Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What if Your CPU Cooler Fails?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 27, 2007 11:42:57 AM

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/27/what_if_your_cpu_cooler_fails/index.html

We removed CPU coolers from running systems in 2001 and traced performance reduction due to overheating in 2004, but what do the latest AMD and Intel processors do if their fans fail? We had to find out.

More about : cpu cooler fails

September 27, 2007 12:23:28 PM

To those who used to bash Intel method of TDP measuring, what do you have to say about the fact that the E2160 (65W) can complete 10 benchmarks vs 2 with the BE-2350(45W) with the fan off?
September 27, 2007 12:30:00 PM

Hey I just wanted to post a testament to new technology.
I have the nicer of the EVGA 650i ULTRA chipset motherboards (non sli) and an Intel Core 2 Duo E6850.

When I bought the processor nearly a month ago now I had a major problem and a miracle. I installed the processor and was installing the heatsink and had my first real problem with Intel's heatsink design (I have never liked Intel's designs). The heatsink rested on the really nice metallic capacitors and not on the processor, although everything looked fine. I turned my PC on and checked the BIOS to ensure the processor had detected without any difficulty because a firmware upgrade was required. I restarted the PC and it BSOD on startup. I check the BIOS once again and I see the multiplier is 6 and not 8 as well as the processor speed is 2ghz not 2.66. I pull the heatsink off and behold; my dab of Arctic Silver compound wasn't even compressed in the least (I remove stock compound).

So, either a combination of a good processor technology that underclocks itself in problems and motherboard with the same perks or extreme luck. Re-installed the heatsink, which I was worried wasnt seated right again because I couldnt tell, but it worked this time and I'm still using the processor now with the 8x multiplier and at 2.66ghz.
Related resources
September 27, 2007 12:36:08 PM

I have a 4200X2 where the plastic tab on the motherboard cooler mounting bracket broke off. The cooler fell down in the case, but the fan kept running. Of course, the computer shut down. Replaced the bracket, and the computer works fine - it currently has 125 days of continuous uptime.
a c 107 à CPUs
September 27, 2007 12:52:41 PM

Very interesting article. I was anticipating performance skewed in favor of AMD because of the mobo difference, but that was not the case at all.
Would it make a difference if the CPUs were overclocked, or would they just slow down / shut down more quickly?
Bizarre that I had a dream of OC-ing my e6750 last night...
September 27, 2007 12:53:57 PM

This article repeatedly makes statements like "the processor will shut off timers to reduce heat dissipation", etc. The term "dissipation" is incorrect in these types of statements. It should be something like heat CREATION. If heat dissipation were reduced, it means the heat would be spread less - in other words, the processor woudl get hotter!

- Bob
September 27, 2007 1:42:30 PM

The results of the test were better than I expected, to be honest. I do wonder how well the CPUs would work if a good heatsink, such as a Tuniq Tower, was used and then the fan cut off. Would the heatsink on it own disipate enough heat to keep the CPU running, or would the CPU throttle back or fail anyway? Sure would like to see a test with the tower installed.
September 27, 2007 1:54:33 PM

Yes, I was kind of hoping to see the Tuniq Tower or my TR Ultra-120 Extreme tested as well. One can only hope that they would perform better w/out a fan than the stock HSFs though.
a c 107 à CPUs
September 27, 2007 2:07:20 PM

I'd like to see such an additional test with a bigger / better heat sink as well. After all, aren't fans optional on some of them? And yes, HSFs dissipate heat, CPUs create it.
And, how much difference would it make if, instead of in open air, the tests were run in a closed case with a typical minimal 80mm rear exhaust?
September 27, 2007 2:21:10 PM

I wonder what difference using the same heatsink on both the AMD and Intel processors would make.

If the Intel HS was more efficient than AMDs, that could make a considerable impact upon the test.
September 27, 2007 2:46:23 PM

This is a pretty nice artical. A couple of things I would like to see in a follow up test.

1. OC the computers! Lets be real with this 95% of the people that read all the stuff on THG OCs or wants to OC but doesnt know how yet.

2. Lets use aftermark coolers. I would say get about 5 of the most common coolers people suggest. Maybe even setup a poll and let the users vote which ones they would like tested.
September 27, 2007 2:57:58 PM

1. There's already a lot of articles on overclocking, and will probably be more in the future as new CPUs and motherboards are released. This article wasn't about overclocking, and an overclocked CPU would just fail faster.

2. That's a good idea, one which a number of people have already suggested, except for the polling part. There are way too many coolers available to make that a reasonable request. But a comparative test using say a Zalman 9700, a Tuniq Tower, a Thermalrite 120 and a couple others would be useful. And such a test wouldn't use water coolers or TEC coolers, because without power, they wouldn't provide much, if any, cooling.
September 27, 2007 3:01:32 PM

1749436,3,23335 said:
Hey I just wanted to post a testament to new technology.
I have the nicer of the EVGA 650i ULTRA chipset motherboards (non sli) and an Intel Core 2 Duo E6850.When I bought the processor nearly a month ago now I had a major problem and a miracle. I installed the processor and was installing the heatsink and had my first real problem with Intel's heatsink design (I have never liked Intel's designs). The heatsink rested on the really nice metallic capacitors and not on the processor, although everything looked fine. I turned my PC on and checked the BIOS to ensure the processor had detected without any difficulty because a firmware upgrade was required. I restarted the PC and it BSOD on startup. I check the BIOS once again and I see the multiplier is 6 and not 8 as well as the processor speed is 2ghz not 2.66. I pull the heatsink off and behold; my dab of Arctic Silver compound wasn't even compressed in the least (I remove stock compound).

So, either a combination of a good processor technology that underclocks itself in problems and motherboard with the same perks or extreme luck. Re-installed the heatsink, which I was worried wasnt seated right again because I couldnt tell, but it worked this time and I'm still using the processor now with the 8x multiplier and at 2.66ghz


Maybe I am reading this wrong but shouldnt you be running it at 3ghz instead of 2.66 thats what my E6750 is?
September 27, 2007 3:24:22 PM

nickc07 said:
This is a pretty nice artical. A couple of things I would like to see in a follow up test.

1. OC the computers! Lets be real with this 95% of the people that read all the stuff on THG OCs or wants to OC but doesnt know how yet.

2. Lets use aftermark coolers. I would say get about 5 of the most common coolers people suggest. Maybe even setup a poll and let the users vote which ones they would like tested.



Or water cooler failure on an OCed system...more extreme :ouch:  Being that I am water cooled, I'd like to see that happen. pump fails, water stops flowing.
September 27, 2007 3:26:45 PM

sailer said:
And such a test wouldn't use water coolers or TEC coolers, because without power, they wouldn't provide much, if any, cooling.


I agree with that...but I'd still like to see the result on a PC that isn't mine :D 
September 27, 2007 3:28:57 PM

BobLafleur said:
This article repeatedly makes statements like "the processor will shut off timers to reduce heat dissipation", etc. The term "dissipation" is incorrect in these types of statements. It should be something like heat CREATION. If heat dissipation were reduced, it means the heat would be spread less - in other words, the processor woudl get hotter!

- Bob


Dissipation is the correct term. Energy is delivered to the processor in the form of an electrical current. The vast majority of that energy is given off because of electrical resistance in the form of heat. When the processor throttles its clock speed back, less energy is consumed by the processor, which results in less energy needing to be dissipated by the heatsink (or without) in the form of radiant and convective heat.
September 27, 2007 4:51:45 PM

KyleSTL said:
Dissipation is the correct term. Energy is delivered to the processor in the form of an electrical current. The vast majority of that energy is given off because of electrical resistance in the form of heat. When the processor throttles its clock speed back, less energy is consumed by the processor, which results in less energy needing to be dissipated by the heatsink (or without) in the form of radiant and convective heat.

I think Bob is correct. The processor creates heat. If you want to use "dissipation", the article should have instead said, "the processor will shut off timers to reduce the energy that is required to be dissipated". Or something like that. Of course, all heat will/needs to be dissipated and dosn't say anything to forward the article. So creation would have been better. JMO
a c 96 à CPUs
September 27, 2007 5:05:06 PM

Quote:
This is a pretty nice artical. A couple of things I would like to see in a follow up test.

1. OC the computers! Lets be real with this 95% of the people that read all the stuff on THG OCs or wants to OC but doesnt know how yet.


Eh, I would say that's not true. More than 1 in 20 choose to run their computers at stock speed for stability reasons (they run a production/work machine) or have a server or HTPC that needs to run cool and power doesn't matter. Plus almost every laptop user here can't overclock even if they wanted to. I'd put the figure much lower. Hey, I have an idea- I'll put a survey in this section and get some numbers.

Quote:
2. Lets use aftermark coolers. I would say get about 5 of the most common coolers people suggest. Maybe even setup a poll and let the users vote which ones they would like tested.


Aftermarket coolers have more mass and probably a better thermal dissipation profile than the stock coolers. This will let them both take longer to heat up from cold as well as dissipating heat better while they are heating up, letting the CPUs run longer. Some like the Tuniq Tower probably can even be run without the fan on the BE-2150 and Pentium Dual Core indefinitely as long as there is some air going over the heatsink from the case fans.

This article makes me feel old as I remember when CPUs didn't even have a heatsink at all, let alone one weighing a pound and actively cooled by a fan. It wasn't *that* long ago that they didn't need them, something a little over ten years ago (most 486s didn't need a heatsink, but the Pentiums did.)
September 27, 2007 5:09:27 PM

So ah.... when are you going to yank those heasinks like in '01?
a c 111 à CPUs
September 27, 2007 5:10:16 PM

I was hoping to see another yank off the heatsink video with quake II(or III) in the background :)  and maybe some smoke.....

Its rather impressive for stock heat sinks in open air. The results in a case would be far better.

EDIT
sirrobin4ever beat me to it
September 27, 2007 5:16:20 PM

drysocks said:
I think Bob is correct. The processor creates heat. If you want to use "dissipation", the article should have instead said, "the processor will shut off timers to reduce the energy that is required to be dissipated". Or something like that. Of course, all heat will/needs to be dissipated and dosn't say anything to forward the article. So creation would have been better. JMO

From dictionary.com-

Dissipate:
1. to scatter in various directions; disperse; dispel.
2. to spend or use wastefully or extravagantly; squander; deplete: to dissipate one's talents; to dissipate a fortune on high living.

Create:
1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.

KyleSTL is the correct one. CPU's do not create energy at all. They have electricity delivered to them through the mobo and they dissipate some of that into work done on the system... a vast amount of it however is dissipated into heat. The heatsink is in direct contact with the proc to pick that heat up and further dissipate it into the case or ambient space near it. Basic physics going on here. ;) 
September 27, 2007 6:10:22 PM

The e2160 would be totally kick but if you had a passive cooler that was well designed or one of those silent zalman water coolers(not that I like them though)
September 27, 2007 7:14:19 PM

Thank you sojrner, at least one person on this forum knows energy cannot be created nor destroyed. "Converted", "transfered", "changed" are all good words when referring to energy.
September 27, 2007 7:26:53 PM

I think that, mainly due to Patrick's participation on this article, the entire article was misguided.

It's good to know that if the stock heatsink is properly installed and at some point the fan fails, your system will not be damaged. But, look, I just summarized your 15 page article in a line.

What this article really should have covered isn't fan failures. It should have covered what heatsinks can run fanless with what CPUs.

I'm sure one of the very large Thermalright heatsinks could run the E2160 fanless. But I'd want to see this. Fanless computing has the advantage of exactly 0 dB output by the CPU. Using some very quiet fans, it should be possible to create a near silent PC. This is what you should've talked about and what your article should've tried to tell us.

I'm glad the CPUs don't burn up, but with the stock coolers, that's all you can expect. I want to know fanless computing. Please rewrite your article and cover this topic, then I won't be so disappointed in the utter uselessness of the article.
September 27, 2007 7:39:16 PM

KyleSTL said:
Thank you sojrner, at least one person on this forum knows energy cannot be created nor destroyed. "Converted", "transfered", "changed" are all good words when referring to energy.

[:mousemonkey] there are a few of us around here still. :sol: 
September 27, 2007 8:03:17 PM

Article could have been more useful if all the CPUs were also tested with the same cooler. I don't even mean a behemoth like a Tuniq Tower, I just mean a cheap aftermarket cooler that fits AM2 and 775 so that the processors could be tested on a level footing.

-mcg
September 27, 2007 8:05:35 PM

MrCommunistGen said:
Article could have been more useful if all the CPUs were also tested with the same cooler. I don't even mean a behemoth like a Tuniq Tower, I just mean a cheap aftermarket cooler that fits AM2 and 775 so that the processors could be tested on a level footing.

-mcg


agreed.
September 27, 2007 9:46:17 PM

I wonder if the results would have been even better if the E2140 was used. When you consider the fact that there are some very good heatsinks on the market, using a low power CPU that is only passively cooled suddenly becomes a possibility again.

The tests were run on an open bench, but would using a case with decent airflow make any difference? How about a HTPC build? I'm thinking a E2140, Thermalright IFX-14, some good-old arctic silver and a few 11dBA 80mm or 120mm case fans should do the trick.

A quick look at the CPU charts shows that the E2140 is "not much worse" than the C2D E6320 - you won't be beating records, but it will handle 1080p video and run even some games with two passively-cooled 8600GT cards in SLI. Throw in a fanless ZEN 400 PSU, a quiet hard-drive...maybe even replace the side door with one giant mesh panel.

Now there's an idea for your next project - fanless PC! :) 
September 27, 2007 10:14:06 PM

I think that they should run the same test on another motherboard for AMD platform like with ATI 3200 chipset. In my opinion motherboard shut down the system not the CPU. ATI and Intel chipset are less power hungry and more energy efficient. And on that ASUS there was no air flow fro cpu fan thru chipset cooler so it could overheat too.
And i think you should try to modify that stock cooler to fit other socket AMD cooler to intel and vice versa. Or just stick it with something to the cpu. It would then be a lot better article.
September 27, 2007 10:33:09 PM

Dzban....agreed
September 27, 2007 11:48:37 PM

KyleSTL said:
Thank you sojrner, at least one person on this forum knows energy cannot be created nor destroyed. "Converted", "transfered", "changed" are all good words when referring to energy.

Lies! All lies! Energy can be created! Ever heard of E=mc^2? Okay that's nuclear physics and has nothing to do with this article.

Anyways, great read, I'll make sure I always get good cooling so my processor doesn't shut off randomly.
September 28, 2007 12:00:45 AM

Two things

1. The points being made about using other coolers isn't really important. The most important finding in the article is that the safety features on every single chip worked! Why this isn't clearly stated in the conclusion as the main point I don't know. My point about the other coolers is this: With larger heatsinks, it will only take more time for the processors to reach the shutdown temperature. Therefore, if the safety features work with the smaller stock heatsinks, they will work with larger ones so it's not necessary to test them.

2. Why didn't they test the processors like they did back in the day? The last test that they did showed that by unplugging the fan, neither the Athlon or the P4 would fry, but by pulling the heatsink off, the Athlon would burn itself up. So this article doesn't really show anything new. They need to pull the heatsinks off of a running system and see what happends. That will show if AMD really has improved the protection features on their chips.

Also, how is this article 15 pages?! There was only one test needed to be done, and that was to put the processor at full load, which could have been better done with CPUburn, as this maximizes heat output. If nothing fries, then the test is a success. This article should have 4 pages: Introduction, Test Setup, Testing, Conclusions. 15 pages is like: :sleep:  :sleep:  :sleep:  :sleep:  :sleep:  ........... click to page 15.
September 28, 2007 1:12:32 AM

Evilonigiri said:
Lies! All lies! Energy can be created! Ever heard of E=mc^2? Okay that's nuclear physics and has nothing to do with this article.

Anyways, great read, I'll make sure I always get good cooling so my processor doesn't shut off randomly.


E=mc^2 describes the conversion of mass to energy.
September 28, 2007 6:33:50 AM

sojrner said:
KyleSTL is the correct one. CPU's do not create energy at all. They have electricity delivered to them through the mobo and they dissipate some of that into work done on the system... a vast amount of it however is dissipated into heat. The heatsink is in direct contact with the proc to pick that heat up and further dissipate it into the case or ambient space near it. Basic physics going on here. ;) 
I have to disagree with you and KyleSTL. No one said that CPUs create energy, but they do generate heat based on the amount of energy consumed. Let's see if we can use some definitions from American Heritage (source dictionary.com).

gen·er·ate
1. b. To produce as a result of a chemical or physical process: generate heat.

dis·si·pate
4. To cause to lose (energy, such as heat) irreversibly.

dissipation
The loss of energy from a physical system, most often in the form of heat.

When the heatsink falls off etc. the CPU cannot dissipate the heat sufficiently to equal the amount of heat generated, therefore the CPU is put into a state that reduces the energy consumed and thereby the heat generated.

The misuse of the word dissipate was so glaring that I stopped reading the article.


Edit: I was going to let your explanation go, but I just couldn't stand it. I think that the word you were looking for in your first two examples was convert not dissipate. Here is how the sentences should look.


...and they convert some of that into work done on the system...
...a vast amount of it however is converted into heat.
September 28, 2007 8:53:38 AM

agreed MrCommunis

also afaik the AMD cooler is the old fashioned 100% aluminum while the intel boxed one is a copper core and better designed one....

doesn't make for a level test indeed.
September 28, 2007 10:15:02 AM

Quote:
What this article really should have covered isn't fan failures. It should have covered what heatsinks can run fanless with what CPUs.
There are sites that do reviews and have forums for this very thing. Most known is http://www.silentpcreview.com. I've never used a fan on my Ninja, there are many others that haven't either.
September 28, 2007 3:06:14 PM

Zorg said:
I have to disagree with you and KyleSTL. No one said that CPUs create energy,
Wrong. Read BobLafleur's first post on this thread. If you can't even read that much, how can you argue here?
Zorg said:
but they do generate heat based on the amount of energy consumed. Let's see if we can use some definitions from American Heritage (source dictionary.com).

gen·er·ate
1. b. To produce as a result of a chemical or physical process: generate heat.

dis·si·pate
4. To cause to lose (energy, such as heat) irreversibly.

dissipation
The loss of energy from a physical system, most often in the form of heat.

wow, and my definitions in my first post were also from dictionary.com... so what is your point there?
Zorg said:
When the heatsink falls off etc. the CPU cannot dissipate the heat sufficiently to equal the amount of heat generated, therefore the CPU is put into a state that reduces the energy consumed and thereby the heat generated.

The misuse of the word dissipate was so glaring that I stopped reading the article.


Edit: I was going to let your explanation go, but I just couldn't stand it. I think that the word you were looking for in your first two examples was convert not dissipate. Here is how the sentences should look.


...and they convert some of that into work done on the system...
...a vast amount of it however is converted into heat.


if you had actually read the argument from the start you would see that one guy came on and said the articles use of the word dissipate was wrong and should have used "create" in its place. After a short exchange with others I stepped in backing up KyleSTL's stand that the cpu does not create energy... and that dissipate still works. (based on the definitions I provided above)

I still stand that based on the definitions I provided, "dissipate" works. Heat is dissipated from the processor, pure and simple. If you can prove that the definitions I provided (from the same source you cited) are wrong, then maybe you have an argument. On a larger scale the argument was also about whether "create" would work in the context. I also proved by the definitions above that it does not work. I still stand on that as well.

Now, does your definition and look on the verbiage work? sure, there are many subtle meanings for dissipate... but why even put it in the middle of an argument when it does not add anything new? Basic physics provided the start of the argument... here is some basic logic: premis "A" makes a assertion. Argument "B" refutes "A" and proves "A" wrong.

...now at that point until B is proven wrong it is the end of the logical progression. You have essentially added argument C. But C has nothing to do with B at all, so it adds nothing new and until B is handled there is nowhere to go. Very simplistic logic there.

I am not saying that your statement is wrong, just that it has no place in the argument... it does not prove wrong the use of the word dissipate, it only adds other definitions that would not work... still leaving the ones that DO work. Not wrong, it just adds ANOTHER option but does nothing to prove the use of dissipate wrong. There is nowhere to go with that man.

...rock on.
September 28, 2007 3:51:15 PM

I am running a C2D 6300 slightly overclocked. I have a copper Zalman 9700 as the heatsink. Overkill, I know, but I bought it knowing that sometime in the future I would be getting a new motherboard and going for a massive overclock. After reading this article I simply pulled the power on the heatsink fan. The system is so much quieter. Even under loads the CPU does not get too hot. I think I will rig it so I can easily turn on the heatsink fan when gaming otherwise it will stay off.
September 28, 2007 7:32:07 PM

Ok, let me address your points one at a time.

sojrner said:
Quote:
I have to disagree with you and KyleSTL. No one said that CPUs create energy,
Wrong. Read BobLafleur's first post on this thread. If you can't even read that much, how can you argue here?

Here is his first post so that we can review it together.
Quote:
This article repeatedly makes statements like "the processor will shut off timers to reduce heat dissipation", etc. The term "dissipation" is incorrect in these types of statements. It should be something like heat CREATION. If heat dissipation were reduced, it means the heat would be spread less - in other words, the processor woudl get hotter!

He is completely correct with the exception of using "create" instead of "generate". He did say " it should be something like", but I will give you the fact that it was a poor choice of words. It does not change the substance of his argument that dissipate does not belong in that context. Wow talk about splitting hairs.


Quote:
but they do generate heat based on the amount of energy consumed. Let's see if we can use some definitions from American Heritage (source dictionary.com).

gen·er·ate
1. b. To produce as a result of a chemical or physical process: generate heat.

dis·si·pate
4. To cause to lose (energy, such as heat) irreversibly.

dissipation
The loss of energy from a physical system, most often in the form of heat.


wow, and my definitions in my first post were also from dictionary.com... so what is your point there?
Lets' get into your definitions.
Quote:
From dictionary.com-

Dissipate:
1. to scatter in various directions; disperse; dispel. This is applicable but a loose definition
2. to spend or use wastefully or extravagantly; squander; deplete: to dissipate one's talents; to dissipate a fortune on high living. This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion so it should not be included at all

Create:
1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes. This is indeed a definition, and it does bolster your off the wall idea, but did you consider this definition, also from American Heritage (source Dictionary.com)
cre·ate
2.To give rise to; produce
Additionally I did agree that he was playing fast and loose with that term, but it really has no affect on the substance of his claim. Again, it's really just splitting hairs.

2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention. This definition should also not be included under any circumstances, it only serves to further obfuscate the issue.



if you had actually read the argument from the start you would see that one guy came on and said the articles use of the word dissipate was wrong and should have used "create" in its place. After a short exchange with others I stepped in backing up KyleSTL's stand that the cpu does not create energy... and that dissipate still works. (based on the definitions I provided above)
I did read the argument from the start, that's why I posted to set things straight, which I did by the way. You are absolutely flat wrong, there is no other way to see it. And this explanation is pure nonsense.
Quote:
KyleSTL is the correct one. CPU's do not create energy at all. They have electricity delivered to them through the mobo and they dissipate some of that into work done on the system... a vast amount of it however is dissipated into heat. The heatsink is in direct contact with the proc to pick that heat up and further dissipate it into the case or ambient space near it. Basic physics going on here. ;) 



I still stand that based on the definitions I provided, "dissipate" works. Heat is dissipated from the processor, pure and simple. Yes heat is dissipated from the processor, albeit very inefficiently. If you can prove that the definitions I provided (from the same source you cited) are wrong, then maybe you have an argument. Your Definition 1 for dissipate works, so it must be your interpretation of the definition that is in error. On a larger scale the argument was also about whether "create" would work in the context. Splitting hairs, see my definition of create I also proved by the definitions above that it does not work. I still stand on that as well. See my comments above

Now, does your definition and look on the verbiage work? sure, there are many subtle meanings for dissipate... but why even put it in the middle of an argument when it does not add anything new? Because it does add something new to the core argument. Basic physics don't pull the old basics physics card on me, I have taken a few physics courses. This is really an argument about terminology, you know the use of the English language. provided the start of the argument... here is some basic logic: premis "A" makes a assertion. Argument "B" refutes "A" and proves "A" wrong. Nonsense and red herring

...now at that point until B is proven wrong it is the end of the logical progression. You have essentially added argument C. But C has nothing to do with B at all, so it adds nothing new and until B is handled there is nowhere to go. Very simplistic logic there. More of the same dribble that does not apply.

I am not saying that your statement is wrong, But I am saying that yours is just that it has no place in the argument... I don't know how you came to that conclusion it does not prove wrong the use of the word dissipate, it only adds other definitions that would not work... would not work for your argument, not that yours work either still leaving the ones that DO they don't work. Not wrong, it just adds ANOTHER option but does nothing to prove the use of dissipate wrong.but it does just that There is nowhere to go with that man. There isn't another option, there is only one interpretation of the word dissipate in that context, and the authors misused the word in the article, and so did you. It is clear that you will never get it.

...rock on...and you rock on as well
September 28, 2007 8:29:35 PM

I dont understand why the 6850 shut down?? Why didnt it just keep throttling and run really slow???
September 28, 2007 11:01:34 PM

hunt69us said:
I am running a C2D 6300 slightly overclocked. I have a copper Zalman 9700 as the heatsink. Overkill, I know, but I bought it knowing that sometime in the future I would be getting a new motherboard and going for a massive overclock. After reading this article I simply pulled the power on the heatsink fan. The system is so much quieter. Even under loads the CPU does not get too hot. I think I will rig it so I can easily turn on the heatsink fan when gaming otherwise it will stay off.



This will work...but it's probably not the best idea. However, you can use a program like Speedfan to turn the fan speed down so that it's not so loud.

Best of Luck
a c 111 à CPUs
September 29, 2007 12:31:46 AM

i know i can run my 9500 fan off and not over heat.....speed fan will do it....

you can also use the motherboards built in speed control to keep things quiet and still cool.....
September 29, 2007 12:23:54 PM

Yes, we still have a ways to go before we turn energy into mass.
Now if we could just harness that electron spin.

Most CPUs will run slower as the temperature climbs so I think it wise to keep my processor as cool as possible.
a b à CPUs
September 30, 2007 5:14:44 AM

Pull off the heatsink! Pull it off and watch it burn!!!!!!!!!!

No seriously, why mention pulling it off and then not do it? :heink: 
September 30, 2007 7:36:17 PM

Come on kitty, have a heart....nobody likes the smell of burning silicon.
September 30, 2007 8:47:41 PM

onestar said:
Come on kitty, have a heart....nobody likes the smell of burning silicon.


I disagree..... :kaola: 
September 30, 2007 11:01:49 PM

It would make sense if we could keep the extremist on track and not turn it into a fanboy debate.
October 2, 2007 11:59:23 PM

I dont get the point of this article..

your fan fails and the cpu keeps running, and the only thing users will see is a slower running PC?

mabye im old fashioned, but if the cpu fan fails on my PC, i want it to complain... LOUDLY, and then shut off. not slowly bake the cpu, and eventually destroy it.
October 3, 2007 9:24:27 PM

All my motherboards do just that....complain loudly...that is, until a point...then they just shut off.

Thank goodness for smart BIOSs
!