[azminisk8r]

a while back i swapped from the e6600 to the e8500 for fun, and the idles went from 30 someodd to 50 someodd, and the max went from 40 someodd to 50 someodd. reseated, rotated, etc, couldnt manage to get the temp down no matter what i did, so i have up since peak was sub 60.

now im gaming again and want to OC.

suggestions? unmodified arctic cooler 7, unmodified e8500. regular arctic silver 5. tried in all amounts from a thin line, to a dot, to the pile manfacturers put on.

 

[ljason8eg]

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.

 

[azminisk8r]

lapping would normally help, helped a lot on my 6600, except its the arctic cooler 7. you cant take the feets off, meaning you cant level the base through normal lapping techniques.

 

[ljason8eg]

Well try to lap the CPU then. It should help a little bit at least.

 

[TwoCables]

Are you saying that both the idle and load temps are showing about 50°C? Because, it's common for the E8500 to have stuck sensors and then show what looks to be really high idle temps. However, Intel didn't design these sensors for us to use to monitor temps - and especially not idle temperatures. The sensors are there so that if the temps get to a certain point set by Intel, then the CPU will throttle or even shut itself off to protect itself. So, when there's a full load, the temps are more accurate here than they are at idle. In some cases, they are far more accurate than at idle.

If your temps are only getting up to around 50°C, then there's nothing to worry about whatsoever. Except, I can understand the frustration with the idle temps looking like they're about 50°C even though this is likely very inaccurate.

For a full, very-awesome explanation, please see Real Temp's Installation & Calibration Page. This will show you that we should only use these temps as a general guide since they're usually inaccurate anyway. But even so, Real Temp is the best tool for 45nm chips.

So, as long as your voltage isn't exceeding like 1.362v, and your temps aren't exceeding like 70°C that often, there's nothing to worry about.

 

[stevenma188]

It might be a problem with your motherboard reading temps of the newer 45nm chips. See if there is a BIOS update for your motherboard that will fix that problem.

 

[azminisk8r]

nope, its 50 idle. 55 or 65 load. really high for unoverclocked.

 

[TwoCables]

Quote:

Originally Posted by azminisk8r nope, its 50 idle. 55 or 65 load. really high for unoverclocked.

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?

 

[ljason8eg]

Yeah, and like TwoCables said, don't expect miracles from from the AF7P. It's really not that great of a cooler.

 

[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?

 

[TwoCables]

Quote:

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?

E6600.

 

[Ictinike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoCables E6600.

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.

 

[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

 

[Ictinike]

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.

 

[dpawl31]

I have to chime in on the AF7Pro...

For the cost, amazing.

My D820 is essentially 2 prescott cores, 90nm... hot as hell.
With a 74 degree ambient, I am running 1.47vcore and folding 24/7

Never seen a temp over 61.
What case are you running in?

The AF7 likes fresh cool air from outside the case right on it, and same for the exhaust.

I have my 900 set up with the DVD drives @ the base, so the top 3 bays have a 120mm blowing right @ the cooler.

 

[TwoCables]

Quote:

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

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.

 

[azminisk8r]

Quote:

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.

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.

 

[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).

 

[azminisk8r]

Quote:

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).

attempted multiple times. multiple amounts of thermal paste as well. no avail. verified the clips were fully in etc.

 

[TwoCables]

Quote:

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.

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.