Temps on QX6700

[El_Robbo]

Hello all, I recently put together a new system and I am wondering about my core temperatures. The processor is an Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700, plugged into an EVGA board with the nVidia 680i chipset. For some reason, the temp reported by the bios is different from that reported by the nVidia monitor tool. Bios indicates that the temp is in the low 40s at startup (around 41, 42, 43 deg C). The nVidia tool indicates that the temp is around 49 or 50 when the computer is doing nothing other than running Windows XP and doing whatever goes on in the background, then for example goes up to around 55 immediately after exiting FSX (I use that example since my understanding is that FSX is a little more demanding on the CPU than most other games -- I'm not sure if that's correct but I'm just giving an example). Of course, the temperature slowly goes back down to around 50. I am using an Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro with Arctic Silver 5 thermal compound. I know that the CPU fan is not running at full speed all the time. When the computer is just running XP, it's at about 1800 rpm. After exiting FSX, it's in the low 3000s. Do these temps sound about right? Thanks.

 

[dasickninja]

As with any computer, the temperature in the BIOS and those that are read in Windows or with the boards software are typically asymmetric. Your temps are perfect for a QX6700 and as long as you stay under 75C (65C for a regular Core 2 Duo) you're perfectly fine.

 

[El_Robbo]

Thanks for the input, Ninja. Now for my follow up question. If I start increasing the FSB and/or the CPU multiplier, at what point should I start to be concerned that my CPU is getting too hot? You mentioned that I should stay below 75C. But I want to be very careful, I don't want to decrease the life or the performance of the chip at all. And I will not be using any exotic cooling, I will be sticking with my Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro with Arctic Silver 5 thermal compound. How hot can this chip run without there being any adverse effects? Thanks.

 

[nevesis]

if you do not want to decrease the lifespan of the chip, then dont overclock!

 

[chuckburmester]

Hi El_Robbo
Just currios how the QX6700 handles FSX, I just oedered one this morning with an Asus striker extreme motherboard and a 8800 GTX.
Flight simulator will be the main purpose of this machine.

Thanks in advance
Chuck

 

[El_Robbo]

I think that's a fair comment. The only reason I am considering overclocking is because Intel itself has touted the overclocking capabilities of this chip. I would like to run this chip at least at 2.93, like the X6800.

Also, what would the harm be to the CPU in upping the FSB to 1333, and dropping the CPU multiplier so that the CPU clock stays at 2.66? I know that the EVGA board can handle much more than 1333, but I am unclear as to how much strain (if any) increasing the FSB has on the CPU if the CPU clock is kept the same. Is the strain when increasing the FSB only on the chipset? Or, does it also strain the CPU?

Thanks.

 

[El_Robbo]

Chuck, I'm not sure how much the QX6700 itself is helping FSX performance. I am running a pair of 8800GTXs in SLI mode. From reading a couple of benchmarks running FSX on a single 8800GTX, I think I'm getting a pretty healthy boost in performance by using SLI. I have all settings at ultra high, and I am using 1920x1200 resolution at 32 bit color depth. In cities like New York or San Francisco when flying at low altitude (e.g. takeoff and landing), I am getting I think somewhere around mid teens to 20 fps. When I get out of the city and am flying over mountains and such, I am averaging in the mid to upper 50s, perhaps even 60, and at worst it dips down to upper 40s. The image quality is excellent with these settings. I don't think a single 8800GTX can get anywhere near this, I read that they average low 30s at 1920x1200 with lower image quality settings.

I guess it goes without saying that FSX is a really demanding program, almost certainly the most demanding game on hardware at the present time. I think that it's pushing my system pretty hard. I have heard that FSX will perform better as a DirectX 10 program, so we'll see how it does when I get it running on Vista next year. Also, I would expect that bios and driver updates will be forthcoming and will help considerably.

Good luck with your new system, I'd be curious to hear how you like your new ASUS motherboard.

 

[Guest]

No need to up the FSB, It won't give you any or almost any speed advantages.

I would say anything under 60c is pefectly safe/suitable for your processor. Even under full load, under 70C should be fine, but my lower yo CPU life a bit (?8 years vs 10?) exaggerating but you should not notice it...

 

[chuckburmester]

Sounds like your machine does pretty good, best I have heard of with FSX. My machine will be here next Friday. I am hoping to overclock some also, this will be my first try. I went with water cooling for the processor, I hope that works well.
Phil Taylor from aces studio indicates that there will be an update sometime after the first of the year that will hopefully address some of the performance issues but that will not be the DX-10 update.

I would be interested how your overclock goes.

Thanks
Chuck

 

[Doughbuy]

Meh, the cooler you have would do a decent job on a C2D, but with the Kentsfield pushing out nearly twice as much wattage, it doesn't come close... if you insist on OC'ing, a huge tower cooler coupled with a high CFM is the bare minimum. A TEC or watercooling solution would be more optimal.

Raise it to a good 3 GHZ, and you should be fine with that cooler most likely. Should hit 3.2 at least on a tower cooler, 3.3 on a TEC, and maybe 3.4~3.5 on a decent water-setup while keeping temps below 65C

 

[bydesign]

As long as you don't up the voltage your temps shouldn't change much. On my e6600 I can hit 3.4 GHz on stock voltage and it's very stable And CPU life should not be affected.