'Benjamin Gawert' wrote, in part:
> This GPU has very simple cooling requirements and should work flawlessly
> without fan if there is at least some minimal airflow in the computer.
_____

Yes.

And the cost of any 'special' lubricant purchased would also be higher than
the cost of an equivalent used card. This is especially true if you figure
the cost : benefit ratio; two more months of fan life with 'special'
lubricant : indefinite life without a fan.

Phil Weldon

"Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:6l45gmFalmjhU1@mid.individual.net...
>* kony:
>
>> That is not good advice. When such a low powered card as
>> these uses a fanned heatsink, to cut costs they use the bare
>> minimum fanned heatsink they can to cut costs.
>>
>> Because of this, IF they had used an alternative, larger
>> passive heatsink it would work ok, or if they use a much
>> smaller fanned sink, also ok, but using the much smaller
>> formerly fanned 'sink without that fan is a big risk.
>
> No, it's not. I have several Geforce FX5200 cards here which are stock
> passively cooled with very small heatsinks. This GPU has very simple
> cooling requirements and should work flawlessly without fan if there is at
> least some minimal airflow in the computer.
>
> So in reality the "big risk" you are talking about means a very little
> chance to overheat a 5+ year old low end card which has no real value any
> more, for which the price of the fan very likely will be higher than what
> a similar or better card can be bought for on the used market, and which
> can be replaced with something better and faster for a few bucks today.
>
> Benjamin

>
> That is not good advice. When such a low powered card as
> these uses a fanned heatsink, to cut costs they use the bare
> minimum fanned heatsink they can to cut costs.
>
> Because of this, IF they had used an alternative, larger
> passive heatsink it would work ok, or if they use a much
> smaller fanned sink, also ok, but using the much smaller
> formerly fanned 'sink without that fan is a big risk.

It's very good advice....I've seen cards like the FX5200 usually perform
just fine with the fan removed and leaving the existing h/s assembly on.
Case ventilation is usually adequate for this. If it's an FX5200 Ultra it
might be an issue but these are very rare.

Augustus wrote:
>> That is not good advice. When such a low powered card as
>> these uses a fanned heatsink, to cut costs they use the bare
>> minimum fanned heatsink they can to cut costs.
>>
>> Because of this, IF they had used an alternative, larger
>> passive heatsink it would work ok, or if they use a much
>> smaller fanned sink, also ok, but using the much smaller
>> formerly fanned 'sink without that fan is a big risk.
>
> It's very good advice....I've seen cards like the FX5200 usually perform
> just fine with the fan removed and leaving the existing h/s assembly on.
> Case ventilation is usually adequate for this. If it's an FX5200 Ultra it
> might be an issue but these are very rare.
>

My batting average is 50:50.

I purchased two FX5200 AGP cards. Each had a passive heatsink with
no provision for a fan. They were different brands, but the heatsink
is roughly the same size (heatsink is larger than the one used with
an integrated fan).

1) One card, you could game with it all day long without a problem.
It didn't need anything more than the normal low level of air
movement through the case.

2) The second card couldn't game for very long at all. Give it 5 minutes or so.
I added an 80mm case fan next to the card, and now that card is fine.
As a consequence of that, both computers now have a fan next to the
card. You can use a wooden stick or a piece of metal, and hold it in
place with a couple PCI slot cover screws - the fan is held to that with
nylon ties.

For me, it would be a case of "your mileage may vary". Both of those
cards are the cheesy 64-bit memory subsystem version.

Paul

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:52:14 -0600, "rms"
<rsquires@REMOVEflashMOO.net> wrote:

>> Depending on how worn the fan bearing was, how long it ran
>> like that, odds are fair that it may run for a long time
>> after relubed
>
> This part is certainly true. I've relubed noisy fans with Inox spray
>lube, and they are going strong and silent two years later.
>
>> though ideally you would want to use a higher
>> viscosity oil than 10W-30 as the thicker it is the thicker
>> the film strength
>
> This is so wrong. Get Inox spray lube, hardware stores will have it, or
>order online. It's the best computer fan lube, bar none.
>
>rms
>

False and I've already mentioned why. Just about any lube
will allow a fan to start working well again for awhile,
even salt-free butter would, but the key is to have the
right viscosity. Spray can or not, special additives or not
(which BTW are unnecessary), the key factor in lube
longevity in a partially worn fan is that the vicosity is
not so high as to not freely flow but not so low as to allow
gravity to cause it to run out of the bearing (video card
fans usually being horizontally situated).

If you don't have the right viscosity you end up relubing
more often, which is fine if one is willing to do it because
the lube they had on hand was (handy), but plain old motor
oil of the right viscosity beats any special spray.

Further, if a fan has one ball and one sleeve bearing it is
important not to use spray lubes because the carrier in the
spray lube results in the oil being deposited in the bearing
upsetting the grease viscosity it depended on for bearing
tolerance and low noise.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:30:12 +0100, Benjamin Gawert
<bgawert@gmx.de> wrote:

>* kony:
>
>> That is not good advice. When such a low powered card as
>> these uses a fanned heatsink, to cut costs they use the bare
>> minimum fanned heatsink they can to cut costs.
>>
>> Because of this, IF they had used an alternative, larger
>> passive heatsink it would work ok, or if they use a much
>> smaller fanned sink, also ok, but using the much smaller
>> formerly fanned 'sink without that fan is a big risk.
>
>No, it's not. I have several Geforce FX5200 cards here which are stock
>passively cooled with very small heatsinks. This GPU has very simple
>cooling requirements and should work flawlessly without fan if there is
>at least some minimal airflow in the computer.
>
>So in reality the "big risk" you are talking about means a very little
>chance to overheat a 5+ year old low end card which has no real value
>any more, for which the price of the fan very likely will be higher than
>what a similar or better card can be bought for on the used market, and
>which can be replaced with something better and faster for a few bucks
>today.
>
>Benjamin

Plenty of people have their low end, low powered card die
when they kept running the system without realizing the fan
seized up.

Some small heatsinks are better than others, some cases and
room environments are warmer than others. It is not
reasonable to use only a stock cooler selected for a
specific card that uses a fan, without that fan installed.

IF the card isn't used for anything 3D it may run at lower
clockspeed and voltage, if that is the case it would be
easier to cool, but still a big risk as even some
screensavers cause 3D mode.

Big risk isn't just about loss of a low value card, it's
about replacement cost and system downtime, big risk is a
relative term since we are talking about a video card not an
atom bomb. The risk to that video card is a big one without
the fan it was meant to have on the original 'sink and
that's why they didn't just save 20 cents by doing without
the fan or why they spend more for a larger heatsink when
it's a passive heatsink.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:55:43 GMT, "Augustus"
<no_one@no_where.net> wrote:

>
>>
>> That is not good advice. When such a low powered card as
>> these uses a fanned heatsink, to cut costs they use the bare
>> minimum fanned heatsink they can to cut costs.
>>
>> Because of this, IF they had used an alternative, larger
>> passive heatsink it would work ok, or if they use a much
>> smaller fanned sink, also ok, but using the much smaller
>> formerly fanned 'sink without that fan is a big risk.
>
>It's very good advice....I've seen cards like the FX5200 usually perform
>just fine with the fan removed and leaving the existing h/s assembly on.
>Case ventilation is usually adequate for this. If it's an FX5200 Ultra it
>might be an issue but these are very rare.
>

Yes, if all your ducks are in a row it is possible,
especially it would require "adequate" (which is an
arbitrary term since the airflow level which is adequate for
this is higher than the normal adequate airflow level would
otherwise be). It is also possible the card overheats,
locks up the system, fails completely... not just after
having ran it for a few days, the heat buildup stresses it
longer term. It's more likely if someone plays games than
not, but still a risk either way.

I get dead computer gear all the time because of fan
failures. It's sound advice to have a fan on a card which
the manufacturer fitted with a fan, when using the original
heatsink still.

If the card has temperature monitoring that is one way the
OP might check on what the resulting temp is.

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:52:14 -0600, "rms"
<rsquires@REMOVEflashMOO.net> wrote:

>> Depending on how worn the fan bearing was, how long it ran
>> like that, odds are fair that it may run for a long time
>> after relubed
>
> This part is certainly true. I've relubed noisy fans with Inox spray
>lube, and they are going strong and silent two years later.
>


Ok, and using the right lube I've had some run over 10
years, others thrown away with retired parts years later so
I'd have no idea when they might've failed in the future.
Tiny, small diameter and small thickness horizontally
mounted sleeve bearing video card and chipset fans are among
the hardest to keep working longer term, that is why the
choice of lube becomes more important than with other fans
in a PC. Fortunately the chipset fans are seldom horizontal
unless the case is a desktop instead of tower type, but
unless the case is a desktop instead of tower the video card
fan is almost always horizontal which is a potential
problem.

ASTM D445 weight for Inox is 10/2.5 (40C/100C)
ASTM D445 weight for 10W30 motor oil ~ 73/11.
ASTM D445 weight for 20W50 motor oil ~158/19


Plain old 20W50 motor oil is still too thin for the best
result but many times better than Inox. Recognize that
viscosity is the most important factor in a fan. The
tolerances in a worn fan (to the point of needing relubed)
are greater than in an automobile and even an automobile
needs more viscous oil than 10/2.5. The oil is most
effective when it is displacing part of the empty area in
the bearing and when the higher film strength keeps the fan
shaft from an eliptical pattern (which is the shape a
bearing wears towards). If the shaft is not kept from an
elliptical pattern this forces more lube out the more
elliptical it becomes.

"Augustus" <no_one@no_where.net> wrote in message
news:PTaHk.480$%%2.59@edtnps82...
>
>>
>> That is not good advice. When such a low powered card as
>> these uses a fanned heatsink, to cut costs they use the bare
>> minimum fanned heatsink they can to cut costs.
>>
>> Because of this, IF they had used an alternative, larger
>> passive heatsink it would work ok, or if they use a much
>> smaller fanned sink, also ok, but using the much smaller
>> formerly fanned 'sink without that fan is a big risk.
>
> It's very good advice....I've seen cards like the FX5200 usually perform
> just fine with the fan removed and leaving the existing h/s assembly on.
> Case ventilation is usually adequate for this. If it's an FX5200 Ultra it
> might be an issue but these are very rare.
>
Mounting a quiet fan blowing over the HS of the card would eliminate the
problem. I have mounted fans in trouble areas many times and tie wraps work
great for mounting a fan about anywhere you might need a bit more airflow.


Ed

* kony:

> It is also possible the card overheats,
> locks up the system, fails completely... not just after
> having ran it for a few days, the heat buildup stresses it
> longer term.

Even when the chances are low, of course it can be possible. So what?
Having wasted a card that has no remaining value and where better
replacement can be had probably for less than what a new fan would have
cost?

> It's more likely if someone plays games than
> not, but still a risk either way.

Well, if someone plays games that really cause a raise of GPU
temperature then overheating will definitely be the least problem he has.

> I get dead computer gear all the time because of fan
> failures. It's sound advice to have a fan on a card which
> the manufacturer fitted with a fan, when using the original
> heatsink still.

Yeah, generally. But we are not talking generally, it's about a very
specific situation. It's amazing how this is overlooked again and again
in this thread.

Benjamin

* kony:

> IF the card isn't used for anything 3D it may run at lower
> clockspeed and voltage,

No, it doesn't.

> if that is the case it would be
> easier to cool, but still a big risk as even some
> screensavers cause 3D mode.

Right. But this doesn't change a thing.

> Big risk isn't just about loss of a low value card, it's
> about replacement cost and system downtime

Nonsense. If downtime would be an issue the OP probably had already
bought a replacement.

> , big risk is a
> relative term since we are talking about a video card not an
> atom bomb. The risk to that video card is a big one without
> the fan it was meant to have on the original 'sink and
> that's why they didn't just save 20 cents by doing without
> the fan or why they spend more for a larger heatsink when
> it's a passive heatsink.

Well, maybe you should look at the specific situation, which is what you
obviously haven't done because most things you said are just not valid
for the actual problem. You might want to get informed about what a
Geforce FX5200 really is, how it performs, how much power it draws and
what amount of heat it dissipates.

Talking about things that might be valid for most cases when some fan
failed but which are not applicable to this situation is a waste of time.

Benjamin