Please be aware that the Throttle system will not become active until the processor believes that the thermal status of the chip is far outside of design.
A throttle point in reality means that the chip would be taking damage if TM1 was not in an active mode. Chips can go higher than their recommended design specifications without forcing a Thermal Control system design. This was how the processor algorithms were designed to accommodate, without letting serious damage to the transistors and processing logic cores occur.
Well could someone please explain to me about how much on average will a CPU temp rise from "idle" to full load? I dont understand how I cna check the load temp.
You can never exactly
determine the increase in thermal load from a processor idle state.
You can however determine that actual load/idle temperature of your processor within a given range without actually running the processor at a load/idle state. To determine the full load/idle state of your computer you can use this equation for thermal status equated with thermal chip resistance.
[Power (W) X C/W (Chip/Cooling Thermal Resistance)] + Ambient Temperature = Processor Temperature
You can use this equation to determine both the idle and load state temperatures.
You are then able to compare both to determine a percentage increase of thermal status to the chip in question.
An example can be provided:
100W x 0.18C/W + 28C = 46C Load
65W x 0.18C/W + 28C = 39.7C Idle
Percentage increase = 15.87% Increase in temperature Idle > Load.
In reality both the Ambient temperature and the thermal resistance will slightly change when in an idle or load state than those I have given within my example.
They have Kentfieldâ€™s doing 90-100C. I am sure a Conroe can handle 85C. Most of your Dells and notebooks are sitting well above 60C idle. My dad's IBM T60p with a T2700 in it does 63C idle right after startup. My friend's MacBook Pro does 71C idle with a T2600.
Kentsfield is operating at 100C because there are four cores integrated in one chip that are generating thermal temperature.
Now logically this should mean that the thermal status of Conroe should double therefore reaching 120C.
However 120C is too hot for the processor to manage and therefore an increase to thermal shielding was applied to this processor to reduce the total temperature.
Due to the integration of four cores the components used to create this chip were slightly altered to withstand higher temperatures. However 100C is still in my opinion too hot even though the chip is designed to withstand that level of thermal temperature. A change to the chips thermal resistance played a large part in the additional ability of the chip to withstand temperature.
The Thermal Defence algorithms of this chip have been modified for a design of a 100C thermal design structure. Therefore safety mechanisms will be offline until around 115C. Approximately 130C will prompt all remaining auxiliary thermal defence procedures to become active to save the chip's life expectancy.
However like Intel Core 2 Duo the Core 2 Quadro has a design structure to actually withstand 1.8v for processor voltage (vcore). The transistors and onboard voltage regulation system are designed to operate with 1.8v with only a small decrease to life expectancy.
Therefore regardless of what normal overclockers say engineers will acknowledge, like myself, that 1.8v is an acceptable voltage is using advanced cooling i.e. Liquid Nitrogen.
Intel took thermal specification from previous generations of chips (i.e. Prescotts/Preslers) using the temp recorded from the geometric top of the IHS. For example, this p4 ( http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...x?sSpec=SL8J7# ) has a 11c difference in thermal specification than a core 2 duo. However, a stock Core 2 Duo at load (measured using speedfan) is significantly cooler than a stock pentium 4 at load (measured by speedfan). People used speedfan to determine safe temps for past generations of processors, regardless of the location of where the thermal specification was taken from. If the thermal specification for the new Core 2 Duos is taken from the same spot as previous generations of processors, and is 10c lower.
I think a good test would be to compare the temp taken from the geometrice center of the IHS (as you did) from a previous generation of intel CPUS, and compare it to temps recorded in speedfan.
Please be aware that the sensor used to determine processor temperature is not the same on Intel Core 2 Duo processors as it was on Intel Pentium 4 processors.
All software that is used to determine processor thermal status will never be accurate due to the design of the algorithms and the ability of the x86 architecture to designate status to software algorithms. With VAX we would not be obtaining problems, however VAX is not used (even though its a far more powerful architecture, even though its 10+ years old).
The "significantly cooler part" is far from true. My Pentium 4 540 operated at a temperature of 60C in full load (core). Now on Core 2 Duo the sensors report 44C (board), however with TAT they report 56C at stock settings on the core. This therefore states that both processors will operate within the same thermal status, however due to the decrease in process size the thermal design is different, and also as there are two cores versus one (90nm > 65)
The thermal specification given from the Intel Processor Finder site relates to the Core temperature, regardless of the default sensor used. On Pentium 4 processors the core sensor was the default sensor. On Core 2 Duo it is not. This does not depend on design but due to the i975x, 965 etc chipset design for thermal status reporting with Core 2 Duo