Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › The Truth about Temperatures and Voltages
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Truth about Temperatures and Voltages - Page 51

post #501 of 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChickenInferno View Post
The links on the intel website are currently down (go to i5 datasheet volume one section 1.7 gives a dead link for thermal specification and design) so I can't verify the 99C, but I have a feeling that Intel wouldn't use an odd number. Everything pretty much ends with 5 or 0 for them with the exception of CPU PLL values which have such a narrow range (ends in 8).




I won't say that I speak for the writers of RealTemp or CoreTemp, but IIRC from what I've read they also do an average of some of the readings and each uses a slightly different algorithm to pick readings and produce results that are very close to each other. We see the average once per second, because otherwise we would have a hard time seeing the readings.
Why is the minimum 1.80v (if that is true)? I have run as low as 1.40v with only a benefit if anything. I know you can't go below 1.80v on a 1366 Asus (in the BIOS, anyway), but my E760 can. They released a patch to eliminate Turbo throttling at load on the P6T7 WS, seems like they have good BIOS support, I wish they woiuld come out with a rev. with <1.80v CPU PLL setting. They sent me a BNIB mobo with 3 working memory channels btw, first try.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 D0 3849B018 4420 MHz P6T7 WS GTX295 CoOp HydroCopper 691/1440/1224 Super-Talent Chrome @ 1691 7-7-7-21 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2*WD3000HLFS RAID0,2*WD1001FALS RAID0,WD1500AHFD GH22LS30 * 2 Windows 7 Pro x64 LG W3000H 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech EX 100 Corsair HX1000W Cardboard Box 3000 Death Adder 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 D0 3849B018 4420 MHz P6T7 WS GTX295 CoOp HydroCopper 691/1440/1224 Super-Talent Chrome @ 1691 7-7-7-21 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2*WD3000HLFS RAID0,2*WD1001FALS RAID0,WD1500AHFD GH22LS30 * 2 Windows 7 Pro x64 LG W3000H 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech EX 100 Corsair HX1000W Cardboard Box 3000 Death Adder 
  hide details  
Reply
post #502 of 599
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by puterfx View Post
Right now the computer I'm playing with is a e6600 C2D with a DG965WH board. I'm still putting together the i5-750.. Sorry if I misled you but I can still give you the screenshots if that would help.
Oh okay now problem. The Core 2 having different programs show you different TJ Max values is definitely common (and now your post makes more sense ).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clockadile Dundee View Post
Why is the minimum 1.80v (if that is true)? I have run as low as 1.40v with only a benefit if anything. I know you can't go below 1.80v on a 1366 Asus (in the BIOS, anyway), but my E760 can. They released a patch to eliminate Turbo throttling at load on the P6T7 WS, seems like they have good BIOS support, I wish they woiuld come out with a rev. with <1.80v CPU PLL setting. They sent me a BNIB mobo with 3 working memory channels btw, first try.

I think the limit may be low simply because that is where Intel think the most stability/zero-degredation point will be found. This is just my speculation though. The intel white sheet was updated showing that 1.65v is now the minimum for CPU PLL and the max has been raised slightly to 1.89v Page 22. The 1.65v rating makes me think that somehow it is connected to the DRAM Voltage such that PLL>or =DramV...just speculation. The RIIE's new bios (1704) seems pretty good so far but the "Slow Mode" on the QPI speed did nothing to break the 222mhz wall, which actually eliminates what everyone was saying the wall was. It seems purely baseclock related and not QPI related. The CPU PLL is still locked at a min of 1.80v and I haven't had to touch it at all...along with the other 10 voltages besides vcore and qpi/dram. Good to hear that the new Classy worked without a hitch.
Edited by ChickenInferno - 2/7/10 at 2:55pm
Gaming PC / HTPC
(17 items)
 
Bedroom PC
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 7700k Asus Prime Z270-A GB Auros-X 1080 Ti G-Skill (2x8gb) 3000mhz  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 850 Western Digital 5900rpm Seagate 7200rpm LG 22x DVD Burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D14 Win 10 x64 Pro LG 55" 4k B6 OLED Microsoft Desktop 400 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair TX750 V2 NZXT Source 210 Microsoft Desktop 400 Black 
Audio
Custom Surround 5.1 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2120T Biostar H61MH Intel HD 2000 G-Skill F3-12800CL9D-8GBXL  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Evo 128gb Asus 24x DVD Burner Stock Win 10 x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 40" 1080p HP Wireless Keyboard/Mouse Silverstone 400W ST40F-ES Silverstone ML03B 
Other
Linksys WMP600N Wireless Card 
  hide details  
Reply
Gaming PC / HTPC
(17 items)
 
Bedroom PC
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 7700k Asus Prime Z270-A GB Auros-X 1080 Ti G-Skill (2x8gb) 3000mhz  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 850 Western Digital 5900rpm Seagate 7200rpm LG 22x DVD Burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D14 Win 10 x64 Pro LG 55" 4k B6 OLED Microsoft Desktop 400 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair TX750 V2 NZXT Source 210 Microsoft Desktop 400 Black 
Audio
Custom Surround 5.1 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2120T Biostar H61MH Intel HD 2000 G-Skill F3-12800CL9D-8GBXL  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Evo 128gb Asus 24x DVD Burner Stock Win 10 x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 40" 1080p HP Wireless Keyboard/Mouse Silverstone 400W ST40F-ES Silverstone ML03B 
Other
Linksys WMP600N Wireless Card 
  hide details  
Reply
post #503 of 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by leppie View Post
Anyways that is what is being read from the MSR_TEMPERATURE_TARGET register (99 in my case).

Just a guess looking at the process info, it seems CoreTemp (and RealTemp) does at most 10 readings per second per core. Still 'ignoring' 990 other possible values.

I could make my app's frequency to 1000hz but I think that would incur a fair amount of overhead. I'll add some results later after some testing.
Ok, I tried it, and it seems I can get similar readings to RT and CT when using only 1 sample a second. Unfortunately, there seems to be too many variables to be sure (ie both RT and CT rounds to 0 decimals, if they do in fact average). Also, my app is just simple, and written in C#/.NET probably incurring 'a lot' more overhead than is necessary, which could affect actual temperature readings (nevermind the fact that I have a realtime graph running too!).

It is quite tricky to write a monitoring app, as you need to make it as transparent as possible, which CT and RT does with great efficiency.

Then again both RT and CT uses a 3rd party library for kernel access. It might be worthwhile to write the kernel routines in you own custom kernel driver (should not be too hard modifying WinRing0 for that purpose) to prevent unnecessary context switching.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clockadile Dundee View Post
Why is the minimum 1.80v (if that is true)? I have run as low as 1.40v with only a benefit if anything. I know you can't go below 1.80v on a 1366 Asus (in the BIOS, anyway), but my E760 can. They released a patch to eliminate Turbo throttling at load on the P6T7 WS, seems like they have good BIOS support, I wish they woiuld come out with a rev. with <1.80v CPU PLL setting. They sent me a BNIB mobo with 3 working memory channels btw, first try.
I dont think they can change hardware limitations
Edited by leppie - 2/7/10 at 8:49pm
SIXFOUR
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3770K (4500 @ 1.250v) ASRock Z77 OC Formula EVGA GTX460 SOC G-Skill F3-10666CL9-4GBXL 4x4GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2 x Crucial M4 128GB + 4 others none Apogee XT, MCR220, MCP655B, EK full-cover GPU b... Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell U2713HM Dell 2407WFP 9 year old el cheapo Seasonic X Series 750W PSU 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair Carbide 540 7 year old el cheapo piece of wetsuit 
  hide details  
Reply
SIXFOUR
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3770K (4500 @ 1.250v) ASRock Z77 OC Formula EVGA GTX460 SOC G-Skill F3-10666CL9-4GBXL 4x4GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2 x Crucial M4 128GB + 4 others none Apogee XT, MCR220, MCP655B, EK full-cover GPU b... Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell U2713HM Dell 2407WFP 9 year old el cheapo Seasonic X Series 750W PSU 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair Carbide 540 7 year old el cheapo piece of wetsuit 
  hide details  
Reply
post #504 of 599
What are your guys's thoughts on running qpivtt over intel spec. I guess the spec is 1.35v.

My processor is a little odd (its a w3540). It seems to have likings for certain vtt voltages. At stock clocks its 1.20 or so. At 4ghz + it is 1.355v. Thats if I run the ram at 2:8, if I run the ram at high speeds say 2:10 at 1000mhz it wants qpi vtt up around 1.45 to 1.55v.

Its perfectly stable doing this but Im wondering is this something that will totally fubar the cpu or is it like over volting the vcore, its a long drawn out process that may take years.

Just kind of wondering your take on this but trying to avoid the "oh my god your gonna klll it " type posts with out any experience or info.
xeon
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
W3520 x58 ud5 9800gtx+ tridents 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
wd black x2 W7 64 acer 23 ocz 850hx 
Case
haf932 
  hide details  
Reply
xeon
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
W3520 x58 ud5 9800gtx+ tridents 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
wd black x2 W7 64 acer 23 ocz 850hx 
Case
haf932 
  hide details  
Reply
post #505 of 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by MADMAX22 View Post
What are your guys's thoughts on running qpivtt over intel spec. I guess the spec is 1.35v.

My processor is a little odd (its a w3540). It seems to have likings for certain vtt voltages. At stock clocks its 1.20 or so. At 4ghz + it is 1.355v. Thats if I run the ram at 2:8, if I run the ram at high speeds say 2:10 at 1000mhz it wants qpi vtt up around 1.45 to 1.55v.

Its perfectly stable doing this but Im wondering is this something that will totally fubar the cpu or is it like over volting the vcore, its a long drawn out process that may take years.

Just kind of wondering your take on this but trying to avoid the "oh my god your gonna klll it " type posts with out any experience or info.
I would be the most hesitant about overvolting the IMC. I have seen people running 1.4v+ lose memory channels in a few months.
First AMD build
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon II X4 620 *waiting for Phenom II X6* MSI 785GM-E65 4850 *waiting on MSI Cyclone 5850* 4GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 1333Mhz 7-7-7-20 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel X25M 80GB/WD Caviar Blue 640GB/Green 1.5TB LG BDRW/Lite-On DVDRW Win 7 Pro 64-bit Dell S2309 1080P 
PowerCase
Corsair 650TX Lian-Li PC7-FNWX 
  hide details  
Reply
First AMD build
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon II X4 620 *waiting for Phenom II X6* MSI 785GM-E65 4850 *waiting on MSI Cyclone 5850* 4GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 1333Mhz 7-7-7-20 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel X25M 80GB/WD Caviar Blue 640GB/Green 1.5TB LG BDRW/Lite-On DVDRW Win 7 Pro 64-bit Dell S2309 1080P 
PowerCase
Corsair 650TX Lian-Li PC7-FNWX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #506 of 599
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MADMAX22 View Post
What are your guys's thoughts on running qpivtt over intel spec. I guess the spec is 1.35v.

My processor is a little odd (its a w3540). It seems to have likings for certain vtt voltages. At stock clocks its 1.20 or so. At 4ghz + it is 1.355v. Thats if I run the ram at 2:8, if I run the ram at high speeds say 2:10 at 1000mhz it wants qpi vtt up around 1.45 to 1.55v.

Its perfectly stable doing this but Im wondering is this something that will totally fubar the cpu or is it like over volting the vcore, its a long drawn out process that may take years.

Just kind of wondering your take on this but trying to avoid the "oh my god your gonna klll it " type posts with out any experience or info.
The Intel answer: Anything over 1.35v is bad.
The user answer: Some chips will take it and others won't. NvSpec has said a few times that running 1.5v+ is fine as long as the temps are not bad. My experience at running 4.54ghz 1728mhz ram cas7, I needed 1.44375v (Bios) and it ran fine for months.
Gaming PC / HTPC
(17 items)
 
Bedroom PC
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 7700k Asus Prime Z270-A GB Auros-X 1080 Ti G-Skill (2x8gb) 3000mhz  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 850 Western Digital 5900rpm Seagate 7200rpm LG 22x DVD Burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D14 Win 10 x64 Pro LG 55" 4k B6 OLED Microsoft Desktop 400 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair TX750 V2 NZXT Source 210 Microsoft Desktop 400 Black 
Audio
Custom Surround 5.1 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2120T Biostar H61MH Intel HD 2000 G-Skill F3-12800CL9D-8GBXL  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Evo 128gb Asus 24x DVD Burner Stock Win 10 x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 40" 1080p HP Wireless Keyboard/Mouse Silverstone 400W ST40F-ES Silverstone ML03B 
Other
Linksys WMP600N Wireless Card 
  hide details  
Reply
Gaming PC / HTPC
(17 items)
 
Bedroom PC
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 7700k Asus Prime Z270-A GB Auros-X 1080 Ti G-Skill (2x8gb) 3000mhz  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 850 Western Digital 5900rpm Seagate 7200rpm LG 22x DVD Burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D14 Win 10 x64 Pro LG 55" 4k B6 OLED Microsoft Desktop 400 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair TX750 V2 NZXT Source 210 Microsoft Desktop 400 Black 
Audio
Custom Surround 5.1 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2120T Biostar H61MH Intel HD 2000 G-Skill F3-12800CL9D-8GBXL  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Evo 128gb Asus 24x DVD Burner Stock Win 10 x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 40" 1080p HP Wireless Keyboard/Mouse Silverstone 400W ST40F-ES Silverstone ML03B 
Other
Linksys WMP600N Wireless Card 
  hide details  
Reply
post #507 of 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by leppie View Post

I dont think they can change hardware limitations
You can set CPU PLL to less than 1.4v on an E760's BIOS.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 D0 3849B018 4420 MHz P6T7 WS GTX295 CoOp HydroCopper 691/1440/1224 Super-Talent Chrome @ 1691 7-7-7-21 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2*WD3000HLFS RAID0,2*WD1001FALS RAID0,WD1500AHFD GH22LS30 * 2 Windows 7 Pro x64 LG W3000H 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech EX 100 Corsair HX1000W Cardboard Box 3000 Death Adder 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 D0 3849B018 4420 MHz P6T7 WS GTX295 CoOp HydroCopper 691/1440/1224 Super-Talent Chrome @ 1691 7-7-7-21 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2*WD3000HLFS RAID0,2*WD1001FALS RAID0,WD1500AHFD GH22LS30 * 2 Windows 7 Pro x64 LG W3000H 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech EX 100 Corsair HX1000W Cardboard Box 3000 Death Adder 
  hide details  
Reply
post #508 of 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChickenInferno View Post
Oh okay now problem. The Core 2 having different programs show you different TJ Max values is definitely common (and now your post makes more sense ).




I think the limit may be low simply because that is where Intel think the most stability/zero-degredation point will be found. This is just my speculation though. The intel white sheet was updated showing that 1.65v is now the minimum for CPU PLL and the max has been raised slightly to 1.89v Page 22. The 1.65v rating makes me think that somehow it is connected to the DRAM Voltage such that PLL>or =DramV...just speculation. The RIIE's new bios (1704) seems pretty good so far but the "Slow Mode" on the QPI speed did nothing to break the 222mhz wall, which actually eliminates what everyone was saying the wall was. It seems purely baseclock related and not QPI related. The CPU PLL is still locked at a min of 1.80v and I haven't had to touch it at all...along with the other 10 voltages besides vcore and qpi/dram. Good to hear that the new Classy worked without a hitch.
I actually meant that the 1st Asus P6T7 replacement had 3 working memory channels. The 5th Classy had 3 working memory channels, undamaged socket, etc. I just had to get in touch with a higher level guy (@ Evga, I mean), who sent me a tested board. It must be a popular board among people who just abuse hardware.
Edited by Clockadile Dundee - 2/10/10 at 5:11am
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 D0 3849B018 4420 MHz P6T7 WS GTX295 CoOp HydroCopper 691/1440/1224 Super-Talent Chrome @ 1691 7-7-7-21 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2*WD3000HLFS RAID0,2*WD1001FALS RAID0,WD1500AHFD GH22LS30 * 2 Windows 7 Pro x64 LG W3000H 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech EX 100 Corsair HX1000W Cardboard Box 3000 Death Adder 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 D0 3849B018 4420 MHz P6T7 WS GTX295 CoOp HydroCopper 691/1440/1224 Super-Talent Chrome @ 1691 7-7-7-21 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2*WD3000HLFS RAID0,2*WD1001FALS RAID0,WD1500AHFD GH22LS30 * 2 Windows 7 Pro x64 LG W3000H 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech EX 100 Corsair HX1000W Cardboard Box 3000 Death Adder 
  hide details  
Reply
post #509 of 599
Just to clarify a few things from the last page, RealTemp only reads the temperature sensor for each core once per second. I believe that Core Temp does the same thing.

leppie: Reading the temperature sensors 50 times per second is a good idea in theory but can cause a problem with the newer Core i7/i5 turbo boost feature. To obtain the maximum multiplier on these CPUs, you need to enable C3/C6 in the bios which lets inactive cores go into a sleep state. The maximum amount of turbo boost is based on the number of active cores at any instant in time so the more cores asleep in the inactive state, the faster your CPU will run.

For a Core i7-860, when 1 core is in the active state the multiplier can go as high as 26. For 2 active cores turbo boost will go as high as 25 and if you have 3 or 4 cores active, the maximum multiplier is 22. The only way to sample the core temperature of a CPU is to wake it up. If you are constantly waking a CPU up to sample its temperature then you are preventing it from being able to stay in the inactive sleep state which is going to negatively effect the maximum multiplier it is able to use. Translation: Oversampling a CPU that supports Intel Dynamic Acceleration or Turbo Boost can reduce its performance.

puterfx: The original value TJMax=85C comes from the Pentium 4 era. This value does not come from any Core 2 Duo / Quad Desktop documentation. There used to be a single bit in the P4 CPUs that software could read and if the bit was set, TJMax=85C and if it was not set, TJMax=100C. The first monitoring software written for Core 2 based Desktop CPUs assumed this was still correct but it's not. Intel publicly stated at their IDF conference that this relationship was not true but most software continues to use TJMax=85C. That's why Core Temp uses 85C for the Q6600 - B3 stepping.

RealTemp is the only software that uses TJMax=90C for this CPU. That's not a number I pulled out of a hat. It's based on testing with an IR thermometer. These early Quads that were based on two E6600 cores under the same heat spreader run extremely hot. Intel was not interested in clearing up the TJMax mess because by letting software assume that TJMax=85C meant that monitoring software would report their CPUs running 5C cooler than they actually were.

The newer Core i CPUs have TJ information written into a register within each core of the CPU so there is less to argue about now but there is only one problem. This data that every one assumes is TJMax really isn't. The register is called:

IA32_TEMPERATURE_TARGET

Intel also stated at their IDF conference that actual TJMax is not the same as TJ Target. The target for many newer Core i CPUs is 99 according to that register but actual TJMax can vary from that number. It can vary from one CPU to the next even if they have the same model number and I'm convinced that it can vary from one core to the next on the same CPU. On some CPUs like the 45nm Core 2 Quad I think you can have 4 different TJMax values over a range of 10 degrees or maybe even a little more. Intel has never publicly stated how much variation is possible.

The graphs they presented seemed to indicate that TJMax will always be not less than the TJ Target. If TJ target is 100C then actual TJMax might be any number between 100C and 110C.

Once you understand how poorly documented the sensors that Intel uses are and how much slop and slope error variation is in these sensors, you soon learn that 100% accurate core temperatures from idle to TJMax is simply not possible.

Only the Core i7-900 series have excellent sensors. I think TJMax on core 0 is very close to 100C, there isn't much slope error at all and these sensors don't get stuck until the core temperature goes below -10C which is far better than some Core 2 45nm sensors that can get stuck when the core temperature goes below 50C.

As good as the Core i7-900 sensors are, I still don't believe that TJMax is consistent across all 4 cores. I'm 99.9% sure that it isn't and my best guess is that TJMax is very close to 105C on core 3 compared to 100C on core 0 with the two center cores being somewhere in the middle of this range. There is no documentation from Intel to confirm or deny this. It's just a theory I have based on observations.

All of these sensors are only designed and calibrated for two purposes; to control thermal throttling at approximately 100C and to control thermal shut down at approximately 125C. All monitoring software that uses these sensors to report accurate core temperatures are doing a lot of guessing and making a lot of assumptions that may or may not be true. I'd like to believe that RealTemp is closer than most programs but without 10,001 CPUs to test, that's impossible to prove.

The advantage that RealTemp has is it reports the thermal throttling bit directly in the Thermal Status area. By doing this it doesn't have to sample your CPU 1000 times a second. If the core temperature ever goes high enough that it triggers any thermal throttling, even for only a millisecond, RealTemp will be able to accurately report that because that information is stored in the CPU until software clears it or you re-boot your computer.

After putting far too much time into project RealTemp, I finally concluded that core temperatures really aren't that important. The cooler you run your CPU, the more you'll be able to reliably overclock it but as long as your CPU is stable and not thermal throttling then it really doesn't matter what temperature it is running at.
post #510 of 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb View Post
leppie: Reading the temperature sensors 50 times per second is a good idea in theory but can cause a problem with the newer Core i7/i5 turbo boost feature. To obtain the maximum multiplier on these CPUs, you need to enable C3/C6 in the bios which lets inactive cores go into a sleep state. The maximum amount of turbo boost is based on the number of active cores at any instant in time so the more cores asleep in the inactive state, the faster your CPU will run.

For a Core i7-860, when 1 core is in the active state the multiplier can go as high as 26. For 2 active cores turbo boost will go as high as 25 and if you have 3 or 4 cores active, the maximum multiplier is 22. The only way to sample the core temperature of a CPU is to wake it up. If you are constantly waking a CPU up to sample its temperature then you are preventing it from being able to stay in the inactive sleep state which is going to negatively effect the maximum multiplier it is able to use. Translation: Oversampling a CPU that supports Intel Dynamic Acceleration or Turbo Boost can reduce its performance.
Thanks, it makes sense that it can upset the high turbo multipliers, did not think about that, but then again, I dont use Turbo currently
SIXFOUR
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3770K (4500 @ 1.250v) ASRock Z77 OC Formula EVGA GTX460 SOC G-Skill F3-10666CL9-4GBXL 4x4GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2 x Crucial M4 128GB + 4 others none Apogee XT, MCR220, MCP655B, EK full-cover GPU b... Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell U2713HM Dell 2407WFP 9 year old el cheapo Seasonic X Series 750W PSU 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair Carbide 540 7 year old el cheapo piece of wetsuit 
  hide details  
Reply
SIXFOUR
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3770K (4500 @ 1.250v) ASRock Z77 OC Formula EVGA GTX460 SOC G-Skill F3-10666CL9-4GBXL 4x4GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2 x Crucial M4 128GB + 4 others none Apogee XT, MCR220, MCP655B, EK full-cover GPU b... Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell U2713HM Dell 2407WFP 9 year old el cheapo Seasonic X Series 750W PSU 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair Carbide 540 7 year old el cheapo piece of wetsuit 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › The Truth about Temperatures and Voltages