Jump to content

utengineer

Members
  • Posts

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Gaming

  • Xfire
    utengineer
  • Steam
    utengineer

OCC

  • Computer Specs
    Dell XPS 730 | Intel Core2 Quad Q9550@ 2.83 GHz
    8GB RAM @ 1333 MHz | 1.5TB Raid 0 | Vista Ultimate 64-bit
    Dell 2208WFP @ 1680x1050 | Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi
    3x GTX 280 in SLI | Thermaltake Toughpower 1200W

utengineer's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. I am not sure I would consider the Campaign or Single Player modes a true judge of a gamer's expertise. They can definitely be challenging when you change the settings to the highest difficulty. I usually do this for every game just because the lower settings are just so boring. Playing the game against AI with just scripted paths and levels just does not pose a challenge. You die, try again, you die, do it again. Anyone and everyone usually figures it out. I cannot comment on RPG, RTS, or MMO games, as I only play FPS. I used to play the Campaigns or SP modes on all the games I bought, but now I go straight to the MultiPlayer mode and get online, and play. I find the most challenging thing about gaming is going against humans online. There are many more variables and tactics to plan against. Skill levels vary from player to player. Deaths directly affect your overall score on most games, and it is extremely hard to finish a map 1st, 2nd and 3rd. To me, finishing in the top 3 is a true gauge for expertise or skill in gaming. It goes even further. You can be really good at BC2 (consistently finish 1-3), but you are always middle to the end of the pack in Crysis 2. I consider a player that always finishes in the top 3 on multiple game titles to be a REALLY GOOD player/gamer. I feel to perform at these levels in MP, it requires way more expertise and skill versus just turning the SP mode to High and trudging through a script. Thanks for reading my opinion and I appreciate yours!
  2. Which cools better? There are many overclocking sites that overclock and provide benchmark results. Some run single loops between the CPU and GPU cooling blocks. Some run two loops between the CPU and GPUs. The benefit of the two loop set-up allows for the hot water exiting the cooling block to go directly to the radiator. Single loops send the hot water exiting the CPU block to the GPU blocks. Therefore, the GPUs are getting hot water which is used to transfer the heat off them. Now lets look at the GPU cooling, regardless of the inlet water source. With many multi-GPU configurations, the graphics cards are also placed in a single loop for liquid cooling. This means that the hot water exiting card 1 is sent to card 2 to cool it. In 3-way SLI, the 3rd card is getting hot water from BOTH card 1 and 2. Overclocking a processor causes more heat to be generated. As the heat increases, the processor's stability decreases. Therefore transfering the heat away from the surface of the processor allows for stable overclocks. So it is important to get the heat transfered efficiently. Water cooling does this well and provides good temperatures at increased loads. So my theory is: To get the best heat transfer and coolest operating temperatures, you need to have the lowest inlet temprature for EACH device using liquid cooling. Thus you can overclock your processor HIGHER with better stability. So I got my old Thermodynamics book from college. I found the equations used for conductive and radiant heat transfer. Q=-kA(Ts-T) Q: heat transferred (the higher the more heat removed) h: heat transfer coefficient (constant for H20) A: area (surface area of block) Ts: temperature of the surface T: temperature of the medium (water) So without doing any math, we can see the relationship between the amount of heat transfered to the difference of the surface and medium temperatures. The higher (Ts-T) is, the greater the Q will be. So if we have a CPU overclocked to a set frequency, the amount and temprature of heat needing to be transfered is constant. So the variable we can control to increase the Heat Transfer (Q) is T, the temperature of the inlet medium (water). Let's do some math to see how this theory would factor against the heat transferred (Q). A and -k are constant so we don't need to analyze their effect. Series (Ts-T): 50C-40C=10C Parallel or indepedent water source per device (Ts-T): 50C-35C=15C With a simple 5C variance of the inlet water temperature, the Heat Transferred (Q) increases by a factor of 10 to 15. We can derive a formula that calculates the factor in Series versus Parallel Heat Transfer since A and -k are constant. Qp: parallel heat transfer Qs: series heat transfer added s and p for the corresponding temperatures of the parallel versus series quantities Qp/(Tsp-Tp) = Qs/(Tss-Ts) thus, Qp/Qs = (Tsp-Tp)/(Tss-Ts) So using our 5C temperature variance from above we get: Qp/Qs= 15C/10C thus, Qp = Qs(3/2) Hence, the amount of heat transfered in the parallel loop is 3/2 times the series loop. With a 5C temperature drop in the inlet temperature, the parallel solution gets you 1.5 times the heat transfer. If we had lowered it another 5C the factor would be 2. In conclusion, running series cooling loops lowers your heat transfer ability and limits your maximum overclock with stability. It would be interesting to see if someone would try an experiment on graphic cards using this theory. They would have to split the tube coming out of his resorator and run seprate inlet lines to the cards. Then bring them back together as the water returns to the resorator. Thanks for reading
×
×
  • Create New...