Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

C2D @ 69 load, 52 idle - okay?

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
September 28, 2006 11:14:06 AM

Hi.
I'm currently running the following;

Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3GHz
Vcore: 1.400
Mobo: Asus P5W DH
Colling: Stock

In the datasheet for this CPU it concloudes a max of 60.1c operating temperature. However, I am confused exactly where this maximum point is.

@ Speedfan my C2D is 59c full load 2x prime95 running
@ Intel Thermal Tool (don't remember the exact name), each core is 69c full load 2x prime95 running.

So obviously if the maximal thermal operating temperature of 60.1c is measured in the thermal tool my CPU is running way too hot. If it's in speedfan it should be just on the edge, I'm not planning to go further without new cooling.

I've read on the net, people are getting crazy different temps with the same setup as I. Some are reporting 32c from Intel Thermal Tool and around 42 at full load in that progy. I just can't understand how mine can be at 69 full load if theirs is at 42, and we've got same setup.
I'm using Artic Silver 5 and it's mounted correctly with not too much or too little.

So are those temps "normal" for a stock overclock, and where does the thermal maximum count?

More about : c2d load idle

September 28, 2006 11:37:52 AM

Are those temps measure in CoreTemp or Speedfan / bios?

I don't have my case yet, so the hardware is just on a table without any air cooling or fans other than the hsf. This _could_ make the temps a bit higher right?
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2006 11:46:56 AM

ditch the stock cooling for something decent and see how it goes, use some proper thermal paste while your at it, and hows case cooling?
Related resources
September 28, 2006 11:55:21 AM

Did you enable Q-Fan? This could lead to higher temps but lower noise :) 

I don't really see a real problem with these temps, though they should not increase more :) 
September 28, 2006 12:24:58 PM

Quote:
ditch the stock cooling for something decent and see how it goes, use some proper thermal paste while your at it, and hows case cooling?

Artic Silver 5 should be more then enough, right?

Quote:
Did you enable Q-Fan?

No I turned it off of already FAN RPM is around 2000 at the moment. I turned off everything according to the Core2Duo overclocking guide.
The CPU is rock stable too, though - but I'm afraid thermal throtteling may kick in without me noticing or something, if the temps are that much too high..
September 28, 2006 12:43:36 PM

That's way too hot. Something is wrong with either your measurements of your thermal solution.
September 28, 2006 1:03:18 PM

It's quite normal than.

You are running @ 3Ghz with 'high' voltage.

You could try to take your voltage down a bit (mine is @ 1.375v i think with 3Ghz E6600).

But you better get an other cooling for the processor. I had the same temps with the stock cooler but now I have a zalman 9500AT cooler and have temps between 50&60°C with Q-Fan enabled.
The stock cooler just isn't powerfull enough to get your processor cooler...
September 28, 2006 1:03:54 PM

Quote:
ditch the stock cooling for something decent and see how it goes, use some proper thermal paste while your at it, and hows case cooling?

Artic Silver 5 should be more then enough, right?

Quote:
Did you enable Q-Fan?

No I turned it off of already FAN RPM is around 2000 at the moment. I turned off everything according to the Core2Duo overclocking guide.
The CPU is rock stable too, though - but I'm afraid thermal throtteling may kick in without me noticing or something, if the temps are that much too high..

No, AS5 by itself isn't going to make that huge of a difference, maybe ~5C lower temps. The stock HSF just isn't designed for an overclocked CPU. Ditch it for something real.

2000 is pretty midrange for fan speed, I believe the stock intel HSF goes up to around 3600rpm, correct me if I'm wrong. So you're not maxxing out your fanspeed by any means, go ahead and turn the fan up in bios and see what your temps do, should drop you below 60C. Again, this is too high, and you should just get a better cooler.
September 28, 2006 1:35:43 PM

Quote:
Hi.
I'm currently running the following;

Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3GHz
Vcore: 1.400
Mobo: Asus P5W DH
Colling: Stock

In the datasheet for this CPU it concloudes a max of 60.1c operating temperature. However, I am confused exactly where this maximum point is.

@ Speedfan my C2D is 59c full load 2x prime95 running
@ Intel Thermal Tool (don't remember the exact name), each core is 69c full load 2x prime95 running.

So obviously if the maximal thermal operating temperature of 60.1c is measured in the thermal tool my CPU is running way too hot. If it's in speedfan it should be just on the edge, I'm not planning to go further without new cooling.

I've read on the net, people are getting crazy different temps with the same setup as I. Some are reporting 32c from Intel Thermal Tool and around 42 at full load in that progy. I just can't understand how mine can be at 69 full load if theirs is at 42, and we've got same setup.
I'm using Artic Silver 5 and it's mounted correctly with not too much or too little.

So are those temps "normal" for a stock overclock, and where does the thermal maximum count?


I'm confused as hell, too. My E6400 (installed yesterday) @ 3.4 GHz, 1.375v runs at 64C - 66C with two instance of Prime95's Torture Test running. I have seen the temperature momentarily touch 71C and then back off to the mid sixties.

My Zalman is running @ 2100 RPM and I used AS5 as per the manufacturer's directions. I turned off all of the throttling options in the BIOS. The thermal paste has only been on there for a few hours so I'm hoping for slightly lower temperatures when it has had time to cure.

I'd like to know - what programs are most people using to monitor the temperatures of their air cooled C2D's? I read all of these reports of 51C fully loaded CPUs and that doesn't seem right to me. One thing that might account for this - speedfan, which is a pretty traditional monitoring tool, reports temperatures that are about 10C cooler than those given by TAT and 'coretemp'. I'm pretty sure that speedfan takes its measurements from a diode versus the digital monitor built into the processor and therefore, the results are less accurate.

What are the implications of running at 52C idle most of the time and 66C for a few minutes every day? I keep CPUs for just a year or so, and then upgrade. I'm on my third CPU this year. I went from a D 805 to a 915 and now to a E6400. I'm not concerned with reducing the lifespan of my CPU from 25 years to 15.

Lastly, what do most overclockers think about using things like EIST and C1E with their overclocked CPUs? I leave them off because they lower my benchmarks by a bit even though they're supposed to behave pretty much transparently. I don't mind enabling them if the net effect is really minimal but the whole point of overclocking is to squeeze the most out of the CPU, isn't it?
September 28, 2006 2:10:57 PM

The thermal limit for the Core 2 Duo is 60C, if you are over 60C you have overclocked your cpu too much with inferior cooling.

you must understand not everyone is going to get the best C2D, some may not get good overclockers. so if you are running over 60C i highly recommend you notch your overclock back and/or get a better cooling solution, the fact that you hit 71C is not good, and if you continue to run it that high you could damage your cpu

anything below 60C is within the limit although i would recommend keeping those temps >50C unless under full maximun load should it reach 50s
September 28, 2006 2:34:40 PM

Yeah, either you need better cooling, or you need to bring down your OC. Don't just brag about your OC when your frying your processor, because once it dies, its only your fault. Anything above 60 is unacceptable to me. At max Load, it should peak right above 50, not more.

For the person that only keeps their CPU for a year, keep yours at 60C or so and it'll probably be fine for a year before it dies. But I don't know why your spending so much money buying so many processors...
September 28, 2006 5:38:08 PM

Quote:
Yeah, either you need better cooling, or you need to bring down your OC. Don't just brag about your OC when your frying your processor, because once it dies, its only your fault. Anything above 60 is unacceptable to me. At max Load, it should peak right above 50, not more.

For the person that only keeps their CPU for a year, keep yours at 60C or so and it'll probably be fine for a year before it dies. But I don't know why your spending so much money buying so many processors...


Geez, I think that I hit the mid 50's and low 60's at 100% load even when the CPU was at stock speed, and that was with EIST and stuff turned on. Idle temps were around 42C as measured by TAT. Subtract 10C in each case for speedfan's resuts. I wanted to baseline the CPU to know what its normal temperatures were. I think that Prime95's Torture Test is a pretty unrealistic situation for a CPU to find itself in - 100% load on both cores for an hour - how many everyday applications would place that kind of a load on a CPU?

I hope that I didn't come across as bragging about my overclock - I have had the E6400 for just a few hours and am finding my way with it. 3.4 GHz is good, but it's far from the best that I have seen. It would be pretty foolish to brag about anything in Tom's Forumz. There's always somebody out there with better, faster equipment. Hell, just look at the video card that I'm using! I'm not about being "The Best".

I have gone through so many CPUs this year because I buy them at a discount and sell them before they lose much value. The 805 was too hot under all circumstances, and the 915 was great, but a friend wanted to buy it from me. I would have stuck with the 915 for another year, but opportunity knocked and the E6400 was cheaper than I thought it would be.

The 60 degree target seems pretty conservative to me, given that it's Intel's number and not the concensus of the overclocking community. Or is it? Are people really backing off when they hit that number? If Intel says 60C for a stock CPU, surely 66C from time to time isn't that outrageous for a 60% overclock? The implication here is that next year's 3.4 GHz model (if there is one) will still have a limit of around 60 degrees due to the the 65nm technology, should it remain the same.

I'm not trying to be argumentative - I just want to get my facts straight. I don't want to ruin my shiny new processor. It's a pretty remarkable CPU - the best that I have ever had. I haven't yet ruined a CPU by overclocking it, going back to my first 200 MMX (250 MHz/83 MHz FSB), and I don't want to start. Do you think that the Arctic Silver will cure enough that it will shave a few degrees off my current temperatures? Or should I just back off the overclock, period? I don't want to be greedy but knowing that it can do 3.4 stable (and probably more since it's under 1.4v and way under the 1.5v that I have heard of some people using) will tease me if I have to back off a substantial amount.

Can watercooling be both cheap and effective? Is a cheap watercooler better than an expensive air cooler? Should I enable the thermal reduction options in the BIOS or does that defeat the purpose of overclocking the Allendale/Conroe?

Sorry for the long post - I don't mean to hijack this thread. It's really important that I get this right.
September 28, 2006 6:08:20 PM

I'm not going to reply to your complete post and just take a bit out of it wich concerns this topic the most.

I agree with you that 60°C is a bit on the low for limit. And defenatly the low-mid 50° as maximum. I believe you can go in the 60's for temps, about 65 max would make more sense than low-mid 50's.

edit: btw, you can change your description ^^
September 28, 2006 6:26:17 PM

Quote:
I agree with you that 60°C is a bit on the low for limit. And defenatly the low-mid 50° as maximum. I believe you can go in the 60's for temps, about 65 max would make more sense than low-mid 50's.

edit: btw, you can change your description ^^


Thanks for the feedback.

I guess that I'll put "3.4 GHz" in my sig for now and will change it if neccessary. I might back off to 3.2 GHz if the concensus is that I'm killing my CPU...
September 28, 2006 6:33:20 PM

I thought you said in your earlier post you were pushing 70 degrees... shrug... if your mid 50's to low 60's at load, that is probably fine, but like a car, you never want to run the engine near red-line all the time right? I assumed you disabled EIST, C1E and all the useless stuff before you tried your OC? I might have come off a bit harsh, but your earlier post said 70 degrees, which is pushing the boundaries quite a bit.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1075792

3.4 GHZ on a 6400 is some of the better OC's out there.

Eh, if you run folding, or do any video editing or encoding, especially with HD content running amok, you can stress your CPU's quite a bit. Gaming will too, but not as much. Not to mention you probably disabled your speedstep, so your processor won't automatically scale down during idle, so its still going to run decently hot.

I would say a cheap watercooler will perform better than an expensive air cooler, but marginally so and not worth the price point. If your not trying to get the best best OC, then air is perfectly fine. I like how the new air-cooled TEC's perform, like the Titan Amanda, about 6 degrees better than some of the best air-coolers, but its all at a price premium.
September 28, 2006 7:21:00 PM

Hey Doughbuy,

All feedback is welcome, even if it's not what I want to hear.

The CPU did hit 71 degrees once for a couple of seconds and then it dropped down to 64 - 66 for the rest of the test. I think that the spike occured around the 40 minute mark of the torture test. I wasn't pleased but I had read a post somewhere where some guy let his E6600 run at 85C for a while and didn't seem fazed by it, so I didn't panic.

I'm going to tweak my setup so that the CPU stays under 66C. I'll probably turn up the fan on the Zalman another 100 - 200 RPM and I'm optimistic that the Arctic Silver will knock a couple of degrees off after it has had time to cure. The heaviest lifting that my PC ever does is ripping DVDs so even if I have to downclock a little, the impact won't be very noticeable.
September 28, 2006 7:50:24 PM

as long as you don't go over mid 60's, there won't be a problem :) . I wouldn't go any further with overclocking with the current cooling system. Then it will need a bit more cooling power :) 
!