Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › CPU T lower than Core t by 10C?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CPU T lower than Core t by 10C? - Page 2

post #11 of 12
The short answer to your question is yes. Here's the long answer. biggrin.gif

Your picture has been shrunk down so much that it is difficult to make out the details. I like uploading pics to www.imageshack.us

The Q6600 came out in two different revisions. It looks like your CPU has a CPUID of 6FB which is the G0 revision. The first retail one was the B3 Revision and it had a TJ Max of 90C. It put out heat like crazy which triggered thermal throttling too easily. Intel updated the Q6600 and released the G0 version which could run reliably with less voltage which reduced heat to help with the throttling problem. They also increased TJ Max up to 100C to further reduce thermal throttling.

When you open up the RealTemp - Settings window and click on the Defaults button, does it set your TJ Max to 100? It is supposed to. If yes, why did you set it to 90C?

There is a lot of misinformation about TJ Max for the Core 2 processors because Intel never officially released this information. When users complained, they finally had a news release and released some random numbers to keep everyone happy. When the numbers they released didn't make any sense they came up with a new term called TJ Target and said that TJ Max was not defined. They had a thermal target temperature to shoot for but actual TJ Max was anyone's guess and might actually be higher. Hmmm. The whole thing was suspicious. When they introduced the Core i CPUs, Intel finally started writing a value for TJ target into each core of each Core i CPU. It still might not be 100% accurate but at least all software can use the same value and be in agreement. With Core 2 desktop CPUS, TJ Max was always a guessing game.

Anyway, I used to own a Q6600 - G0 and I did some extensive testing with it. I am pretty sure that 100C is correct for this CPU but you can set this to whatever you want. Changing TJ Max will change your reported temperatures but it doesn't make any difference to your CPU. Temperature is just a number based on one's best guess at TJ Max. The Distance to TJ Max is the only important number. As long as this number doesn't count down to zero, your CPU is running within spec. Your screenshot shows RealTemp reporting OK so your CPU is OK.

The Core 2 Quads consist of 2 separate Core 2 Duos internally. I have a theory that Intel used slightly different TJ Max values so the TJ Max for the second set of cores might be up around 105C. These sensors are not 100% accurate so some slight variation is normal. If you run Prime95 and use the Small FFTs option, this does a good job of equally loading the 4 cores. During this test you might see the second set of cores reporting a lower core temperature. You can mount and remount your CPU 101 times but the difference you see probably won't change. Just a theory. Intel was pretty secretive back then and they still are. I thought it made sense to offset TJ Max slightly so all 4 cores would be less likely to throttle at the exact same time so users would be less likely to notice a large drop in performance. You can actually run both sides of these Quads at different speeds simultaneously. This feature is called Split Quad. You can see in this pic where half the CPU is running with the 11 multiplier while the other half is only using a 6 multiplier even when it is fully loaded.

splitquad.png

The 65nm CPUs are close to bullet proof. They can take a lot of voltage and heat. Run it hard and don't worry about it.
Edited by unclewebb - 9/28/13 at 7:49pm
post #12 of 12
Thread Starter 
thanks for all the generous help and info, much appreciated smile.gif

i followed your advice and clicked on the default button in RealTemp, which reverted the TJ Max back to 100C,

i actually managed a stable 3.60Ghz @ 1.31v but that damn 92mm Fan on my AMA Phantom cooler gets too loud and i couldn't fit a larger, quieter fan on that no matter what, so i went back to 3.40Ghz @ 1.23v

i really like this CPU, ill probably invest in a 60 USD Cooler Master SEIDON 120M just to push the clock higher while keeping thing quite since the voltage requirement was never a problem with my CPU:thumb:
Underdog
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel C2Q6600 G0 @ 3.40Ghz 8 x 425Mhz 1.26v Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R MSI N460GTX Cyclone 1GD5/OC @ 850Mhz/4200Mhz 1.08v Kingston 4x2GB PC2-6400 5-5-5-15 1.90v 1:1 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung Spinpoint 250GB  WesternDigital Blue 160GB Samsung SATA DVD-RW +/- Cooler Master Hyper T4  
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 7 Ultimate 64Bit Windows 8 Pro 64Bit ASUS VS228-D A4TECH GR-152 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair VS450W Everest 707BR A4TECH G9-730FX Black 
Audio
Realtek ALC889A 
  hide details  
Reply
Underdog
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel C2Q6600 G0 @ 3.40Ghz 8 x 425Mhz 1.26v Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R MSI N460GTX Cyclone 1GD5/OC @ 850Mhz/4200Mhz 1.08v Kingston 4x2GB PC2-6400 5-5-5-15 1.90v 1:1 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung Spinpoint 250GB  WesternDigital Blue 160GB Samsung SATA DVD-RW +/- Cooler Master Hyper T4  
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 7 Ultimate 64Bit Windows 8 Pro 64Bit ASUS VS228-D A4TECH GR-152 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair VS450W Everest 707BR A4TECH G9-730FX Black 
Audio
Realtek ALC889A 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › CPU T lower than Core t by 10C?