Why Pentium?

[paulmd]

Sure, but that kills the capacity per $ and the performance.
I don't really care so much about the noise as it isn't
going to be sitting within earshot but having the fans means
that someday I'll have to pop off the filter panel and clean
or replace it. It's not much of a concern though, I already
have a couple other filesevers with large filters over the
entire 5-1/2" bay area and from the slow dust accumulation
it looks like they could go several years inbetween filter
replacement intervals.

I didn't think you were THAT concerned with performance, what with all
that about underclocking a low performance chip, software RAID, and so
on. I understand the cost aspect, tho'.

 

[Rod Speed]

Actually it is a sign that the person buying the system
is incompetent, and the one deploying it as well.

Nope, its just a basic recognition of how many users operate.

If even one moment is spent on considering the CPU's ability
to shut down while there were not good fans installed (which
make the risk of fan failure so remote as to be overshadowed
by any other reasonable risk), the effort was made in vain.

Thats a completely silly claim.

If there are good design decisions made towards cooling,
the CPU shutdown mechanism is of very little usefulness,
far far less than most other parameters in CPU selection.

Wrong with most personal desktop systems which dont need any
careful choice of cpu at all. What happens in reality with the absolute
vast bulk of those is a choice based on value for money instead.

"Something happens"?
If you can't keep "something" from happening,
hire someone who can. This isn't rocket science.

It makes a hell of a lot more sense to have the cpu
behave gracefully when the shit hits the fan instead.

Same goes for heatsink clips and installation. Focusing on
the PROBLEM prevents downtime. Ignoring the problem is
what causes a perceived need for CPU shutdown features.

Have fun explaining how come even amd
now have a decent shutdown mechanism.

Its nothing like as black and white as you are claiming.

.. about the last thing worth considering.

Nope, not if its a value for money personal desktop
system where there are no considerations in the
choice of the cpu except whats currently decent value
for money with minimal hassles with chipset quirks etc.

Better than not having it, but if you need it,
the person who selected the system and the
builder/seller should be relieved of their duties.

You clearly dont have a clue about what value
for money personal desktop systems are about.

He should have been more pissed off about why it happened.
As already written, if same thing happened in an Intel/P4 system
we'd have to assume he'd be a little upset about that too.

It wouldnt have happened if it was just an awkwardly
designed heatsink which could be installed improperly.
He would have had the chance to see that the cpu temp
was way out of line and check the heatsink to see why.

Its completely mad that an awkwardly designed heatsink
should see the cpu dead, particularly with the amd cpus
that didnt at that stage come with boxed HS and fan.

Actually no. It is ridiculous thinking about
the effect of a problem rather than the source.

Mindlessly silly.

I could complain that a pad of paper burst into flames because
someone lit it on fire, but does it mean I should buy flameproof
paper or avoid tools that go around lighting things on fire?

Mindlessly silly.

Nothing like the same thing as an awkwardly
designed HS which can be improperly installed.

yes, it's "trivial" to do it right, so if the system weren't
in proper working order for long term use, the problem
has already occured, is not the future result.

Gets sillier by the minute.

Then you choose to promote system downtime, failures.

Gets sillier by the minute.

If the system is designed properly the odds of the shutdown feature
being needed are too remote to be realistically considered.

Gets sillier by the minute.

If you disagree, you have never bothered to learn
proper system component selection for long term use.

Not a clue, as always.

Ok, if you presuppose a problem then that would help.

There are ALWAYS problems.

I'd rather presuppose the time should be spent on eliminating
the problem, or at the very least, checking for this.

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.

Ok, and again, it is pointless to name an entire company's
products rather than the specific one with the issue.

No its not, its evidence of how that company does things.

Someone could similarly claim "I had a p3 1.13GHz that
wasn't stable, this is proof we should never buy an Intel
CPU". It would be an equally invalid argument in the
context of system component selection today.

Gets sillier by the minute.

Ok, it's your $$.

Doesnt cost me a cent.

However, using them means you are necessarily
less informed through actual use of any alternatives.

What I choose to buy for myself is an entirely separate
matter to what I have seen problems with.

IOW, you may then know a fair bit about them, but not be
able to reasonably contrast them to anything else, _today_.

Gets sillier by the minute.

Possibly true, but we are talking about CPUs... which
come in different speed grades and corresponding prices.
Quite commonly people will spend more for a higher CPU #
than other system parameters so it is only reasonable to
consider what they get for the $.

Or it makes much more sense to buy on the basis of value
for money instead with systems known to be reliable.

That's just it, the main difference is not just games.

Never said it was.

As already written, you have to consider the app actually
used, not just the newest benchmarks of the newest apps.

In practice with what is done on most personal desktop systems,
benchmarks are completely irrelevant. The user wont even notice
any difference between any of the sensible alternatives in practice.

Likely anything else, software evolves too, particularly
for newer CPUs the performance changes.

And most users of personal desktop systems wont even notice if they
arent running demanding games or stuff like transcoding video files.

If one presumes a performance difference from a particular
CPU but without having the exact app and version they have
made an error, and likewise trying to draw conclusions
about similar tasks but still non-identical software.

In practice with what is done on most personal desktop systems,
benchmarks are completely irrelevant. The user wont even notice
any difference between any of the sensible alternatives in practice.

Games are NOT the only place where AMD CPUs
outperform "some" of Intel's, it's merely one place
where their raw performance is shown, as it is in
most apps not optimized for either architecture.

In practice games and transcoding video files are about
the only things that are done much on most personal desktop
systems where you will notice any effect of the cpu at all.

So pick your CPU then add onto it's cost the cost for all
the software you need to realize the benchmark score.

Or just pick what's best value for money instead.

That sort of benchmarking is a complete wank in the real world.

 

[Rod Speed]

You are overlooking that a gradual overheating
situation with either AMD or Intel CPUs, has an
overheat shutdown mechanism in place.

No I'm not, thats just one area where there
isnt anything in it between intels and amds.

Since Intels' was CPU-integral earlier, those
CPUs have a marginally better protection

Nothing marginal about it when the cpu fan
fails or the heatsink isnt installed properly.

but in practice you would have to
have a rather unlikely overheat scenario-

Wrong again. Its quite common with fur buildup on the cpu fan.

not as slow as if the fan failed, but not
as fast as if the heatsink came off.

If the heatsink installation was bad such that it didn't make contact, the
clamp came off or whatever, the system can still fry a P4. It has been
done, a P4's shutdown mechanism cannot respond fast enough to
counter the rapid rise in temp from cold-off to on-without-heatsink-contact.

And if the thermal pad has just got damaged, it may well handle it fine.

Citing one example of an old platform with an ineffective
means to power off a system with an Athlon in it is a
similar situation to any other past era issues- unless you
are buying that particular old tech, it is non-applicable to
parts selections today.

Duh, obviously since the current amds do now have a decent thermal shutdown mechanism.

He was clearly commenting on the downsides of not having a decent
thermal shutdown mechanism, and amd clearly NOW agrees with him.

 

[BC]

Bullshit! They are responsible for the funds in the EMPLOYEES'
pension plan too. Look up ERISA. This is *very* serious business,
given the dollars in there.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB115103062578188438-lMyQjAxMDE2NTIxODAyMzgwWj.html

From a pretty reliable source, the Wall St. Journal:


PAGE ONE


Hidden Burden

As Workers' Pensions Wither,
Those for Executives Flourish
Companies Run Up Big IOUs,
Mostly Obscured, to Grant
Bosses a Lucrative Benefit

The Billion-Dollar Liability

By ELLEN E. SCHULTZ and THEO FRANCIS
June 23, 2006; Page A1

To help explain its deep slump, General Motors Corp. often cites "legacy
costs," including pensions for its giant U.S. work force. In its latest
annual report, GM wrote: "Our extensive pension and [post-employment]
obligations to retirees are a competitive disadvantage for us." Early
this year, GM announced it was ending pensions for 42,000 workers.

But there's a twist to the auto maker's pension situation: The pension
plans for its rank-and-file U.S. workers are overstuffed with cash,
containing about $9 billion more than is needed to meet their
obligations for years to come.
[pension]

Another of GM's pension programs, however, saddles the company with a
liability of $1.4 billion. These pensions are for its executives....


krw, you might want to consider how companies are using bankruptcy to
bail on their pension obligations: several airlines have done this:

Pension Guaranty Corp.'s Financial Troubles Deepen

by Frank Langfitt

Morning Edition, May 18, 2005 · The government corporation that insures
pensions for 35 million Americans is facing a serious financial
shortfall of $23 billion. The deficit increased when United Airlines was
allowed to transfer its pension obligations to the government. Now
there's concern that taxpayers could face a costly bailout if other
companies follow United's lead.

Pretty current: from today's
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/45880.html

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/business/14947803.htm

Currently, pension plans are underfunded by an estimated total of $450
billion. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. - the federal agency that
insures private pension plans, much like the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp. insures bank accounts - estimates that $100 billion of that is
with firms with serious funding problems.

The pension insurer, which is self-funded from premiums, is itself
burdened by a $22.8 billion deficit because it has had to take over the
benefits obligations of companies that have gone bankrupt and ended
their plans.

Without a fix, many fear the whole defined-benefit pension system could
implode in a repeat of the late 1980s savings-and-loan crisis that
required a $130 billion taxpayer bailout.


Lack of political guts could ruin retirement
Sunday, July 02, 2006

We've known for decades that the financial day of reckoning was approaching.

And still we haven't done a thing about it.

As any demographer can tell you, when the Baby Boom generation retires,
a sizable chunk of it will live in a world of hurt. And subsequent
generations aren't likely to be any better off.

http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/columns-2/1151836097253330.xml&coll=7

Pension Tension
Some big local employers are short on funding retirement nest eggs
By Becky Pallack
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 06.25.2006

At least 16 of Southern Arizona's large employers have underfunded
pension and benefit programs, leading some workers to worry they won't
get what they were promised in retirement.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/135005

A recent Standard & Poor's study examined the status of pension plans
and other retirement benefits, including medical benefits, of companies
listed on the S&P 500. Together, the 500 companies have more than $461
billion in obligations that are not funded, the study found.
Of those 500 companies, there are 20 that employ more than 500 area
residents. Sixteen of those 20 — representing 29,000 current workers in
Southern Arizona — have a combined $28.8 billion deficit, the study says.

Raytheon Co. — the parent company of Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson's
biggest private employer — has a $4.6 billion deficit in its pension and
retirement benefits funds, the study says, though the company says it is
making large payments to its plans.

Many corporations are making the minimum contributions to their pension
funds, resulting in underfunded programs as obligations to employees
outperform growth of assets, the study says.

"The reality for many potential retirees is that the light at the end of
their working career is not the sunshine of retirement, but the
realization that they need to be more frugal and do with less," said
Howard Silverblatt, a senior index analyst at S&P and the author of the
study.

I live in San Diego: the city's pension plan is underfunded to the tune
of about $2 billion dollars: or, about one Enron.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/pension/20060619-9999-1n19bankrupt.html

Also, medical benefits for government retirees hasn't been funded, and,
with medical costs up and people living longer, this unfunded liability
is looking huge:

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/07/02/news/top_stories/22_31_197_1_06.txt

By the way, the Social Secuirty system and Medicare are not looking too
healthy, either:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/retirement/SStrustees_2006report/index.htm

Medicare, meanwhile, is expected to pay out more in benefits than it
receives in tax revenue starting this year.

No, KRW, they are not. Even the US military is having some issues:
retirement is funded out of current accounts.

http://www.cdi.org/program/document...eLastUpdated&ProgramID=37&from_page=index.cfm

And, as for private health insurance: this fine man is an inspiration:

http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2005/05/how-can-1248-million-year-ceo-make.html

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

How Can a $124.8 Million a Year CEO Make Health Care More Affordable?

An op-ed piece in the Providence Journal about huge pay packages for
corporate CEOs mentioned the breath-taking $124.8 million total
compensation of United Health Group (parent of United Healthcare) CEO
William McGuire. This figure can also be found in the Forbes Special
Report on CEO compensation. Here one can find that other managed care
CEOs got less fabulous, but still formidable compensation, e.g., Howard
Phanstiel, PacifiCare, 3.38 million; Edward Hanway, Cigna, $13.3
million; John Rowe, Aetna, $22.2 million; and Larry Glassrock,
Wellpoint, $25.0 million.

McGuire's compensation was so large as to take a measurable part of this
large company's net income (5%). Or to look at it from a stock-holder's
(and hence, an company owner's) viewpoint, had McGuire, who is an
employee, been only paid a cool million, and this money had been
distributed as a dividend, it would amount to about a $0.20 per share
dividend. (The current dividend is $0.03 per share.) (See company data
available from Forbes as well.)

To look at it from a United employee's viewpoint, had McGuire, who is an
employee, been only paid a cool million, and this money had been
distributed to employees, each of the 40,000 employees could have
received a bonus larger than $3000.

To look at it from the viewpoint of the health care system, the $124.8
million total compensation of a single United employee could pay the
salaries of 833 general internists at current typical salaries. Or the
$124.8 million could run one reasonable size community hospital for a year.

United Health Group's mission statement is "the company directs its
resources into designing products, providing services and applying
technologies that improve access to health and well-being services;
simply the health care experience; promote quality; and make health care
more affordable." (See this fact sheet.) Rather, it seems to be
directing a good chunk of its resources into salaries of top management
employees. How a $124.8 million CEO salary can be reconciled with a
mission to "make health care more affordable" is completely beyond me.

And, as for other post-retirement perks:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...ect&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

Titanic was a nice ship, KRW--was a very nice ride, luxurious, but, some
hazards were ignored, and it didn't go well.

Glad you are enjoying the ride now.

 

[kony]

I didn't think you were THAT concerned with performance, what with all
that about underclocking a low performance chip, software RAID, and so
on. I understand the cost aspect, tho'.

Cost is one major factor, considering notebook drives tend
to be around $1 per GB still and the proposed fileserver
will have at least a TB mirrored. Then there's the 40/44
pin adapters dangling in air behind the drives, something
I'd like to avoid for reliability's sake.

I'd expect the notebook drives to be the most significant
bottleneck, that I can underclock/undervolt the CPU and
mainboard and still have over 30MB/s with desktop drives.
It won't be necessary to underclock it but can't hurt in
achieving long lifespan either, the system can remain viable
for at least 10 years on GbE and a PCI based PATA & SATA
card(s). Whatever I come up with for AC power conditioning
will probably cost more than the entire system (sans drive
costs). Plus, if I keep power consumption below a certain
threshold, I have plenty of parts for building a redundant
power board. Beyond that threshold, it becomes yet another
expense, and same situation with some UPS I already have.
I could justify the expenses if necessary, if I didn't have
any fileservers yet but I do, so... It becomes more a matter
of a creative exercise during a routine pre-planned
obsolescence of one of my older fileservers. They run fine
but I'd rather replace while they work rather than after one
had failed, especially when it can be done at my leasure
instead of an immediate necessity. That just allows playing
around a bit before it's done.

Essentially I'll be leveraging the most cost effective
modern technologies and ignoring those with a high
cost:benefit ratio. I can underclock to lengthen service
intervals (except the inevitable drive failures over several
years use) and promote longest motherboard lifespan. A
light duty filesever just doesn't need much in the way of
CPU performance and the software raid may be an issue but on
a similar existing box with a Celeron 500, it never reaches
100% CPU utilization more than momentarily, fractions of a
second with averages (during transfers) well below 75% (I
forget the exact percentage at the moment).

If higher CPU performance had significant gain I could just
put a higher performance platform to use but I expect the
biggest bottleneck to be the 32bit/33MHz PCI bus as it was
the case with post-1GHz Tualatin fileservers and it would
raise costs by an order of magnitude to overcome that PCI
limitation with a newer PCI Express or ported GbE platform &
complimentary CPU. I'll have to benchmark it, maybe it
won't perform well enough underclocked but it's hard to
speculate as too few people have benchmarked C3 in these
kinds of uses. I'd seen some filesystem benchmarks that
make C3 look fine but not with software raid. So I'll
underclock then compare and see...

 

[kony]

No I'm not, thats just one area where there
isnt anything in it between intels and amds.

Isn't anything in what?

Either platform has had overheat shutdown for years now.
Early socket A didn't but were you buying an early socket A
based system new today?

Nothing marginal about it when the cpu fan
fails or the heatsink isnt installed properly.

Marginally better means that with the thermal sensor in the
CPU, it will react faster, but it need not react that fast
if the fan failed or 'sink was clogged with dust, because
the temp doesn't rise so fast in these conditions.

Wrong again. Its quite common with fur buildup on the cpu fan.

Yes and that scenario you post IS handled by AMD's solution.
Did you think there was NO thermal shutdown at all? Perhaps
this is where you are mislead.

And if the thermal pad has just got damaged, it may well handle it fine.

So how do you propose to damage it?

Again this is a very narrow change in thermal rise, "IF" it
were too fast for one thermal sensor to handle shutdown but
still slow enough for another to do so safely.

Duh, obviously since the current amds do now have a decent thermal shutdown mechanism.

.... and the XPs did too on the motherboard. Fan fails?
Motherboard shuts it down. Dust? Again, motherboard shuts
it down. Heatsink falls off? CPU may fry but so have P4s.

You have to reach to find a realistic scenario where it'll
make a real-world difference.

He was clearly commenting on the downsides of not having a decent
thermal shutdown mechanism, and amd clearly NOW agrees with him.

He was commenting about it as if it's a reason not to choose
AMD, now. Instead, it is a reason not to choose that one
old platform, which is same thing I've commented on all
along, that a particular issue with some old platform is not
an indictment against an entire company's line of products,
particularly later generation products. Again, same thing
applies to any earlier generation Intel bugs, it in now way
reflects on what you'd buy today as a current gen. part.

 

[kony]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 14:32:15 +1000, "Rod Speed"

Thats a completely silly claim.

Is this why you need backup systems in place?

For over a decade systems managed to run without CPU
shutdown mechanisms, and do so fine so long as the fans
worked and dust was kept in check. It's really that simple,
elimination of the failure points is what makes a good
system, not trying to fail gracefully then having system
downtime till the failure point is fixed.

Again, I didn't claim a CPU shutdown mechanism is worthless,
rather than it should never be considered until after "there
were ... good fans installed". One is necessary for a
long-term reliable system, the other only if the system
wasn't reliable in the first place.

 

[Rod Speed]

Is this why you need backup systems in place?
Nope.

For over a decade systems managed to
run without CPU shutdown mechanisms,

With cpus that dont burn up if the cpu fan fails.

and do so fine so long as the fans
worked and dust was kept in check.

And few bother to do a damned thing about dust.

It's really that simple,
Nope.

elimination of the failure points is what makes a good
system, not trying to fail gracefully then having system
downtime till the failure point is fixed.

More mindlessly silly stuff. Anyone with a clue designs a
system so that the most expensive component in the system
doesnt die if something as basic as a cpu fan fails.

Again, I didn't claim a CPU shutdown mechanism is worthless, rather than it
should never be considered until after "there were ... good fans installed".

More fool you. Plenty, including intel and now amd, have enough of a
clue to ensure that the the most expensive component in most systems,
the cpu, doesnt die when something as basic as the cpu fan dies.

One is necessary for a long-term reliable system, the
other only if the system wasn't reliable in the first place.

More mindlessly silly stuff.

Just as well that you dont get any say on the design of anything, ever.

 

[Rod Speed]

Isn't anything in what?

You cant actually be THAT stupid.

Anything in the brand of the cpu, stupid.

Either platform has had overheat shutdown for years now.

So much for your stupid pig ignorant claim that that has no value.

Early socket A didn't but were you buying an
early socket A based system new today?

Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether cpus that
will die if the cpu fan stops, should have overheat shutdown.

Marginally better means that with the thermal sensor in
the CPU, it will react faster, but it need not react that fast
if the fan failed or 'sink was clogged with dust, because
the temp doesn't rise so fast in these conditions.

Have fun explaining why even amd has that now.

Yes and that scenario you post IS handled by AMD's solution.
Did you think there was NO thermal shutdown at all?
Nope.

Perhaps this is where you are mislead.

Or perhaps not.

Having fun thrashing that straw man are you ?

So how do you propose to damage it?

By taking the heatsink off and replacing it again.

Again this is a very narrow change in thermal rise, "IF" it
were too fast for one thermal sensor to handle shutdown
but still slow enough for another to do so safely.

Have fun explaining why even amd has that now.

... and the XPs did too on the motherboard. Fan fails?
Motherboard shuts it down. Dust? Again, motherboard shuts
it down. Heatsink falls off? CPU may fry but so have P4s.

Have fun explaining why even amd has thermal shutdown now.

You have to reach to find a realistic scenario
where it'll make a real-world difference.

Have fun explaining why even amd has thermal shutdown now.

He was commenting about it as if it's a reason not to choose AMD, now.

No he wasnt.

Instead, it is a reason not to choose that one old platform, which is
same thing I've commented on all along, that a particular issue with
some old platform is not an indictment against an entire company's
line of products, particularly later generation products. Again,
same thing applies to any earlier generation Intel bugs, it in now
way reflects on what you'd buy today as a current gen. part.

Have fun explaining why even amd has thermal shutdown now.

 

[Trent]

I think Intel's slowdown feature is a joke, sure it might be useful but
to me it seems more like they were just covering up a flaw in a badly
designed CPU.

Yes, it's much more preferable to have your computer shut down without
notice, and lose any work in progress.

(*rolls eyes*)

 

[Conor]

Yes, it's much more preferable to have your computer shut down without
notice, and lose any work in progress.

(*rolls eyes*)

You'd only lose more than 10 minutes or so work.

Decent software autosaves periodically.

Backup software configured correctly monitors changes in document
folders, would see the autosave and back it up.

So what you're actually indicating by that comment is that you're quite
incompetent.

--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm

 

[The little lost angel]

But that's not business but art, engineering, and science. The most
intensive business computing typically involves converting documents
to printable form.

Huh? I would think that an engineer/artist in the business of
producing CAD/animation would consider "that" a business activity. A
lot of people use the same systems for more than one role especially
for small businesses. Furthermore, large spreadsheets can take a
pretty long time to update with every change (I've seen some that
takes like over a minute for each refresh).

 

[JAD]

You'd only lose more than 10 minutes or so work.

Decent software autosaves periodically.

Backup software configured correctly monitors changes in document
folders, would see the autosave and back it up.

So what you're actually indicating by that comment is that you're quite
incompetent.

WORK IN PROGRESS.....get it? 10 15 minuters... whatever its WORK IN
PROGRESS..... and hang around a video rendering machine and listen to the
lab SCREAM when a system goes down......

 

[kony]

So much for your stupid pig ignorant claim that that has no value.

I claim there is no value in considering it until after the
problems you cite are addressed, the REASON it would be even
slightly useful.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether cpus that
will die if the cpu fan stops, should have overheat shutdown.

Again, that is not what I was discussing, rather the
incompetence of someone who gives this a thought before
setting up a system properly, reliably.

Have fun explaining why even amd has that now.

.... because some people who shouldn't be building systems,
do. Same people tend to make other mistakes as well, and in
the end AMD and Intel took a step that guards them against
some forms of incompetence but the system itself still
suffered the downtime.

 

[kony]

Yes, it's much more preferable to have your computer shut down without
notice, and lose any work in progress.

(*rolls eyes*)

Maybe if you lose enough you'll learn to just set a system
up right instead of trying to shift the burden?

 

[kony]

WORK IN PROGRESS.....get it? 10 15 minuters... whatever its WORK IN
PROGRESS..... and hang around a video rendering machine and listen to the
lab SCREAM when a system goes down......

You routinely run large jobs on systems not proven to be
stable? Find a mirror when it's time to scream.

 

[kony]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 20:14:38 +1000, "Rod Speed"

More mindlessly silly stuff. Anyone with a clue designs a
system so that the most expensive component in the system
doesnt die if something as basic as a cpu fan fails.

You are actually suggesting that someone is SO reckless that
they're buying an expensive CPU for a box they arent'
bothering to fit with good fans?

Apparently so, as I did not argue there was no benefit at
all to the shutdown mechanism, rather it is an unrealistic
concern in a properly configured (from a hardware
standpoint) system. I argued it shouldn't be considered
BEFORE you had the system set up properly against the kinds
of problems you suggest would make the feature of benefit.

Note the word "before" above. You argued against that, and
in doing so, show no clue about system uptime. A down
system in itself can cost more than the loss of the CPU,
even multiple times as much.

 

[George Macdonald]

But that's not business but art, engineering, and science. The most
intensive business computing typically involves converting documents
to printable form.

I used to work for someone who gave the fastest, newest computers to
the executives and left his engineers doing CAD work on 100 MHz 486s.
Now I work for a much better person who gives the engineers everything
they want, sometimes even before they ask for it, and makes the
executives perform real work and get by with the slowest computers.

That's a very limited view of "business computing". As a broad category,
e.g., decision support systems can do some very heavy duty calculations,
whether it be financial analysis or strategic & tactical planning for any
part of a manufacturing business.

 

[Rod Speed]

You are actually suggesting that someone is SO
reckless that they're buying an expensive CPU for
a box they arent' bothering to fit with good fans?

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.

Apparently so, as I did not argue there was no benefit at all to
the shutdown mechanism, rather it is an unrealistic concern in
a properly configured (from a hardware standpoint) system.

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.

I argued it shouldn't be considered BEFORE you had
the system set up properly against the kinds of problems
you suggest would make the feature of benefit.

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.

Note the word "before" above. You argued against that,

Lying now.

and in doing so, show no clue about system uptime.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of its predicament.

A down system in itself can cost more than the
loss of the CPU, even multiple times as much.

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.

 

[Rod Speed]

I claim there is no value in considering it until after the problems you
cite are addressed, the REASON it would be even slightly useful.

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.

Again, that is not what I was discussing,

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

rather the incompetence of someone who gives this
a thought before setting up a system properly, reliably.

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.

... because some people who shouldn't be building systems, do.

Wrong, as always.

Same people tend to make other mistakes as well, and in the end
AMD and Intel took a step that guards them against some forms
of incompetence but the system itself still suffered the downtime.

Or they actually have enough of a clue to realise that it makes
absolutely no sense for the cpu to die when something as basic
as a fan failure can do that to the most expensive component,
particularly when thermal shutdown costs peanuts.

Just as well you get no say what so ever on anything at all, ever.