View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Scharnhorst Rated PG
Joined: 12 Jul 2007 Posts: 11
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Little Bruin
Boo Boo
Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 667
Location: Pic-A-Nic Basket |
|
|
Doctor Feelgood Arrrrghh!
Joined: 07 Apr 2003 Posts: 20349 Location: New Jersey
|
Posted: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:05:21 Post Subject: |
|
|
I don't agree with their method at all... Put on a line and let the CPU spread it? Uhhh... How do you know your line was big enough, or that it will spread evenly?
Somewhat coincidentally, SVC.com has an article on this subject in their newsletter today... I agree with this one:
http://www.svc.com/article-thermal-compound.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scharnhorst Rated PG
Joined: 12 Jul 2007 Posts: 11
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Doctor Feelgood Arrrrghh!
Joined: 07 Apr 2003 Posts: 20349 Location: New Jersey
|
Posted: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:18:13 Post Subject: |
|
|
Scharnhorst wrote: | I believe its better, what program gives the most accurate readings of cpu temp. With speed fan i get cores showing around high 30s at idle and the cpu around 47. With core temp i get cores showing low 50s. Using TAT it shows mid 50s at idle. |
I would say low to mid 50's at full load in Core Temp would be just fine. But, you're getting that at idle?
Or is just TAT at idle? I don't even know what TAT is... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scharnhorst Rated PG
Joined: 12 Jul 2007 Posts: 11
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
acruxksa Doh!
Joined: 17 Oct 2003 Posts: 1051 Location: The Cradle of Storms
|
Posted: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:11:55 Post Subject: |
|
|
High 30's low 40's (at idle) is what I was getting at stock voltage and speed, so that looks good. If those are your overclocked temps, I'm envious.
I also prefer CoreTemp. TAT (Intels's Thermal Analysis Tool) is also good. Either one should give you pretty accurate temps, so pick the one you are comfortable with. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scharnhorst Rated PG
Joined: 12 Jul 2007 Posts: 11
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Little Bruin
Boo Boo
Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 667
Location: Pic-A-Nic Basket |
|
|
Scharnhorst Rated PG
Joined: 12 Jul 2007 Posts: 11
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
wes9555 Rated PG
Joined: 27 Jul 2007 Posts: 9
|
Posted: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:11:39 Post Subject: |
|
|
acruxksa wrote: |
As a point of referrence, I now have my q6600 running at 1.35v (bios setting, actual is 1.296v) at %95 load with temps between 48c - 52c with my new Tuniq Tower 120. My ambient room temp ranges from 68-72 deg F.
|
Hey acruxska, quick question. I have the exact same processor and cooling as you but i'm getting these temps:
Does that look right? should I pay attention to the cpu temp or the core temps? That's idling btw. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
acruxksa Doh!
Joined: 17 Oct 2003 Posts: 1051 Location: The Cradle of Storms
|
Posted: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:21:37 Post Subject: |
|
|
Scharnhorst,
I'm not sure what bios settings are available to you, but basically you want to run the cpu at 9x333 and the memory at 667. Doing this keeps them both at the same speed...............(ddr2 = 333x2). Your memory should have no trouble with this speed. Keep an eye on your cpu voltage, you might have to go a little higher to get stability, but 1.325v would be a good starting point.
I wouldn't let loaded temps get higher than the mid 60's. Judging from your idle temps I'm guessing, but with voltages at or around 1.325 - 1.35 and the cpu at 3.0 Ghz your loaded temps will likely be right around low 60's or maybe high 50's. This is just a wild guess on my part, so keep an eye on them.
Also, it can help to disable unneeded options/devices in the bios, like serial ports, firewire, printer ports midi ports etc. If you are not sure what an option does, leave it at default. If you still have trouble let me know what brand mobo you are using and I will try to get more info on bios settings to tweak things a bit more.
Wes9555,
You need to pay attention to the core temps. Those look like nice idle temps for a stock cpu. Mine idles in that range, perhaps a little lower, but my computer rooms ambient temperature is probably a bit lower than yours which would account for the difference. It does seem like a wider range between the cores than I usually see, which might suggest that the hsf is not seated evenly. I say might, because it is normal to have some variation in core temps and every cpu is slightly different. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|