Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core i7 920 temps

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 12, 2012 9:38:02 AM

I've just upgraded my 3 year old Core i7 920 system to Windows 7 (not really interested in Windows 8 atm) but yes I was running XP for a long time!

In truth I've not used this machine for a while and I thought I'd take the opportunity to update the BIOS at the same time. I have a Gigabyte EX58-DS4 board, which was on F10 and I updated to F11. When I finished installing Windows I thought I'd do a bit of benchmarking and testing.

Firstly the system seemed to be running at 2.0Ghz, I checked the BIOS and this was indeed true, the multiplier was set to 15. I guess in updating the BIOS it had reverted to fail safe defaults? Tbh I've never really messed with the multiplier, but I believe it should be 20 for stock 2.66Ghz running? I loaded the optimized defaults and it did set the multiplier to 20 so fine I booted back into windows. I did some more benchmarks and found that I was nearly hitting 90 degrees on the CPU in Core temp. I've only got the stock cooler and as I say I've not used this machine in a while. But I KNOW that I used to run it no problem at stock speeds with Turbo boost at around 60 degrees, max 70. This seems a massively high temp to me, for low speeds really.

I'm gonna open the box up tonight. It wouldn't surprise me if there was a lot of dust clogging it up, but even so is this likely to cause such a big jump up to 90 degrees? Could this be a BIOS issue, Windows issue or just my hardware getting old? I'm happy to buy a better aftermarket cooler, but I'm really wondering if this is pointing to a deeper problem.

I'm happy to post any more information when I get home from work.

Core i7 920 2.6Ghz
Gigabyte EX58-DS4 BIOS F11
3GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 PC3-10666
Antec Neo HE 550 GB

More about : core 920 temps

a b à CPUs
November 12, 2012 9:49:19 AM

Was it running at 2ghz at full load or idle? I would say setting a multiplier of 20 would set your clocks a lot higher than 2.6 depending on what your base clock is which would explain huge temps.
November 12, 2012 10:12:05 AM

darth pravus said:
Was it running at 2ghz at full load or idle? I would say setting a multiplier of 20 would set your clocks a lot higher than 2.6 depending on what your base clock is which would explain huge temps.


To be honest, I'm not sure. I ran the benchmark straight away and then pretty much turned it off as soon as I saw those temps. I'll do some more testing tonight.

But base is 133Mhz so 20 X 133 = 2.66Ghz no?

Normally at idle I'd expect it to be running as low as 1.4Ghz (maybe not quite this low, can't remember), going up to just under 2.9Ghz with turbo boost at full load.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2012 10:14:37 AM

That would be the right multiplier then. If you have reset the bios to defaults then all should be well. Check what voltage is set to in the bios (offset, what your load line calibration is ect)
November 12, 2012 7:06:09 PM

OK it's idling around 1600 Mhz at around 58 degrees. At full load it's hitting just under 2800 Mhz. Both of these are pretty familiar. So I'm happy the clock speed is sorted. I had a look at CPU settings in the BIOS and pretty much everything is set to auto. I never messed with the voltages before and this seems fine.

I've just opened up the case and there's no real dust problem. When I ran Performance Test I hit 90 degrees during the physics portion of the CPU test and I definitely don't remember ever seeing temps that high, low 80s was the highest I ever saw.

Could this just be age of the hardware?

Think I might invest in a decent after market cooler. The Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO looks pretty good.
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2012 7:13:59 PM

Not age of hardware, age of thermal compound maybe.
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2012 7:55:26 PM

Thermal compound is the main culprit I agree. Hyper 212 evo is a great cooler and will be good for the long life of the chip.
!