Print 78 comment(s) - last by ok630.. on Apr 13 at 4:28 AM

IBM Hydro Cluster Water Cooling  (Source: IBM)
IBM Power 575 performs at 600 GFlops per node

Computer enthusiasts that overclock their CPUs have known for a long time that liquid cooling has the potential to cool the processor better than air cooling. Liquid cooling in the enthusiast space is common and has even given way in the extreme performance categories to much more exotic means of cooling processors.

In the supercomputer realm companies like IBM have traditionally relied on air cooling for the CPUs via air conditioning for the room the supercomputer is in. IBM introduced its latest supercomputer called the Power 575, which is equipped with IBM’s latest Power6 microprocessor. The Power 575 has moved from air cooling to liquid cooling and thanks to the liquid cooling useing water-chilled copper plates located above each processor, the new supercomputer requires 80% fewer air conditioning units.

The significantly reduced need for air conditioning means that the energy needed to cool the data center can be reduced by 40%. IBM researchers say water can be up to 4,000 times more efficient than air cooling for computer systems.

The Power 575 supercomputer has 448 cores per rack and provides over five times the performance of its predecessor and is three times more energy efficient per rack. Each rack features 14 2U nodes each consisting of 32 4.7GHz cores of Power6 and 3.5TB of memory. Each node is capable of 600 GFlops and is three times more efficient in GFlops per kilowatt than the Power5 air-cooled processors.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Water Cooling
By mattclary on 4/9/2008 7:14:50 PM , Rating: 3
1. Watercooling is really only needed if you want to OC
2. If you skip watercooling and invest the money you would have spent on that, you could afford a faster CPU.

Water is the devil, can totally f... up a house, let alone electronics.

Be all cool and edgy if you want, I can't hear my air cooled machine running, and I can sleep at night knowing I won't have a high-tech fish tank in the morning.

RE: Water Cooling
By Carter642 on 4/9/2008 8:14:00 PM , Rating: 1
Actually there are affordable non-conductive coolants available, if you wanted you could fill your case with the stuff and it'd run just fine. I don't make any gaurentees as to what it'd do to your carpet but carpet stains are better than a toasted rig.

RE: Water Cooling
By ninus3d on 4/10/2008 3:07:41 AM , Rating: 2
You obviously don't have a girlfriend/wife living with you!

RE: Water Cooling
By SectionEight on 4/10/2008 8:26:04 AM , Rating: 4
I've seen a demo in which they submerged the entire mobo in non-conductive coolant and it ran fine. Pretty cool, if impractical.

RE: Water Cooling
By tastyratz on 4/10/2008 11:55:28 AM , Rating: 3
Water cooling has a very practical application as well
Its starting to become more attractive to OEM's too.
Water allows you to cool more efficiently, in a smaller space, and in a quieter fashion.
Water cooling for people such as me allows me to scale my computer beyond speeds available to me in retail for bottom dollar.
My computer runs more silent with water than you could ever achieve practically with air cooling. I have built my computer specifically around silent computing.

Some people do not need want or have time to overclock so perhaps its not for you. See beyond the obvious market and you can see a great potential for many other applications if this were to be adopted.

RE: Water Cooling
By snownpaint on 4/11/2008 10:56:04 AM , Rating: 2
I saw that stuff on the old TV show "Beyond 2000". They took an old Mac, and submerged it while it was running.. (happy mac startup face an all).. Also the liquid would bubble indicating where a short was on a board.. Finally, I have heard of extreme overclockers, that take a tank full of this liquid and run AC coils into it, to get extremely low temperatures to run their machine in.

RE: Water Cooling
By mattclary on 4/10/2008 1:21:21 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, you are right. I used to work on the B-1 bomber and some of it's electronics were cooled with a thin, clear oil that circulated in the boxes. A bit messy for my needs. The stuff smelled like ass and was hard to get out of your clothes. It was not unusual to take a shower in the crap when changing a box out.

RE: Water Cooling
By afkrotch on 4/10/2008 2:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
1. Watercooling is really only needed if you want to OC
2. If you skip watercooling and invest the money you would have spent on that, you could afford a faster CPU.

Water is the devil, can totally f... up a house, let alone electronics.

Be all cool and edgy if you want, I can't hear my air cooled machine running, and I can sleep at night knowing I won't have a high-tech fish tank in the morning.

1. No. Silence is golden and air can't compete with water in that realm. Watercooling can be built with specific purposes. For OCing, for quiet, for anything someone can come up with. Shoot, you can built a single watercooling loop to cool all your computers if you wanted to.

2. Or you can keep the watercooling and reuse it over the many years of your computer build. My watercooling setup has been mounted on Athlon XPs, Pentium 4s, and now Core 2 Duo. It can also be mounted on Athlon 64s, X2s, AM2s, Xeons, etc. It's been mounted on Geforce FX5600, 5950 Ultra, 9700 Pro, 9600 XT, 6800, 6800 GT, 7800GTX, and 8800GT. The chipset block has also been mounted on various motherboards throughout it's life. New brackets can be bought for $10 or simply make new ones with a dremel.

Me, I replace the blocks completely, as the newer ones have better cooling properties. But my old ones could be used too, if I felt like it.

So you don't ever need to change the water?
By AnnihilatorX on 4/9/2008 8:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
There would literally be tonnes and gallons of water there. The water definitely need to keep its quality, even if it's a closed system I assume impurities leak in.

My water cooling set comes with anti-corrosion collant, and that has a life apparently. So in 3 or 4 years I am suppose to change the water.

I wonder if you need to do the same to the super computers that uses water cooling.

RE: So you don't ever need to change the water?
By xsilver on 4/9/2008 9:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think a great idea would be to pipe the huge tank on this to the toilets. hmmm... warm water to flush toilets

That way I dont think they would even need radiator fans as the water is getting changed with cold tap water all the time.

By jtemplin on 4/10/2008 12:38:59 AM , Rating: 2
Thats a good idea, but the water coming from the main would be too hard I think. Plus you don't need fluoride in your computer and all that other junk. You would probably want to have a filter between the computer and the main as well as a machine which automatically titrates the desired amount of anti-corrosive and biocidal concentration in the water

By IvanAndreevich on 4/10/2008 3:20:45 AM , Rating: 2
That would be a giant waste of water, and the bill for it would be enormous.

By xsilver on 4/10/2008 8:09:29 AM , Rating: 2
say what?
the bill for flushing toilets is enormous?
do you not flush the toilet at your workplace? :P

Also to the poster above, I think there is no need for that anti-bacterial stuff as its only needed when you have a closed system.
This would be an open system so there is not enough time for bacteria to grow, they would be flushed!
The only problem I can think of is that there needs to be some sort of failsafe if some new kid wants to play a prank and flush all the toilets at once = empty tank = dead server!

its getting hot in.... where?
By tastyratz on 4/10/2008 12:02:05 PM , Rating: 3
Wheres the heat go?

The article talks about having to use less air conditioning for the room and the many cooling benefits but the computer is still producing the same quantity of heat.
Am I missing something? Where is the heat going here?
I use water cooling and It doesn't magically consume heat, it redirects it to radiators which require lower temperature air passing through them. The heat is still going to go into the room and your still going to combat the same btu.

RE: its getting hot in.... where?
By jRaskell on 4/10/2008 12:29:34 PM , Rating: 3
I think it's safe to assume that, unlike most personal computer liquid cooling systems, for a computer of this size, the coolant is being pumped to external radiators that just use fans to cool with ambient outside air. the computer room is surely still air conditioned for the rest of the super computers components, but because the liquid coolant can more readily transport the majority of the generated heat to an external heat transfer device, the requirements on the AC system are significantly lower.

RE: its getting hot in.... where?
By afkrotch on 4/10/2008 3:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to have to say, spot on. I imagine the external radiators standing outside the building being cooled by fans. Other ways could be placing external radiators over ventilation shafts inside the room and have a fan eject the hot air out of the building via the shafts.

I can come up with a bunch of different ways to reduce AC system requirements with such a system. Geothermal cooling comes to mind. Enough to cool a house, so why not a supercomputer.

...but what does it score in PCmark?
By DarkElfa on 4/9/2008 2:57:51 PM , Rating: 1
I mean really, what kind of question do you expect from a PC enthusiast, I just want 3Dmark and PCmark scores. Speaking of, I wonder why they don't run those simple apps for us normals to see, it wouldn't be hard to do I imagine and would at least allow John Q Public to grasp the sheer power of one of these monstrosities.

RE: ...but what does it score in PCmark?
By Polynikes on 4/9/2008 3:02:07 PM , Rating: 3
I'd hazard a guess that those supercomputers don't run Windows, and Futuremark has little desire to port 3DMark over to whatever OS they use.

And I'm sure IBM has better things to do with their supercomputer.

That said, if they DID do something like that, I'd love to find out how high the score was. :)

By DarkElfa on 4/9/2008 3:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
See, an answer that makes since, thank you.

But the real question is...
By TreeDude62 on 4/9/2008 4:17:04 PM , Rating: 1
Can it max out Crysis?

By Captain828 on 4/9/2008 4:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
neah... still stuck @ 40FPS, 1920x1200 (DX10, Very High of course)

By murphyslabrat on 4/10/2008 12:19:11 PM , Rating: 3
Nah, they capped the frame-rate at 40 per second.

i have said IMB mobo
By MGSsancho on 4/9/2008 4:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
i have a production sample of a mobo for the Z10. It failed visual testing but electrically still works. I even emails anandtech about it in February but got no response. I also have some other failed prototype desktop mobos. I will not say who it was ro what features it has (NDA) but it looks cool. ahhh the joys of family who fabricate this stuff.

side note this does explain a lot. but the board i have doesn't have mounts for a massive heat sink. oh well. yes I know Z10 != IBM next supercomputer

The water of life.
By Misty Dingos on 4/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: The water of life.
By masher2 (blog) on 4/9/2008 2:57:58 PM , Rating: 5
> "Air cooling is for VWs. "

Actually, I'd hazard a guess that within a decade, your average desktop will not only still be aircooled, it'll be fanless (and possible heatsink-less) as well.

RE: The water of life.
By ImSpartacus on 4/9/2008 3:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. Unless there is a brilliant manner of pulling/sucking air in/out of a PC without a fan, fans are here to stay.

Maybe miniPC's like the EEE desktop (and comparable PC's) would become more full featured and remain fanless, but larger, more powerful PC's will keep their fans (unless EEE desktops become popular and mainstream and the need for a larger PC isn't there).

RE: The water of life.
By omnicronx on 4/9/2008 3:34:08 PM , Rating: 5
Unless there is a brilliant manner of pulling/sucking air in/out of a PC without a fan, fans are here to stay.
You mean like this?

RE: The water of life.
By Mortando on 4/9/2008 5:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, having trouble reading, that's a solid-state *what*? ;)

RE: The water of life.
By ChronoReverse on 4/9/2008 5:53:31 PM , Rating: 3
It's a solid-state ozone generator.

RE: The water of life.
By Mortando on 4/9/2008 6:41:26 PM , Rating: 3

RE: The water of life.
By PrinceGaz on 4/9/2008 3:43:06 PM , Rating: 3
I don't usually say this, but I think masher is right this time. The CPU needs of an average desktop computer will be so much less than the high-end CPUs in ten years that it will likely be a component drawing just a few watts at most. Ten years of development and the equivalent of today's Intel Atom processor will likely be more than enough for all but power-users. Same with the integrated-graphics chipset.

Once the whole computer is drawing so little power, the PSU could be fanless too. Throw in SSD hard-drives and you've got a totally silent PC (unless it has optical drives for removable storage).

RE: The water of life.
By ikkeman on 4/9/2008 4:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
that is, untill the crysis2 is released - we might have to install skyskraper stype AC units on our pc's to get more than 10fps...

RE: The water of life.
By Pirks on 4/9/2008 6:06:03 PM , Rating: 3
Crysis 2 is likely to be released on consoles anyway, Crytek guys are not that stupid to lose the perfect opportunity to make BIG bucks, and the big bucks in gaming are not made on PC these days.

So masher seems to be right here, our desktops will be Mac Mini-like in no time.

RE: The water of life.
By AnnihilatorX on 4/9/2008 8:20:12 PM , Rating: 3
If they do they would probably release in next gen console, not the current gen.

That'd mean another 5-6 years ahead.
Also from ending of Crysis, it seems that the sequel would continue on the story. Hence you can't just release a sequel on console just like that when Crysis is a PC game.
So my bet is it's more likely that Crisis 2 would be on the PC.

RE: The water of life.
By Pirks on 4/9/2008 9:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
Looking at Uncharted and Gears of War 2 art I really doubt there's a need to release Crysis 2 on PC. Financially speaking Crytek could make MUCH more money if they do big blockbuster release of Crysis 2 on Xbox 360 and later port it on PC if there's enough demand and PC is still alive by then.

Look at how big blockbusters like Gears of War and Halo were released - they did big smash hit on Xbox 360, grabbed wads of cash and later picked up the rest of the market money by releasing this stuff on PC in a year or so. This strategy is the most prudent if Crytek wants to maximize profits, so it's likely they'll go this way. Big smash hits on consoles these days are too sweet a bait for a large gaming studio to pass by, you know.

Now, if we look not at evolution of CryEngine 2 (which is Crysis 2) but at next revolution, which would be probably totally different game - this BRAND NEW engine is indeed likely to be done on PC in 5 years or so.

But Crysis 2 as an _evolutionary_ development of Crysis and CryEngine 2 (let's call it CryEngine 2.1)? No way, there's no economical sense to do it on a PC.

PC is good for groundbreaking development work, for true next-next gen stuff, and since current potential of Xbox 360 is far from being exploited to its fullest (again, just look at Gears of War 2 screens to see what I'm talking about) there is no sense to do evolution on PC.

Revolution belongs to PC, evolution belongs to console. Same's true for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. team by the way, they are firing all their cylinders working on Xbox 360 S.T.A.L.K.E.R. sequel, and they are very wise doing that, 'cause this is the best way to make big bucks on games these days.

They'll switch back to PC in a couple of years, maybe.

RE: The water of life.
By Pandamonium on 4/10/2008 1:22:19 AM , Rating: 2
I can't say much about Gears, but Halo's developing company was bought by MS specifically to make Halo an XBox exclusive. Halo was originally being developed for the PC gaming market before the Bungie acquisition.

RE: The water of life.
By StevoLincolnite on 4/10/2008 3:24:19 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately Crysis will never be release on Consoles.
Reasons are:
- Consoles do not have enough memory to support the large worlds.
- They are busy working on other projects.

However, they could always do a FarCry on us, and sell the rights to another developer to make the game on the consoles, but Crytek itself has been sworn black and blue, that it will never be released on the consoles.

And they actually have made a killing on the game on PC, However in November the sales were not looking all that good at all with only about 87,000 sales, During the game's release it was the second best selling PC game in Japan as well as the best selling game across all platforms in Germany. The game appreciated similar sales throughout Europe. During EAs Q3 2008 Earnings Conference Call it was stated that Crysis had sold over 1 million copies worldwide in the course of about two and a half months.

However, Selling the game is only half the story, a large portion of Cryteks income would actually come from people buying the right to they're engine.

But would Crytek make allot of money by selling it on the consoles? Heck yes.
Will they ever release it on consoles? Simply no.
Would a 3rd party? - Always a possibility, they said that "they" would never release FarCry on the consoles, and this still remains true, however, there was a castrated and botched version of FarCry released on the Xbox, which was not a very good game at all, with sub par graphics. (Especially in the texture department).

RE: The water of life.
By robinthakur on 4/10/2008 5:30:16 AM , Rating: 2
Its a very poorly kept secret within the industry that Crysis is coming to PS3. It might also be coming to 360, but PS3 is the only one I've heard of for now. This is common sense based on how many units Activision sold of Crysis on PC. They need to recoup those costs somehow. While I very much doubt it could compete looks wise with the pc version on high (or very high for those 5 people able to run it respectably) and the worlds will likely be scaled back, I think you'll be surprised for more than one reason ;)

RE: The water of life.
By StevoLincolnite on 4/10/2008 6:37:10 AM , Rating: 2
Crytek won't be releasing it, nor will the game "Crysis" be released on consoles, instead the engine will be used, but over 50% of the game will be changed.

RE: The water of life.
By Pirks on 4/10/2008 7:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
No jumping around and dodging and word shuffling can save your beloved PC game, Stevo. Give up :P

RE: The water of life.
By shiznit on 4/11/2008 3:57:34 AM , Rating: 2
1. EA published Crysis, not Activision.

2. Crysis sold over a million copies already and made a lot of money, and there are no royalties on PC (MS and Sony take like 30% of all revenues). People need to stop focusing only on U.S. NPD numbers, there are other countries in the world even though some of us Americans forget that sometimes. In Europe PC Gaming is HUGE and in countries like Germany or Russia or Sweden it is twice as big as the console market.

RE: The water of life.
By ok630 on 4/13/2008 4:28:43 AM , Rating: 1

Die painfully okay? Prefearbly by getting crushed to death in a garbage compactor, by getting your face cut to ribbons with a pocketknife, your head cracked open with a baseball bat, your stomach sliced open and your entrails spilled out, and your eyeballs ripped out of their sockets. Fucking bitch

RE: The water of life.
By masher2 (blog) on 4/9/2008 3:43:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "Maybe miniPC's like the EEE desktop (and comparable PC's) would become more full featured and remain fanless..."

In 10 years, a "mini-PC" will be several times more powerful than a full-fledged desktop of today. For most people, that's going to be more than enough power.

In 2018, I can see workstations, servers, and bleeding-edge gaming machines still needing forced-air cooling, but your average home PC? Seems doubtful.

RE: The water of life.
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/9/2008 4:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
By 2018 I think we will have operating systems that will want to take advantage of the available hardware even for average use, and succesfully implement, or at least try to, things like the following:

- natural speech recognition
- virtual, more intuitive and immersive GUIs making extensive use of 3d graphics
- more embedded AI to take on simple maintenance tasks and repetitive actions responding to usage patterns that by today require active user intervention

Your average Joe will want a speech commanded computer evne more so than your average computer geek.
Fancier, more intelligent and intuitive interfaces on OSs are not there to benefit the power users as to make the less savvy ones get more easily comfortable with machines, so your average user will want the latest and greatest OS supporting the best eye candy experience he can get because it'll probably reduce his need to interact with the computer to a bunch of simple commands (issued by voice or simply by making gestures by waving your hands in the air rather than using a keyboard).

I think browsing the net 10 years from now will not mean just using a 2d browser showing 2d content, but something much richer and immersive.

2d browsing can't get much better than what we have now. I think tabbed browsing is the first shy step to start thinking about a 3d browser, and from them on 3d content should start appearing to take full advantage of the fact that even the cheapest IGP will have ability to decently cope with real time 3d content.

RE: The water of life.
By AggressorPrime on 4/9/2008 7:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
That is like saying back in 1995 that nobody will ever use more than 256KB of RAM. (Or whatever and whenever Bill Gates made his RAM error.) Computers become more powerful because we need them to be more powerful. There will never come a time in which the home user will be able to buy a low end computer and never be frustrated with low performance.

RE: The water of life.
By masher2 (blog) on 4/9/2008 9:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
> "That is like saying back in 1995 that nobody will ever use more than 256KB of RAM"

No, not quite. Obviously user demand for computing power will continue to grow. But over the next decade, hardware will grow faster. That's just the opposite of the situation during the 1980s and 90s. That's to be expected -- the industry is maturing.

> "There will never come a time in which the home user will be able to buy a low end computer and never be frustrated with low performance. "

I agree. But in a decade, a "low end computer" will be the size of a small cell phone...and it'll still be more powerful than a power desktop is today.

Actually, I'll go even further than that. I predict that, within 10-15 years, the *average* person won't even own a "standalone" computer. They'll own some sort of convergence device...and will fill their computing needs entirely with it. It might take the shape of a combo computer/phone/mediaplayer, or a computer/console/videoplayer, or even a computer/food processor/whatever. But standalone machines that do nothing but "compute" will not be something the average person buys. Those will be relegated to power users only.

RE: The water of life.
By djc208 on 4/10/2008 7:21:12 AM , Rating: 2
Add in the increase in interconnectivity thanks to wi-fi/bluetooth/etc. and the increase in internet access and functionality and I think you're on the right track.

The collection of smaller devices that work together with either an internet-based application/storage source or a combination of that and some sort of home server will handle most peoples needs 95% of the time.

It could easily end up that the most powerful computer in your house is the game console, which like we're seeing today is becoming an extension of your entertainment center and your computer anyway.

When your cell phone has the same power as an eeE PC does today along with wireless internet and some form of Bluetooth then between that and internet apps and storage most people won't need a normal desktop or laptop PC.

RE: The water of life.
By vladio on 4/9/2008 11:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981
#1. No one talked about "256KB"
64KB -> 640KB -> 1MB -> 4GB limit for 32-bit systems.
#2. you say "1995" -> Win95 ring the bell?
Year 1995...
for some 'Ancient History',
for some 'like yesterday'

RE: The water of life.
By ninus3d on 4/10/2008 3:16:40 AM , Rating: 2
Not really true I think as I believe that has already happened. I have built a few "office pc's" for friend's parents and the like and by getting away with a fully working pc that they are satisfied with, for less than £200 (excluding the monitor) they still sit with all the speed
"they would ever need".
It does all the media functions they would dream of neeeding aswell, like HD and 5.1 or better output to their home cinema etc, how likely are "family fathers and mothers" to hit the wall in terms of perfomance? (Unless, they like games)

RE: The water of life.
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/9/2008 4:01:15 PM , Rating: 3
All home PCs were fanless before the 486. Even "heatsinkless".

Since the fastests 486s we have only been seeing larger and larger and more expensive HSF combos, to the point that every boxed processor comes with one and in each new generation, the stock HSF has a more intricate design than the previous one to cope with the high heat dissipation density. That is, Watts dissipated per area unit, which is a number that continues to increase as the die areas of CPUs continue to shrink, in spite of actual TDP numbers being able to decrease sometimes.

You can have a fanless PC now, but you will certainly need a really huge heatsink ala Scythe Orochi, plus some fans on your system case to keep your run of the mill C2D within acceptable temperatures, while putting more than 1 kilogram of copper and aluminuum on top of it.

I rather tend to think that the ramification between desktop and mobile parts will widen, becoming a more specialized branch than it is today (most of the time a derivative of desktop CPUs) and we will have very low consumption and heat dissipation notebooks on one side, though not incredibly powerful, and very powerful desktop computers on the other, which will still require active cooling.

I think that powerful sillicon based CPUs will never again be cool enough to be able to operate in a completely fanless desing.

But I think in the future the choice will be yours to make: powerful and noisy requiring big HSFs, or "powerful enough" and silent, not requiring the use of any kind of fancy HSF on top.

Nevertheless I think that nanomaterials can give quite a spin to actual heatsinks if that branch is researched and funded throughly enough.

RE: The water of life.
By DASQ on 4/9/2008 2:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
1) Cost
2) It's a pain in the ass to drain the loop every time you want to make minor additions or variations.
3) Takes up a lot more space than heatsinks (not considering cooling capabilities)

RE: The water of life.
By DarkElfa on 4/9/2008 3:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'll tell you exactly why I don't use watercooling, when you have 4 grand worth of PC equipment and you build your own rig, you fear putting in a water system that could spring a leak or have a fault that could kill your entire system.

RE: The water of life.
By Misty Dingos on 4/9/2008 3:13:33 PM , Rating: 1
Hmmmm, I built my rig, it has four grand of gear in it and it is water-cooled. And "GASP" it leaked once too! Nothing fried. Tightened loose clamp, dried up mess, cleaned the electronics and rebooted. Still runs like a greased ape on fire. Oh and my PC doesn't sound like a collection of whirling dirt suckers.

Those that fear the edge should stay where it is safe and leave the adventures to those who dare!

RE: The water of life.
By AlphaVirus on 4/9/2008 3:21:41 PM , Rating: 5
I built my rig, it has four grand of gear

I hope you are putting that 4 grand to use, I spend 1 grand tops and can do everything. I could not imagine the power of 4 grand.
it is water-cooled. And "GASP" it leaked once too! Nothing fried. Tightened loose clamp, dried up mess, cleaned the electronics and rebooted. Still runs like a greased ape on fire.

I would question whether you were at home when this happened or if you were away. If you were away you better be thankful you didnt come home and your entire house was on fire.
Oh and my PC doesn't sound like a collection of whirling dirt suckers.

What a bunch of fluff, the only PC that might have loud fans would be a 1999 celeron at a pawn shop. If you buy any new PC from any computer shop, the fan will throttle down the speed to where its nearly silent.

Those that fear costly repairs should stay where it is safe and leave the waste of money to those who are rich !


RE: The water of life.
By Carter642 on 4/9/2008 3:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
I spent about 2K on my latest full build that's watercooled. Honestly the difference in price between doing it air cooled vs water was about $250.

I DIY'd my own watercooling kit and I've learned the joys of drybreak couplings and braided abrasion resistant lines. Finding couplings to replace the stock nipples on the waterblocks was a bit of a PITA but now I have drybreaks on on my CPU, GPU, NB, radiator, and pump/resevoir. I can literally snap the whole thing apart while full without spilling a drop. I know it's costlier than hoseclamps and tubing but it's infinitely safer and more convenient. Maybe if WC companies made drybreak kits WC would be a little less daunting to new folks.

RE: The water of life.
By AlphaVirus on 4/9/2008 6:01:34 PM , Rating: 3
I do understand, to some, the easy task of having watercooling and not having fears. And like I said in my previous post, not everyone has expendable cash for a computer rig. Not only if 1 component goes bad, it would be death of the entire thing goes out. The wife would have me sleeping on the couch for a long time.

Personally I would not play baseball near the Louvre.

RE: The water of life.
By Misty Dingos on 4/10/2008 11:06:58 AM , Rating: 2
OK to be honest and fair my computer didn't cost four thousand dollars (maybe in Canadian dollars) But it was over three. The leak I had was on the cpu heat sink. No not a good place to have a leak. It leaked all down the side of the mother board while the computer was running. It caused all sorts of crazy behavior for about an hour. Then I noticed the leak. I turned off my pc and started cleaning up and fixed the leak. Most of the voltages on a pc are low. So arcing should never be an issue. Like I said I dried off the alcohol that I used to clean up the coolant put it back together and started it back up. Works fine. So if you don't want to water cool your PC don't. I like it so I will.

What I don't understand is the desire to leave your PC on 24-7. What is up with that? I am not exactly sure how many watts my computer draws on average but I know I don't want to pay for it when I am not there. If something happens to my computer, well I am there. Little problems are easy to fix. But big problems often grow from little problems left unattended.

But I am not going to tell you that you are living wrong if you leave your PC on all the time. That’s your business. But I would turn on the auto shutdown feature if your bios supports it.

RE: The water of life.
By ochadd on 4/9/2008 3:42:21 PM , Rating: 1
After experiencing a waterblock failure first hand I know these guys are risking allot for the improved cooling.

It nearly burned my house down after cooking for hours while away at work. After losing $2k worth of equipment and being reimbursed 20% of the purchase price it would take more than a better OC to get back into it.

The cost of a whole rack of equipment and the lost computing time would add up pretty quick. Might be worth it for 40% cost savings on the HVAC side.

RE: The water of life.
By PrinceGaz on 4/9/2008 3:52:28 PM , Rating: 3
Did you not have the option in the BIOS set to shutdown the system if CPU temperature exceeds whatever amount you felt would never be reached unless there were a problem?

I think I've got mine set so it shuts down if the Athlon 64 X2 processor passes 60C, well within its safe limit but quite a bit below the temperature it ever reaches - with the cooling working normally. If the CPU fan failed, the temperature would start to climb and when it reached 60C the PC would turn itself off. No problem.

RE: The water of life.
By jtemplin on 4/10/2008 12:54:49 AM , Rating: 2
Don't listen to these noobs. To the rest of you:
A good watercooling setup now will have redundant fail safes, not to mention BIOS shut down as another poster pointed out. No way your house or even your CPU is going to burn down. If you aren't capable enough to do it right, or not interested in the labor involved in building/maintaining it thats your call. But don't try to attack other posters by asserting that by taking the "risk" they are somehow foolish because you firmly believe in the illusory risks.

As someone else pointed out, use distilled deionized water and theres no concern of a short out. If your worried you add: flow meter with shutdown feedback just aft of water block, inline temperature sensor with shutdown feedback, low water sensor with shutdown feedback. There's really no excuxe other than your opinion, which is just that.

Here's a bunch of fluff for you...
Those that fear costly repairs should stay where it is safe and leave the waste of money to those who are rich !
Just leave it up to the big boys to figure out how to do the best, right =D

RE: The water of life.
By fleshconsumed on 4/9/2008 3:08:29 PM , Rating: 5
Water cooling is still superior to air, but it doesn't appeal as much as it did in the past. During socket 7/A era water cooling made sense because there were no good heatsinks that could adequately cool CPUs without producing excessive noise (anyone remembers golden/silver orbs?), so watercooling made sense - you got better temps and lower noise. During P4 era it still made sense because power consumption skyrocketed and existing heatsinks had trouble keeping up with it.

However, right now right water cooling usefulness is rapidly failing because newer CPUs are fairly power efficient and new heatsinks from Scythe/Thermalright can sufficiently cool CPU with minimum noise and without all the hustle that comes with watercooling.

Just about the only group of people who still benefit from using watercooling are extreme overclokers. That's fine, they need water to reach the highest overclocks they can, but for vast majority of people who run stock or reasonable overclock water makes little sense.

RE: The water of life.
By thereaderrabbit on 4/9/2008 4:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
There seems to be a misconception here.

IBM has made use of water cooling in the past, it's just that over the previous dozen or so years, technology improvements and die shrinks have allowed for air cooling to take the front seat.

RE: The water of life.
By zozzlhandler on 4/9/2008 5:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. The headline should read: IBM moves back to liquid cooling! Many IBM mainframes were liquid cooled, and IBM pioneered this technology before PCs were even thought of. There was also at least one Cray computer were all the components were immersed in liquid (not water!). In order to service it, you had to dump the coolant into a holding tank and let it drain.

RE: The water of life.
By nineball9 on 4/10/2008 1:38:40 AM , Rating: 2
I was wondering if anyone would remember (or know) that most IBM mainframes were water cooled! As a sysprog, I worked with various 370's, 3033's, 3080's, 3090's and an air-cooled 4341. The data center was in a six-story building with numerous mainframes on the 2nd floor and the chiller on the roof. That was a lot of water.

RE: The water of life.
By SLI on 4/10/2008 11:58:08 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed. I have been a IBM large systems hardware support rep and have been working on these boxes for over 22 years. Our current high end mainframes (Z-8 series) actually use phase change cooling technology. This "new" tech is for the Z-9's but differs than the old water-pumpers (3080X-3090X) in that the water system is self contained. No external heat exchangers that rely on customer supplied chillers like the old ones required. (not to mention the 400hz cycle power they needed either)

In 10 years...
By vladio on 4/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: In 10 years...
By oopyseohs on 4/9/2008 8:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
10 Years Ago:

Buildings, bridges were the same.
Planes and ships were essentially the same.
Computers were completely different.

Look at a computer from 10 years ago. Although the principles and technology itself has not evolved too much, performance is several orders of magnitude greater. With the current progression of cutting-edge manufacturing processes and various other technologies that are on the horizon, it is fair to say that the next 10 years will see an even more dramatic improvement. "'Quad CPU 4-5 Ghz' for mainstream, and thats all."; this will occur in 2.5 years, max.

It is extremely difficult to predict what things will be like 10 years from now, but if history and science are any indication, the future seems pretty kickass. (Aside from this global climate change hoopla)

RE: In 10 years...
By Captain Orgazmo on 4/9/2008 11:35:46 PM , Rating: 1
If anything, due to sloppy programming, certain important and common computer usages such as spreadsheets and word processing have slowed down in the last ten years.

Also, I'm still waiting for a computer that can effectively take input other than from a good ol' fashioned (or as Scotty would say, quaint) mouse and keyboard (and please don't tell me speech recognition works - or as the computer would probably hear - cheese bone smell my feet wrecking nation worse).

RE: In 10 years...
By lagitup on 4/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: In 10 years...
By nidomus on 4/10/2008 8:30:39 AM , Rating: 3
Is it just me... or is the whole micro$uck/M$/micro$haft thing getting old? I mean seriously? You think you're clever because you can substitute a dollar sign and or derogatory word into the name? I mean it's not like that's been done before. I know this is off topic, but I've been seeing a lot of it lately and its been "grinding my gears". So, I apologize, and at the same time don't.

RE: In 10 years...
By JoshuaBuss on 4/10/2008 12:30:38 AM , Rating: 1
not to mention vista still doesn't boot any faster than DOS used to on a 286.. :\

seems like all our gains in hardware are almost always (for better or for worse) countered by bloated software..

RE: In 10 years...
By porkpie on 4/10/2008 12:37:50 AM , Rating: 5
If you want fast boot times, load DOS 5.0 on your spanky new Core 2 Duo.

Oh wait, you actually LIKE all those new features since then, like a graphical UI, support for multithreading, task switching, more than 640K of RAM, hotswappable hardware like USB keys, etc, etc, etc.

Maybe some of that "bloat" is things you really want hrm? And just maybe (gasp!) its a lot easier to be an armchair-quarterback OS developer, than actually making intelligent comments?

RE: In 10 years...
By Captain Orgazmo on 4/10/2008 2:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
All those things you list are part of XP or older versions Windows. Vista, which I have on two computers, is by comparison to XP, prettier, maybe more Mac-like (pardon my french), has a built in media center (XP MCE? umm..), and is just... better? Oh and as a bonus it takes considerably longer to boot than XP, has half or worse inter- and intra-drive file transfer speeds than XP, is missing the old-fashioned but unfortunately still quite necessary at times fax function (in all but business and ultimate), it cannot remain asleep, waking even out of hibernation on its own (even after manually disabling all device wake capabilities), and has no capability to limit GPU usage while Media Center is maximized (resulting in unnecessary power consumption, heat, and fan noise). But it looks so darn fancy!!! Well, you can't polish a turd.

RE: In 10 years...
By michael67 on 4/10/2008 6:26:22 AM , Rating: 2
Na i rater had that MS had just reworked te code of XP and slim it down, rater then blothed it for Vista whit things we dont use anyway ore realy need.

Aero glass looks nice but if they realy had wanted it to work nice, they should had inplemented Desktop vectoring becouse on LCD screens can only be realy used in native res evryting else gets blurry.

And think you have to explain to me how Vista is more inovated then XP and whit me all the other 600 admins i was whit at the MS Technet seminar for the roll out of server 2008.

during the seminar they MS technet guy go's on explaining all the benefits of Win server 2008 working together whit Vista for a bout 30min then he ask how many had rolled out Vista at work ... silent for 10~20sec
Then he ask how many ware planing to roll out Vista ... silents for a other 10~20sec then the hole room start laughing because the technet guy realized that he just wasted a half our on something no one wanted to use.

Because like me the other 600 admins think Vista is just a lemon that no one wants

And private i haven't notice it on my HP Vista machine IE still crashes and that password protection for everything that makes Vista so mouths more safe was bugging me so mouths that i had to turn it of just to be able to normally work whit Vista

After 3 months working whit Vista i was so fed up whit it that i did format C: and installed XP again so that i had control over my own machine again and my drivers ware working again 100% instead basic function driver.

Yeah there are some small things i liked and miss from Vista, but over all they are not worth all hassle that that blotted Vista gives me to use it over XP

RE: In 10 years...
By maverick85wd on 4/10/2008 9:40:32 AM , Rating: 2
10 Years Ago:

Buildings, bridges were the same.
Planes and ships were essentially the same.
Computers were completely different.

I know nothing of buildings, bridges, or ships. However, I work on avionic equipment and let me tell you... 10 years makes a big change in aircraft communications and flight control systems (not to mention munitions systems, radar systems, and electronic warfare systems for military jets). The air frames may look similar, and in the end they do about the same job... but they are more efficient and reliable. The point is that technology advances on all fronts, it just not may seem as obvious to the masses in many sectors because most do not deal with it on a daily basis. Pretty much everyone uses a computer so they can see the changes. Just look at the F-117 Nighthawk. The last plane wasn't even delivered until 1990 and already it is being retired... in roughly 20 years it went from top-secret project to obsolete.

RE: In 10 years...
By maverick85wd on 4/10/2008 9:48:00 AM , Rating: 2
it just not may seem

it just may not seem*.... alright. DT REALLY needs to figure out some way to let people make minor changes to their posts. Either that or I'll just continue smacking myself on the forehead and replying with the correction...

RE: In 10 years...
By B3an on 4/10/2008 2:58:28 AM , Rating: 3
"To: All Kids on this site
From: Vladimir Orlovsky, 50 years old veteran"

Your'd think after 50 years you could spell/write a little better... and you seem more like a kid than 95% of the people on this site.

What your've wrote is just load of meaningless cr@p.

RE: In 10 years...
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/10/2008 2:41:53 PM , Rating: 1
You're late kid:

Intel already has roadmaps suggesting octal cores for late 2009 - 2010.
4ghz quad cores are possible righ here, right now by overcloking (not always an easy feat, though).

10 years ago, the best available CPU was a Slotted Pentium II 333mhz...
A bit far from the 3.2ghz quad cores with huge, integrated, full speed caches, isn't it?

By then bus speeds were in the order of 66mhz. The latest and greatest bus speed as of now is 1333mhz (20 times as much... and we've got 64bit external buses vs. 32bit ones by then)

By then we had... 33mhz, 32bit PCI slots. Featuring 133mb/s bandwidths (same as actual PCI slots). Living beside some 16bit ISA slots (8mhz, 16bits = 16mb/s).

Now we have the same PCI slots, but we also have 100mhz, x16 PCIe slots sporting in excess of 4gb/s bandwidths.

Best graphics card by then was arguably a matrox millenium for 2d, and the 3d only 3dfx voodoo2 (or better, 2 of them in SLI) which needed to be coupled to a 2d graphics card to work.

Things have changed quite a bit in the PC arena. And will keep on changing at the same frantic pace.

We had 30gb drives. 7200rpm ATA drives were just appearing on the market, with 256kb of integrated cache.
Our best optical units were 32x Max cdroms.
Floppy drives were mandatory. Some of us even still had 5.25 "high density" units laying around for the sake of compatibility.

We had somthing like 16mb of sdram, 66mhz, 80ns access time dimms in our systems back then. Now we have 1333+ ddr3, 2ns access time modules... and 4gbs.

And you said that things didn't change and will not?
Yes, of course, whatever you say.

"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

Related Articles

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki