ติดตั้ง Steam
เข้าสู่ระบบ
|
ภาษา
简体中文 (จีนตัวย่อ)
繁體中文 (จีนตัวเต็ม)
日本語 (ญี่ปุ่น)
한국어 (เกาหลี)
български (บัลแกเรีย)
Čeština (เช็ก)
Dansk (เดนมาร์ก)
Deutsch (เยอรมัน)
English (อังกฤษ)
Español - España (สเปน)
Español - Latinoamérica (สเปน - ลาตินอเมริกา)
Ελληνικά (กรีก)
Français (ฝรั่งเศส)
Italiano (อิตาลี)
Bahasa Indonesia (อินโดนีเซีย)
Magyar (ฮังการี)
Nederlands (ดัตช์)
Norsk (นอร์เวย์)
Polski (โปแลนด์)
Português (โปรตุเกส - โปรตุเกส)
Português - Brasil (โปรตุเกส - บราซิล)
Română (โรมาเนีย)
Русский (รัสเซีย)
Suomi (ฟินแลนด์)
Svenska (สวีเดน)
Türkçe (ตุรกี)
Tiếng Việt (เวียดนาม)
Українська (ยูเครน)
รายงานปัญหาเกี่ยวกับการแปลภาษา
กฎและแนวทางปฏิบัติในกระดานสนทนา
รายงานโพสต์นี้
no wonder your cpu temperature stays cool, you got water cooler.. that thing cost very high at my place. all i can afford is the normal air cooler
a h80i looses out to the twin tower air coolers though like the noctua DH14/15 mArz your doing
well mate dont worry about it you dropped 10-20 degrees on your CPU it'll last a bit longer and ytoull be able to game for longer
something like the Coolermaster hyper 212 EVO costs less then the h80i and performs better so maybe look to that as your next upgrade
It'll only overheat if your cooling is insufficient. I think you might have misunderstood a statement saying - as I mentioned before - that Prime testing is a quite unrealistic load scenario in common "real world applications".
Telling you not to use it because the CPU will overheat would mean you'd be officialy constricted to running certain algorithms. I'd say it like: "Avoid using this, as it will put a lot of unnecessary thermal stress on your CPU, unless you are testing your cooling solution or actually want to find the next largest prime number." Or worded differently: "Don't set your CPU under heavy load just for sh*ts and giggles" - that's basically the same thing as you wouldn't drive your car around at constant max RPM if not for testing or other sensible purposes.
Admittedly physics was never my educational strong point, but I'm pretty sure that it's close to impossible to reach anything below the ambient temperature unless you actively lower the temperature of the transporting medium by e.g. Peltier elements or a cooling compressor - which as far as I can see the H80i doesn't do; from the description it's just a common water cooling system.
I would imagine high humidity might lead to evaporation chill effects ("Verdunstungskälte" - not entirely sure if I translated that correctly) up to a certain degree, but a constant temperature difference of around 10 °C (assuming an ambient temperature of around 25 °C as you didn't mention) does not sound reasonable to me. 40 °C also sounds quite low for an overclocked CPU with 125 W TDP, especially as the H80i seems to be a rather small system. Are you sure you don't have a deviation factor of around 10 °C somewhere? 23 - 25 °C core temperature idle and 50 °C under heavy load at 25 °C ambient temperature for an effective water cooling system sounds way more reasonable to me. Again, dependent of where exactly the temperature measurement data is coming from.
To make a bold statement: water cooling is of no avail for the common user, the disadvantages usually easily outweigh the advantages apart from being more expensive:
Liquid cooling is actually (way) more effective in cooling a chip as the liquid circulating through the cooling element will transport the heat away much faster than a normal air cooling element, which directly takes the heat and has it blown away in an airflow. Also using a large radiator gives you a large surface (often way larger that that of a common air cooler) as a heat exchanger, if it's big enough you might even be able to operate it without any (or some large, slow and silent) fans. And lastly water cooling is somehow just something very amazing and cool (pun intended :-D).
However:
You generally want to keep liquids away from your electronics. Leakage due to bad manufacturing, corrosion or errors when assembling/installing are not that uncommon. You'll also have to be very careful not to bend the water tubes too much as this might heavily decrease the water flow. Also a lot of systems need servicing (like changing the cooling liquid or renewing sealing gaskets) on a regular basis. If the system doesn't come prefilled, filling it with cooling liquid while avoiding air bubbles in the circulation can be quite a hassle as well.
Furthermore the advanced cooling capacity of a liquid cooling system doesn't give you a significant advantage unless you're heavily overclocking and need to get rid of a lot of heat as fast as possible.
A lot of people like to have water cooling as it might have an at least equal cooling capacity as an air cooler while being much more silent. That however isn't always the case either: Cheap and/or badly manufactured pumps will vibrate and produce quite some buzzing noise. Little radiators with a small surface require fans which might be forced to run quite fast to get the heat away from the radiator - the noise from that can very well be equal or even worse than that of an air cooler, so while you might still have a higher - in a lot of cases unnecessary - cooling capacity, you might not have won anything when it comes to noise.
Completely fanless, water cooled systems aren't advisable either. Next to the CPU and GPU there are other componentes in your case that doesn't like running too hot, e.g. voltage regulators or capacitors on the mainboard or hard drives. Not having an airflow in your case might constantly "cook" those components and significantly shorten their lifespan. There are in fact water coolers for e.g. voltage regulators and such, but they are usually quite hard to get, specificly made for one particular mainboard, very often can't be used for anything else and cost a fortune. I looked into that a couple of years ago and ~250 bucks (no pump, no radiator, no tubes, just the cooling elements!) for a complete set for my mainboard back then, not being usable with any other mainboard and with every single cooling element being a leaking hazard, just wasn't worth it.
So unless you have a desperate need to get an unusual high amount of heat away from your component as fast as you can, or you are just an enthusiast doing it based on sheer joy and fascination, there's no need or real advantage of water/liquid cooling.
If you are a real enthusiast however, do it like a friend of mine several years ago (somewhere around the early 2000s for his Athlon XP when water cooling came up): Get yourself plates of remoulded copper from a scrapyard, a Dremel, industrial strength glue, some tubes, an aquarium pump, Plexiglas and screws for attachment and a radiator from a Volkswagen Golf II.
To this day I'm still in enormous awe considering the fact that this actually worked pretty effectively and did not leak at all! :-)
theres some awesome backyard jobs out there
Idle temps on my 3570k overclocked to 4.2ghz are around 32 and never goes above 60 under heavy load.
Nothing you can't do with a good air cooler but i like the fact that the heat is transfered directly to the radiator and gets blown out the top, it isn't getting blown around the inside of the case. Another plus is the fact the pump part that actually sits on the CPU is low profile and leaves a lot of room in the case for good airflow.
It wasn't a interpretation of your statement really, more like mention of words Intel told us (well, me - I was one "penpalling" them
True, even in severe CAD, both graphics and calculation based works or games, any of those I've seen, CPU load never to levels avhieveed in Prime or some other stress tests. Speaking of which, testing some of our CPUs and their cooling at work was the reason why we contacted Intel, who advised us on Prime using. Judging by what I saw, I tend to believe Intel.
To make that clear: I'm not questioning that someone at Intel told you that, but I can't imagine Intel's statement indeed generally meaning: "Don't use prime algorithms, our CPUs can't take that and will overheat in any case!" as I think you interpret it as? Or am I misunderstanding you? (Keep in mind: I'm not an English native speaker)
Of course load and heat is always a "bad thing", shortening the life of your CPU (as - to get back to cars - constantly driving reved up to the max will significantly shorten the life of your engine, or better yet: having the engine running at all will make it break sooner or later), but without any of my possible interpretations that would somehow be a quite blatant, kind of weird confession of failure - and not backed up by any of my experience at all: Every time I build a PC, one of the first things after installing the OS is running a prime torture for at least an hour to check for thermal problems, and never ran into one (neither with stock/boxed coolers, nor aftermarket stuff) unless I f*cked something up, usually a slanted installation of a cooler with that god-awful clip system, making the bottom of the cooler laying on the CPU's heatspreader in a non-planar way, or just an insufficient case ventilation leading to a high inner case temperature and making the CPU and GPU cooler unable to get rid od the hot air. Some of my recent builds from the last couple of years include an E8500, a Q6600, a 2600K, a G860, a 4770K and a low TDP Pentium for my XBMC whose exact name I can't remember right now - none of them seemed to run into any thermal problem at all while prime testing (always using the current versions of Prime95 and HWMonitor by the way).
Of course I didn't run the tests for more than maybe a couple of hours, so another possible interpretation: Don't use a permanent, extremely high load over the course of days/months on a desktop processor - maybe added: unless your entire thermal solution (case and room) is explicitely made for that. Also, if I was a service person talking to you from a distance, not really knowing several conditions (maybe a dusty cooler, ambient temperature and so on...), unable to verify your information about those and at the same time knowing that you're running into thermal problems, I'd probably also rather play it safe and tell you not to try to get that stuff as hot as possible, respectively not to "push your luck".
I just googled through some forums and saw a lot of people claiming that 90 °C core temperature for Sandy and Ivy Bridges was just fine and the dangerous area would begin at around 100 °C. A lot of them seem to use Open Hardware Monitor, I'm normally using CPUID HWMonitor - I'll repeat my test later, this time monitoring the temperatures with Open Hardware Monitor, maybe the temperature readings look different there.
mine runs @4.5ghz and in summertime doing heavy 3d rendering or after effects i have seen it reaching 72.
i think under 75 is fine, you wont be running your cpu 100% usage and max temp 24/7 anyway.
btw i have the corsair H100, no i, and is a fine cooling system. so much better than having a huge piece of metal collecting dust in your case imo.
Yeah i have nothing better to do then come on here talking ♥♥♥♥!
link http://i59.tinypic.com/m73vo7.png
11c at idle
Isn't accurate with FX cpu's.
Why is the temperature of my FX, Phenom, Athlon based processor lower than the ambient temperature?
Starting with the Phenoms, AMD's digital sensor no longer reports an absolute temperature value anymore, but a reading with a certain offset, which is unknown. It is estimated that this offset is between 10 - 20c.
Even my air cooled shows 19°c at idle even though they are actually +30°c :p
Actually it IS accurate
You're talking about core and socket temps. socket temps usally run around 10c higher then core.