Replies

I think you’re right Rui.

I’ve been in further touch with Quark themselves as I pointed out it was a bug report not a support request. They advised they don’t support the version any more and there’s a fee for activation/deactivation questions, but to try reinstalling or restoring an old version (which is what I’d already done to get it going on the old pc in the end).

Everything else seems to work perfectly, so unless something happens over the weekend I’ll put this down to being an “interesting experience”

Sorry I don’t think I’ve made this clear, I not restoring to a different device.

In the first case on the old pc where the restore works correctly both backup and restore were on the same pc (HDD). I had deactivated Quark to transfer the license.

In the second case it was a clean install from CD onto the SSD on a new build pc and new Win7 installation, Quark was then activated and running correctly. A full disk image of the SSD was then taken which was stored on a second internal drive. When this image was used to restore back onto the same SSD Quark reports as being tampered with.

So this was a backup on the GPT SSD and a restore to the same device (I probably put too much detail in my original post).

EDIT:

I was mulling this over on my way home from work and from all your points (and I really do appreciate that you have taken the time to answer) I came up with a guess which may explain what’s happening.

The version of Quark I’m using is some years old now and before GPT. I suspect from your comments about signature files and wavy’s point about writing to the MBR, that as the GPT has a hidden system section rather than a normal MBR, that it is this that causing the issue.

Maybe Quark doesn’t check after the activation so it runs normally, but when restored the record it thinks it’s written to an unused area of MBR isn’t there so it throws a “tampered with” error. If this is the case then it will never restore correctly under GPT whatever the storage device might be.

I suppose to really test it thoroughly I would need two new Win7 installs one on a new SSD and one on a new HDD but aside from the expense I really don’t think it’d be worth the effort

The problem is that when I do a restore on a regular HDD it does work, that’s why I’m rather concerned about reliability, it’s only restoring on the GPT SSD that it happens.

The backup from the SSD is stored on a HDD but as it’s a full image I wouldn’t have thought the backup storage locaction would make a difference

Yes it works fine Clint. I’m actually using two of them one on the radiator fans and on for the front intake fans.

I’ve had a few other issues but they were to do with a problem on restoring Quark on a SSD saying it’s been tampered with, but I’ll start a thread in Maintenance for that if I can’t get it resolved. The first thing I do on a new build is test the backup and restore so I got a bit caught out when I did a restore for real a few days later and Quark caused a software protection problem

I’m certainly impressed with the UEFI fan control, using Prime95 the maximum cpu temperature was 57C but looking at the actual values it seems to hold in the 51C-52C region, though it does gradually creep up again.

This is using the two H110 fans as intakes, the two on the front as intakes and the back fan and two gpu fans as exhaust.

I was a bit sceptical about using the H110 fans as intakes but I have to say I’m convinced now.

It’s up and running 🙂

I haven’t ramped up the overclocking yet but it seems to run pretty cool. I did an initial test on a really evil spreadsheet which flatlines the cores at 100% and it’s holding at around 41C. It’s getting late so I’ll try Prime95 in the morning for a couple of hours.

Only very minor annoyance is the fans on the H110 can whine a bit when they ramp up, I’ll have to look at replacing them I think.

Tested the backup/restore as well.

That is over 800°F, way too hot. Comparison: some Laserjet printers get over 400°F internally when doing print jobs.

It’s been running for 8 years like that so I think it’s safe to say it’s a misreading 🙂

Boot into EUFI BIOS and check your temps there.

It’s an 8 year old mboard so no UEFI (Asus P5WDG2 WS) but I can try heating it up with Prime95 and reboot as fast as I can into BIOS to see what the temps are.

It’s academic as it will be kept just as a backup pc in any case, but I was just curious as to why there was such a variance in reported core temperature.

They do both agree on cpu temp which looks okay though HWMonitor reported an upper temperature of 442C so it looks like the mboard is so old it can’t get correct readings.

On wavy’s post I’ve decided to go with the H110 as intakes so the case will have positive pressure (I’d forgotten about the gpu fans), the airflow looks good on paper but if the temps look a bit too high then I’ll switch them back to exhaust and check that.

Busy weekend coming up 🙂

A slight diversion but looking back at Clint’s earlier post how accurate is HWMonitor?

I’ve used Speed Fan on my current pc for some years but it reports the core temps as 20c lower than HWMonitor and bearing in mind I’ve had this cpu and mobo running hard for near on 8 years if I believe HWMonitor it’s really been constantly running in the 60c-80c+ range so should have burned out a long time back.

I’ll grab the old Asus s/w to recheck but when I last checked it, it did agree with SpeedFan.

Oddly all the other temperatures agree it’s just the cpu cores

Thanks for the advice everyone I guess I’ll have to play around with it and see how it works out. The 750D case is pretty open inside with all the cables running under the backplate so hopefully airflow should be good.

On the fan configuration if I change it back to intake through the h110 that would be 4 intake to 1 exhaust though I could then remove a slot plate at the back to improve the flow.

I’ve a week’s vacation next week so I’ll have some time to play around with it then.

EDIT: I also forgot about the 2 fans on the graphics card which will act as exhausts as well

Drawing outside air into the radiator allows it to cool the CPU more due to the potentially lower radiator temperature. Ultimately the airflow depends on your case design and position in the room.

cheers, Paul

I’m still thinking about this (probably overthinking now), if I went the Corsair route and had the 2 radiator fans as intakes as well as the 2 front chassis fans as intakes that would create positive pressure but would that then cause a problem with the one remaining fan at the back for the exhaust being a 4:1 ratio?

The flow would work from front to back and down to back if the exhaust can keep up.

You should not draw air through the radiators and into the case because that will increase internal temperatures – the power supply doesn’t do it that way.

This was my thinking as well, I’ve never quite understood why Corsair recommend it. I guess their thinking is that it’s drawing cooler air from outside the case which will increase the thermal efficiency of the radiator, but blowing hot air into the case would (to me at least) seem to negate any gain in efficiency.

You’re quite right about cold air displacing hot, it’s been many years since I did physics 🙂

I’ve read so many different views on intake/exhaust fan ratios. Corsair recommend drawing air into the case but as the radiator is on top not only are you blowing hot air into the case but heat rises as well so it seems to be a little contrary to physics.

I’m trying a different configuration which I read of and (to me at least) seems to make more sense. That is, having the two front fans as intake so blowing cold air into the case and have the two radiator and the back fan as exhaust to draw off the heat. I’d imagine the board controller will take care of any imbalance by adjusting the fan speeds and if need be I could always add an extra intake if it needs further balancing (luckily I have a Maplin shop within walking distance)

Unfortunately there’s no extra fan board on the X99-S, so I’ll either do what’s in the video and connect the pump to cpu_fan and leave fan_opt empty, I can then connect each cooler fan to a separate connector and use a fan splitter to handle the two front intake fans on the case and use the last connector for the exhaust.

I may also go back to my first plan (as Paul suggests above) I can then get away using the cpu_opt with the cpu_fan header for both cooler fans as they will run in tandem in any case and connect the pump to the psu with a molex -> fan connector

I guess I’ll have to experiment a bit which I was hoping to avoid as it’s a bit fiddly moving some of the connectors around, though I suspect that I’m fussing over an unnecessary detail here in any case.

EDIT: After thinking about it some more I’ve decided on the following:

Pump: cpu_fan
Radiator fans: both cha_1 with a pwm splitter
Chassis fans: cha_2, cha_3, cha_3

The pump seems to have a 3 pin connector which makes it a voltage regulated unit, with the third wire returning RPM to the controller. I assume the fans are the same..

cheers, Paul

The pump is 3 pin but the fans are 4 pin. If I can’t use the cpu_opt I’ll be short of a connector though I guess I can use a splitter on one of the chassis fan connectors so that the motherboard can still control the fans