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
|
|||
|
|||
Which temp are right.
Has anyone got a sure way of monitoring the CPU temperature accurately.
When idle in BIOS my CPU displays as 45C but `Core Temp` shows it as 50C and real temp as 36C. SANDRA shows a third different temperature and a fourth from Everest. How do I know which is right and are the temp sensors on the motherboard that accurate anyway. Robin |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Which temp are right.
"Dumbo" wrote in message ... Has anyone got a sure way of monitoring the CPU temperature accurately. When idle in BIOS my CPU displays as 45C but `Core Temp` shows it as 50C and real temp as 36C. SANDRA shows a third different temperature and a fourth from Everest. How do I know which is right and are the temp sensors on the motherboard that accurate anyway. Robin Everest, Sandra and Core Temp show the same on my i7 920 processor. At least within a couple of degC. Bios temp should be the higher one since the hlt command is not active outside the OS (this could change if you have a lot of processes running). Make sure you have the latest versions of your monitoring software. Ed |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Which temp are right.
'Dumbo' wrote:
Has anyone got a sure way of monitoring the CPU temperature accurately. When idle in BIOS my CPU displays as 45C but `Core Temp` shows it as 50C and real temp as 36C. SANDRA shows a third different temperature and a fourth from Everest. How do I know which is right and are the temp sensors on the motherboard that accurate anyway. _____ What to consider: A. actual temperature 1. sensor somewhere in a core (some areas tend to produce more heat that others) 2. sensor somewhere in the CPU chip (but not in a core) 3. sensor on the CPU chip in contact with the CPU heat spreader 4. sensor not part of the CPU chip, but in contact with the CPU chip or heat spreader (yes some CPUs have not had heat spreaders) [all of the above locations have been used in the past, but only 1. and 2. are used for current x86 CPUs] B. type and precision of sensor C. convertor (A to D) used in the motherboard system monitoring chip (or Super I/O chip) to translate sensor voltage or current signal from the sensor to decimal digits ( precision of the reference voltages ) D. offsets (fudge factors) applied to measured temperatures to get something closer to actual temperatures E. monitoring program used (some monitoring programs may not recognize the monitoring chip or Super I/O chip [ there are dozens of possibilities ] used by your motherboard, some monitoring programs may not know the type sensors (thermistor, diode, transistor, active devices) used other than on CPU chip sensor [all of the above affect the ACCURACY of the temperature reported] F. PRECISION errors 1. the number of bits the temperature A to D convertors use; an 8 bit A to D convertor can only represent one integer steps from - 127 to + 127, with a plus or minus one error ( i.e. 45, 46, and 47 might all represent the same analog signal ) 2. if the monitoring program is set to display in Fahrenheit then, since only integers are displayed, the reported temperature has an even larger PRECISION error. The monitoring program supplied by the motherboard manufacturer SHOULD be, but is not always, the best. After two years, EVGA still has not provided a monitoring program that will report all the values reported in the BIOS for my 680i SLI motherboard.) MotherBoard Monitor is the most universal motherboard monitoring program ever issued, but it hasn't been updated for 5 or more years. If you haven't already purchased your motherboard make sure you get one that comes with a good motherboard monitoring system that works correctly with your specific motherboard model AND revision Then the question is, what is the most USEFUL CPU temperature? My feeling is that the temperature most useful is that at the outer surface of the CPU heatsink. YOU have control of heat transport from this surface outwards; the CPU manufacturer has control of heat transport from this surface inwards ( unless you remove the heat spreader ). But to get this temperature requires modifying your heatsink and adding a temperature sensor in contact with the heat spreader, but insulated from the heat sink. I can suggest three ways of doing this, one of which I have tried. 1. Back in the days of the Pentium Celeron 333a I drilled a hole through the center of the heatsink bottom surface and glued it in place with Silicone which held the sensor in contact with the heat spreader, but insulated from the heat sink. Since this was a temporary setup I used a DVOM ( 4 1/2 digit ) to measure the thermistor resistance and manually converted to temperature. I tested extensively with the following variables; CPU voltage, CPU clock speed, and thermal compound. The temperatures reported by this sensor was stable, and tracked the temperature reported by MBM using the on-CPU-die thermal diode. This temporary system could be made permanent and more convenient but replacing the thermistor with an active device that produces a pulse width modulated signal that can be digitized and presented to a serial port. The sensor device and digitizer/RS-232 Serial interface with a monitoring program are available off-the-shelf. 2. Fiber optic bundle with non-contact digital temperature readout, less than $10 US for both. 3. Small diameter heatpipe with non-contact digital temperature readout, less than $10 US for both if you get a fee sample heatpipe swizzle stick. On the other hand, why worry about your CPU temperature? The on-CPU-die thermal protection device will prevent heat damage (this is a fail-safe device that can't be bypassed ). Assuming you want the best possible reliable performance and not just bragging rights for the fastest possible CPU without regards to stability, then 1. check for proper thermal compound application ( the brand and type make almost no differences ) 2. check for proper heatsink installation 3. check or proper case ventilation 4. check room ambient temperature ( each degree drop in room ambient temperature will result in almost a degree drop in CPU temperature ) After the above checks, consider if a better cooling solution is worth the expense and how that expense compares to the expense of spreader plate temperature monitoring. Phil Weldon "Dumbo" wrote in message ... Has anyone got a sure way of monitoring the CPU temperature accurately. When idle in BIOS my CPU displays as 45C but `Core Temp` shows it as 50C and real temp as 36C. SANDRA shows a third different temperature and a fourth from Everest. How do I know which is right and are the temp sensors on the motherboard that accurate anyway. Robin |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Which temp are right.
"Phil Weldon" wrote in message news 'Dumbo' wrote: Has anyone got a sure way of monitoring the CPU temperature accurately. When idle in BIOS my CPU displays as 45C but `Core Temp` shows it as 50C and real temp as 36C. SANDRA shows a third different temperature and a fourth from Everest. How do I know which is right and are the temp sensors on the motherboard that accurate anyway. _____ What to consider: A. actual temperature 1. sensor somewhere in a core (some areas tend to produce more heat that others) 2. sensor somewhere in the CPU chip (but not in a core) 3. sensor on the CPU chip in contact with the CPU heat spreader 4. sensor not part of the CPU chip, but in contact with the CPU chip or heat spreader (yes some CPUs have not had heat spreaders) [all of the above locations have been used in the past, but only 1. and 2. are used for current x86 CPUs] B. type and precision of sensor C. convertor (A to D) used in the motherboard system monitoring chip (or Super I/O chip) to translate sensor voltage or current signal from the sensor to decimal digits ( precision of the reference voltages ) D. offsets (fudge factors) applied to measured temperatures to get something closer to actual temperatures E. monitoring program used (some monitoring programs may not recognize the monitoring chip or Super I/O chip [ there are dozens of possibilities ] used by your motherboard, some monitoring programs may not know the type sensors (thermistor, diode, transistor, active devices) used other than on CPU chip sensor [all of the above affect the ACCURACY of the temperature reported] F. PRECISION errors 1. the number of bits the temperature A to D convertors use; an 8 bit A to D convertor can only represent one integer steps from - 127 to + 127, with a plus or minus one error ( i.e. 45, 46, and 47 might all represent the same analog signal ) 2. if the monitoring program is set to display in Fahrenheit then, since only integers are displayed, the reported temperature has an even larger PRECISION error. The monitoring program supplied by the motherboard manufacturer SHOULD be, but is not always, the best. After two years, EVGA still has not provided a monitoring program that will report all the values reported in the BIOS for my 680i SLI motherboard.) MotherBoard Monitor is the most universal motherboard monitoring program ever issued, but it hasn't been updated for 5 or more years. If you haven't already purchased your motherboard make sure you get one that comes with a good motherboard monitoring system that works correctly with your specific motherboard model AND revision Then the question is, what is the most USEFUL CPU temperature? My feeling is that the temperature most useful is that at the outer surface of the CPU heatsink. YOU have control of heat transport from this surface outwards; the CPU manufacturer has control of heat transport from this surface inwards ( unless you remove the heat spreader ). But to get this temperature requires modifying your heatsink and adding a temperature sensor in contact with the heat spreader, but insulated from the heat sink. I can suggest three ways of doing this, one of which I have tried. 1. Back in the days of the Pentium Celeron 333a I drilled a hole through the center of the heatsink bottom surface and glued it in place with Silicone which held the sensor in contact with the heat spreader, but insulated from the heat sink. Since this was a temporary setup I used a DVOM ( 4 1/2 digit ) to measure the thermistor resistance and manually converted to temperature. I tested extensively with the following variables; CPU voltage, CPU clock speed, and thermal compound. The temperatures reported by this sensor was stable, and tracked the temperature reported by MBM using the on-CPU-die thermal diode. This temporary system could be made permanent and more convenient but replacing the thermistor with an active device that produces a pulse width modulated signal that can be digitized and presented to a serial port. The sensor device and digitizer/RS-232 Serial interface with a monitoring program are available off-the-shelf. 2. Fiber optic bundle with non-contact digital temperature readout, less than $10 US for both. 3. Small diameter heatpipe with non-contact digital temperature readout, less than $10 US for both if you get a fee sample heatpipe swizzle stick. On the other hand, why worry about your CPU temperature? The on-CPU-die thermal protection device will prevent heat damage (this is a fail-safe device that can't be bypassed ). Assuming you want the best possible reliable performance and not just bragging rights for the fastest possible CPU without regards to stability, then 1. check for proper thermal compound application ( the brand and type make almost no differences ) 2. check for proper heatsink installation 3. check or proper case ventilation 4. check room ambient temperature ( each degree drop in room ambient temperature will result in almost a degree drop in CPU temperature ) After the above checks, consider if a better cooling solution is worth the expense and how that expense compares to the expense of spreader plate temperature monitoring. Phil Weldon On the new i7 (Nehalem) processors, I am not sure about a few things in regard to temperatures. The tjmax is 100C. That is about where the processor begins to throttle down. I backed down my a very stable 3.7Ghz OC just because of my older views on what is too hot.....:-). I don't know if the fact that the memory controller is on chip make these run hotter, but there is a significant rise in the temperatures compared to what I have become used to over the years. If these temps are actually the max temps inside each core, then I might not be quite as concerned since that would be about what I would expect since previous sensors usually just read the surface temps of each core. I have ran the i7 920 at over 85C for hours on end and it stays perfectly stable, but I don't........:-) Ed OT--- BTW, how is your astronomy project going Phil? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Which temp are right.
'Ed Medlin' wrote:
On the new i7 (Nehalem) processors, I am not sure about a few things in regard to temperatures. The tjmax is 100C. That is about where the processor begins to throttle down. I backed down my a very stable 3.7Ghz OC just because of my older views on what is too hot.....:-). I don't know if the fact that the memory controller is on chip make these run hotter, but there is a significant rise in the temperatures compared to what I have become used to over the years. If these temps are actually the max temps inside each core, then I might not be quite as concerned since that would be about what I would expect since previous sensors usually just read the surface temps of each core. I have ran the i7 920 at over 85C for hours on end and it stays perfectly stable, but I don't........:-) _____ Well, the astronomy project is progressing but I won't receive the repaired telescope until sometimes this week ( I hope.) If you remember, UPS dropped the package ( and the UPS store did not package it adequately, $25 worth of packing material would have likely averted the damage which included shattered mirrors and corrector lens, broken aluminum castings and damaged GPS receiver and circuit boards [ the mount includes 5 microprocessors ] ) I returned the telescope to Meade; the repair charge was $2150 US, including return shipping. On the upside, for that I get essentially a new telescope, and UPS will cover the repair costs. The only computer related purchases I need to make are an RS232 to USB adapter ( to enable my notebook to use a signal from a USB output guide camera to correct tracking errors of the telescope mount via RS232 [ my notebook doesn't have RS232 inputs ] ) a red filter for my notebook screen ( to preserve night vision ) eventually, perhaps, a better image processing application. Despite the wait, I am still pleased with my eBay purchase; the seller has kept in touch throughout the insurance settlement and repair process. The new cost of the items for which I paid $3500 US was about $8800, and only one of the items has been improved since the original purchase. One interesting temperature related item; the focal length of the telescope is so long ( 3048 mm ) that the aluminum tube ( ~ 22 " between the front and rear elements ) in which the mirrors and corrector lens are mounted can change length enough to throw the focus out with a temperature change of a few degrees. This can be a problem with long exposures ( which can be an hour or more ). One of the accessories included is a temperature compensating focuser that uses a sensor to measure the aluminum tube temperature and a stepping motor to adjust the film plane by 0.00008" per step. This makes me wonder about warping of the aluminum or copper castings in CPU heatsinks. Is a 50 C ( or more ) temperature change enough to affect the flatness of the heatsink / CPU heat spreader interface? Would it be helpful to lap the heatsink to flatness at the CPU heat spreader temperature? I'd guess you could check this possible problem by just heating a bare heatsink to 50 C and measuring any departure from flatness. Perhaps only a few hundredths of a millimeter could make a difference. Phil Weldon "Ed Medlin" wrote in message ... "Phil Weldon" wrote in message news 'Dumbo' wrote: Has anyone got a sure way of monitoring the CPU temperature accurately. When idle in BIOS my CPU displays as 45C but `Core Temp` shows it as 50C and real temp as 36C. SANDRA shows a third different temperature and a fourth from Everest. How do I know which is right and are the temp sensors on the motherboard that accurate anyway. _____ What to consider: A. actual temperature 1. sensor somewhere in a core (some areas tend to produce more heat that others) 2. sensor somewhere in the CPU chip (but not in a core) 3. sensor on the CPU chip in contact with the CPU heat spreader 4. sensor not part of the CPU chip, but in contact with the CPU chip or heat spreader (yes some CPUs have not had heat spreaders) [all of the above locations have been used in the past, but only 1. and 2. are used for current x86 CPUs] B. type and precision of sensor C. convertor (A to D) used in the motherboard system monitoring chip (or Super I/O chip) to translate sensor voltage or current signal from the sensor to decimal digits ( precision of the reference voltages ) D. offsets (fudge factors) applied to measured temperatures to get something closer to actual temperatures E. monitoring program used (some monitoring programs may not recognize the monitoring chip or Super I/O chip [ there are dozens of possibilities ] used by your motherboard, some monitoring programs may not know the type sensors (thermistor, diode, transistor, active devices) used other than on CPU chip sensor [all of the above affect the ACCURACY of the temperature reported] F. PRECISION errors 1. the number of bits the temperature A to D convertors use; an 8 bit A to D convertor can only represent one integer steps from - 127 to + 127, with a plus or minus one error ( i.e. 45, 46, and 47 might all represent the same analog signal ) 2. if the monitoring program is set to display in Fahrenheit then, since only integers are displayed, the reported temperature has an even larger PRECISION error. The monitoring program supplied by the motherboard manufacturer SHOULD be, but is not always, the best. After two years, EVGA still has not provided a monitoring program that will report all the values reported in the BIOS for my 680i SLI motherboard.) MotherBoard Monitor is the most universal motherboard monitoring program ever issued, but it hasn't been updated for 5 or more years. If you haven't already purchased your motherboard make sure you get one that comes with a good motherboard monitoring system that works correctly with your specific motherboard model AND revision Then the question is, what is the most USEFUL CPU temperature? My feeling is that the temperature most useful is that at the outer surface of the CPU heatsink. YOU have control of heat transport from this surface outwards; the CPU manufacturer has control of heat transport from this surface inwards ( unless you remove the heat spreader ). But to get this temperature requires modifying your heatsink and adding a temperature sensor in contact with the heat spreader, but insulated from the heat sink. I can suggest three ways of doing this, one of which I have tried. 1. Back in the days of the Pentium Celeron 333a I drilled a hole through the center of the heatsink bottom surface and glued it in place with Silicone which held the sensor in contact with the heat spreader, but insulated from the heat sink. Since this was a temporary setup I used a DVOM ( 4 1/2 digit ) to measure the thermistor resistance and manually converted to temperature. I tested extensively with the following variables; CPU voltage, CPU clock speed, and thermal compound. The temperatures reported by this sensor was stable, and tracked the temperature reported by MBM using the on-CPU-die thermal diode. This temporary system could be made permanent and more convenient but replacing the thermistor with an active device that produces a pulse width modulated signal that can be digitized and presented to a serial port. The sensor device and digitizer/RS-232 Serial interface with a monitoring program are available off-the-shelf. 2. Fiber optic bundle with non-contact digital temperature readout, less than $10 US for both. 3. Small diameter heatpipe with non-contact digital temperature readout, less than $10 US for both if you get a fee sample heatpipe swizzle stick. On the other hand, why worry about your CPU temperature? The on-CPU-die thermal protection device will prevent heat damage (this is a fail-safe device that can't be bypassed ). Assuming you want the best possible reliable performance and not just bragging rights for the fastest possible CPU without regards to stability, then 1. check for proper thermal compound application ( the brand and type make almost no differences ) 2. check for proper heatsink installation 3. check or proper case ventilation 4. check room ambient temperature ( each degree drop in room ambient temperature will result in almost a degree drop in CPU temperature ) After the above checks, consider if a better cooling solution is worth the expense and how that expense compares to the expense of spreader plate temperature monitoring. Phil Weldon On the new i7 (Nehalem) processors, I am not sure about a few things in regard to temperatures. The tjmax is 100C. That is about where the processor begins to throttle down. I backed down my a very stable 3.7Ghz OC just because of my older views on what is too hot.....:-). I don't know if the fact that the memory controller is on chip make these run hotter, but there is a significant rise in the temperatures compared to what I have become used to over the years. If these temps are actually the max temps inside each core, then I might not be quite as concerned since that would be about what I would expect since previous sensors usually just read the surface temps of each core. I have ran the i7 920 at over 85C for hours on end and it stays perfectly stable, but I don't........:-) Ed OT--- BTW, how is your astronomy project going Phil? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Which temp are right.
Ed Medlin wrote:
"Phil Weldon" wrote in message news 'Dumbo' wrote: Has anyone got a sure way of monitoring the CPU temperature accurately. When idle in BIOS my CPU displays as 45C but `Core Temp` shows it as 50C and real temp as 36C. SANDRA shows a third different temperature and a fourth from Everest. How do I know which is right and are the temp sensors on the motherboard that accurate anyway. _____ What to consider: A. actual temperature 1. sensor somewhere in a core (some areas tend to produce more heat that others) 2. sensor somewhere in the CPU chip (but not in a core) 3. sensor on the CPU chip in contact with the CPU heat spreader 4. sensor not part of the CPU chip, but in contact with the CPU chip or heat spreader (yes some CPUs have not had heat spreaders) [all of the above locations have been used in the past, but only 1. and 2. are used for current x86 CPUs] B. type and precision of sensor C. convertor (A to D) used in the motherboard system monitoring chip (or Super I/O chip) to translate sensor voltage or current signal from the sensor to decimal digits ( precision of the reference voltages ) D. offsets (fudge factors) applied to measured temperatures to get something closer to actual temperatures E. monitoring program used (some monitoring programs may not recognize the monitoring chip or Super I/O chip [ there are dozens of possibilities ] used by your motherboard, some monitoring programs may not know the type sensors (thermistor, diode, transistor, active devices) used other than on CPU chip sensor [all of the above affect the ACCURACY of the temperature reported] F. PRECISION errors 1. the number of bits the temperature A to D convertors use; an 8 bit A to D convertor can only represent one integer steps from - 127 to + 127, with a plus or minus one error ( i.e. 45, 46, and 47 might all represent the same analog signal ) 2. if the monitoring program is set to display in Fahrenheit then, since only integers are displayed, the reported temperature has an even larger PRECISION error. The monitoring program supplied by the motherboard manufacturer SHOULD be, but is not always, the best. After two years, EVGA still has not provided a monitoring program that will report all the values reported in the BIOS for my 680i SLI motherboard.) MotherBoard Monitor is the most universal motherboard monitoring program ever issued, but it hasn't been updated for 5 or more years. If you haven't already purchased your motherboard make sure you get one that comes with a good motherboard monitoring system that works correctly with your specific motherboard model AND revision Then the question is, what is the most USEFUL CPU temperature? My feeling is that the temperature most useful is that at the outer surface of the CPU heatsink. YOU have control of heat transport from this surface outwards; the CPU manufacturer has control of heat transport from this surface inwards ( unless you remove the heat spreader ). But to get this temperature requires modifying your heatsink and adding a temperature sensor in contact with the heat spreader, but insulated from the heat sink. I can suggest three ways of doing this, one of which I have tried. 1. Back in the days of the Pentium Celeron 333a I drilled a hole through the center of the heatsink bottom surface and glued it in place with Silicone which held the sensor in contact with the heat spreader, but insulated from the heat sink. Since this was a temporary setup I used a DVOM ( 4 1/2 digit ) to measure the thermistor resistance and manually converted to temperature. I tested extensively with the following variables; CPU voltage, CPU clock speed, and thermal compound. The temperatures reported by this sensor was stable, and tracked the temperature reported by MBM using the on-CPU-die thermal diode. This temporary system could be made permanent and more convenient but replacing the thermistor with an active device that produces a pulse width modulated signal that can be digitized and presented to a serial port. The sensor device and digitizer/RS-232 Serial interface with a monitoring program are available off-the-shelf. 2. Fiber optic bundle with non-contact digital temperature readout, less than $10 US for both. 3. Small diameter heatpipe with non-contact digital temperature readout, less than $10 US for both if you get a fee sample heatpipe swizzle stick. On the other hand, why worry about your CPU temperature? The on-CPU-die thermal protection device will prevent heat damage (this is a fail-safe device that can't be bypassed ). Assuming you want the best possible reliable performance and not just bragging rights for the fastest possible CPU without regards to stability, then 1. check for proper thermal compound application ( the brand and type make almost no differences ) 2. check for proper heatsink installation 3. check or proper case ventilation 4. check room ambient temperature ( each degree drop in room ambient temperature will result in almost a degree drop in CPU temperature ) After the above checks, consider if a better cooling solution is worth the expense and how that expense compares to the expense of spreader plate temperature monitoring. Phil Weldon On the new i7 (Nehalem) processors, I am not sure about a few things in regard to temperatures. The tjmax is 100C. That is about where the processor begins to throttle down. I backed down my a very stable 3.7Ghz OC just because of my older views on what is too hot.....:-). I don't know if the fact that the memory controller is on chip make these run hotter, but there is a significant rise in the temperatures compared to what I have become used to over the years. If these temps are actually the max temps inside each core, then I might not be quite as concerned since that would be about what I would expect since previous sensors usually just read the surface temps of each core. I have ran the i7 920 at over 85C for hours on end and it stays perfectly stable, but I don't........:-) Ed OT--- BTW, how is your astronomy project going Phil? Might this be part of the industry move allowing for hotter computing rooms? There is a move to do away with costly air conditioners in server rooms. Going to use more ambient air; collect the cooler night air, etc. But also getting the electronics to run at higher temperatures for long periods of time, without harm. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Which temp are right.
On the new i7 (Nehalem) processors, I am not sure about a few things in
regard to temperatures. The tjmax is 100C. That is about where the processor begins to throttle down. I backed down my a very stable 3.7Ghz OC just because of my older views on what is too hot.....:-). I don't know if the fact that the memory controller is on chip make these run hotter, but there is a significant rise in the temperatures compared to what I have become used to over the years. If these temps are actually the max temps inside each core, then I might not be quite as concerned since that would be about what I would expect since previous sensors usually just read the surface temps of each core. I have ran the i7 920 at over 85C for hours on end and it stays perfectly stable, but I don't........:-) Ed OT--- BTW, how is your astronomy project going Phil? Might this be part of the industry move allowing for hotter computing rooms? There is a move to do away with costly air conditioners in server rooms. Going to use more ambient air; collect the cooler night air, etc. But also getting the electronics to run at higher temperatures for long periods of time, without harm. I really think it is mostly due to the complete redesigning of the i7 from the previous Intel processors. They may be measuring the temps at a different point too since I have seen some overclocking reviews where even with liquid cooling temps are only 3-4 degC lower and sometimes not even that. If temps were measured at the hottest point in the core of even a C2D I would bet it would be much higher than what we see with peripheral core readings. The only times that those extremely high temperatures are seen are with "burn-in" apps that max out all the cores to the extreme. Even during intense gaming the temperatures are nowhere near 85C and stay in the 60-65C range which is acceptable for any processor. That is 35-40C under the tjmax of 100C of the processor so that should be just fine. Ed |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Which temp are right.
At POST my BIOS reported 39C for CPU and 34C for the motherboard yet booting
into Vista even on idle the temps range from 46C-49C with Core Temp and 31C-34C with Real Temp but I just want to know which one is most accurate so I can do a bit of overclocking without the worry of burning anything out. Real Temp gives a table with a `Distance to TJ Max on it but 100C seems to boiling temp and only asking for bother. With a bit of gaming and returning to Vista I get a temp of around 69C. Is this a safe enough temp or do I need to cool things a bit more (lower speed or increased airflow). I am trying to figure out the best most stable overclock but this seems inherently hot! I try to determine what is causing the BSOD or crash. Does the memory, CPU, NB or SB need more voltage and how hot is it going to get. I have a reasonably stable 3GHz Q6600 B3 but still get crashes but recently I have found the same crashes at default speeds of 2.4GHz so I assume its a bit of bad data on the drive or graphics card problem even though I haven't tried the card until I get 100% stable CPU. Thanks for your input. Robin |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Which temp are right.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 20:31:38 -0000, "Dumbo"
wrote: At POST my BIOS reported 39C for CPU and 34C for the motherboard yet booting into Vista even on idle the temps range from 46C-49C with Core Temp and 31C-34C with Real Temp but I just want to know which one is most accurate so I can do a bit of overclocking without the worry of burning anything out. Real Temp gives a table with a `Distance to TJ Max on it but 100C seems to boiling temp and only asking for bother. With a bit of gaming and returning to Vista I get a temp of around 69C. Is this a safe enough temp or do I need to cool things a bit more (lower speed or increased airflow). I am trying to figure out the best most stable overclock but this seems inherently hot! I try to determine what is causing the BSOD or crash. Does the memory, CPU, NB or SB need more voltage and how hot is it going to get. I have a reasonably stable 3GHz Q6600 B3 but still get crashes but recently I have found the same crashes at default speeds of 2.4GHz so I assume its a bit of bad data on the drive or graphics card problem even though I haven't tried the card until I get 100% stable CPU. Thanks for your input. Robin I get identical temps from Core Temp and Real Temp. I have noticed that most of the people showing screen shots of values on the overclocking forums seem to use Real Temp. Similarly, most of them use Memtest86+2.11 rather than Memtest86 3.?. They also use Everest, but that's to show other parameters rather than the temperatures. I don't know that that's a recommendation, but in any event, start by checking your memory for at least four passes or 8 hours. You may need to detune your CPU back to 2.4 GHz until you are sure your memory is stable. Jim |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Which temp are right.
'Dumbo' wrote, in part:
... I just want to know which one is most accurate so I can do a bit of overclocking without the worry of burning anything out. _____ It isn't possible to "burn anything out" by overclocking. As has been pointed out, the CPU will lock up and cool off long before any damage is done. Moreover, the 'fail-safe' on-CPU-die thermal diode is always functional. Raising the CPU core voltage too high can cause immediate destruction of the CPU, but damage from overheating just isn't possible. Phil Weldon "Dumbo" wrote in message ... At POST my BIOS reported 39C for CPU and 34C for the motherboard yet booting into Vista even on idle the temps range from 46C-49C with Core Temp and 31C-34C with Real Temp but I just want to know which one is most accurate so I can do a bit of overclocking without the worry of burning anything out. Real Temp gives a table with a `Distance to TJ Max on it but 100C seems to boiling temp and only asking for bother. With a bit of gaming and returning to Vista I get a temp of around 69C. Is this a safe enough temp or do I need to cool things a bit more (lower speed or increased airflow). I am trying to figure out the best most stable overclock but this seems inherently hot! I try to determine what is causing the BSOD or crash. Does the memory, CPU, NB or SB need more voltage and how hot is it going to get. I have a reasonably stable 3GHz Q6600 B3 but still get crashes but recently I have found the same crashes at default speeds of 2.4GHz so I assume its a bit of bad data on the drive or graphics card problem even though I haven't tried the card until I get 100% stable CPU. Thanks for your input. Robin |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mobo "case" temp sensor vs actual case temp | Lee M. | Homebuilt PC's | 5 | May 10th 08 03:36 PM |
Max temp & normal running temp (Dual Core)? | Graham Naylor | Intel | 9 | April 12th 07 05:21 AM |
Case Temp vs Die Temp | Rob Stow | General | 0 | August 28th 04 03:10 AM |
Mobo temp Vs CPU temp | rays | Homebuilt PC's | 1 | May 6th 04 11:10 PM |
CPU Temp N/A on P2B ? | Stephan Grossklass | Asus Motherboards | 1 | February 22nd 04 06:34 PM |