden unless explicitly
> stated otherwise." Here in the "free" world it is supposed to
> be the other way around.

I think it's more a matter of mindset -- the old joke:

In England, everything is permitted unless forbidden.
In Germany, everything is forbidden unless permitted.
In Russia, everything is forbidden even the permitted.
In France, everything is permitted even the forbidden.

-- Robert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 4, 2005 10:48:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:42:19 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>I'm not sure how other people feel about direct advertising in this
>newsgroup but I'm sure there are a number of other people -- not me -- who
>would like to benefit from the privilege if accorded. If it comes to a
>question of all or none I'd think the choice would have to be the latter...
>but maybe others can comment??

It's not really a bother right, I remembered being told that it's ok
to advertise your business/service. As long as the sig is kept short,
the content doesn't matter. Plus, I think it's good to know when the
poster has a direct interest in something when getting
advice/information from them. e.g.
"John Kenbi-aniwan
Visit Just Kool Online
Largest U.S. Distributor for AMD processors" ;PpPpP




--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :) 
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 4, 2005 10:54:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"George Macdonald" wrote in message...
> and you've already been told that Intel did not invent anything.

My point is that Intel have initiated the use of this style of socket in the
PC segment, and they've certainly had to bear the brunt of the flak for
doing so.

> I don't see much R&D here.

You think this socket happened by itself? What about the electrical design
(and by implication motherboard design) that's gone into it? If you don't
see much R&D here George, you need thicker glasses.

> Anyone can tell at a glance that the mechanism is more fragile and prone
> to damage...

It looks more fragile than Socket 478 because there's no cover plate on the
socket, and because there are more, smaller contact fingers. However,
whether it *is* more fragile than Socket 478 is something you can't tell
just by glancing.

> I'm not sure how other people feel about direct advertising in this
> newsgroup

Lol. It's two lines, it's not HTML, it's at the bottom of my signature, and
it's not prohibited by the newsgroup's charter. If you don't like it, don't
scroll down. Simple.
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
January 5, 2005 1:34:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:14:01 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:55:31 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:42:19 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>><snip all content>
>>
>>>>Richard Hopkins
>>>>Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
>>>>(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
>>>>
>>>>The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
>>>>Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how other people feel about direct advertising in this
>>> newsgroup but I'm sure there are a number of other people -- not me -- who
>>> would like to benefit from the privilege if accorded. If it comes to a
>>> question of all or none I'd think the choice would have to be the latter...
>>> but maybe others can comment??
>>
>>
>>I think the usual Usenet rules are to allow a short advert in the siggy.
>
> DABS is probably the largest computer parts e-tailer in the U.K. I don't
> think we need this... or expect NewEgg, Monarch, Dell<gawp>,
> Overclockers.xxxx et.al. to follow. I can't find a newsgroup charter and
> the guidelines are: if you can't find a FAQ, don't do it.
>
>>Though a siggy delimiter (dash-dash-space) would be ,umm nice George! ;-)
>
> I've been thinking about dropping mine for a bit now - probably given the
> poor folks searching on the keywords enough bother.:-)

I wasn't talking about your sig, though it is getting nigh on six years
*old*. I was referring to your lack of the signature delimiter, the lack
of which is just short of top-posting on the Usenet agravation list. ;-)


--
^
+-- That be a sig delimiter

Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 5, 2005 11:55:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 15:43:54 GMT, Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:55:31 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:42:19 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>>>
>>><snip all content>
>>>
>>>>>Richard Hopkins
>>>>>Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
>>>>>(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
>>>>>
>>>>>The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
>>>>>Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure how other people feel about direct advertising in this
>>>>newsgroup but I'm sure there are a number of other people -- not me -- who
>>>>would like to benefit from the privilege if accorded. If it comes to a
>>>>question of all or none I'd think the choice would have to be the latter...
>>>>but maybe others can comment??
>>>
>>>
>>>I think the usual Usenet rules are to allow a short advert in the siggy.
>>
>>
>> DABS is probably the largest computer parts e-tailer in the U.K. I don't
>> think we need this... or expect NewEgg, Monarch, Dell<gawp>,
>> Overclockers.xxxx et.al. to follow.
>
>It appears to be generally accepted that people
>can use their sig file to /briefly/ promote businesses
>that the own or work for.

It's sorta moot here but sorry I don't see that for a large retail
enterprise, who might even be paying individuals (per hit ?) who do the
planting. How would you feel about someone touting the Home Shopping
Network with ads for some computer they sell? I suggest you find out a bit
about DABS.

>> I can't find a newsgroup charter and
>> the guidelines are: if you can't find a FAQ, don't do it.
>
>Police states work on "Everything is forbidden
>unless explicitly stated otherwise." Here in the
>"free" world it is supposed to be the other way
>around.

Shove your "police state" comment back where you pulled it from - the "free
world" has alternative means to restrict your behavior... they're called
lawyers and their elite ranks are the ones who make up the rules for *all*
of us. What do you not understand about "guidelines"? Go check out some
of the "FAQs" at the newsfeed services - that is precisely what I read at a
couple, about refraining if there was no stated policy for a group.

>In any case, the charter can be found at
>http://www.landfield.com/ftp/pub/usenet/control/comp/co...
>
>Once the headers are stripped out it is amazingly brief:
>
>Description: Discussion of processor, cache & memory chips for the ibm-pc.
>
>This newsgroup will be for the discussion of those topics directly related to
>computer chips and technologies. "Chips" is a broad term to include memory
>chips (such as SIMMs) as well as new system chips from Intel (such as the
>Pentium) or other chip manufacturers (such as AMD). Topics may include chip
>pricing & availability, clock speeds (eg.- overclocking), and future chip
>releases.
>
>
>Charters in general are easy to find by using Yahoo to search for
> newsgroup charter "newsgroup.name.goes.here"

And the FAQ can also be found at www.faqs.org:

"Q) 1.3 Is it ok to (sell/buy/job-offer/advertise) things here?

No, none of the above fit within the charter of the
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.* hierarchy, therefore such posts are
considered unacceptable. For buying/selling things, use groups with
the words 'wanted' or 'forsale', and for job offers, use groups with
the words 'jobs'. All of these can be found in the misc.* hierarchy.
For commercial advertisements, use only the biz.* hierarchy as per the
guidelines of USENET. (refer to the news.* groups for more
information)."

Now whether the Usenet netiquette allowance for sig "adverts" overrides the
above, is up for discussion - the "How To" articles on sig.ads particularly
suggest just pointing people to a Web site, without any hype.... hardly
seems to fit the bill exactly here.

Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 5, 2005 11:55:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:54:56 -0000, "Richard Hopkins"
<richh@dsl.nospam.co.uk> wrote:

>"George Macdonald" wrote in message...
>> and you've already been told that Intel did not invent anything.
>
>My point is that Intel have initiated the use of this style of socket in the
>PC segment, and they've certainly had to bear the brunt of the flak for
>doing so.

No, your "point" was perfectly clear... and don't project any "flak" on to
me please.

>> I don't see much R&D here.
>
>You think this socket happened by itself? What about the electrical design
>(and by implication motherboard design) that's gone into it? If you don't
>see much R&D here George, you need thicker glasses.

No Richard all you have to do is remove the iBlinkers. Any necessary
"electrical design" is quite divorced from any issue of mechanical design
of contacts and retention mechanism.

>> Anyone can tell at a glance that the mechanism is more fragile and prone
>> to damage...
>
>It looks more fragile than Socket 478 because there's no cover plate on the
>socket, and because there are more, smaller contact fingers. However,
>whether it *is* more fragile than Socket 478 is something you can't tell
>just by glancing.

Seems a wee bit contradictory to me. Well you can glance... and then
confirm by looking at the warnings and consequences in Intel's
documentation
(http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/asmo-na/eng/pr...):
5 different "failure types" and some illustrative pics. Apparently they
were only able to quell the uproar at the mbrd mfrs by proving that they
had undertaken an extensive training program for system builders.

>> I'm not sure how other people feel about direct advertising in this
>> newsgroup
>
>Lol. It's two lines, it's not HTML, it's at the bottom of my signature, and
>it's not prohibited by the newsgroup's charter. If you don't like it, don't
>scroll down. Simple.

One can only hope then that it fulfills Korpela's Law 17.: "Advertizing
works on Usenet; but the effect is opposite to the intended one."... and
the newsgroup FAQ *does* say no to advertising.

Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2005 4:19:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 22:34:45 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:14:01 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:55:31 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:42:19 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>>>
>>><snip all content>
>>>
>>>>>Richard Hopkins
>>>>>Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
>>>>>(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
>>>>>
>>>>>The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
>>>>>Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how other people feel about direct advertising in this
>>>> newsgroup but I'm sure there are a number of other people -- not me -- who
>>>> would like to benefit from the privilege if accorded. If it comes to a
>>>> question of all or none I'd think the choice would have to be the latter...
>>>> but maybe others can comment??
>>>
>>>
>>>I think the usual Usenet rules are to allow a short advert in the siggy.
>>
>> DABS is probably the largest computer parts e-tailer in the U.K. I don't
>> think we need this... or expect NewEgg, Monarch, Dell<gawp>,
>> Overclockers.xxxx et.al. to follow. I can't find a newsgroup charter and
>> the guidelines are: if you can't find a FAQ, don't do it.
>>
>>>Though a siggy delimiter (dash-dash-space) would be ,umm nice George! ;-)
>>
>> I've been thinking about dropping mine for a bit now - probably given the
>> poor folks searching on the keywords enough bother.:-)
>
>I wasn't talking about your sig, though it is getting nigh on six years
>*old*. I was referring to your lack of the signature delimiter, the lack
>of which is just short of top-posting on the Usenet agravation list. ;-)

That bad?... tsk...tsk - doesn't seem to be well respected or even
documented but there are so many broken links in the Usenet docs now. The
sig extension is gone anyway.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
!