🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov4.004352.15077@fasttech.com>, zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk) writes:
>In <1992Nov02.215953.23041@kksys.com> gk@kksys.com (Greg Kemnitz) writes:
> 
>>One -- NONE of the manufacturers whose products we handle recommends the use
>>of such a device on any of their 386, 486SX or 486DX products, excepting the
>>486DX/50 localbus products.

Imagine that!

>
>>Five -- If you will look closely at what I wrote, I said that we have found
>>that MOST 486 cpus do not require this type of device.  I never said ALL,
>>and in fact did describe one case where we have found them to be desirable.
> 

I would be interested in seeing your data and a description of how you
gathered it.

>Well, Greg, it's really hard to comment on what you wrote. Especially since
>your tone changes so much from point to point.
> 
>I thought I'd actually throw some FACTS into this flame war. Doesn't anybody
>who pontificates on the net actually READ a datasheet anymore???

Sadly many don't have any idea what a datasheet is. 

> 
>I only have June 1991 Intel info for the 486. Order Number: 240440-004. If you
>all are as intimately involved in the PC business as you claim to be, you will
>have more current info, but it probably won't be much different.
> 
>Intel has provided a chart for the maximum allowed temperature for the 486,
>with and without a "typical" heatsink. I've studied this chart. Have any of
>you guys???

Unlikely that it would do any good even if they had ...

[ highly relevant facts deleted ] 

>>Two -- We have NEVER seen a system fail in service due to a processor chip
>>failure.  This is despite having sold many many hundreds of systems.  Our
>>customers are in general long term customers, and most of our business is
>>repeat business, so we have the opportunity to track the history of the
>>systems we have sold.  We also service a large number of systems sold by
>>others, many with substandard cooling, and have never seen a failed cpu chip
>>in them either.

Oh really!  And you test each failed system for a bad CPU?  If so I applaud
you.  My guess is though that you flip the power on and then sound the alert:

  "Man your Battle Stations!  New motherboard required!  All hands to your
   cash registers"

BTW I don't 'hundreds' of systems is enough of a sample to call your data stat-
istically meaningful.

> 
>This is an incredibly pompous statement, and displays gross ignorance of the
>temperature related failure modes of these chips.
> 

I could not agree more!

>First, failures typically are "soft". The part fails at high temperature and
>when it is cooled starts working again. This sort of flakiness is often seen
>in computer systems that are returned for service but "no problem found".
> 
>Second, failures typically are in "worst case" paths. These paths depend on
>both voltage and temperature. 99+% of the chip may be working, but one or two
>instructions or cache locations may be flaky. You think your computer works,
>but it's not QUITE working.
> 
>Third, much of the reason for the conservative temperature ratings Intel places
>on their chips has to do with LONG TERM reliability. There are phenomena like
>electromigration that cause cumulative damage long term, and not immediate
>failures.
>
>But then again, I guess that long term failure doesn't matter much anymore.
>The PC business is moving so fast that a five-year-old computer that was
>state-of-the-art then is almost worthless now.

Very well stated.  Don't get too upset with Greg though.  Like most salesmen he 
thinks he knows more about computers than the people who design & build them.
Alas Romper-Room never goes away.