I remember a while back, in the P1 chip days, a group of people built a
tower system, that used a form of coolant. I don't think it was Freon, but
something similar to it. I am not going to get fully into, mainly because I
forget all the logistics of it. But I know their studies proved to increase
the power of the chip almost 4 times the amount. It was a 75 MHz and ran at
a 300 MHz rate. Like I said, it was many years back, and I just remember
the basics. I seen only a year or so back, a tower case that used water to
cool the chip. It worked the same as a radiator on a car. There was a
"radiator" that sat on the chip, kinda like the Heat Sink does now. And
there was another one in the back of the Tower, that fans blew through,
blowing the heat out, and re-cooling the water, to be returned to the
"Radiator" on the chip. If I remember correctly, this was for a dual chip
system. But could be used for a single chip also.

Another thing, too. Ever since I can remember, computer rooms have been ran
around 68-72 degrees, to keep the computers cool. So, if cooling a chip is
not important, how come companies continue to improve on the cooling systems
of the Processor Chips in computers? How come Muti Million dollar companies
spend more money on the conditions of their computer rooms (not meaning
actual hardware), then they spend on insurance in a year (Just
exaggerating)? There has to be some logic to it. I am sure Microsoft would
not spend money where it is not needed.

Rick


Definitely not always. Some systems (especially laptops) are able to
downclock so as to protect themselves from heat damage. Even some
"smarter"
desktop motherboards can monitor their temperature and fan RPMs so as to
shutdown or downclock in the event of a thermal problem.

As for the statement about cooling not making a CPU run faster, ask any
overclocker about that. The more you cool the chip, the harder you can
push
it, up until a point of failure occurs or reliable operation can no longer
be acheived.
:-)

William