On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:30:22 GMT, no@spam.invalid (tluxon)
wrote:


>I'd be surprised if the PC in consideration will ever be overclocked
>(or at least not until our 9yr old takes full responsibility for it),
>as our boys use it more for internet stuff and my oldest boy wants to
>use if for Lego Digital Designer.
>
>I'm considering this because I was trying to extend the life of a Asus
>P2B-F P3 550MHz -based system. I discovered the power supply couldn't
>support a Radeon 9800 Pro I have (which would be way overkill for the
>system) and the motherboard didn't have the PCI rev.2.2 slots I
>needed for a wireless NIC. I just want to put something intelligent
>together that'll be bulletproof and not require any of my
>troubleshooting time.

It sounds like you're going overboard. The described uses
will run fine with a Celeron-D, and after a year you'd have
lost most of the value of the P4 anyway.


>
>So if I decide to stick with a P4 630 it'll be mostly because I'm
>familiar with Intel products. I have a concern with how hot the CPU
>runs, but I thought Intel had slightly mitigated some of the heat
>issues with the 600 series processors. It sounds like you're saying
>that's not quite true.

It's not at all true. There is no "fix" for the problem
because it's inherant in the design of the P4 and process
size. For a cooler CPU made by intel you'd want a
Pentium-M.

>I have a number of friends that always buy
>Dell computers and some of them are using 600 series processors and
>don't say anything about problems with heat. Is it because they just
>don't know?

That is possible, but more likely, they only use the system
modestly rather than ever having it at full load for any
extended period of time. Indeed, your son probably won't
either, but for the games. Right now it may be "Lego
Digital Designer", but there may be more demanding games
today or tomorrow too. On the other hand that is also a
reason to go with a P4 instead of Celeron, but ultimately,
either is hot-running per the performance.

I tend to think your "comfort" level with Intel systems is a
bit irrelevant. There's no particular difference, you just
install the board same way, install CPU and heatsink
(similar enough), install software and there you are.
That's not to knock an Intel purchase if that's what you
want, but for games and lower heat an Athlon 64 is the
better choice.

> Or has Dell incorporated extra cooling in their systems
>to negate the issue of heat in their systems?

Definitely not. Dell uses basic time-tested cooling
strategies with median grade parts. It works, but not a lot
of margin because better heatsinks cost more and most people
don't think about a heatsink when reading the Dell spec
sheet, so it's a hidden cost they want to avoid.

>Or perhaps this heat
>is only a factor when using 100% CPU time for extended periods of
>time?
>


I should read ahead more often.
Yes, but likewise, at any given load it'll also be a bit
hotter and use more power (energy). If power use isn't a
concern then only the issue of full load needs considered.
i'm not suggesting it will overheat, necessarily, but you do
want to keep an eye on dust buildup and operation in a room
with high ambient temp might be best avoided with Dell (or
any OEM for that matter) cooling solution.


>I like everything I've read about AMD and their widespread use in the
>overclocking community and will give it serious consideration when
>upgrading my current computer.

It doesn't really have to do with overclocking, one can o'c
a P4 too if they like. It just happens that those most
sensative to the performance gains of overclocking, also
appreciate what the CPU is before it's overclocked too.

With either CPU, the best o'c is by raising the FSB, and
memory bus, requiring good high-end memory too. That
strategy is quite attainable on either platform, providing
the motherboard you select has the headroom and features to
facilitate it, but of course to get as much o'c out of a P4,
at a certain point the heat is a real issue to combat with a
water-cooler or other exotic means.

> I'm just not as sure if it's the best
>direction to go for upgrading the family's #4 PC that probably won't
>be overclocked and I don't really want to put more time into.


If you're looking to upgrade your system too, why not just
hand it down to your son and get yourself a new one instead?

I didn't mean to "push" overclocking, but it's a personal
choice, and you need not go overboard doing so if you
decided to. Some aim for 30% or more o'c, and that may not
be warranted but a lesser % is still a real gain in some
situations. Even so, for the described uses, certainly any
modern CPU is going to be fast enough without o'c.