Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (
More info?)
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:59:42 -0500, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
>
>"rhys" <rhys@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:4ij3s0p0jq436kskanou3pgris58edtu36@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:38:27 GMT, "Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, but I thought we were talking about cases, not mobos and CPUs.
>> The THEORY of BTX is great (quiet fans, cool air going where it's
>> needed directly, etc.) in the same way that a hydrogen-based,
>> renewable energy economy is great: a lot of problems people don't
>> consider deal-breakers...yet...are solved at a vast expense and
>> effort.
>>
>> Give it another processor generation. When non-overclocked chips run
>> so hot they need elaborate liquid cooling, BTX-style solutions will
>> look a lot better.
>>
>
>OK, I've got to ask . . .
>
>How the HECK is BTX going to make water-cooling any better or easier to
>implement than water-cooling is in the ATX format? (Do you know what
>water-cooling IS?) -Dave
Yes, I do. Perhaps I was unclear. Certain ATX-based monster systems
benefit currently from some form of water or other liquid cooling.
Every generation of CPUs (and some video cards, HDs and RAM for that
matter) seems to generate greater heat as more circuitry is jammed
into tighter spaces. Should this continue, the BTX "air tunnel"
solution may seem more practical--and cheaper--than some of the
elaborate and problematic liquid-cooled designs. Thermally, it's akin
to the air-cooled engine of the VW Beetle, which was mechanically more
simple than any car engine that needed a radiator with its associated
coolant, pumps and hoses.
>
If you thought I meant putting water-cooling into a BTX box, well,
that would defeat the purpose..<G>
R.