Cooper or gold heatsink?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 19:52:29 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:

> Peter Hucker wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 13:20:52 +1200, ~misfit~
>> <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:46:35 +1200, Michael Brown
>>>> <see@signature.below> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>>
<snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.2GHz or XP3200 rating? 3.2GHz would be incredible on just water
>>>>> cooling, but XP3200 rating (which would be ~2.4-2.5GHz on a 133MHz
>>>>> bus) would be understandable
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rating 🙂
>>>>
>>>> Gotta be comparable with the fools using Intels.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well then it isn't "Ghz" is it?
>>
>>
>> GHz means what to you?
>
> It's cycles per second, in billions.

That's the old meaning.

>> It's the speed the cpu runs at.
>
> More precisely, it's how many times a second the CPU clock goes up and down
> (cycles). What it does with, or during, those clock cycles is another matter.
>
>> If my Athlon
>> 3200+ does things as fast as your Intel 3.2GHz, then it's a true measure.
>
> Whatever kind of 'measure' you wish to call it, it isn't "MHz."

Pedant!


--
13 parrots and rising http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
Served from a quad watercooled dual 2.8GHz silent Athlon with a half terrabyte Raid.

Two fish swim into a concrete wall. One turns to the other and says, "dam".

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Peter Hucker wrote:

> On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 19:52:29 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 13:20:52 +1200, ~misfit~
>>> <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:46:35 +1200, Michael Brown
>>>>> <see@signature.below> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>>>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3.2GHz or XP3200 rating? 3.2GHz would be incredible on just water
>>>>>> cooling, but XP3200 rating (which would be ~2.4-2.5GHz on a 133MHz
>>>>>> bus) would be understandable
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rating 🙂
>>>>>
>>>>> Gotta be comparable with the fools using Intels.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well then it isn't "Ghz" is it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> GHz means what to you?
>>
>>
>> It's cycles per second, in billions.
>
>
> That's the old meaning.

No, it's the definition of it.

>
>>> It's the speed the cpu runs at.
>>
>>
>> More precisely, it's how many times a second the CPU clock goes up and
>> down
>> (cycles). What it does with, or during, those clock cycles is another
>> matter.
>>
>>> If my Athlon
>>> 3200+ does things as fast as your Intel 3.2GHz, then it's a true
>>> measure.
>>
>>
>> Whatever kind of 'measure' you wish to call it, it isn't "MHz."
>
>
> Pedant!

No, it's called being correct.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 17:47:04 +1200, ~misfit~ <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:

> Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 14:03:56 +1200, ~misfit~
>> <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 13:20:52 +1200, ~misfit~
>>>> <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well then it isn't "Ghz" is it?
>>>>
>>>> GHz means what to you? It's the speed the cpu runs at. If my
>>>> Athlon 3200+ does things as fast as your Intel 3.2GHz, then it's a
>>>> true measure.
>>>
>>> No it isn't. Others have pointed out
>>
>> Haven't seen others mention it - but some don't make it to clara.net,
>> and some people don't reply correctly, so they don't get flagged as
>> replies to me and are not read.
>
> Well you replied to one of them.

Afterwards. I had a backlog and was picking the interesting ones, missed it. It's just it hapopens a lot - the propagation delays, and a few in these groups can't reply properly.

>>> that you are attempting to use an empirical measurement incorrectly.
>>
>> Pedant!
>
> Funny, that's what you called him too.

They are both true! Do you also object to things being called "turbo" when they go faster? (Turbo is a specific device in a car engine using compressed air)

>>> BTW, I don't use an Intel, I use an AMD Athlon XP1800+ Thoroughbred B
>>> overclocked. Running on a 200Mhz FSB with a multiplier of 10.5 for
>>> 2.1 *Ghz*. It benchmarks nearly as well as a Pentium 4 2.8Ghz but I
>>> don't say it's running at 2.8Ghz.
>>>
>>> Also, what *are* you running? Above you say XP3200 but your sig
>>> mentions 2.8Ghz Athlons.
>>
>> I turned off the overclocking.
>
> So you won't be posting here anymore?

I posted in here because you lot seemed like the most likely people to know the answer.

>> Wasn't doing a lot. Waste of time
>> really. You don't actually notice anything less than a 50% increase.
>
> So now you're running XP2800+ CPUs, not 2.8Ghz Athlons.

See above.



--
13 parrots and rising http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
Served from a quad watercooled dual 2.8GHz silent Athlon with a half terrabyte Raid.

The average lifespan of electronic devices is between zero and infinity, or 2 days after the warranty runs out, whichever comes first.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Peter Hucker wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 17:47:04 +1200, ~misfit~
> <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 14:03:56 +1200, ~misfit~
>>> <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 13:20:52 +1200, ~misfit~
>>>>> <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well then it isn't "Ghz" is it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> GHz means what to you? It's the speed the cpu runs at. If my
>>>>> Athlon 3200+ does things as fast as your Intel 3.2GHz, then it's a
>>>>> true measure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No it isn't. Others have pointed out
>>>
>>>
>>> Haven't seen others mention it - but some don't make it to clara.net,
>>> and some people don't reply correctly, so they don't get flagged as
>>> replies to me and are not read.
>>
>>
>> Well you replied to one of them.
>
>
> Afterwards. I had a backlog and was picking the interesting ones,
> missed it. It's just it hapopens a lot - the propagation delays, and a
> few in these groups can't reply properly.
>
>>>> that you are attempting to use an empirical measurement incorrectly.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pedant!
>>
>>
>> Funny, that's what you called him too.
>
>
> They are both true! Do you also object to things being called "turbo"
> when they go faster? (Turbo is a specific device in a car engine using
> compressed air)

No, because that usage of 'turbo' is a slang allegory to the real device,
which people mentally image as making the engine more powerful and the car
'faster', which is how it gets it's slang meaning. Just as the phrase
"lock, stock, and barrel" is an allegorical reference to having a
'complete' (whole) gun when you have the lock (firing) mechanism, a stock,
and a barrel (click, boom). E.g. He took it lock, stock, and barrel. The
whole shebang. The whole enchilada. The whole ball of wax, know what I mean?

But "GHz" is not an allegorical reference when you use it in the context of
a processor's clock because that is precisely a place where it's definition
is operative. Just as it would be improper, and misleading, to say you put
a 'turbo' on your car's engine when what you did was bolt on a new
carburetor. And people would be rightly ridiculing you for claiming so.

Now, you might say that the new carburetor makes the car FEEL, or
'perform', like it's 'turbocharged', and that's what AMD is saying with
their '+' ratings: it performs 'like' a <insert rating> but they
specifically put the + there to show it is NOT the processor's "MHz".

>>>> BTW, I don't use an Intel, I use an AMD Athlon XP1800+ Thoroughbred B
>>>> overclocked. Running on a 200Mhz FSB with a multiplier of 10.5 for
>>>> 2.1 *Ghz*. It benchmarks nearly as well as a Pentium 4 2.8Ghz but I
>>>> don't say it's running at 2.8Ghz.
>>>>
>>>> Also, what *are* you running? Above you say XP3200 but your sig
>>>> mentions 2.8Ghz Athlons.
>>>
>>>
>>> I turned off the overclocking.
>>
>>
>> So you won't be posting here anymore?
>
>
> I posted in here because you lot seemed like the most likely people to
> know the answer.
>
>>> Wasn't doing a lot. Waste of time
>>> really. You don't actually notice anything less than a 50% increase.
>>
>>
>> So now you're running XP2800+ CPUs, not 2.8Ghz Athlons.
>
>
> See above.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 03:10:23 +1200, ~misfit~ <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:

> Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 17:47:04 +1200, ~misfit~
>> <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 14:03:56 +1200, ~misfit~
>>>> <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
<snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> No it isn't. Others have pointed out
>>>>
>>>> Haven't seen others mention it - but some don't make it to
>>>> clara.net, and some people don't reply correctly, so they don't get
>>>> flagged as replies to me and are not read.
>>>
>>> Well you replied to one of them.
>>
>> Afterwards. I had a backlog and was picking the interesting ones,
>> missed it. It's just it hapopens a lot - the propagation delays, and
>> a few in these groups can't reply properly.
>>
>>>>> that you are attempting to use an empirical measurement
>>>>> incorrectly.
>>>>
>>>> Pedant!
>>>
>>> Funny, that's what you called him too.
>>
>> They are both true! Do you also object to things being called
>> "turbo" when they go faster? (Turbo is a specific device in a car
>> engine using compressed air)
>
> You mean, like it takes the escaping exhaust gases and uses them to spin up
> a turbine that is connected by a shaft to a compressor that increases the
> pressure of the air at the intake above ambient, thereby forcing more
> combustible oxygen into the combustion chamber increasing the power output
> of the engine?

Showoff / googler!

> If someone told me they'd turbocharged their car then I would expect that
> they had fitted such a device. For sure. If they hadn't then they'd plainly
> be lying.

Never heard turbo applied to something other than a car?

> Likewise if someone tells me they have a CPU overclocked to 3.2Ghz when in
> fact it's running at 2.2Ghz then they too would be lying.

What's the point in us Athlon users quoting actual clock speed when it is meaningless?

> I had a highly tuned six-cylinder car awhile back that blew most every V8
> that I 'compared' it to into the dust. However I didn't go around saying I
> had a V8. I was pround that my six was superior to a lot of eight's but that
> didn't make it an eight.

Well that's different, it's like saying I have 6 valves or I have 8 valves. But if you had quoted BHP.... as that is a measure of power - as GHz has come to be.

> Boys are the same the world over, making outrageous claims about their
> equipment, often to make up for inferiority complexes or small genitalia,
> all the while hoping that nobody will see through their little machinations.

Small genitalia indeed. So guys with big balls just walk around naked? Get real.

> The thing is, people here don't fall for bullshit, they know their subject
> matter well and it's easy to pick out the outrageous claims. Stick to
> posting your lies to a non-overclocking group where people may actually
> believe you and think you are a hero.

It ain't a lie, it's fact. The cpus run at the speed of an Intel 3.2GHz.

Why don't you go sue Seagate for selling 120GB drives that aren't 120GB?


--
13 parrots and rising http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
Served from a quad watercooled dual 2.8GHz silent Athlon with a half terrabyte Raid.

Take notice: when this sign is under water, this road is impassable.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 03:10:23 +1200, ~misfit~
> <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 17:47:04 +1200, ~misfit~
>>> <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 14:03:56 +1200, ~misfit~
>>>>> <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it isn't. Others have pointed out
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Haven't seen others mention it - but some don't make it to
>>>>> clara.net, and some people don't reply correctly, so they don't get
>>>>> flagged as replies to me and are not read.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well you replied to one of them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Afterwards. I had a backlog and was picking the interesting ones,
>>> missed it. It's just it hapopens a lot - the propagation delays, and
>>> a few in these groups can't reply properly.
>>>
>>>>>> that you are attempting to use an empirical measurement
>>>>>> incorrectly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pedant!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Funny, that's what you called him too.
>>>
>>>
>>> They are both true! Do you also object to things being called
>>> "turbo" when they go faster? (Turbo is a specific device in a car
>>> engine using compressed air)
>>
>>
>> You mean, like it takes the escaping exhaust gases and uses them to
>> spin up
>> a turbine that is connected by a shaft to a compressor that increases the
>> pressure of the air at the intake above ambient, thereby forcing more
>> combustible oxygen into the combustion chamber increasing the power
>> output
>> of the engine?
>
>
> Showoff / googler!
>
>> If someone told me they'd turbocharged their car then I would expect that
>> they had fitted such a device. For sure. If they hadn't then they'd
>> plainly
>> be lying.
>
>
> Never heard turbo applied to something other than a car?
>
>> Likewise if someone tells me they have a CPU overclocked to 3.2Ghz
>> when in
>> fact it's running at 2.2Ghz then they too would be lying.
>
>
> What's the point in us Athlon users quoting actual clock speed when it
> is meaningless?
>
>> I had a highly tuned six-cylinder car awhile back that blew most every V8
>> that I 'compared' it to into the dust. However I didn't go around
>> saying I
>> had a V8. I was pround that my six was superior to a lot of eight's
>> but that
>> didn't make it an eight.
>
>
> Well that's different, it's like saying I have 6 valves or I have 8
> valves. But if you had quoted BHP.... as that is a measure of power -
> as GHz has come to be.
>
>> Boys are the same the world over, making outrageous claims about their
>> equipment, often to make up for inferiority complexes or small genitalia,
>> all the while hoping that nobody will see through their little
>> machinations.
>
>
> Small genitalia indeed. So guys with big balls just walk around naked?
> Get real.
>
>> The thing is, people here don't fall for bullshit, they know their
>> subject
>> matter well and it's easy to pick out the outrageous claims. Stick to
>> posting your lies to a non-overclocking group where people may actually
>> believe you and think you are a hero.
>
>
> It ain't a lie, it's fact. The cpus run at the speed of an Intel 3.2GHz.
>
> Why don't you go sue Seagate for selling 120GB drives that aren't 120GB?

Because they ARE 120 GB.

 

[Dave]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

> >> They are both true! Do you also object to things being called
> >> "turbo" when they go faster? (Turbo is a specific device in a car
> >> engine using compressed air)
> >
> > You mean, like it takes the escaping exhaust gases and uses them to spin
up
> > a turbine that is connected by a shaft to a compressor that increases
the
> > pressure of the air at the intake above ambient, thereby forcing more
> > combustible oxygen into the combustion chamber increasing the power
output
> > of the engine?
>
> Showoff / googler!

If you use a term incorrectly then expect to be corrected. Not all cars
that have compressors use "turbos". Some of these cars use a mechanical
means to drive the compressor - belts, gears, etc.

Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Dave wrote:
>>>>They are both true! Do you also object to things being called
>>>>"turbo" when they go faster? (Turbo is a specific device in a car
>>>>engine using compressed air)
>>>
>>>You mean, like it takes the escaping exhaust gases and uses them to spin
>
> up
>
>>>a turbine that is connected by a shaft to a compressor that increases
>
> the
>
>>>pressure of the air at the intake above ambient, thereby forcing more
>>>combustible oxygen into the combustion chamber increasing the power
>
> output
>
>>>of the engine?
>>
>>Showoff / googler!
>
>
> If you use a term incorrectly then expect to be corrected. Not all cars
> that have compressors use "turbos". Some of these cars use a mechanical
> means to drive the compressor - belts, gears, etc.
>
> Dave

That would be a supercharger; colloquially a 'blower'.

It should be noted that neither are peculiar to 'cars'.

 

[Dave]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

> >
> > If you use a term incorrectly then expect to be corrected. Not all cars
> > that have compressors use "turbos". Some of these cars use a mechanical
> > means to drive the compressor - belts, gears, etc.
> >
> > Dave
>
> That would be a supercharger; colloquially a 'blower'.
>
A term that is generally applied to roots types.

There are a variety of compressor types.

> It should be noted that neither are peculiar to 'cars'.
>
Trucks/heavy machinery, aircraft, boats, bikes, etc.