Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

Watercooling Drifting Mainstream 268

pacc writes "With Prescott said to dissipate 103 W and the dual Apple G5 playing in the same league, air cooling seems less than sensible. Nikkei Electronics has an article about watercoolers getting standardized by Hitachi. A technology pioneered by a NEC desktop last May."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Watercooling Drifting Mainstream

Comments Filter:
  • by corebreech ( 469871 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @07:59PM (#6739780) Journal
    Watercools his system using a radiator from a '55 Lincoln. [hardcoreware.net] You gotta love it.

    Not a bad looking box, either (though I usually end up looking at my monitor more than I do my computer case.)

    It seems to me that with all the concern over cyber-pollution these days (discarded monitors and other computer components) maybe it's time to take a greener approach and harvest whatever relics we can from the last great love affair with speed and power: the automobile.

    The trend is towards customized boxes we build ourselves anyways, right? So go to the local junkyard and shop American for a change.
    • Oh yeah, my wife is really going to approve of an old Lincoln radiator in the living room!
    • Having installed a car radiator on the computer, perhaps the heat could also be used for lunch [baileycar.com] - although right now I'd be happy with a heater, or an evaporative cooler in summer.
    • by sharkey ( 16670 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @09:15PM (#6740312)
      My pappy said, "Son, you're gonna drive me to drinkin'
      If you don't stop moddin' that Hot-Rod Lincoln!"

      Nope, just doesn't have the same ring to it.
    • It looks like this guy did what I was thinking. I don't have much moeny to invest in my computer, especially since I just upgraded (first time in 4 years), so it would seem water cooling is out of the question. But after talking with some friends, we thought that it could be quite cheap since we have access to machining equipment. With a milling machine it should be pretty simple to make the water blocks from scrap blocks of copper. As a result, all I would need to purchase is a pump and possibly some

    • To join in with the peanut gallery: it's not a radiator, it's a heater core. OTOH, it's larger than the radiator on many motorcycles, is constructed the same way, and does a similar job.

      The guy did some great work, but the English wheel to make a simple curve was big time overkill. English wheels are used to make compound curves, usually.

      As far as the 'last' great love affair with speed and power being the automobile, America's love for speedy and powerful autos is as strong as it ever was. Fast computers
  • by Falconpro10k ( 602396 ) <jmark2NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:01PM (#6739787) Homepage
    this could be great if people knew how to service them properly, in my own mind, watercooling is more effective than aircooling in many applications (cars, computers etc) but CARE must be exercised. What was once a hardware hacker's toy is now becoming mainstream, this is a VERY good thing.. .
    • My friend has a water cooled system, and he builds them for others. The big reason why I won't go for water cooling is that I don't enjoy messing around with my hardware. I want to be able to open the case, install or fix whatever I need to do, and get the hell out of there. Water cooling is just too messy for me. If at some point it becomes required, I'll deal with it.
    • Why are people now getting so hyped about water cooling? I am far more excited at the prospect of cheap Peltier/Freon systems like Vapochill. Cools to a far lower temperature, allowing oft-times double the clock speed to be attained, and means not messing around with water in your case!
  • Air vs Water? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Davak ( 526912 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:02PM (#6739790) Homepage

    Has there ever been a head to head with air-cooling vs water-cooling?

    Water better be damn good to risk my system to the exposure of fluids.

    Davak
    • Re:Air vs Water? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Aadain2001 ( 684036 )
      Yes. It's much like comparing a 486 to a P4 3GHz. The water cooling is much quieter, runs much cooler, and allows for creater control over temperature. If done right, there is no risk of frying your system, unless you cut the hoses or something, but even that can be protected from. Plus, if you have any kind of case window and lighting, you can injust florecent(sic) coloring into the water system and use clear tubes, giving a very cool light effect.
    • Keep in mind that with some of the AMD setups out there with no thermal protection, you can also be in big trouble if the *air* cooling fails too!

      I think the future is going to be computers that generate less heat, but in the meantime we may see commercial water cooled systems for a while.
    • Overclockers.com maintains a nice database of the relative performance of various air and watercooling systems on a variety of platforms: The Heatsink and Watercooling Roundup [overclockers.com].

    • Also, the wonder of removing epoxied heat sinks from $200 video cards. Who came up with such a stupid idea anyway?
    • Please, please... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rmdyer ( 267137 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @09:02PM (#6740236)
      Manufacturers, please, please, start putting the processors on the back-sides of the motherboards!

      The back side can be one huge heat sink, with large cooling fins, just like nice audio amp gear. If need be, the entire backplane can be one extruded piece of alloy. You can even include water cooling "safely" as no piping needs to enter the case at all. The back-side is the outside of the case!

      What is so hard about this idea?

      +2

      • With one minor change: You don't want the actual outside of the case to be cooling material in direct contact with the case. Never mind frustrated developers smacking the box, what happens to that CPU core when you knock the box over on the wrong side, or your grounded-forever kids whack the side with some hurtling toy?

      • Exactly. I note the CPU in my notebook uses the metal backing sheet of the keyboard tray as its heatsink.
    • Water better be damn good to risk my system to the exposure of fluids.

      Hell, I risk my keyboard to that all the time!

      • Water better be damn good to risk my system to the exposure of fluids.


        Hell, I risk my keyboard to that all the time!

        This being Slashdot and all, you might want to specify just what kind of fluids you're talking about. Ya know, for your own sake. ;)
  • by daeley ( 126313 ) * on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:03PM (#6739801) Homepage
    I think watercooler computers are a bad idea. I have enough trouble getting interrupted in my cubicle without a crowd of people wanting to stand around my computer talking about yesterday's episode of "American Idol 4: The Revenge."
  • Wow. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by lifebouy ( 115193 )
    Seems like forever ago when I first saw a water cooled system. But I never thought I would see the day it went mainstream.
    OTOH, the media gave it a push lately, so what you are witnessing is probably a shortlived fad. Not that it isn't cool. (No pun intended.)
    • Re:Wow. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by El ( 94934 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:21PM (#6739941)
      Seems like forever ago when I first saw a water cooled system.

      Yeah, remember back when Gene Amdahl introduced the innovation of an air cooled computer back in the '70s? Up until then, they had always been water cooled... this ain't new technology, folks!

      • Gene Amdahl introduced the innovation of an air cooled computer back in the 70s

        That's curious, because I remember lots of PDP-8's from the 60's and my own PDP-11 from 1970 that were air cooled, not water cooled.

        • by El ( 94934 )
          Yes, but for Main Frames, air cooling was a new technology. That was the point, that "Computers" != "PCs".
  • Comparison? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by insecuritiez ( 606865 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:04PM (#6739814)
    I overclock. I run a decent cooling fan. I have never seen solid comparison results between water cooling and just high-performance fans. If I (and the public) were to see dramatic improvements published in say THG or some other more mainstream publications perhaps water-cooling will gain even more ground. But as it is I have never really seen anything that has jumped out at me and said "go water". If it is so good and is gaining more ground then why haven't I seen more about it? Slashdot educate me!
    • ...is that most watercooling solutions try to keep it all within the case. So you end up putting the radiator where one of the fans normally goes, and then mount a fan on the radiator to blow air over it to cool it down.

      But which way does the fan blow? I think most people end up having it blow hot air out, which means you're not cooling the radiator as much as want to.

      But if you have it blow the air in, then you're essentially pumping warm/hot air back into the case, which seems counterproductive.

      I saw
      • "The problem I think... ...is that most watercooling solutions try to keep it all within the case."

        The problem is, only people living next to rivers can properly water cool their computers. Every proper water cooler needs intake from the river and output a little farther downstream. This is complicated however, with the need for some kind of filtration system to keep fish and mollusks from entering your PC.
    • People who aren't hardcore about there overclock are starting to get annoyed by all that racket. I know a friend of mine who upgraded his CPU just to get a quieter fan with the upgrade.

      Creative Labs is also keen on marketing 'whisper quiet' cases so people can actually hear those ridiculous SNR values they claim.
    • Re:Comparison? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sevn ( 12012 )
      http://www.water-cooling.com/ [water-cooling.com]
      Water cooling obliterates air cooling. I used to run a thermaltake slk800 with a 120mm fan wired to it with an adapter. It pushed 80cfm and kept my seriously overclocked athlon tbred 1700+ running at 38c at idle, and never over 48c at full load. With water, I haven't seen 40c yet under extreme load. I idle at 33c. And I have a crappy thrown together setup right now. There are guys that have never seen 27c.
      • Re:Comparison? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Skater ( 41976 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:26PM (#6739985) Homepage Journal
        But...so what? I mean, at some point, it doesn't matter how cool it is; the only thing to worry about is that it doesn't overheat. At some point it becomes bragging rights rather than actually useful.

        My processor runs at 35c pretty much constantly no matter what load I put on it. Room variations sometimes make that tick slightly upward. Removing the case cover the other day dropped it 2c.

        I guess if you're going to overclock it, then you'd want it cooler. But if not, then all you really need to accomplish is keeping it below "lockup/meltdown" level.

        --RJ
        • I guess if you're going to overclock it, then you'd want it cooler.

          Exactly. Being able to dissapate more heat faster means you can push the voltage higher on the cpu. The higher you can push the voltage setting, the more stable the processor is at high overclock. If you can keep it all running very cool, you can get some seriously astronomical overclocks. I'm destroying a stock athlon 3000+ with a 40 dollar chip and about 65 bucks worth of crap I threw together for watercooling. The 3000+ is 270 bucks. My
    • Re:Comparison? (Score:5, Informative)

      by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:28PM (#6740019) Homepage
      Lots of sites do many MANY reviews. Overclockers.com, Hardocp.com, and even THG [tomshardware.com] have done stories on watercooling. I've been following the "scene" for quite a while now, as the noise from my PCs drives me nots. There are a few thing I can comment on:

      • Watercooling is MUCH more efficent than the average stock heatsink. You can beat a cheap watercooling system with a REALLY GOOD heatsink, but...
      • Watercooling is much QUIETER. In a normal heatsink, you are cooling a small area with a small fan (on the order of 60x60mm for a good heatsink/fan, but you can use an 80x80mm fan). But with the radiator that cools in a (standard) watercooling setup, you can fit at least one 80mm fan, or even 2. And since the air is designed to pass through it and over it (instead of onto it and off the sides) it's quieter. You can either run your system cold at a decent noise level, or go near silent and get fine temperatures.
      • You can cool the water many ways. While most of the time you run it though a radiator, I have seem setups on the 'net that use a bong (Water is sprayed in a tube of air as a mist, it loses it's heat as it falls through the air), groud cooling (one guy buried a welding tank DEEP in his yard. He pumps water in and out, and the earth cools it for him), watercooling (you could make a little heat exchanger that runs cold water from your water pipes next to the water from your PC to cool it down), etc. You have OPTIONS.
      • The biggest problem I've seen is usually the cost. This is mostly due to the fact that a LARGE number of watercoolers are overclockers, and they are willing to PAY big cash for a great waterblock and such. So the majority of waterblocks you find cost $50 or more. So if you cool your CPU, Graphics card, and chipser, you could easily spend $150 on the blocks alone if you wanted to. Most watercooling kits (that cool the CPU and graphic card) seem to be around $300. This is due both to the aformentioned situation, and low volume of sales (relative to other options, like a new heatsink).
      • Customisation! You think putting a cold cathode in your PC is cool? How 'bout putting an adative in your watercooling water that under blacklights or ultraviolet lights glows a bright color. It looks REALLY cool. Check the forums mentioned below to find some pics of this.

      Learn more, it is facinating. Look around the old articles on HardOCP and Overclockers.com and you can find out a ton. Just search google! Also, if you look at like the HardOCP forums under cooling, you can find tons of pics of people's Watercooled PCs.

      • How 'bout putting an adative in your watercooling water that under blacklights or ultraviolet lights glows a bright color.

        Highlighter ink works great for this, and you can get it in just about any color you want. I would suggest testing it under a blacklight before dumping it in the water, though - some highlighters work great and others are let-downs.

        A college roommate and I had a nice setup of liquor bottles filled with highlighter ink in water (1 marker per bottle). When the blacklight was on, t
    • WHADDYA SAY?

      I can't hear you! You're fan is TOO LOUD!
  • by wildsurf ( 535389 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:04PM (#6739817) Homepage
    Finally, an excuse to hang around the water cooler all day...
  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:05PM (#6739821)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Alereon ( 660683 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:07PM (#6739835)
    The 103W figure for the Prescott 3.6Ghz is actually the Thermal Design Power. This is the amount of power the processor is expected to use during "normal" operation. A P4-C 3.0Ghz with HyperThreading has a TDP of about 80W, with an actual maximum power usage of 104W. Assuming a similar scale, a Prescott 3.6Ghz can be expected to dissipate around 130W. It's this maximum figure that really matters, since I don't think most people want their processor to throttle during gaming or whenever they are driving their CPU hard.
  • by achurch ( 201270 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:07PM (#6739839) Homepage
    who thinks it would be more sensible to find ways of reducing power dissipation rather than (or even alongside) better methods of cooling?

    (Yes, I know the answer is that nobody actually needs these new CPUs, but you know Microsoft and Intel won't stand for that...)

    • And about the only way to do this without sacrificing clockrate is by going to a smaller fabrication process. AMD and Intel only went to a .13 process a little over a year ago, and are expected to move to a .09 process either late this year or early next year. The thing is, moving to a new process isn't easy, and will often result in a higher reject rate - meaning the initial chips will probably be more expensive and (initially) limited in availability.
      • Intel Prescott, the chip that's slated to set power dissipation records for mainstream CPUs, uses a new .09 micron process. Apparently Intel is seeing fewer benefits than they expected.

      • by randyest ( 589159 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:07AM (#6741243) Homepage
        And about the only way to do this without sacrificing clockrate is by going to a smaller fabrication process.

        Sorry, that's commonly believed, but wrong. There are lots of ways to reduce power consumption. Reducing gate widths (0.25um -> 0.13um -> 90nm) is commonly touted as a good way to reduce power, but in most cases that's more marketing pitch than reality.

        First, there are two types of chip power to worry about (1) leakage, which happens all the time, just by being on, and which used to be always much much lower than (2) the switching power, or maximum dissipation when as many transistors as possible can switch at once (which, BTW, can never be all of them, and it's really, really hard to find the stimulus that makes maximum power happen. So, esitmates like the ones in the article for peak power are often made assuming a somewhat-arbitrary switching factor that may be low or high).

        As gate sizes shrink, the effective capacitance of the gate shrinks, and voltage can be lowered (to a point). Capacitance varies with gate area and inversely with distance between "plates" of the gate (C = k*A / d). Reducing the gate width (space between the plates) actually increases capacitance, and this itself would increase power. But, you're also able to reduce the gate area (though not as much, but in 2-dimensions, so shrinking gates is usually a reduction in C). Most importantly, you can decrease voltage, since power varies with the square of voltage, this has much more impact on power than reducing gate capacitance (size). When we went from 0.25um (3.3V)to 0.13um (1.5V), we got a nice fat 1.8V drop in voltage. But 0.13um is 1.5V too, or 1.3V at best, and I've never heard of a 90nm (0.09um) process under 1.1V. The V isn't dropping as fast any more because the noise margins are getting too small.

        Since p(switching) = 1/2*F*C*V^2 (F = clock freqyency, C = capacitance, and V = max voltage, lowering C (and moreso V which we can reduce some, but not much below 1.0V so far) will lower power a bit. Linearly with C. But unless we can reduce V, reducing C much more won't help a lot because we have more total C's (transistor gates) on the die, because they are smaller we can fit more.

        But now, at 0.13um, and more at 90nm, it's not the switching power, but the leakage (always there) power that's getting worrisome. It used to be 1/20th of switching power or less, but now the gates are so small current of the same order of magnitude (almost) of switching leaks all the time.

        So, the more you shrink, the more you have constant power, which is harder to deal with since you can't throttle it, and it's always cranking out. Worse yet, the more you shrink, the more gates you can fit on one tiny little die (the feasible mfg'able die size stays around 17-18mm max regardless of gate size once the process matures a bit, but bigger dice have ridiculous failure rates and thus silly high prices). And the gates shrink in 2 dimensions (L and W), so you get a squaring increase of the toal gate count, and only a linear decrease with C. Shrinking gates to save power doesn't work.

        So, if we can't keep shrinking to save power, how can we? Lot's of ways. There are dozens of EDA companies [google.com] with power-minded RTL coding, synthesis, and even place and route tools ready to help you reduce your power if you have a few $100k/seat/year. Or, you could use a SSC (Spread-spectrum Clock, where each clock edge is off by a bit to reduce power, but it slows down the max clock rate a bit too, of course). You can also try to use beneficial clock skew to reduce power after timing closure, or gate the hell out of all the clocks and only enable what you need (a la mobile chips). Or switch to asynchronous, or self-clocked design (every thing has it's own clock, which sends a clock to the next thing, etc. -- it's HARD to design!). Anyway you look at it, it's a hard problem. And people who
    • As other people have said, it would require some better engineering (smaller micron size etc). And when they manage that, although it would result in a cooler chip, they are just going to pump even more power through it so that it runs even faster than previous chips - rather than cooler.

      eg. Todays chips are actually quite cool, but only when you run them at yesterdays speeds.
    • You can ALWAYS use a faster CPU if you're compiling big stuff like OpenOffice [openoffice.org] or Mozilla [mozilla.org] from source...
  • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:08PM (#6739841)
    Get a portable Freezer or refrigerator put the computer parts in it. Find a way to keep the humidity out. Put a couple of ports for for USB and monitor and your all set.
    I feel that heat is becoming a major problem with making faster processors. You guys in college should quit your Computer Science and Engineering and go into thermal physics. That is where the future is in.
    • Wont work, here is why:

      The freezer you are speaking of is a heat pump. It moves heat from the air inside it to the coolant which then dissipates heat via coils on the back. What advantage do the coils have on the back that the blades on a heat sink don't have? Surface area? Maybe, but that could be changed with better heat sink designs. Besides, the heat sink has a fan to move the air, the freezer doesn't have air moving across those coils. The freezer may sound like a good idea but when you get
      • The heat coils have a lot more surface area, and are located outside of the fridge. Most fridges simply use convection to cool the coils, and thus no fans (I have seen some fridges that do use a fan though). The compressor generally makes much less noise than the computer's fans. Fridges contain a lot of insulation and are air-tight, and thus noise cannot get out, so chances are you could put a ton of fans inside the thing and not hear them. This is the theory.

        But a standard little dorm fridge will not
    • Refrigerators are meant to keep cool things cool, not make hot things cold; the compressor on the fridge would work itself to death within weeks, if it were able to maintain a low temperature at all.

      Personally, though, I'd love to see more people go into thermal engineering. A day hasn't gone by this summer when I haven't thought that there must be a better way to cool the subway cars in NYC than pumping hot air onto the platforms!
  • Hmmm... what exactly do two hot CPUs talk about by the watercooler, anyway? How much better than DDR guy was than the Rambus man?

  • Water cooling has already become part of PC products. NEC Corp has taken the bold course of implementing a water cooling system in the latest model of its PC, "VALUESTAR TX," launched in May 2003, as the first practical application to desktop PCs.

    1. Will the warranty cover water damage? If I buy a system that depends on a water-based system, then the pre-packing company better be willing to cover the dangers.
    2. Will water introduce hotter running, shorter-lived systems? This, of course, would lead to

    • 2. Will water introduce hotter running, shorter-lived systems? This, of course, would lead to higher computer turnover and higher $$$$s for the computer makers.

      No, it will just introduce systems that die even quicker (as in milliseconds instead of tenths of seconds) in the even of critical cooling failure.

      Systems are already running about as hot as they can to avoid the transistors breaking down.

      This will allow them to introduce systems that use more power, thereby hitting your electricity bill, but all
  • Instead of using 100-year old technology, why not leap-frog to Peltier effect instead? At least it doesn't run the risk of leaking and frying your electronics.
    • Re:Peltier effect? (Score:3, Informative)

      by MBCook ( 132727 )
      Overclockers use Peltiers often. The problem is, that while a Peltier gets one side VERY cold, the other side gets VERY hot. Cooling this side requires you to either attach it to a waterblock in a watercooling system (which is what you were trying to fix in the first place) or put a big fan on it with a heatsink (which is LOUD and innefficent). The fact is, a Peliter would only make things WORSE as far as "cooling things quietly" goes.
      • The problem is, that while a Peltier gets one side VERY cold, the other side gets VERY hot. [snip] The fact is, a Peliter would only make things WORSE as far as "cooling things quietly" goes.

        I think I disagree with you on this. The Peltier junction will indeed get quite hot. You get the most heat transfer with the biggest thermal gradient, so that higher temperature should make any given airflow more effective at carrying away energy. Thus I'd expect that you could use a quieter fan if your CPU had a

    • Re:Peltier effect? (Score:3, Informative)

      by dmeranda ( 120061 )

      Actually with Peltiers your risk can be larger due to condensation. Peltiers can cool the chip down way below ambient temperature, so water can collect. This is why serious applications of Peltier coolers include rubber seals and other devices to manage the water problem.

      A passive water cooling system won't lower the temperature below ambient, so condensation is not an issue..the water stays inside the tubing, not dripping from the bottom of your motherboard. (Now active water cooling is a different st

  • My dream setup (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sevn ( 12012 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:13PM (#6739881) Homepage Journal
    The Ultimate Waterblock [cooltechnica.com]

    Ultimate Pump [cooltechnica.com]

    Ultimate Radiator [cooltechnica.com]

    Two of these to cool the radiator at only 30db [performance-pcs.com]

    Round it out with a Cool Reservoir [cooltechnica.com] and some tubing. Maybe toss in a GPU cooler. Plenty of pump to support it.
  • Not really (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MasterVidBoi ( 267096 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:13PM (#6739882)

    Less then sensible? Maybe you just need a better air cooling design. Since the G5 was brought up in the post, it seems reasonable to mention that Apple is really pushing the idea that the G5's are quiet*:

    http://www.apple.com/powermac/design.html [apple.com]

    If a system is having trouble dissipating that kind of heat with air flow alone (or sounding like a jet engine), then you just have a poorly designed system. And maybe it's just me, but I have some qualms about putting water in a poorly designed system.

    * of course, we haven't had independent reviews yet, so...

  • Will they offer a discount on 5L of 3M Fluorinert [3m.com]?

    $100/L might be fine for Cray, but not for me.

    I don't think many people with $600 cpus and $400 video cards want to watch things go up in smoke when a clamp fails.

    Are there any tests that show how well a machine holds up if deionized water leaks from this type of system onto the motherboard and processor?
  • Power Supply (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dylan2000 ( 592069 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:16PM (#6739912) Homepage
    This is by far the loudest component in my system. Everybody seems to think that the CPU fan is the biggest culprit but that's only because they have crappy CPU fans. It really doesn't cost much these days to get a 'silent' CPU fan which can be undervolted to be truly silent and still cool these nuclear reactor CPUs that modern PCs have.

    After the CPU fan the hard drive is the loudest, but since the Seagate Barracuda IV - the best hard drive ever in the world, which is freakily quiet - hard drive makers have been using the fluid bearing system and I guess most new hard drives are now as quiet as the Barracuda IV.

    That leaves case fans, which can be silent and graphics card fans, which apparently are getting quieter too (no fan on my Geforce2MX, so I wouldn't know).

    So why didn't the article address the only component which can't be quietened cheaply and easily? 'Silent' PSUs cost a fortune (>$50 for something that most people expect to just be built in to their $30 case) and are far and away the biggest obstacle standing between sanity and tinnitus. I know they must be coming because manufacturers aren't dummies, but they have to realise by now that they are more of a priority that CPU fans, don't they?
    • I totally agree. The old 7 volt trick does wonders for CPU fans. I'm very tempted to do the same for the power supply fan, but I've never worked up the courage to tear into that warranty sticker. =) Besides, I'm guessing the nearest 12V and 5V lines would be rather awkward to route to the PSU fan.
  • Decible Scale (Score:2, Informative)

    In the article it mentions:
    The water cooling technology can significantly reduce the noise level. Equipped with a microprocessor whose heat dissipation is measured to reach 75W, the NEC desktop PC can suppress noise level to 33dB (A) owing to a water cooling module inside it. As its level was measured to be 43dB (A) with an air cooling system, the noise actually has gone down to one-tenth.

    Do they not realize that the decible is measured on a logrithmic scale?
    • Re:Decible Scale (Score:3, Informative)

      Do they not realize that the decible is measured on a logrithmic scale?
      BECAUSE decible is a logirithmic scale, 43db is 10 times as loud as 33db. Hence, 33db is one-tenth as loud as 43db.
    • Re:Decible Scale (Score:2, Informative)

      by russotto ( 537200 )
      They got it right. 43 dB to 33dB is a drop to 1/10 of the former sound pressure level. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean it sounds 1/10 as loud. The dBA is roughly (VERY roughly) linear with loudness at ~40dB.
  • by maelstrom ( 638 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:21PM (#6739946) Homepage Journal
    Every friend of mine who has entered into the water cooling realm has burned out at least one CPU before getting the system stable enough to work properly. Have fun, but be safe :)
    • Back when Real Programmers used Real Mainframes (IBM Big Iron, or funkier machines), they were of course water-cooled, not like those Volkswagen-esque programmable data processor thingies. I was an undergrad at Cornell in the mid-late 70s, and sometime around then, the water-cooling system for the school's mainframe sprung a plumbing leak and dribbled on the mainframe. Needless to say, this was Bad.

      I think the machine was out for a month or so, but maybe that long outage was when they were having trouble

  • Correct my if I am wrong but here are my thoughts on water.

    Water has an extremely high specific heat compared to air so it can dissipate many more watts of energy from the processor. Acting much like an energy buffer. But what happens when you are running at high temps for a long time? (SETI, Games, Photoshop filters) At some point that water is going to get hot and then it is going to lose its effectiveness. That heat in the water is going to have to go somewhere and that somewhere is the air. It'
    • The benefit of water comes from several aspects: 1) High thermal capacity - as you said, acts like an energy buffer. 2) Higher thermal conductivity than air - allows heat energy to be transferred faster. 3) Allows radiator (YES! you need a way of dissipating heat) to be located remotely from the CPU. This means you can have a much larger radiator, with far more surface area and airflow than would be possible with a CPU mounted heatsink. Remember, water is just a transport mechanism - ultimately the heat
      • So water cooling is good if you run tubes outside the case and you use a large dissipating device (radiator). The cost of course is a computer that is not fully self-contained as well as desk space lost. However in most water-cooling solutions I have seen the radiator is inside the case. In which case the water as a transport still isn't taking the heat very far and then trying to get rid of it. I think water cooling can be done right, I just don't think in most implementations it does all that much goo
  • I have an idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by prichardson ( 603676 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:23PM (#6739963) Journal
    As much as we all like have our big huge CPUs and VPUs I think perhaps it's time to rethink the "speed at all costs" mentality of processor design. A lot of companies don't even try to optimize code anymore using the argument that processors are fast enough to handle it. Then processor companies use the fact that fast processors are needed to run this clunky software (I know this is simplistic and there is also a big numbers war between processor and video card companies). I think instead of basicly brute forcing more cooling we need to design components that are more efficient (produce less heat) and design computers that can dissipate heat well (kudos to apple for thermal zones, 9 low speed and quiet fans that are controlled by a thermometer). Also, more efficient code all around is a good thing for everyone.
  • by RalphBNumbers ( 655475 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:34PM (#6740052)
    Since when is 43 watts @ 1.8ghz, (I don't think they ever released the 2Ghz G5's power dissipation number, did they?) in the same league as 103watts?

    While it puts out a bit more heat than the G3s and G4s mac users are used to, the G5 is still nowhere near as bad as prescott.
    The prescott puts out more than doubble the heat.
  • by thriemus ( 514728 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:34PM (#6740058)

    3 Tips for successful water cooling...

    1: Never fill the water cooling system reservoir with boiling water from the kettle.

    2: Coffee... as much as we all like it coffee _does not_ serve as an efficient coolant. (Tastes great though)

    3: Dont run your water pump when there is no water passing through it. (that one is actually a serious one...)

  • Easy-Bake processing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by downix ( 84795 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:36PM (#6740069) Homepage
    This is utterly rediculous. Think for a moment, water cooling, ok, sure, but what happens *NEXT*. Intel keeps pushing CPU's, AMD follows suit, they get so hot that water cooling doesn't do it anymore... what will they do next, liquid nitrogen?!?

    Come on, ya won the speed war, now turn down the oven, PLEASE!
  • by garyebickford ( 222422 ) <gar37bic@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:40PM (#6740093)
    The early Cray supercomputers (as well as the CDC6600) had Freon cooling systems. I recall pictures of an early prototype of (IIRC) the Cray II. It was one module of the new system immersed in an aquarium filled with Freon.

    The high frequency EMF of the system caused some interesting color effects in the Freon, combined with the thermal gradients to make an interesting 'light show'.

    Of course, we can't use Freon these days but what about other insulating oils (such as are used in transformers) & refrigerants? I haven't kept up - can modern chips handle being immersed in oil or in (for example) carbon tetrachloride? (yes, also a controlled, environmentally hazardous material)
    • A few keen hobbyists/overclockers have done it - often using mineral oil.

      In reality, it's not practical, or necessary. In fact, it's just plain messy. Most components work fine with air cooling. It's just a few hot spots (CPU, GPU, HDD etc) that can benefit.
  • Hot Water (Score:3, Funny)

    by RetroGeek ( 206522 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:42PM (#6740108) Homepage
    Two or three computers in the house, and pretty soon I will not need a hot water heater......
  • cooling. Then I can pipe the hot water into my hot tub where all of my hot bitches are. Yeah, I know some hot bitches, what, are you saying that I'm full of shit because I have good slashdot karma? Hey, I'll bet that lots of guys here who post as often as I do know lots of hot bitches. Really, we do, Damnit! We do!

  • Apple TiBook... (Score:2, Informative)

    by z-kungfu ( 255628 )
    ...is at least partially liquid cooled. Apple has been doing this since the G3 Powerbooks. So it only makes sense to use the technology on the G5's...
  • Navy cooling method (Score:4, Interesting)

    by EricTheMad ( 603880 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @09:03PM (#6740242)
    Personally, I like the Navy's method of liquid cooling. The circuit boards are coated with a thin layer of rubber. They're then plugged into their sockets that are located inside of a water filled trough. Not the most elegant of solutions, but it works.
  • Here is a snip from IBM- There are signigficant differences in the design cycle of this series. Here is the link to the full page BUT the snip contains reference to the thread.

    http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/435/kato p is .html

    The page is VERY long and this is near the bottom so I stole it outright for reading convience . . . really!

    -quoth IBM-
    the MCM technology provides us with the most dense configuration of chips in a two-dimensional arrangement, which facilitates refrigerated cooling. In fact,
  • by SlashCrunchPop ( 699733 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @09:51PM (#6740539)

    Zalman TNN 500A fanless computer [teschke.de]

    Now, is this something most people would need or use? In terms of noise most definitely.
    • Invented? The years since end-of-lifed slot-loading iMac G3's had no fan, using convection cooling instead. I have one in my living room hooked up to my stereo system. I had to replace the built-in hard drive with a much quieter Segate drive (much larger too, of course), but now it really is silent except for the occasionaly very, very quiet tick of the hard drive, and makes a fantastic music box. It is so quiet that I also use it as a server and leave it running all the time even though its in the reading
  • Hey, there may be benefits to hotter computers. When you get home in the middle of winter and realize how cold your home is, just open up the computer case and render a few videos. Or better yet, hook up your system to your hot water heater. Start it to replay your last Quake III game, and in the morning, coffee and a hot shower!
  • by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @10:38PM (#6740781) Journal
    First of all, I would like to say that I refuse to buy any computer system that uses any more power than current AMD processors. For one thing, the fact that I live in the desert causes serious problem. Electric bills going through the roof, if for no other reason than needing to keep the cooler on 18hours ever day. This will drive people from Intel to AMD, and if AMD keeps driving temps up, then to Apple, or IBM, who's PPC chip seems to be the coolest running modern processor around.

    With that said, I'd still like to talk about cooling methods. I hate the current system as much as anybody, but it can work! Really! I swear!

    First of all, I'd like to say that the ideal cooling system would be to make the top of the computer a huge heatsink, and conduct the heat from all internal components to it. That would remove the need for fans in residential computers all together.

    Secondly, I have seen the light, and I now understand the benefits of convection.

    With the above design, I would also sell a top that hooks on to the computer, and makes a covered space of 4" above the large system heat sink. What this would accomplish is to allow ducting (standard 4", dryer-sized) to be attached.

    With my XP 2000+, here in the desert, things are so damn hot already that another 20 degrees from a computer pushes the temperature from incredible hot, to inhuman, and that just wasn't working out. What I did, was to duct the power supply fan through a duct leading outside, and venting through a one-way vent. With this system, not only is it 20 degrees cooler, but the system stays much much cooler, so much so that it doesn't need air conditioning anymore. It is now only drawing in cool air, and not it's own recirculated hot air, so things stay much cooler. It's much more tolerable for people as well. As an unanticipated benefit, the noise of the power supply fan is almost completely gone, because the noise is ducted outside as well.

    The best thing about ducting hot air out, is that there is really no limit... If computer makers built air-tight, insulated cases, where you could control the air input and output, you could theoretically run millions of computers at incredibly hot temperatures, and not raise room temperature at all, because the heat is all going straight outside.

    Additionally, fan noise is not a fact of life, but a byproduct of saving 2 cents on a fan. I replaced my power supply fan with a $10 one, which blows more than 3x as much air, but isn't as loud. On the CPU, I replaced the fan with a $5 unit that blows slightly more air, but is about 5x quieter. Finally, I replaced the junk on the heatsink with thermal grease, and that move ALONE dropped the CPU temperature by more than 10 degrees.

    Now, why in the hell aren't computer manufacturers doing anything like this? Spending $1 more on fans would get them loads more customers, and spending a few cents on heatsink grease would get them a better reputation, higher maximum operating temperature, and less need for more powerful fans. Can anyone explain why the resort to expensive, complex, unreliable, crap like this, rather than just doing the current convection methods the right way?
  • If it feels good, do it ... [8ballshardware.com] I guess....
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @02:14AM (#6741767) Homepage
    Shuttle [shuttle.com] PCs, those little breadbox units, have a sealed heat pipe with a cooler attached to the top of the CPU chip and a heat exchanger in front of the fan air outlet. This is probably one of the more useful liquid cooling systems around. The cooling unit is one rigid all-metal component; there are no flexible tubes or liquid connectors to leak. That's basically the way refrigerators are built. It works.

    Pluggable liquid-cooled rack-mounted modules are not the way to go. Ask anyone who had a liquid-cooled IBM mainframe. It used to be said of the IBM 370/168 that it needed "six plumbers and a CE (customer engineer)."

  • Why water? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zog The Undeniable ( 632031 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @02:24AM (#6741805)
    OK, it has a big specific heat capacity, but given that you can just increase the pump speed to compensate, why not use something non-conductive like paraffin? This wouldn't wreck your mobo when a joint popped.
  • by Junks Jerzey ( 54586 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @08:34AM (#6743426)
    A chip that dissipates 103 watts is well over the line. Geez, and people used to laugh at the DEC Alpha in 1993. Sure, you can get that heat away from the CPU...and right into the room with you. This moronic race of trading an 8% clockspeed increase for a 15% increase in power consumption is the beginning of the end of modern CPU design...especially as the keyword for the 21st century is *mobile*. The last thing we want--a few years down the road--is every insurance saleman and secretary havinga Prescott on his or her desk, simply because there aren't easily available alternatives

    Here's to whoever breaks the trend. Transmeta looked pretty dumb and slow a few years ago, but now the Efficeon looks to outdo the Pentium M by a large margin. But what we need now is a revolution, and not just another giant pseudo-RISC chip that trades a teensy bit more performance for over the top heat problems.

The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers.

Working...