4 ms·

I bought a desktop computer in ~2004 and as usual I just pick the best hardware I could afford back then. I still feel cheated by Intel, because working on tha

by jfroma 10y ago

I bought a desktop computer in ~2004 and as usual I just pick the best hardware I could afford back then. I still feel cheated by Intel, because working on that crap was like working on an airplane turbine. The noise and the heat was impossible to tolerate to the point that some companies started to sell solutions for this thing back then, some even using water. I ended up buying a huge blue dissipator. Intel used me to test their new Hyperthreading technology, the processor was called Prescott, a.k.a "Pres-Hot". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4#Prescott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4#Prescott

ajford 10y ago
I remember those damn Prescott cores. I had one on a custom build I did for myself back in High School. After setting that bad boy up, it ran so hot that my room was about 5 degrees hotter than the rest of the house. I finally started putting it to sleep for most of the day just to keep the heat down.
Asooka 10y ago
I actually applied an absolutely-final overkill solution to the noise&heat problem on my desktop - I run a full liquid cooling setup with a giant heatsink with three fans on it mounted fully outside the case. It's mounted on my desk. The noise is unnoticeable and cpu temp is 27C at idle, 60C at full burn.
- jfroma 10y ago
  I wonder if some processors like prescot actually need to run hot
  - ansible 10y ago
    I wonder if some processors like prescot actually need to run hot Generally speaking, no. Some are more tolerant of high temperatures, but that's it. And higher temperatures in general will degrade the processor over time.
zokier 10y ago
I wonder how much of that reputation is based on absolute power consumption, and how much comes from the relative huge jump from preceding Pentium III's. Checking from ARK, when looking at mainstream models the first gen P4's consumed 60ish watts which grew to 85ish watts in the end (precott). That sounds pretty much in line with all the CPUs that followed. But it was radical rise from the <30ish watts that PIIIs consumed. Of course the top of the line P4s were even more hotter (in the 115-130 watt range) but that is actually also still in line with more recent CPUs. It's just less visible as Intel in their great wisdom has limited the top models to server Xeons and thus out of the hands of consumers.
- throwawayish 10y ago
  At the time water-based heatpipes weren't used for coolers, which made all coolers much, much less efficient. Today practically every CPU cooler uses 2-8 heatpipes and that's what makes all the difference. (Well that and not using top-blowers anymore).
- j3097736 10y ago
  >That sounds pretty much in line with all the CPUs that followed. Because the Intel CPUs that followed actually had power saving features, previously found only on mobile versions. Those P4 would just run hot all the time, not pleasant being in computer lab with two dozens of them + CRTs and AC that couldn't keep up.

by jfroma 10y ago

ajford 10y ago

I remember those damn Prescott cores. I had one on a custom build I did for myself back in High School. After setting that bad boy up, it ran so hot that my room was about 5 degrees hotter than the rest of the house. I finally started putting it to sleep for most of the day just to keep the heat down.

Asooka 10y ago

I actually applied an absolutely-final overkill solution to the noise&heat problem on my desktop - I run a full liquid cooling setup with a giant heatsink with three fans on it mounted fully outside the case. It's mounted on my desk. The noise is unnoticeable and cpu temp is 27C at idle, 60C at full burn.

jfroma 10y ago
I wonder if some processors like prescot actually need to run hot
- ansible 10y ago
  I wonder if some processors like prescot actually need to run hot Generally speaking, no. Some are more tolerant of high temperatures, but that's it. And higher temperatures in general will degrade the processor over time.

zokier 10y ago

I wonder how much of that reputation is based on absolute power consumption, and how much comes from the relative huge jump from preceding Pentium III's. Checking from ARK, when looking at mainstream models the first gen P4's consumed 60ish watts which grew to 85ish watts in the end (precott). That sounds pretty much in line with all the CPUs that followed. But it was radical rise from the <30ish watts that PIIIs consumed. Of course the top of the line P4s were even more hotter (in the 115-130 watt range) but that is actually also still in line with more recent CPUs. It's just less visible as Intel in their great wisdom has limited the top models to server Xeons and thus out of the hands of consumers.

throwawayish 10y ago
At the time water-based heatpipes weren't used for coolers, which made all coolers much, much less efficient. Today practically every CPU cooler uses 2-8 heatpipes and that's what makes all the difference. (Well that and not using top-blowers anymore).
j3097736 10y ago
>That sounds pretty much in line with all the CPUs that followed. Because the Intel CPUs that followed actually had power saving features, previously found only on mobile versions. Those P4 would just run hot all the time, not pleasant being in computer lab with two dozens of them + CRTs and AC that couldn't keep up.