If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Solid capacitors vs electrolytic...anyone with an opinion either way?
I'm posting to both NG's as there seems to be an awful lot of smart hardware
people here. I was reading one of my PC-related magazines on an airplane the other day when I came across an "infomercial-article" from Gigabyte touting their newest and greatest mobo's using all solid capacitors. I'll include a link to the Gigabyte site below, but I'm just wondering what the consensus is of you folks that are "in the know." Reading up on Gigabyte's 'Ultra Durable' article you would think this is the best invention since sliced bread. My motive of course for posting this is that I am close to making a decision on upgrading my current 5-year old Athlon XP system to something dual-core etc., and simply don't know at this point to go the Intel or AMD route. I'm pretty agnostic along these lines, just want the best bang for my buck. Anyway, here's the link: http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/FileList/..._all_solid.htm Thanks to you all in advance. TLG |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Solid capacitors vs electrolytic...anyone with an opinion either way?
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:37:12 +0200, "The Lone Gunman"
wrote: I'm posting to both NG's as there seems to be an awful lot of smart hardware people here. I was reading one of my PC-related magazines on an airplane the other day when I came across an "infomercial-article" from Gigabyte touting their newest and greatest mobo's using all solid capacitors. I'll include a link to the Gigabyte site below, but I'm just wondering what the consensus is of you folks that are "in the know." Reading up on Gigabyte's 'Ultra Durable' article you would think this is the best invention since sliced bread. My motive of course for posting this is that I am close to making a decision on upgrading my current 5-year old Athlon XP system to something dual-core etc., and simply don't know at this point to go the Intel or AMD route. I'm pretty agnostic along these lines, just want the best bang for my buck. Anyway, here's the link: http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/FileList/..._all_solid.htm Thanks to you all in advance. TLG This is essentially a high-availability server design practice trickling down to the desktop. Every five-nines+ server motherboard I've designed from late 1999 on used aluminum capacitors sporting solid polymer material (see Sanyo OS-CON, for example) wherever high capacitance/low ESR devices were required - which was mostly on the processor and chipset VRD rails. These aren't cheap, so I was restrained from using more than theory required (though I always put a few extra, strategically located footprints down and left them off the assembly boms). The generally reflects a trade-off between load-lines and how complex (which pretty much means how many phases) a switching regulator one wants to construct. 6-phase switchers have been fairly standard in the Xeon space, but 8-phasers are gaining, trading fets for fat caps. With fewer caps comes less resistance to putting down premium devices and burying the life-span issue. Does it make any difference to a typical desktop user? Plainly, the likelihood of failure of electrolytic caps as the desktop ages is going to be a major factor, with those who stick with a system for 5 years more likely to succumb to sudden system death, and those who keep on the cutting edge (if not the bleeding edge) most likely to beat the reaper... Cheers /daytripper |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Solid capacitors vs electrolytic...anyone with an opinion either way?
daytripper wrote:
: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:37:12 +0200, "The Lone Gunman" : wrote: : snip for brevity : This is essentially a high-availability server design practice : trickling down to the desktop. Every five-nines+ server : motherboard I've designed from late 1999 on used aluminum : capacitors sporting solid polymer material (see Sanyo OS-CON, : for example) wherever high capacitance/low ESR devices were : required - which was mostly on the processor and chipset VRD : rails. : : These aren't cheap, so I was restrained from using more than : theory required (though I always put a few extra, : strategically located footprints down and left them off the : assembly boms). The generally reflects a trade-off between : load-lines and how complex (which pretty much means how many : phases) a switching regulator one wants to construct. 6-phase : switchers have been fairly standard in the Xeon space, but : 8-phasers are gaining, trading fets for fat caps. With fewer : caps comes less resistance to putting down premium devices and : burying the life-span issue. : : Does it make any difference to a typical desktop user? : Plainly, the likelihood of failure of electrolytic caps as the : desktop ages is going to be a major factor, with those who : stick with a system for 5 years more likely to succumb to : sudden system death, and those who keep on the cutting edge : (if not the bleeding edge) most likely to beat the reaper... : : Cheers : : /daytripper Thanks for the great post, Daytripper. I **think** I understand most of what you said. Yeah, my mobo is approaching five years now and I'm starting to see problems that I'm almost sure are h/w related. Won't go into that here, just wanted some feedback on the OP. You're the MAN, Daytripper. Glad to see you're still alive! :-) /TLG (still wondering why there are so many MIA's from the .chips NG) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Solid capacitors vs electrolytic...anyone with an opinion either way?
daytripper writes:
Does it make any difference to a typical desktop user? Plainly, the likelihood of failure of electrolytic caps as the desktop ages is going to be a major factor, with those who stick with a system for 5 years more likely to succumb to sudden system death, Sure it is more likely that a sudden system death will occur in 5 years than in 3 years, as long as the probability of sudden system death in the latter two years is non-zero. What is more interesting is whether the rate of system death increases with age, and by how much. We have two consumer-type boards running all the time since seven years, so I think that any fear that the reaper is coming soon to visit desktops as soon as they reach five years is exaggerated, especially since many desktops are turned off much of the time. Sudden deaths that we see occur more in power supplies, RAM, fans, and disks. - anton -- M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed Most things have to be believed to be seen http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Solid capacitors vs electrolytic...anyone with an opinion either way?
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Solid capacitors vs electrolytic...anyone with an opinion either way?
On 2007-03-30 16:09:46 +0100, daytripper said:
Liquid electrolyte caps have a very low mtbf. That's the beginning and end of the question... Actually, no it's not. The issue is whether, empirically, electrolytic failure *on motherborads* (not in power supplies) is a significant cause of motherboard death, and in turn whether motherboard death is a significant contributor to the death of desktops. My guess is the answers to these are "yes" and "no" respectively. The kinds of design adopted for high-reliability machines are interesting here, but not for the reason you might think: every machine which has any pretension to high-reliability I've ever seen has redundant hot-swappable PSUs and fans (as well as disks, obviously). Assuming the designers were competent that tells you what tends to fail: power supplies and fans (and disks). Further, since those things can now be swapped without taking the machine down, the reliability of other components becomes the thing that controls the reliability of the whole system. For machines where the system board can't be swapped with the machine up, which is most of them, that means you might need to pay serious attention to that (for machines where system boards *can* be swapped with the machine up you're probably paying so much for the machine that you expect serious attention to be paid anyway). It would be interesting to see statistics as to what kills desktops. My guess (which should be taken for what it's worth, namely nothing is): 1. most of them are thrown away, working; 2. disk failure 3. PSU failure 4. fan failure 5. everything else, trailing a long way behind. --tim |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Solid capacitors vs electrolytic...anyone with an opinion either way?
On 2007-03-30 23:34:00 +0100, daytripper said:
No pretensions he http://www.stratus.com/products/index.htm Do these machines (or any other HA systems) have much to do with desktops (which was the original question, remember)? No. Because you don't get to 6 nines on the cheap, son. No matter what is replaceable once the system's been fired up... Indeed you do not. And again: what exactly does this have to do with the reliability of desktop motherboards? I suggest: nothing. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Solid capacitors vs electrolytic...anyone with an opinion either way?
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:05:47 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
On 2007-03-30 16:09:46 +0100, daytripper said: Liquid electrolyte caps have a very low mtbf. That's the beginning and end of the question... Actually, no it's not. The issue is whether, empirically, electrolytic failure *on motherborads* (not in power supplies) is a significant cause of motherboard death, and in turn whether motherboard death is a significant contributor to the death of desktops. My guess is the answers to these are "yes" and "no" respectively. The kinds of design adopted for high-reliability machines are interesting here, but not for the reason you might think: every machine which has any pretension to high-reliability I've ever seen has redundant hot-swappable PSUs and fans (as well as disks, obviously). Assuming the designers were competent that tells you what tends to fail: power supplies and fans (and disks). Further, since those things can now be swapped without taking the machine down, the reliability of other components becomes the thing that controls the reliability of the whole system. For machines where the system board can't be swapped with the machine up, which is most of them, that means you might need to pay serious attention to that (for machines where system boards *can* be swapped with the machine up you're probably paying so much for the machine that you expect serious attention to be paid anyway). It would be interesting to see statistics as to what kills desktops. My guess (which should be taken for what it's worth, namely nothing is): 1. most of them are thrown away, working; 2. disk failure 3. PSU failure 4. fan failure 5. everything else, trailing a long way behind. --tim No pretensions he http://www.stratus.com/products/index.htm An entire "side" - power, cooling, logic - is field replaceable without any user or process ever realizing it's happening - from fault, through automagic call-home-to-mama, through FRU replacement, through re synchronization. Yet, and, as I said earlier, the motherboards use capacitors that have an mtbf an order of magnitude higher than that found on desktops (until recently). Because you don't get to 6 nines on the cheap, son. No matter what is replaceable once the system's been fired up... Cheers /daytripper |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Solid capacitors vs electrolytic...anyone with an opinion eitherway?
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
.... 1. most of them are thrown away, working; 2. disk failure 3. PSU failure 4. fan failure 5. everything else, trailing a long way behind. That (with the exception of the top point) was indeed the approximate ordering I read recently in a paper by credible people (may have been one of the recent ones discussing real-world vs. specced disk MTBFs - or not). But it's not clear what the service life of motherboards was considered to be, so it's possible that inclusion of 5+ year old MBs would have changed the conclusions. - bill |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Solid capacitors vs electrolytic...anyone with an opinion either way?
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:12:14 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
On 2007-03-30 23:34:00 +0100, daytripper said: No pretensions he http://www.stratus.com/products/index.htm Do these machines (or any other HA systems) have much to do with desktops (which was the original question, remember)? No. Yes, it has to do with the thread, specifically the migration of components used in highly-available systems down to the desktop. Also, it refutes your concept that something easily replaceable in the field without disruption could afford to use cheaper, lower-mtbf components. Because you don't get to 6 nines on the cheap, son. No matter what is replaceable once the system's been fired up... Indeed you do not. And again: what exactly does this have to do with the reliability of desktop motherboards? I suggest: nothing. Ok, so you got confused along the way. Mostly your own doing, as the point has always been: use cheap, low-mtbf caps and you run a higher risk of a system failure, compared to the use of high-mtbf components. For what ever misguided reason, you got caught up in the phrase "sudden system death", and tried to make some kind of point countering it. I can't imagine why, a failure that takes down the system is usually sudden, and the passage of time is no friend to a low-mtbf component used in fairly high quantity... Cheers /daytripper |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bad capacitors - take 2? | Tony Hill | General | 4 | November 13th 05 07:45 PM |
bad capacitors? | Zdenek Sojka | General | 17 | March 23rd 05 02:45 AM |
Capacitors in PSU are dangerous? | Chris Stolworthy | Homebuilt PC's | 182 | April 22nd 04 01:23 AM |
Capacitors going bad | Marcus Hilderbrand | Abit Motherboards | 1 | February 10th 04 08:08 AM |
FS: Lots of 500: 50V 22uF Electrolytic Capacitors :: $ 27 SHIPPED | Jerry Rakar | General | 0 | December 31st 03 10:45 PM |