![]() ![]() But given the information that we currently have, I'd rather base it around what's available now, and the three failure modes affected by temperature in the quote are still significant enough factors for me to believe that temperature shouldn't be that high if you can help it.Īnd also your reasoning for keeping parts at a higher temperature to save fans doesn't make sense to me because again, fans are cheaper to replace and if you get a quality fan they're rated last a really long time anyway.ĮDIT: Also my concern for my use case isn't so much outright failure. Noctua rates their fans for 150,000 hours, which is 17 years if you ran it 24/7.Ĭlick to expand.But yes, and I acknowledged it in my post, we don't have enough data to make any real informed decision. There are fattier things to cut since fans take like <3W apiece on full blast.ĮDIT: Also if you get a quality fan, they last a very long time anyway. Assuming my math is right, having the CPU idle at 55C will drop the expected life span down to about 3.125 years.ĭepending on how long your upgrade cycle is, running the fans to maintain lower temperatures is cheaper overall by virtue that if the fans break, it's a cheaper part to replace than if the CPU degrades out of spec and you have to replace it.Īnd if saving energy is your goal, turning off the fans is basically trimming the muscle. And let's say the average idle temp is 35C. For the sake of argument though, let's say I can get 5 years out of my CPU as-is, with a 50%/50% idle/load split to make things easy. Of course this requires knowing what the lifespan of said part is for this figure to matter. ![]() From what I heard from electrical engineers, the lifespan of electronics cuts in half for every 10C you subject to it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |