Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (
More info?)
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:08:42 -0400, Ruel Smith
<NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>kony wrote:
>
>>>Now that we've crossed that hurdle, the heatsink and fan on the newer
>>>Barton core Athlon XP's and all Athlon64's are a vast improvement over the
>>>old ones. In fact, I've achieved a solid 10% overclock with a stock
>>>heatsink on my Barton core Athlon XP.
>>
>> But, that's only 10% (usually there is quite a bit more
>> potential) and the retail 'sink is louder, needs cleaned
>> more often too.
>
>10% overclock is a solid overclock for someone that doesn't invest in more
>expensive memory and exotic (usually loud) HSFs. My point is that the stock
>HSF would do fine for someone that doesn't overclock.
Yes, it is sufficient, but not very quiet. Same story as
always, it boils down to time spent looking for better 'sink
and a few dollars more... not too hard to find a sink that
performs better at lower noise levels though, which might be
desirable for even a non-overclocked system.
>
>>>o, if you don't plan to overclock, then the
>>>stock heatsink and fan should do fine. I'd get the retail CPU for the
>>>warranty alone, and you can check out the heatsink and judge for yourself.
>>>If you're not happy, Thermaltake Volcano's have long been great heatsinks
>>>short of buying something truely exotic like the Gigabyte ones.
>>
>>
>> There is no reason to get retail except the heatsink. CPUs
>> don't just die, if one does it shouldn't be covered under a
>> warranty since it would be user or motherboard "error".
>
>I'd still feel better about the warranty and the retail one doesn't cost a
>whole lot more than an OEM.
Yes it is nice insurance but on the other hand I feel that
insurance is often abused, that CPUs are returned for
warranty replacement when the warranty shouldn't cover what
happened to them, potentially increasing costs for everyone
(else).
>
>> Termaltake heatsinks are pretty poor, with the exception of
>> the silent boost, which is tolerable mostly because of the
>> Panaflo fan on it, otherwise it's overshadowed by many
>> better 'sinks, like those from Thermalright. GIgabyte's
>> aren't all that great, not at twice the price since that
>> ought to get more than a couple degress difference.
>>
>> For stock speed or only modest overclock, the key is the
>> fan. Any 'sink with a copper base (not just a round plug of
>> copper) will suffice for moderate use so choose an 80x25mm
>> fan in low, sub-2800 RPM range, even 2000 RPM should be
>> sufficient for stock speed in a case with good ventilation.
>
>If I was going to get serious about overclocking, I'd forget about air
>cooling alltogether and get water cooling, but the OP wasn't interested in
>overclocking at all.
>
Naw, no need to watercool except for the most extreme of
overclocks, and then it starts getting harder to justify due
to maintenance and that the addt'l cost could just buy
faster parts again, sooner.
A very good air-cooled 'sink, even if not THE very best, is
$ well spent to get 90% of the potential o'c out of a chip,
at a fraction of the cost of water cooling.
Plus, water cooling is often detrimental to the
motherboard's lifespan, there is still need for a fan
blowing across the board when raising CPU vcore enough to
"need" watercooling. Too many people assume water cooling
means temps are ok, but the truth is that the CPU is far
more resistant to high temps than capacitors are.
uuim05j01hai97182kno20nmtlqjdhbjf@4ax.com...
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram