• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

SOLVED Point of deminishing returns...

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.


On my way to work this morning I started thing about pelts and their overall efficiency, on a reasonably slow CPU i.e pentium 2 / 300 , which obviously wont produce the same heat as a say 1.4 gig Athlon, is the efficiency of the same size pelt reduced, i.e using the same pelt on both CPU's
the reason I ask is because if there is more heat going in, it must have to get rid of that heat plus any potential difference, if you start with a lower heat it must dissapate easier.
just interested in your thoughts....
Doesn't heat work on the inverse square law? It's about nearly 20 years since I did any physics, but I seem to remember to lower by 1C would take half the energy of lowering by 2C and 3C would take 4* the energy. That is why you could never achieve absolute zero, it would take an infinite amount energy.
I would think that your efficiency would take a bigger hit than you would expect. Then again my memory could be playing tricks on me. ???
I'm slowly getting there, the closer a given temperature to the ambient enviroment the harder it is to cool. Tests have actually proven that water of nearly 100 C, when placed in a freezer will freeze quicker than that of water of room temperature. I still can,t work that out myself, but have seen the experiment carried out on a science program.
No wonder I went into Graphic art, not thermodynamics it's too weird
looks like I have a few people scratching their heads now :)
which leads me to ask this question, if it requires more effort to keep a hotter chip cool, does this mean you need a larger pelt just to do the same job?