ASUS A8S-X motherboard.

I've searched the manual, PDF's and ASUS's website and cannot find
this info.

So, does it contain something similar to COP or any other overheat
protection for the CPU?

The CPU is an AMD 64 3200+ Venice Socket 939 if that helps.

Thank you.

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:53:22 -0500, Crackles McFarly
<IrelandSux@ireland.sux> wrote:

>ASUS A8S-X motherboard.
>
>I've searched the manual, PDF's and ASUS's website and cannot find
>this info.
>

Did you look in the bios menu? There is often a user
adjustable setting there.


>So, does it contain something similar to COP or any other overheat
>protection for the CPU?
>
>The CPU is an AMD 64 3200+ Venice Socket 939 if that helps.

The processor has built-in thermal protection.

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:55:13 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> sayd the
following:

>On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:53:22 -0500, Crackles McFarly
><IrelandSux@ireland.sux> wrote:
>
>>ASUS A8S-X motherboard.
>>
>>I've searched the manual, PDF's and ASUS's website and cannot find
>>this info.
>>
>
>Did you look in the bios menu? There is often a user
>adjustable setting there.
>
>
>>So, does it contain something similar to COP or any other overheat
>>protection for the CPU?
>>
>>The CPU is an AMD 64 3200+ Venice Socket 939 if that helps.
>
>The processor has built-in thermal protection.

My bios has no such features/selections, I've checked a dozen times
till I'm sick of looking at the bios.

So you say this:If the temp goes too high, the cpu shuts down even if
the motherboard has no such settings? It's a function of the CPU and
NOT the motherbaord?

Do I have it correct?

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:36:48 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.com> sayd the
following:

>Crackles McFarly wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:55:13 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> sayd the
>> following:
>>
>>> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:53:22 -0500, Crackles McFarly
>>> <IrelandSux@ireland.sux> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ASUS A8S-X motherboard.
>>>>
>>>> I've searched the manual, PDF's and ASUS's website and cannot find
>>>> this info.
>>>>
>>> Did you look in the bios menu? There is often a user
>>> adjustable setting there.
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, does it contain something similar to COP or any other overheat
>>>> protection for the CPU?
>>>>
>>>> The CPU is an AMD 64 3200+ Venice Socket 939 if that helps.
>>> The processor has built-in thermal protection.
>>
>> My bios has no such features/selections, I've checked a dozen times
>> till I'm sick of looking at the bios.
>>
>> So you say this:If the temp goes too high, the cpu shuts down even if
>> the motherboard has no such settings? It's a function of the CPU and
>> NOT the motherbaord?
>>
>> Do I have it correct?
>
>It is not in the BIOS. It is a feature of the processor. If the
>processor goes over a temperature specifically defined for that
>processor, the THERMTRIP signal is asserted. It connects to the
>PS_ON# logic tree, and should shut off the motherboard immediately.
>
>On previous boards, a marketing term was applied to this (COP),
>because a chip was added (adds expense to build). With the newer
>processors, the processor already has the logic signal for
>the protection function. It will still cost a couple pennies, but
>is not really such a big feature, as to have a name any more.
>
>Still, you can ask tech support, whether it is hooked up for certain.
>I don't see an easy way to verify it, and it is not listed anywhere
>on the Asus FAQ page for your board.
>
> Paul

THANKS

However would you go with it being RARE for the board not to support
THERMTRIP feature responses?

"Crackles McFarly" <IrelandSux@ireland.sux> wrote in message
news:f7dql31o1ds14kmb6qgvc6gukdk0ktvvrd@bbb.org...
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:36:48 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.com> sayd the
> following:
>
>>Crackles McFarly wrote:
>>> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:55:13 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> sayd the
>>> following:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:53:22 -0500, Crackles McFarly
>>>> <IrelandSux@ireland.sux> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ASUS A8S-X motherboard.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've searched the manual, PDF's and ASUS's website and cannot find
>>>>> this info.
>>>>>
>>>> Did you look in the bios menu? There is often a user
>>>> adjustable setting there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So, does it contain something similar to COP or any other overheat
>>>>> protection for the CPU?
>>>>>
>>>>> The CPU is an AMD 64 3200+ Venice Socket 939 if that helps.
>>>> The processor has built-in thermal protection.
>>>
>>> My bios has no such features/selections, I've checked a dozen times
>>> till I'm sick of looking at the bios.
>>>
>>> So you say this:If the temp goes too high, the cpu shuts down even if
>>> the motherboard has no such settings? It's a function of the CPU and
>>> NOT the motherbaord?
>>>
>>> Do I have it correct?
>>
>>It is not in the BIOS. It is a feature of the processor. If the
>>processor goes over a temperature specifically defined for that
>>processor, the THERMTRIP signal is asserted. It connects to the
>>PS_ON# logic tree, and should shut off the motherboard immediately.
>>
>>On previous boards, a marketing term was applied to this (COP),
>>because a chip was added (adds expense to build). With the newer
>>processors, the processor already has the logic signal for
>>the protection function. It will still cost a couple pennies, but
>>is not really such a big feature, as to have a name any more.
>>
>>Still, you can ask tech support, whether it is hooked up for certain.
>>I don't see an easy way to verify it, and it is not listed anywhere
>>on the Asus FAQ page for your board.
>>
>> Paul
>
> THANKS
>
> However would you go with it being RARE for the board not to support
> THERMTRIP feature responses?
>
I would say very rare. IIRC, all AMD processors since the "XP" series have
thermal protection.


Ed
>

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:52:11 -0600, "Ed Medlin"
<ed@edmedlin.com> wrote:


>> However would you go with it being RARE for the board not to support
>> THERMTRIP feature responses?
>>
>I would say very rare. IIRC, all AMD processors since the "XP" series have
>thermal protection.
>


The XPs relied on an external thermal circuit, had nothing
in them to provide this. Early socket A boards did not
offer the protection either, and it is conceivable someone
could put a later model Athlon XP into such an old board if
the FSB limitation didn't bother them, while after a certain
point (around the move to DDR memory, IIRC) AMD began
recommending, strongly, that all boards from that point on
have a thermal shutdown feature integral... but the XP
processors didn't play any part in that, except to the
extent they did have an integral thermal sensor which
software could read and respond to, but if that software
logic was missing or broken then the CPU itself could not
trigger anything.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:44:08 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> sayd the
following:

>On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:52:11 -0600, "Ed Medlin"
><ed@edmedlin.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> However would you go with it being RARE for the board not to support
>>> THERMTRIP feature responses?
>>>
>>I would say very rare. IIRC, all AMD processors since the "XP" series have
>>thermal protection.
>>
>
>
>The XPs relied on an external thermal circuit, had nothing
>in them to provide this. Early socket A boards did not
>offer the protection either, and it is conceivable someone
>could put a later model Athlon XP into such an old board if
>the FSB limitation didn't bother them, while after a certain
>point (around the move to DDR memory, IIRC) AMD began
>recommending, strongly, that all boards from that point on
>have a thermal shutdown feature integral... but the XP
>processors didn't play any part in that, except to the
>extent they did have an integral thermal sensor which
>software could read and respond to, but if that software
>logic was missing or broken then the CPU itself could not
>trigger anything.


Then I guess I'm screwed.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:12:40 -0500, Crackles McFarly
<IrelandSux@ireland.sux> wrote:


>Then I guess I'm screwed.


How so?

Your processor has the thermal shutdown feature, but even if
it didn't consider this:

It's a cheap board, a budget computing platform. All you
need is to spend a couple bucks on a decent fan and it's
very unlikely you would ever need thermal protection.
Processors don't just spontaneously burst into flames.
While an extra saftey feature is nice, so it would also be
nice if people driving in cars wore helmits, but they
don't... playing odds the risk of an accident is offset by
prior planning.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:05:56 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.com> sayd the
following:

>Crackles McFarly wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:44:08 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> sayd the
>> following:
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:52:11 -0600, "Ed Medlin"
>>> <ed@edmedlin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> However would you go with it being RARE for the board not to support
>>>>> THERMTRIP feature responses?
>>>>>
>>>> I would say very rare. IIRC, all AMD processors since the "XP" series have
>>>> thermal protection.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The XPs relied on an external thermal circuit, had nothing
>>> in them to provide this. Early socket A boards did not
>>> offer the protection either, and it is conceivable someone
>>> could put a later model Athlon XP into such an old board if
>>> the FSB limitation didn't bother them, while after a certain
>>> point (around the move to DDR memory, IIRC) AMD began
>>> recommending, strongly, that all boards from that point on
>>> have a thermal shutdown feature integral... but the XP
>>> processors didn't play any part in that, except to the
>>> extent they did have an integral thermal sensor which
>>> software could read and respond to, but if that software
>>> logic was missing or broken then the CPU itself could not
>>> trigger anything.
>>
>>
>> Then I guess I'm screwed.
>>
>
>Except your processor is "Athlon64". It has THERMTRIP built-in to the processor.
>No software is needed to make it work. In fact, if you pulled the BIOS chip out
>of the A8S-X motherboard, THERMTRIP would still work to protect the processor
>against overheat. THERMTRIP is purely hardware.
>
>AthlonXP (the older 32 bit processor) is the generation before your motherboard,
>so I don't see where you're screwed with respect to the question about A8S-X.
>A8S-X should be fine. But if you are still concerned, talk to Asus Tech Support,
>because it appears we cannot provide you with enough assurances.
>
>And if you do have a question about an older motherboard, identify it, so we
>can address the question separately.
>
> Paul

Thanks so much.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:36:57 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> sayd the
following:

>On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:12:40 -0500, Crackles McFarly
><IrelandSux@ireland.sux> wrote:
>
>
>>Then I guess I'm screwed.
>
>
>How so?
>
>Your processor has the thermal shutdown feature, but even if
>it didn't consider this:
>
>It's a cheap board, a budget computing platform. All you
>need is to spend a couple bucks on a decent fan and it's
>very unlikely you would ever need thermal protection.
>Processors don't just spontaneously burst into flames.
>While an extra saftey feature is nice, so it would also be
>nice if people driving in cars wore helmits, but they
>don't... playing odds the risk of an accident is offset by
>prior planning.


My case sucks is the likely reason. It has a rear fan but not
placement for a top or front fan, so I leave the case open 24x7 now.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:31:09 -0500, Crackles McFarly
<IrelandSux@ireland.sux> wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:36:57 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> sayd the
>following:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:12:40 -0500, Crackles McFarly
>><IrelandSux@ireland.sux> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Then I guess I'm screwed.
>>
>>
>>How so?
>>
>>Your processor has the thermal shutdown feature, but even if
>>it didn't consider this:
>>
>>It's a cheap board, a budget computing platform. All you
>>need is to spend a couple bucks on a decent fan and it's
>>very unlikely you would ever need thermal protection.
>>Processors don't just spontaneously burst into flames.
>>While an extra saftey feature is nice, so it would also be
>>nice if people driving in cars wore helmits, but they
>>don't... playing odds the risk of an accident is offset by
>>prior planning.
>
>
>My case sucks is the likely reason. It has a rear fan but not
>placement for a top or front fan, so I leave the case open 24x7 now.
>


Unless you have some pretty hot gaming video cards, you
should not need a front fan, and NOBODY ever needs a top
fan. Top fans are a ill-conceived idea that just makes
things worse than if the fan were elsewhere.

Your case needs two things. A reasonable rear exhaust flow
rate, meaning at least an 80mm fan, ideally 92-120mm, and
that fan's exhaust grill should not be a mostly obstructed
stamped-out metal part of the case.

Good intake area. A fan is not required if the system is
not excessively power hungry, there just needs to be enough
intake area that the rear fans work as efficiently as
reasonably possible.

If a 92mm or larger rear case exhaust without a grill
blocking too much airflow) plus the PSU exhaust, with a good
area passive front intake, won't keep the system cool
enough, you have a unique situation where some variable is
different than most people see in their use.

It's not a hard thing to keep a modern CPU cool enough,
just make sure the heatsink is suitable instead of generic
junk, and that it has a quality fan instead of some cheap
sleeve bearing thing that requires babysitting to relube it
every 9 months.

If I had to choose, I would rather have no thermal
protection and a quality hand-picked fan, than thermal
protection with a junk generic fan. Picking a good quality,
major _FAN_ manufacturer brand dual ball bearing fan makes
a substantial difference in one of the two most common
failure points in a system - cheap sleeve bearing fans
failing. The other common failure point is vented
capacitors, but that is another topic for another day.

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:339rl31fs9iiu7lgp4c194mo45ems3gd9u@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:52:11 -0600, "Ed Medlin"
> <ed@edmedlin.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> However would you go with it being RARE for the board not to support
>>> THERMTRIP feature responses?
>>>
>>I would say very rare. IIRC, all AMD processors since the "XP" series have
>>thermal protection.
>>
>
>
> The XPs relied on an external thermal circuit, had nothing
> in them to provide this. Early socket A boards did not
> offer the protection either, and it is conceivable someone
> could put a later model Athlon XP into such an old board if
> the FSB limitation didn't bother them, while after a certain
> point (around the move to DDR memory, IIRC) AMD began
> recommending, strongly, that all boards from that point on
> have a thermal shutdown feature integral... but the XP
> processors didn't play any part in that, except to the
> extent they did have an integral thermal sensor which
> software could read and respond to, but if that software
> logic was missing or broken then the CPU itself could not
> trigger anything.

Didn't know that. I thought that the T-Bird line was the last of the AMDs
without thermal protection on the processor........ Live and learn I
guess.........


Ed

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote...
>>
>>My case sucks is the likely reason. It has a rear fan but not
>>placement for a top or front fan, so I leave the case open 24x7 now.
>
> Unless you have some pretty hot gaming video cards, you
> should not need a front fan, and NOBODY ever needs a top
> fan. Top fans are a ill-conceived idea that just makes
> things worse than if the fan were elsewhere.

You are not necessarily correct in the case of the front fan. Mine, for
example, blow directly through the HD cage, keeping the HDs cool. That is a
"good thing"!

My new Lian-Li PC60-2 has a top fan in addition to the rear fan for exhaust. I
can't imagine how the top fan can do any harm...

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:11:41 GMT, "Ed Medlin"
<ed@edmedlin.com> wrote:

>
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:339rl31fs9iiu7lgp4c194mo45ems3gd9u@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:52:11 -0600, "Ed Medlin"
>> <ed@edmedlin.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> However would you go with it being RARE for the board not to support
>>>> THERMTRIP feature responses?
>>>>
>>>I would say very rare. IIRC, all AMD processors since the "XP" series have
>>>thermal protection.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The XPs relied on an external thermal circuit, had nothing
>> in them to provide this. Early socket A boards did not
>> offer the protection either, and it is conceivable someone
>> could put a later model Athlon XP into such an old board if
>> the FSB limitation didn't bother them, while after a certain
>> point (around the move to DDR memory, IIRC) AMD began
>> recommending, strongly, that all boards from that point on
>> have a thermal shutdown feature integral... but the XP
>> processors didn't play any part in that, except to the
>> extent they did have an integral thermal sensor which
>> software could read and respond to, but if that software
>> logic was missing or broken then the CPU itself could not
>> trigger anything.
>
>Didn't know that. I thought that the T-Bird line was the last of the AMDs
>without thermal protection on the processor........ Live and learn I
>guess.........


Well that was also roughly correspondant to the point where
AMD urged motherboards to have the thermal shutdown feature
so in many cases it may be true that a T-Bird based system
doesn't have the feature while an XP system does.

IMO, keeping parts from frying is a good goal but more often
people find minor problems with the shutdown as they may
have it set too low in their bios (some bios default to 70C
when the CPU temp reported is higher than actual, so
actually lower than 70C shutdown), or in other cases
especially with Intel processors some manufacturers
(especially in notebooks) may take the cheap way out and use
a lesser cooling depending on the processor throttling back,
when they would have had to engineer it better in the first
place if only run or crash were the alternatives.

Maybe I'm just lucky or more careful installing heatsinks
and picking fans, but I never see shutdown protection
activating, before then with an AMD CPU you will have
errors, crashes. I suppose with a low-end part running at
the slower to slowest speed released for that core, it might
be possible it stays stable up to the point of a thermal
shutdown threshold, but with these lower speed parts it is
all that much more difficult to make it overheat to that
point unless the fan failed or the heatsink fell off... or
if the system was really badly designed per the environment
including a terrible heatsink, but event the stock heatsink
is reasonable enough.

IMO, more significant are older users who were accustomed to
past generation systems that would run for several years
before dust buildup became significant enough to matter, I
used to find systems that must've had parts buried under the
blanket of dust inside but they still ran fine until the
fan(s) failed. I expect such users will think to themselves
that they shouldn't have to clean out their current gen.
system more often than they did past systems, overlooking
that the airflow rate is higher so in the same environment
it will build up dust faster. Even then, errors or
throttling should happen before a shutdown.

In message <f_idndDliIqIdsPanZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@comcast.com> "John Weiss"
<jrweiss98155NOSPAM@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote:

>You are not necessarily correct in the case of the front fan. Mine, for
>example, blow directly through the HD cage, keeping the HDs cool. That is a
>"good thing"!

You also have to consider cases where you need to control the airflow
intake. Anyone with pets that shed, or a fair amount of dust, will
probably want to route their intake through filters.

Positive pressure cases take a lot more thought with regards to their
design, but if you maintain a relative balance with regards to intake
and exhaust, you can get a far cleaner result without any hot zones.

In message <stisl3p3b77cv6nb6b6e4ad5fivcfql9r9@4ax.com> kony
<spam@spam.com> wrote:

>Unless you have some pretty hot gaming video cards, you
>should not need a front fan, and NOBODY ever needs a top
>fan. Top fans are a ill-conceived idea that just makes
>things worse than if the fan were elsewhere.

Never say never -- Consider the Antec P180, without a power supply at
the top. The set of dual exhaust fans (top and rear) are absolutely
required to maintain the temperature and sound design goals of this
case.

Sure, you could just crank up the speed of the rear fan, but by adding a
120mm fan at the top, you can run both the top and rear fans at
substantially lower speeds, resulting in much less noise.

"DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote...
>
> You also have to consider cases where you need to control the airflow
> intake. Anyone with pets that shed, or a fair amount of dust, will
> probably want to route their intake through filters.

Yep! I cut a pair of vacuum cleaner filters to fit.


> Positive pressure cases take a lot more thought with regards to their
> design, but if you maintain a relative balance with regards to intake
> and exhaust, you can get a far cleaner result without any hot zones.

I have to believe that the case mfgr of a "high end" case (Lian Li in this case)
takes into account the balancing required...

In message <JpCdnbVTU-2cY8PanZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com> "John Weiss"
<jrweiss98155NOSPAM@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote:

>"DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote...
>>
>> Positive pressure cases take a lot more thought with regards to their
>> design, but if you maintain a relative balance with regards to intake
>> and exhaust, you can get a far cleaner result without any hot zones.
>
>I have to believe that the case mfgr of a "high end" case (Lian Li in this case)
>takes into account the balancing required...
>

Yup, in general you'd assume so (and most are pretty good these days)

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:24 -0800, "John Weiss"
<jrweiss98155NOSPAM@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote:

>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote...
>>>
>>>My case sucks is the likely reason. It has a rear fan but not
>>>placement for a top or front fan, so I leave the case open 24x7 now.
>>
>> Unless you have some pretty hot gaming video cards, you
>> should not need a front fan, and NOBODY ever needs a top
>> fan. Top fans are a ill-conceived idea that just makes
>> things worse than if the fan were elsewhere.
>
>You are not necessarily correct in the case of the front fan. Mine, for
>example, blow directly through the HD cage, keeping the HDs cool. That is a
>"good thing"!

Yes, good, but it is also possible for a case with good
design to passively intake enough air through the HDD bay to
cool a few drives, thus avoiding placement of a fan on the
front where more noise tends to get released into the room.

Plus, if the case front bezel doesnt' snap off w/o taking
screws out, front fans are a bit more of a pain to clear the
dust out of.


>
>My new Lian-Li PC60-2 has a top fan in addition to the rear fan for exhaust. I
>can't imagine how the top fan can do any harm...
>

It diverts airflow where it doesn't need to go, reducing
airflow past the CPU plus VRM subcircuit, or reduction out
the PSU. This is ok if the other fans compliment it, but
it's less efficient requiring more airflow through the
system which increases maintenance... even if filtered, to
clean out the filters.

The best strategy for fan placement is to have any intakes
blowing onto hot parts, and any exhausts pulling air past
immediately adjacent hot parts.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:03:54 -0800, "John Weiss"
<jrweiss98155NOSPAM@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote:

>"DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote...
>>
>> You also have to consider cases where you need to control the airflow
>> intake. Anyone with pets that shed, or a fair amount of dust, will
>> probably want to route their intake through filters.
>
>Yep! I cut a pair of vacuum cleaner filters to fit.
>
>
>> Positive pressure cases take a lot more thought with regards to their
>> design, but if you maintain a relative balance with regards to intake
>> and exhaust, you can get a far cleaner result without any hot zones.
>
>I have to believe that the case mfgr of a "high end" case (Lian Li in this case)
>takes into account the balancing required...
>


Unfortunately high end doesn't necessarily mean good thermal
design, more often it means line-item features. Consider
other cases without the top fan do fine to cool a system,
and that adding fans to external walls of the case adds to
noise emission.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:05:05 -0700, DevilsPGD
<spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:

>In message <stisl3p3b77cv6nb6b6e4ad5fivcfql9r9@4ax.com> kony
><spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>Unless you have some pretty hot gaming video cards, you
>>should not need a front fan, and NOBODY ever needs a top
>>fan. Top fans are a ill-conceived idea that just makes
>>things worse than if the fan were elsewhere.
>
>Never say never -- Consider the Antec P180, without a power supply at
>the top. The set of dual exhaust fans (top and rear) are absolutely
>required to maintain the temperature and sound design goals of this
>case.

P180 isn't a very good design but even so, it is not
required to use the top fan... but it is important to block
off that top fan hole so there isn't a short loop of intake
there with exhaust out the rear fan.

They misengineered the case in several ways including the
rear vent holes around the PSU mounting and across from the
card slots. All together it shows they tried to incorporate
ideas that, each alone might be of benefit in a certain
situation, offset each other in the final implementation.



>
>Sure, you could just crank up the speed of the rear fan, but by adding a
>120mm fan at the top, you can run both the top and rear fans at
>substantially lower speeds, resulting in much less noise.

It's like a solution in search of a problem to use a case
with poor front intake then need to add that fan. If the
system actually creates enough heat that the top fan is
needed to overcome the poor intake, the case wasn't
appropriate for it. Unfortunately stylized cases do make
compromises in use.

I also wonder about the fan used in the rear as using the
duct on the top fan is a poor efficiency for that fan, it
might be possible to still run a rear fan at slight RPM
increase and still have lower noise than with the top fan in
use.

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote...
>>
>>You are not necessarily correct in the case of the front fan. Mine, for
>>example, blow directly through the HD cage, keeping the HDs cool. That is a
>>"good thing"!
>
> Yes, good, but it is also possible for a case with good
> design to passively intake enough air through the HDD bay to
> cool a few drives, thus avoiding placement of a fan on the
> front where more noise tends to get released into the room.

The fan makes for a more positive flow over the HDs, though. With the quiet
fans available these days, especially with a relatively large, slow-turning fan,
noise should not be a problem.


> Plus, if the case front bezel doesnt' snap off w/o taking
> screws out, front fans are a bit more of a pain to clear the
> dust out of.

Not a problem with mine!


>>My new Lian-Li PC60-2 has a top fan in addition to the rear fan for exhaust.
>>I
>>can't imagine how the top fan can do any harm...
>
> It diverts airflow where it doesn't need to go, reducing
> airflow past the CPU plus VRM subcircuit, or reduction out
> the PSU. This is ok if the other fans compliment it, but
> it's less efficient requiring more airflow through the
> system which increases maintenance... even if filtered, to
> clean out the filters.

If properly placed with consideration for typical interior geometry, I fail to
see how a fan high in the case (on top) will "divert" airflow. Why is a rear
fan "better" than a top fan?


> The best strategy for fan placement is to have any intakes
> blowing onto hot parts, and any exhausts pulling air past
> immediately adjacent hot parts.

I suppose that's one way...

I would consider that fans placed to augment natural convective flow would be
the best. A low intake and a high exhaust fan would fill the bill in general.
Whether the exhaust is in the back (just below the PSU), or on top (just forward
of the PSU) may not matter much, depending on interior configuration.

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote...
>>
>>I have to believe that the case mfgr of a "high end" case (Lian Li in this
>>case)
>>takes into account the balancing required...
>
> Unfortunately high end doesn't necessarily mean good thermal
> design, more often it means line-item features. Consider
> other cases without the top fan do fine to cool a system,
> and that adding fans to external walls of the case adds to
> noise emission.

Other designs may do well, or not. There is no single "best" design.

A single 120mm fan may cool better than a pair of 80mm fans (similar swept
area), with less noise. A trio of slow-turning fans with good bearings may be
quieter than a single, ill-designed fan...

In message <o5nul3ln1s3bngbgphbpegqsb6hjcpcv7m@4ax.com> kony
<spam@spam.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:05:05 -0700, DevilsPGD
><spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>>In message <stisl3p3b77cv6nb6b6e4ad5fivcfql9r9@4ax.com> kony
>><spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Unless you have some pretty hot gaming video cards, you
>>>should not need a front fan, and NOBODY ever needs a top
>>>fan. Top fans are a ill-conceived idea that just makes
>>>things worse than if the fan were elsewhere.
>>
>>Never say never -- Consider the Antec P180, without a power supply at
>>the top. The set of dual exhaust fans (top and rear) are absolutely
>>required to maintain the temperature and sound design goals of this
>>case.
>
>P180 isn't a very good design but even so, it is not
>required to use the top fan...

It's definitely not *required* -- However, the optimal cool *and* quiet
configuration necessitates it as two 120mm exhaust fans running at lower
speeds move the same volume of air more quietly then one 120mm fan at a
higher speed.

>but it is important to block
>off that top fan hole so there isn't a short loop of intake
>there with exhaust out the rear fan.

If you're not running a fan there, then definitely.

>They misengineered the case in several ways including the
>rear vent holes around the PSU mounting and across from the
>card slots. All together it shows they tried to incorporate
>ideas that, each alone might be of benefit in a certain
>situation, offset each other in the final implementation.

What's wrong with those vent holes? Keep in mind that the design goals
here include a PSU with a temperature controlled fan, with the mid-way
fan pushing air out the rear vent holes around the PSU, with the PSU
only kicking in when needed to cool the PSU itself.

>>Sure, you could just crank up the speed of the rear fan, but by adding a
>>120mm fan at the top, you can run both the top and rear fans at
>>substantially lower speeds, resulting in much less noise.
>
>It's like a solution in search of a problem to use a case
>with poor front intake then need to add that fan. If the
>system actually creates enough heat that the top fan is
>needed to overcome the poor intake, the case wasn't
>appropriate for it. Unfortunately stylized cases do make
>compromises in use.

There is a front intake fan active as well -- Again, the goal is more
fans spinning lower, to reduce noise while moving the same amount of
air. The goal is not one uber-powerful fan to rule them all.

Also keep in mind that this case was built with the design goals being
as quiet as possible, followed by as cool (temperature) as possible.
Functionality (in terms of assembling and adjusting parts) was an
obvious third, visual style being a distant fourth.

>I also wonder about the fan used in the rear as using the
>duct on the top fan is a poor efficiency for that fan, it
>might be possible to still run a rear fan at slight RPM
>increase and still have lower noise than with the top fan in
>use.

You're talking about the video card duct here? That one is a bad
decision, and was pulled from the P182 (or later P180? I'm not sure,
I've got the original one) -- It was a nice theory, but in practice, the
front fan actually does a decent job of cooling video cards (although I
should mention that although I run a couple crossfire capable video
cards, I am not a gamer, and spent under $120/card, I run multiple cards
for the multiple DVI outputs, I don't have a huge heat problem in this
area)

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:51:54 -0800, "John Weiss"
<jrweiss98155NOSPAM@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote:

>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote...
>>>
>>>I have to believe that the case mfgr of a "high end" case (Lian Li in this
>>>case)
>>>takes into account the balancing required...
>>
>> Unfortunately high end doesn't necessarily mean good thermal
>> design, more often it means line-item features. Consider
>> other cases without the top fan do fine to cool a system,
>> and that adding fans to external walls of the case adds to
>> noise emission.
>
>Other designs may do well, or not. There is no single "best" design.

Untrue, there IS a single best design, unless one has
several high powered video cards, and then the only
deviation is a side panel fan to blow across them.

>
>A single 120mm fan may cool better than a pair of 80mm fans (similar swept
>area), with less noise. A trio of slow-turning fans with good bearings may be
>quieter than a single, ill-designed fan...
>


you try to imply it's confusing but it is not. There is in
fact a single best design because there is not so much
variability in where the heat producing components are.

However, some cases do have other benefits such as thicker
metal, as many Lian-Li do.