Ask a question - edaboard.com
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Underclocking..
Robert Baer
Guest
Guest
Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:54 am
...already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Guest
Guest
Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:02 am
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:54:17 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer_at_localnet.com>
wrote:
Quote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
What are you underclocking? How much? Most high-end microprocessors use some
sort of dynamic logic so there is a lower limit to the clock speed. Purely
static processors (most UCs) can be run down to DC, so there isn't any problem
there. Depending on the I/O, there may be real limitations there, too,
particularly if timing loops are used or the clock is used for other things.
The only other problem I can see is that, they won't heat the room.
Martin Brown
Guest
Guest
Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:34 am
Robert Baer wrote:
Quote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
If you underclock by too much there is a risk that any dynamic registers
will forget their contents. Most modern CPUs can tweak their clock rate
according to demand to some extent. Decreaseing the clock rate and CPU
voltage equates to less power consumption so greener and longer battery
life. It is common for battery powered kit to idle whenever it can.
Intel called it speedstep technology when they introduced it into its
dedicated Laptop M series CPUs almost a decade ago. See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M
Later generations added "turboboost" which does the opposite. It seems
that Intel has started encouraging serious overclocking these days. A
nominal i5-2500K 3.3GHz will comfortably overclock to 4.3GHz with a
better than THE rubbish stock Intel cooling fan heatsink attached to it.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Guest
Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:49 pm
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:54:17 -0800, Robert Baer
<robertbaer_at_localnet.com> wrote:
Quote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
If the question is simply, does it make sense to run a total amount of
work (CPU cycles) at full speed at say 1/10 duty time or run
something at 10 % speed at 100 % duty cycle, the end result is the
same.
The only real advantage of the slower clock frequency is that you can
run at a lower Vdd and hence save a lot of power, since in a typical
situation, the power consumption is proportional to the square of Vdd.
Michael
Guest
Guest
Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:55 pm
On Jan 30, 12:34 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
Quote:
Robert Baer wrote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
If you underclock by too much there is a risk that any dynamic registers
will forget their contents. Most modern CPUs can tweak their clock rate
according to demand to some extent. Decreaseing the clock rate and CPU
voltage equates to less power consumption so greener and longer battery
life. It is common for battery powered kit to idle whenever it can.
Intel called it speedstep technology when they introduced it into its
dedicated Laptop M series CPUs almost a decade ago. See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M
Later generations added "turboboost" which does the opposite. It seems
that Intel has started encouraging serious overclocking these days. A
nominal i5-2500K 3.3GHz will comfortably overclock to 4.3GHz with a
better than THE rubbish stock Intel cooling fan heatsink attached to it.
Regards,
Martin Brown
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
If you underclock by too much there is a risk that any dynamic registers
will forget their contents. Most modern CPUs can tweak their clock rate
according to demand to some extent. Decreaseing the clock rate and CPU
voltage equates to less power consumption so greener and longer battery
life. It is common for battery powered kit to idle whenever it can.
Intel called it speedstep technology when they introduced it into its
dedicated Laptop M series CPUs almost a decade ago. See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M
Later generations added "turboboost" which does the opposite. It seems
that Intel has started encouraging serious overclocking these days. A
nominal i5-2500K 3.3GHz will comfortably overclock to 4.3GHz with a
better than THE rubbish stock Intel cooling fan heatsink attached to it.
Regards,
Martin Brown
2500K... is that the temperature the CPU will run at when overclocked?
Kidding. =)
Michael
langwadt@fonz.dk
Guest
Guest
Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:04 pm
On 30 Jan., 21:49, upsided...@downunder.com wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:54:17 -0800, Robert Baer
robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
If the question is simply, does it make sense to run a total amount of
work (CPU cycles) at full speed at say 1/10 duty time or run
something at 10 % speed at 100 % duty cycle, the end result is the
same.
The only real advantage of the slower clock frequency is that you can
run at a lower Vdd and hence save a lot of power, since in a typical
situation, the power consumption is proportional to the square of Vdd.
robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
If the question is simply, does it make sense to run a total amount of
work (CPU cycles) at full speed at say 1/10 duty time or run
something at 10 % speed at 100 % duty cycle, the end result is the
same.
The only real advantage of the slower clock frequency is that you can
run at a lower Vdd and hence save a lot of power, since in a typical
situation, the power consumption is proportional to the square of Vdd.
modern fast processes can be rather leaky so the static power
consumption can be rather high regardless of clock rate, so sometimes
it
migh make sense to run as fast as possible for a short time and then
turn
off as much as you can
-Lasse
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Guest
Guest
Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:49 am
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:04:02 -0800 (PST), "langwadt_at_fonz.dk"
<langwadt_at_fonz.dk> wrote:
Quote:
On 30 Jan., 21:49, upsided...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:54:17 -0800, Robert Baer
robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
If the question is simply, does it make sense to run a total amount of
work (CPU cycles) at full speed at say 1/10 duty time or run
something at 10 % speed at 100 % duty cycle, the end result is the
same.
The only real advantage of the slower clock frequency is that you can
run at a lower Vdd and hence save a lot of power, since in a typical
situation, the power consumption is proportional to the square of Vdd.
modern fast processes can be rather leaky so the static power
consumption can be rather high regardless of clock rate, so sometimes
it
migh make sense to run as fast as possible for a short time and then
turn
off as much as you can
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:54:17 -0800, Robert Baer
robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
If the question is simply, does it make sense to run a total amount of
work (CPU cycles) at full speed at say 1/10 duty time or run
something at 10 % speed at 100 % duty cycle, the end result is the
same.
The only real advantage of the slower clock frequency is that you can
run at a lower Vdd and hence save a lot of power, since in a typical
situation, the power consumption is proportional to the square of Vdd.
modern fast processes can be rather leaky so the static power
consumption can be rather high regardless of clock rate, so sometimes
it
migh make sense to run as fast as possible for a short time and then
turn
off as much as you can
If you're cutting the clock rate it's also possible to lower the voltage, thus
the static/leakage power.
Robert Baer
Guest
Guest
Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:09 am
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:54:17 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer_at_localnet.com
wrote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
What are you underclocking? How much? Most high-end microprocessors use some
sort of dynamic logic so there is a lower limit to the clock speed. Purely
static processors (most UCs) can be run down to DC, so there isn't any problem
there. Depending on the I/O, there may be real limitations there, too,
particularly if timing loops are used or the clock is used for other things.
The only other problem I can see is that, they won't heat the room.
Specifically, a Pentium 2-266 clocked down to 180.
wrote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
What are you underclocking? How much? Most high-end microprocessors use some
sort of dynamic logic so there is a lower limit to the clock speed. Purely
static processors (most UCs) can be run down to DC, so there isn't any problem
there. Depending on the I/O, there may be real limitations there, too,
particularly if timing loops are used or the clock is used for other things.
The only other problem I can see is that, they won't heat the room.
Specifically, a Pentium 2-266 clocked down to 180.
Martin Brown
Guest
Guest
Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:00 am
Robert Baer wrote:
Quote:
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:54:17 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer_at_localnet.com
wrote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
What are you underclocking? How much? Most high-end microprocessors
use some
sort of dynamic logic so there is a lower limit to the clock speed.
Purely
static processors (most UCs) can be run down to DC, so there isn't any
problem
there. Depending on the I/O, there may be real limitations there, too,
particularly if timing loops are used or the clock is used for other
things.
The only other problem I can see is that, they won't heat the room.
Specifically, a Pentium 2-266 clocked down to 180.
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:54:17 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer_at_localnet.com
wrote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
What are you underclocking? How much? Most high-end microprocessors
use some
sort of dynamic logic so there is a lower limit to the clock speed.
Purely
static processors (most UCs) can be run down to DC, so there isn't any
problem
there. Depending on the I/O, there may be real limitations there, too,
particularly if timing loops are used or the clock is used for other
things.
The only other problem I can see is that, they won't heat the room.
Specifically, a Pentium 2-266 clocked down to 180.
Why would you bother?
They are a waste of space and better off clocked at 0Hz.
Regards,
Martin Brown
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Guest
Guest
Wed Feb 01, 2012 2:34 am
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:00:31 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Quote:
Robert Baer wrote:
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:54:17 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer_at_localnet.com
wrote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
What are you underclocking? How much? Most high-end microprocessors
use some
sort of dynamic logic so there is a lower limit to the clock speed.
Purely
static processors (most UCs) can be run down to DC, so there isn't any
problem
there. Depending on the I/O, there may be real limitations there, too,
particularly if timing loops are used or the clock is used for other
things.
The only other problem I can see is that, they won't heat the room.
Specifically, a Pentium 2-266 clocked down to 180.
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:54:17 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer_at_localnet.com
wrote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
What are you underclocking? How much? Most high-end microprocessors
use some
sort of dynamic logic so there is a lower limit to the clock speed.
Purely
static processors (most UCs) can be run down to DC, so there isn't any
problem
there. Depending on the I/O, there may be real limitations there, too,
particularly if timing loops are used or the clock is used for other
things.
The only other problem I can see is that, they won't heat the room.
Specifically, a Pentium 2-266 clocked down to 180.
A P-II will have dynamic logic so you can't go all the way to DC but I'd bet
180MHz would work, as long as the multipliers are there. Intel did quite a
bit of clock-locking back then.
Quote:
Why would you bother?
They are a waste of space and better off clocked at 0Hz.
They are a waste of space and better off clocked at 0Hz.
Indeed. There are far better low-power solutions today. The P-II was a pig.
Robert Baer
Guest
Guest
Wed Feb 01, 2012 4:42 am
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:00:31 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:54:17 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer_at_localnet.com
wrote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
What are you underclocking? How much? Most high-end microprocessors
use some
sort of dynamic logic so there is a lower limit to the clock speed.
Purely
static processors (most UCs) can be run down to DC, so there isn't any
problem
there. Depending on the I/O, there may be real limitations there, too,
particularly if timing loops are used or the clock is used for other
things.
The only other problem I can see is that, they won't heat the room.
Specifically, a Pentium 2-266 clocked down to 180.
A P-II will have dynamic logic so you can't go all the way to DC but I'd bet
180MHz would work, as long as the multipliers are there. Intel did quite a
bit of clock-locking back then.
Why would you bother?
They are a waste of space and better off clocked at 0Hz.
Indeed. There are far better low-power solutions today. The P-II was a pig.
I am not looking for low power; i need a computer with at least one
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:54:17 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer_at_localnet.com
wrote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
What are you underclocking? How much? Most high-end microprocessors
use some
sort of dynamic logic so there is a lower limit to the clock speed.
Purely
static processors (most UCs) can be run down to DC, so there isn't any
problem
there. Depending on the I/O, there may be real limitations there, too,
particularly if timing loops are used or the clock is used for other
things.
The only other problem I can see is that, they won't heat the room.
Specifically, a Pentium 2-266 clocked down to 180.
A P-II will have dynamic logic so you can't go all the way to DC but I'd bet
180MHz would work, as long as the multipliers are there. Intel did quite a
bit of clock-locking back then.
Why would you bother?
They are a waste of space and better off clocked at 0Hz.
Indeed. There are far better low-power solutions today. The P-II was a pig.
I am not looking for low power; i need a computer with at least one
ISA slot, and it would be nice to have the hardware speaker driver
available.
That last part is a dig to the idiots that designed the Compaq
Presario 5185 and similar (NO speaker circuitry).
*
The only reason for the underclocking is that the slot one CPU got
hot as all heck without a fan at its rated 200MHz clock.
So now a fan and clock at 180MHz which the motherboard allows.
miso
Guest
Guest
Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:16 am
Quote:
I am not looking for low power; i need a computer with at least one ISA
slot, and it would be nice to have the hardware speaker driver available.
That last part is a dig to the idiots that designed the Compaq Presario
5185 and similar (NO speaker circuitry).
*
The only reason for the underclocking is that the slot one CPU got hot
as all heck without a fan at its rated 200MHz clock.
So now a fan and clock at 180MHz which the motherboard allows.
slot, and it would be nice to have the hardware speaker driver available.
That last part is a dig to the idiots that designed the Compaq Presario
5185 and similar (NO speaker circuitry).
*
The only reason for the underclocking is that the slot one CPU got hot
as all heck without a fan at its rated 200MHz clock.
So now a fan and clock at 180MHz which the motherboard allows.
Let me guess. You have an old ISA National Instruments GPIB card and you
don't want to pay for a modern USB or ethernet version.
Ken S. Tucker
Guest
Guest
Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:56 am
On Jan 31, 7:42 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
Quote:
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:00:31 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:54:17 -0800, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com
wrote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
What are you underclocking? How much? Most high-end microprocessors
use some
sort of dynamic logic so there is a lower limit to the clock speed.
Purely
static processors (most UCs) can be run down to DC, so there isn't any
problem
there. Depending on the I/O, there may be real limitations there, too,
particularly if timing loops are used or the clock is used for other
things.
The only other problem I can see is that, they won't heat the room.
Specifically, a Pentium 2-266 clocked down to 180.
A P-II will have dynamic logic so you can't go all the way to DC but I'd bet
180MHz would work, as long as the multipliers are there. Intel did quite a
bit of clock-locking back then.
Why would you bother?
They are a waste of space and better off clocked at 0Hz.
Indeed. There are far better low-power solutions today. The P-II was a pig.
I am not looking for low power; i need a computer with at least one
ISA slot, and it would be nice to have the hardware speaker driver
available.
That last part is a dig to the idiots that designed the Compaq
Presario 5185 and similar (NO speaker circuitry).
*
The only reason for the underclocking is that the slot one CPU got
hot as all heck without a fan at its rated 200MHz clock.
So now a fan and clock at 180MHz which the motherboard allows.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:00:31 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:54:17 -0800, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com
wrote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
What are you underclocking? How much? Most high-end microprocessors
use some
sort of dynamic logic so there is a lower limit to the clock speed.
Purely
static processors (most UCs) can be run down to DC, so there isn't any
problem
there. Depending on the I/O, there may be real limitations there, too,
particularly if timing loops are used or the clock is used for other
things.
The only other problem I can see is that, they won't heat the room.
Specifically, a Pentium 2-266 clocked down to 180.
A P-II will have dynamic logic so you can't go all the way to DC but I'd bet
180MHz would work, as long as the multipliers are there. Intel did quite a
bit of clock-locking back then.
Why would you bother?
They are a waste of space and better off clocked at 0Hz.
Indeed. There are far better low-power solutions today. The P-II was a pig.
I am not looking for low power; i need a computer with at least one
ISA slot, and it would be nice to have the hardware speaker driver
available.
That last part is a dig to the idiots that designed the Compaq
Presario 5185 and similar (NO speaker circuitry).
*
The only reason for the underclocking is that the slot one CPU got
hot as all heck without a fan at its rated 200MHz clock.
So now a fan and clock at 180MHz which the motherboard allows.
I have a similar problem with an IBM "think center" job, nice and
compact, I note good effort on the part of IBM engineers to control
thermodynamics, but I'm uncertain it's sufficient.
The upshot is I have an intermittent fault in it. If I set it outside,
in
cold then bring it in it'll run beauts for a couple of days then die.
I went to BIOS and it allows some CPU clocking reduction, the
unit is very nice but I perfer reliability to top performance so I'll
take the performance hit.
I intend to replace the enclosure with heavy 1/4" screen in place of
sheet metal to improve ventilation cooling.
If I can solve the intermittent fault I'll post.
Ken
NT
Guest
Guest
Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:58 pm
On Feb 1, 3:42 am, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
Quote:
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:00:31 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:54:17 -0800, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet..com
wrote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
What are you underclocking? How much? Most high-end microprocessors
use some
sort of dynamic logic so there is a lower limit to the clock speed.
Purely
static processors (most UCs) can be run down to DC, so there isn't any
problem
there. Depending on the I/O, there may be real limitations there, too,
particularly if timing loops are used or the clock is used for other
things.
The only other problem I can see is that, they won't heat the room.
Specifically, a Pentium 2-266 clocked down to 180.
A P-II will have dynamic logic so you can't go all the way to DC but I'd bet
180MHz would work, as long as the multipliers are there. Intel did quite a
bit of clock-locking back then.
Why would you bother?
They are a waste of space and better off clocked at 0Hz.
Indeed. There are far better low-power solutions today. The P-II was a pig.
I am not looking for low power; i need a computer with at least one
ISA slot, and it would be nice to have the hardware speaker driver
available.
That last part is a dig to the idiots that designed the Compaq
Presario 5185 and similar (NO speaker circuitry).
*
The only reason for the underclocking is that the slot one CPU got
hot as all heck without a fan at its rated 200MHz clock.
So now a fan and clock at 180MHz which the motherboard allows.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:00:31 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:54:17 -0800, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet..com
wrote:
..already looked at the various references the baby bird (GooGull)
proffered to no avail regarding the following:
Are there any _disadvantages_ other than speed?
What are you underclocking? How much? Most high-end microprocessors
use some
sort of dynamic logic so there is a lower limit to the clock speed.
Purely
static processors (most UCs) can be run down to DC, so there isn't any
problem
there. Depending on the I/O, there may be real limitations there, too,
particularly if timing loops are used or the clock is used for other
things.
The only other problem I can see is that, they won't heat the room.
Specifically, a Pentium 2-266 clocked down to 180.
A P-II will have dynamic logic so you can't go all the way to DC but I'd bet
180MHz would work, as long as the multipliers are there. Intel did quite a
bit of clock-locking back then.
Why would you bother?
They are a waste of space and better off clocked at 0Hz.
Indeed. There are far better low-power solutions today. The P-II was a pig.
I am not looking for low power; i need a computer with at least one
ISA slot, and it would be nice to have the hardware speaker driver
available.
That last part is a dig to the idiots that designed the Compaq
Presario 5185 and similar (NO speaker circuitry).
*
The only reason for the underclocking is that the slot one CPU got
hot as all heck without a fan at its rated 200MHz clock.
So now a fan and clock at 180MHz which the motherboard allows.
There were cpu-fanless P2s too, they just had a much larger heatsink
on the cpu. ISA slots were moderately common on P3s too, with just 1
or sometimes 2 such slots on the mobo. And a P3 is surely a better
proposition, if you only need one ISA slot.
NT
Robert Baer
Guest
Guest
Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:20 pm
miso wrote:
Quote:
I am not looking for low power; i need a computer with at least one ISA
slot, and it would be nice to have the hardware speaker driver available.
That last part is a dig to the idiots that designed the Compaq Presario
5185 and similar (NO speaker circuitry).
*
The only reason for the underclocking is that the slot one CPU got hot
as all heck without a fan at its rated 200MHz clock.
So now a fan and clock at 180MHz which the motherboard allows.
Let me guess. You have an old ISA National Instruments GPIB card and you
don't want to pay for a modern USB or ethernet version.
Sort-of; it is a combo A/D and DIO board that i programmed in BASIC,
compiled, and run in the most robust lowest overhead OS: DOS.
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Underclocking..
