Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Yet another Temp Q

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 11, 2001 3:57:35 AM

I'm running a duron 700 @ 1000mhz, and I'm curious about something, I asus probe 2.12 was reporting my cpu temps around 48-50c degrees idle, and it was dogging my machine down for some reason. I removed it, and installed 2.11. now heres the wierd thing, 2.11 reports my cpu to be around 38-40c idle, and around 45-47c under full load for 6 hours. What I want to know is, which version is misfiring it's reports?

More about : temp

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 11, 2001 8:23:22 AM

Heh! There's a post somewhere in here within the last couple of days. Seems that two different people had the exact opposite experience with the different versions, i.e., one found 2.11 was inaccurate and the other, visa versa. You could always try comparing them with the BIOS temp (however that is measured) or install Motherboard Monitor (if it supports your board) to see if it's closer to one of the Probe versions.

Mike
January 11, 2001 12:16:17 PM

The exact same thing happens to me. 2.12 gives about 10C higher than 2.11 and 2.11 always matches the bios temp.

Mike and I had this conversation yesterday. He thinks that the 2.12 probe is more accurate eventhough it doesn't match what is in the bios.

He gives good reasoning, you can read our thread below in this same section.

I ain't seen a beating like that since somebody stuck a banana in my pants and turned a monkey loose
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 11, 2001 12:53:35 PM

the 211 is closer to bios, but the temps weren't the reason I changed, 2.12 was causing my system to slow down to 386 speeds, even when it wasn't overclocked (when I first installed 2.12, I had already bumped it up to 1000mhz, and I thought at first that it was a bad overclock). 2.11 however doesn't cause me any problems. thanks for the info.
January 11, 2001 4:06:57 PM

How about on slot A boards? Same thing?

"Are you saying that I can dodge bullets?"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 12, 2001 1:43:17 AM

You could try looking at this site.

mitglied.tripod.de/Juggernaut/

Magneto passed this link on to me and it has a lot of information on the a7v.

Greg

Duron 700@900 Asus A7V 1003
128mb PC100 WD 30gig ata 100
prophet II mx
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 12, 2001 6:30:47 AM

First off, thsi guy isnt' even measuring core-edge temp. Secondly, he is assuming that his "heatsink" temp is what his cpu temp should be. It is not.

Chances are high that the bios temp is much closer to actual cpu core temp than his "thermistor" temp is.

And the important numbers remain the same between 1003 and 1004Bios, Full Load temp.


Mike

<A HREF="http://mikewarrior.freeservers.com" target="_new">Socket A MB Temp problems</A>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 13, 2001 2:06:37 AM

my first a7v board (the one I was writing about) was v1.01, and it had the little temp lead sitting on the cpu up against to the core, Yesterday, I got another a7v rev1.02 and it has the thingy (strong technical term, some may not understand eheh) in the middle of the socket. the 1.02 board shows the temps to be about 10c cooler than 1.01, same bios rev, which pretty much confirms what I've been reading about the kt7 boards, the temp isn't accurate because the lead isn't sitting on the core. I hooked up an external monitor today, and found to my suprise, that the probe 2.11 is about as accurate as you can get without having a temp gauge inside the core itself. anyway, the cpu temp is around 46-50c at 1000mhz (duron700). a7v rev 1.02 reports between 35-44 at the same speed.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 13, 2001 2:08:24 AM

btw both of the temps at the end of my last post were at full load. thank you, drive through.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 13, 2001 3:43:52 PM

Crackdaddy,

To assume that these temps are as good as internal diode temp is a bit off. Even an probe touching up to the core isn't going to be quite as high as true CPU core temp, due to the fact you're measuring a secondary heat pathway(albeit not as horrible a secondary heat pathway as the backside).

Low kt7 temps are normal even when the thermsitor(or socket-thermistor) is touching the CPU backside. A lot of people mistake this as cpu core, but it isn't. It is a ceramic substrate, wtih high thermal resistance. It is due to this thermal resistance that any temps measured on the backside of a FC cpu do not represent full core temp changes, and are highly inaccurate(and often too low).

See sig for more info,
Mike

<A HREF="http://mikewarrior.freeservers.com" target="_new">Socket A MB Temp problems</A>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 14, 2001 10:37:30 PM

as I said (the part I guess you failed to read) about as accurate as you can get >>without<<--!!keyword here!! having a temp gauge inside the core itself.

not going off on you or anything, I just didn't say what you are implying. I realize that I'm gauging a secondary heat path, I'm just saying that the asus probe 2.11 measures temps as well as an external sensor, and that 2.12 seems to be way off. thank you.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 15, 2001 8:53:55 AM

Use Motherboard Monitor to confirm your accuracy.

Suicide is painless...........
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 15, 2001 3:16:59 PM

mb monitor shows about the same results. thanks
!