You could just have a hot running chip. I know mine is. You try lapping? That might help, and if it doesn't you're probably just stuck with a hot chip.
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Quote:
Well, it may not be idling at 50°C. These sensors are inaccurate. I don't see how it can be 50 idle, but then only go up 10 or 15 degrees on full load. At 50 idle, I would expect 70 or higher for load. That's why I want you to check out Real Temp's Installation & Calibration Page.
Not only that, but let's keep in mind the CPU cooler being used: it's nothing like the TRUE. The 7 has been referred to as an after market stock cooler, meaning that it's only a little bit better than stock cooling.
However, I think Jason is right and that perhaps it just needs to be lapped. But what happens to the load temps when you overclock it to like 4.0GHz with about 1.304V?
Originally Posted by azminisk8r nope, its 50 idle. 55 or 65 load. really high for unoverclocked. |
Not only that, but let's keep in mind the CPU cooler being used: it's nothing like the TRUE. The 7 has been referred to as an after market stock cooler, meaning that it's only a little bit better than stock cooling.
However, I think Jason is right and that perhaps it just needs to be lapped. But what happens to the load temps when you overclock it to like 4.0GHz with about 1.304V?
Did you happen to reset the BIOS between swapping? Not saying this is it but you may have had some settings specific to the Q6600 that might be making the Wolfdale run hotter. If you can maybe reset BIOS and see if that does anything?
![]()
3
Quote:
E6600.
![]()
Originally Posted by Ictinike Did you happen to reset the BIOS between swapping? Not saying this is it but you may have had some settings specific to the Q6600 that might be making the Wolfdale run hotter. If you can maybe reset BIOS and see if that does anything?
|
3
Quote:
My bad
![]()
I know for doing this I had some voltage specific items for my old E6600 and when I got my E8500 the settings were not cleared and I booted up odd like on the new chip. A clear of BIOS set back to stock and she was fine from that point.
Originally Posted by TwoCables E6600.
|
I know for doing this I had some voltage specific items for my old E6600 and when I got my E8500 the settings were not cleared and I booted up odd like on the new chip. A clear of BIOS set back to stock and she was fine from that point.
If anything the 45nm have issues with sensors on the low end scale, not the high, however you may have got an "honest" bad one
![]()
I agree tho, the Wolfdale should be much cooler and even mine, using air (I'm now water) overclocked and overvolted to what my sig shows; never went over 50c @ 100%.
Under water now I never get past 40c on my sensors which are stuck @ 40 and 39c.
I agree tho, the Wolfdale should be much cooler and even mine, using air (I'm now water) overclocked and overvolted to what my sig shows; never went over 50c @ 100%.
Under water now I never get past 40c on my sensors which are stuck @ 40 and 39c.
2
Quote:
Are you using Real Temp, or Core Temp? If you're using Core Temp, then switch to Real Temp and look over that Installation & Calibration Page. This might be why the temps look higher. After all, Core Temp works best for 65nm, while Real Temp works best for 45nm (but it's also great for 65nm now too). Real Temp was originally written to be more accurate for the "new" 45nm chips because the current programs like Core Temp weren't doing a very good job with them. Plus, Real Temp can be calibrated to provide you more reasonable looking temps (meaning, they're more realistic).
But still, may I ask why you're putting 1.30V through the E8500 for 3.20GHz? For a 200MHz overclock, it shouldn't need much more than 1.20V.
![]()
Originally Posted by azminisk8r load with an e6600 @ 3.2, a 65(or90, i forget) at about 1.45v was only 55. load with an e8500 @ 3.2, a 45 at about 1.3v is at 65 same cooler. 2nd cpu should be a LOT cooler. lower nm, lower volt, 10*c change. in the wrong direction. the unoverclocked 66 was at 45 load. this ones at 65. if this is really a sensor problem, intel dropped their QC |
But still, may I ask why you're putting 1.30V through the E8500 for 3.20GHz? For a 200MHz overclock, it shouldn't need much more than 1.20V.
2
Quote:
using realtemp, coretemp, and hwmonitor.
its not even 3.2 its the 3.16 stock, 3.2 was a generalization. stock settings are what im running on, so not like i tried to OC, my board is being ****ty so it wont save any bios settings anyway.
i have no case. its sitting on a shelf.
Originally Posted by TwoCables Are you using Real Temp, or Core Temp? If you're using Core Temp, then switch to Real Temp and look over that Installation & Calibration Page. This might be why the temps look higher. After all, Core Temp works best for 65nm, while Real Temp works best for 45nm (but it's also great for 65nm now too). Real Temp was originally written to be more accurate for the "new" 45nm chips because the current programs like Core Temp weren't doing a very good job with them. Plus, Real Temp can be calibrated to provide you more reasonable looking temps (meaning, they're more realistic). But still, may I ask why you're putting 1.30V through the E8400 for 3.20GHz? For a 200MHz overclock, it shouldn't need much more than 1.20V.
|
its not even 3.2 its the 3.16 stock, 3.2 was a generalization. stock settings are what im running on, so not like i tried to OC, my board is being ****ty so it wont save any bios settings anyway.
i have no case. its sitting on a shelf.
Quote:
attempted multiple times. multiple amounts of thermal paste as well. no avail. verified the clips were fully in etc.
Originally Posted by StarryNite Reseat your Heatsink, as it sure sounds like it's not tight or slightly off (usually the main culprit of high temps without a reason, especially non overclocked procs). |
Quote:
I just realized I was accidentally calling it the E8400. I apologize for that. Thank you for understanding me though.
Anyway, stock settings are definitely not 1.30V for 3.16 GHz. For 3.16 GHz, you could probably get away with a voltage between 1.15v and 1.20V (or perhaps slightly more than 1.20V).
If the motherboard isn't saving the settings, then either its battery is dead, or there is something else going on. Is it reverting back when you reboot just in BIOS without going into Windows first? Or is it only reverting after booting into Windows? I ask because this happened to somebody else on here a few days ago, and it turned out that he had overclocking software installed that was changing the settings back.
Originally Posted by azminisk8r using realtemp, coretemp, and hwmonitor. its not even 3.2 its the 3.16 stock, 3.2 was a generalization. stock settings are what im running on, so not like i tried to OC, my board is being ****ty so it wont save any bios settings anyway. i have no case. its sitting on a shelf. |
Anyway, stock settings are definitely not 1.30V for 3.16 GHz. For 3.16 GHz, you could probably get away with a voltage between 1.15v and 1.20V (or perhaps slightly more than 1.20V).
If the motherboard isn't saving the settings, then either its battery is dead, or there is something else going on. Is it reverting back when you reboot just in BIOS without going into Windows first? Or is it only reverting after booting into Windows? I ask because this happened to somebody else on here a few days ago, and it turned out that he had overclocking software installed that was changing the settings back.
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
