Gotta start a poll here just to see. I can run 3.2 GHz on 1.344 actual load vcore (1.375 idle) per cpuz. How low do you all run?
Note I took my screenshot while checking stability via Orthos. Only those with stable OCs need post
P.S.- I cleaned and reapplied my ceramique and I'm very impressed by this HSF (Room temp was 77F. Who says $16 shipped won't get you much?) http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w266/nursefate/Untit...
Before anyone cries foul :roll: I inserted the screen cap from clipboard onto a plain white photoshop background and turned it into a jpeg.
and VCore - stock 1.325 and I like to either lower it or increase FSB.
DS 3 / E 4300
CPU model - Conroe
CPU Cooler AC Freezer 7 Pro
CPU Core Speed – 2.65
CPU Multiplier x 8
CPU-FSB Divider 1:1
Memory at 5-5-5-15
MCH OverVolt +.1
NB Cooler TT Extreme Spirit II
VDIMM OverVolt +.1
Other Voltages Stock/ Auto
Ahhh....but that begs the question Jonny: Do you believe the e4300 tjunction max should be figured as 85c or 100c? Coretemp 0.95 changed to 100c for its tjunction max so it would match TAT. Either way, given both 0.94 and 0.95 builds of Coretemp are equal when you compare proportional temp to tjunction max temp, I think you'll find my HSF is doing just fine.
Either way, given both 0.94 and 0.95 builds of Coretemp are equal when you compare proportional temp to tjunction max temp, I think you'll find my HSF is doing just fine.
On a relative view, yes. But, in a comparative thread, no. Since people use TAT/CoreTemp 0.95 to claim their temperatures, you'll falsly believe you're on the safe part, since your temperatures are shown to be 15° less than others. Now, if you compare yourself to the crowd, you'll see that at stock voltage, for that speed, you're getting some 70-75°C. Where those are real temperatures or not , it means for sure one thing: you're also running too much hot for your vcore.
You can't compare coretemp 0.94 reports to coretemp 0.95 ones. See my crazy vcore, on my unluckily bad chip: If I use CoreTemp 0.94, I'll get 55°C. But I chose not to hide the reality: Coretemp 0.94 reporting below ambiant idle temperatures is really out of the offsets... and also temperatures reported around the net are calibrated with TAT/CoreTemp 0.95: so that's the way to go for comparision purpose, dot.
My only advice, if you want to compare to others, just install coretemp 0.95, and now, you can compare to others, or add a 15°C to your readings
Jonny what do you think these programs use to measure temperature?
mrknowitall had an even better way of showing the relationship between coretemp 0.95 and 0.95 by showing each reported the same temperature delta as one another when tjunction values were taken into account. With idle theres a constant delta, and load shares a constant delta of its own.
-mrknowitall shows here the constant at idle temps, Quote:
"TAT and CoreTemp 0.95 are both assuming Tjuntion (the maximum tjunction) of 100. So yeah, they are showing the same results. The are both reading a value of ' 58' from the MSR register on the CPU. The then do this calculation:
Tcore = Tjuntion - delta
42 = 100 - 58
If you were to simultaneously open up Core Temp 0.94 you would see this:
27 = 85 - 58
because CoreTemp 0.94 assumes your Tjunction is 85.
Note now he shows the same relationship at load temps, Quote:
"But I am saying:
100 - 71 = 29
85 - 56 = 29
EXACTLY the same.
The reason I showed idle temperatures is because the ratio is NOT CLOSE at idle but the difference is still exactly the same."
Try out the comparison Jonny and you will find both 0.95 and 0.94 report the identical idle to tjunction deltas as well as identical load to tjunction deltas. Thus both are right if you take into account the tjunction value they use. Try it out Jonny on your machine if you still don't believe it. Furthermore, I make no pretense or false claim about my temperatures since it is clear on my screenshot what build of coretemp is being used.
Thanks again to mrknowitall for the quotes
Well, I won't argue much more, just you didn't get me right. Since you like to speak deltas... the screenshot from your config is displaying T°C readings and not a delta. Your Delta is 85-62= 23
What I'm saying, is your TAT/CoreTemp 0.95 readings are 62+15=77°C (yes delta is still 100-77=23) and this is really hot. You can spare a toaster for comparision.
So, delta or T°C you're on the too hot side based on your vcore. I would personally investigate it (heatsink, case ventilation...)
I won't debate longer, I think we both understood each other, that's the most important...
Hopefully someone will benefit from the explanations
I will start another thread tonight outlining and citing data I have used to come to the conclusion that Coretemp 0.95 misreads the e4300. I stated above that the results of builds 0.94 and 0.95 are both correct if their tjunction figures are taken into account. This is only partially correct since build 0.95 does read an average 5% high. I will go into this further in my new thread.
My modest OC and a very short test with E4300@2.8(9x)_Noctua12FOneFan, Gigabyte P35-DS4, 2Gb Kit PC8500 (5-5-5-14), etc:
BIOS "insists" on 1,3250v, while LegionHardware received the same mobo earlier and etsted it with 1,25v as Normal - well, I undervolted the Vcore even more:
- Vcore 1,2475V (I think; well the next one under 1,25v),
- VDIMM on Auto-1,8v (5-5-5-14),
All is fine.
TAT @ 100% (1,25v Vcore, VDIMM auto), ran for 50min, are:
- TAT - 61C/61C;
- Core Temp 0.95 - 62C/62C
- SpeedFan 4.32 (Core0/Core1) - 47C/47C.
Latest CPU-Z shows that Vcore is 1,216v, latest speedfan 1,22v, latest CoreTemp 1,3250v.
With Orthos blend stress CPU and Ram for 1hrs10min:
- TAT - 54C/54C;
- Core Temp 0.95 - 56C/56C
- SpeedFan 4.32 (Core0/Core1) - 42C/41C.
CPU-Z shows that Vcore is 1,2v, speedfan the same, while CoreTemp 1,3250v.
Erm, errrm, I wrote the batch on some paper when building my rig, but... can't find it now. Another thing is that it also took me a while to adjust the right amount of AS5 and the way to spread it to lower my temps by about 5C. My Noctua needed more compound, could only place one fan (no 2 fans in push-pull), took me some time and effort and decided to leave it as it is. So, sorry, don't want to take it off.
Aha, well, took a brake while writing and found the E4300 box - FPO# is actually L650C546. CPU-Z of course reports Fam 6, Model F, Step 2 and Rev L2, in line with what's expected more or less.
P.S. Well, I'll praise myself a bit more. My DDR is also nicely undervolted (OCZ gives 2,3v as native and 800MHz as standard, despte that this is a 8500 [1066Mhz] DDR2 - while I am actually running it @1,8v and over 800Mhz, don't remeber how high right now, but under its 1066Mhz though), but to be fair I am aware more people manage that all right.