My Q6600@3.7GHz

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
He didn't have to ask, it was inherent by his initial post. And no it is just that easy, the only thing that takes effort is getting over the unknown. This post is a leeway into my productivity, I'm just starting my morning : ) you're fighting a losing battle my friend. Good threads are what makes a good forum.. good
 
I realize he didn't post for help but obviously he needs a little and i figured it's better than just flaming him. I also don't care that he got to 3.7ghz, and the only reason i joined is because i didn't think anyone deserved the amount of grief you guys were unleashing.

Agreed topic should be closed.
 
ok u guys say that there is to much a difference between my diff core temps, however i put a good amount of AC5 on there and dont intend on lapping it, got any ideas to average out the temps?
 
they're probably fine

At idle my q9550 has a spread upto 12 c while at load they are no more than 3c difference though
 
wait a tic...if the TJ of a 6600 is acutally 90C and Core Temp was having it as 100C and i lower it to 90C it drops my temps (at least on core temp by 10) and that should then be my correct Core temp?


I was always like blarg? when i idled at 44C (TJ 100C) even after i set and reset my Heatsink.. *especially with a low vid of 1.2250

Basically my question is should i have always had my Core Temp TJ set to 90C?


never mind got my answer from


http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248683-29-proper-setting-q6600

 
Other than simply completely re-setting your heatsink I can't tell you much else to do. The 10 degree difference suggests it's simply not making good contact somewhere. Best you could do would be to remove heatsink, clean off the thermal compound, and redo it.

Obviously be careful not to get any of the old or new AC5 on anything it shouldn't be on. I'd hate to see you lose your 3.7Ghz OC because something was damaged. 🙁 That would suck!

Definitely shouldn't be seeing that large a spread in temperatures though.

As far as Max acceptable temps go:

Intel Says the Thermal Specification for the original Q6600 is 62.2C
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL9UM

Intel Says the Thermal Specification for the G0 SLACR Q6600 is 71C.
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLACR

"Thermal Specification: The thermal specification shown is the maximum case temperature at the maximum Thermal Design Power (TDP) value for that processor. It is measured at the geometric center on the topside of the processor integrated heat spreader. For processors without integrated heat spreaders such as mobile processors, the thermal specification is referred to as the junction temperature (Tj). The maximum junction temperature is defined by an activation of the processor Intel® Thermal Monitor. The Intel Thermal Monitor’s automatic mode is used to indicate that the maximum TJ has been reached. "

Read it... and...weep. 🙁
 
teamlosigp,

Congratulations on a nice overclock. I've read your thread thoroughly, and although your temperatures have been called into question, and are borderline hot, I don't see any problems except that your temperatures simply need to be calibrated, and that you're using "Core Temp" for your monitoring utility, which can't calibrate individual cores. Also, the information which has been offered is somewhat out of context, so let's bring things into perspective. There is no need to speculate, since these questions have already been addressed in detail. If you look at the top of this Forum, you will see a Sticky:

Core 2 Quad and Duo Temperature Guide - http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/221745-29-core-quad-temperature-guide

From the Guide:

Section 6: Scale

Scale 2: Quad
Q9x50: Tcase Max 71c, Stepping E0, TDP 95W, Idle 16W
Q9x50: Tcase Max 71c, Stepping C1, TDP 95W, Idle 16W
Q9400: Tcase Max 71c, Stepping R0, TDP 95W, Idle 16W
Q9300: Tcase Max 71c, Stepping M1, TDP 95W, Idle 16W
Q8x00: Tcase Max 71c, Stepping R0, TDP 95W, Idle 16W
Q8200: Tcase Max 71c, Stepping M1, TDP 95W, Idle 16W
Q6x00: Tcase Max 71c, Stepping G0, TDP 95W, Idle 16W<--Q6600 G0

-Tcase/Tjunction-
--70--/--75--75--75--75-- Hot
--65--/--70--70--70--70-- Warm
--60--/--65--65--65--65-- Safe
--25--/--30--30--30--30-- Cool


Tcase = CPU temperature
Tjunction = Core temperature

This means that the 71c temperature shown in Intel's Processor Spec Finder - http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLACR - refers to CPU temperature, not Core temperatures, which is a very common misconception.

The single best source of current Tjunction Max information available anywhere on the internet can be found on the Real Temp thread over at XtremeSystems - http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=179044&page=114 - Since Intel's most recent Developers Forum (IDF) in October, the author of Real Temp, Kevin Glynn, (unclewebb), has changed Tjunction Max in Real Temp Beta releases to 100c for the Q6600 G0, according to Intel's updated Tjunction Max values for 65nm processors. Based upon my own research, as well as Kevin's, and the extremely well informed user, rge, we think that the actual Tjunction Max value for the majority of Q6600's fall between 95c and 100c. Allow me to explain.

Intel has stated that the DTS sensors are designed for Throttling and Shutdown protection, are more accurate at very high temperatures, become unreliable below 50c, and should be disregarded at Idle. Intel has also stated that Tjunction Max values vary between individual cores, and have a "range" or target value that can be as much as +/- 10c due to variables such as sensor "slope" error, which is especially pronounced on 45nm parts. This highlights the reason why Tjunction Max Values are rounded to the nearest 5c, such as 85c or 100c, while Tcase Max values are instead precise numbers to the tenths of a degree, such as the Q6600 B3 at 62.2c - http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL9UM

Since everyone is so brainwashed on Core temperatures (Tjunction), they forget that there's a CPU temperature (Tcase)sensor designed for measuring temperatures from Idle thru Load, which is more accurate (when calibrated) than the often sloppy Tjunction sensors. Further, most users are not aware that the temperature shown in Intel's Processor Spec Finder is Tcase (CPU temperature), not Tjunction (Core temperature). Additionally, there's a known and constant relationship between Tcase and Tjunction at Load, which is 5c, and is shown on page 4, figure 5 of the following Intel document - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0709/0709.1861.pdf

This provides us with a simple 2 part procedure to accurately calibrate Tjunction Max values for each of your particular processor Cores. By using a standardized test setup and simple elementary school math, step 1 is to measure ambient temperature, then factor known Idle power dissipation values with CPU cooler efficiency values, which gives accurate Tcase (CPU temperature) for Idle calibration. By using the same standardized test setup, step 2 is to run Prime95 Small FFT's then add 5c to Tjunction (Core temperature) for accurate Load calibration.

It's just this simple:

Part 1: Ambient + Idle Power + Cooler Efficiency = Tcase Idle (CPU temperature)
Part 2: Tcase Load + 5c = Tjunction Load (Core Temperatures)

This is the calibration procedure in Section 9 of the Core 2 Quad and Duo Temperature Guide. When calibrated, your Tjunction Max will typically average about 97 to 98c, which is reasonable and in keeping with Intel's most recent statements concerning the confusion about Tjunction Max values. I developed the calibration procedure early this year before Real Temp was first released. My calibration procedure works, and is more accurate than just relying on uncalibrated sensors using Intel's default Tjunction Max values.

I hope this helps,

Comp :sol:
 
CompuTronix, I have a question for you.

Your comment here sparked my curiosity in RealTemp. I went and downloaded the latest release version (which was 2.70) and ran it. There was a pretty substantial difference in the temperatures it showed compared to my CoreTemp program.

I noted that RealTemp showed my TJMax as 95C for my Q6600 G0.

I then downloaded the latest Beta of RealTemp (2.90) and it shows my TJMax as 100C, and thus shows higher temperatures.

So what's the deal there?

EDIT: Okay wait. Looks like you addressed this in your original comment.

So this being said, why would RealTemp be better than CoreTemp? Both have TJMax set as 100C for the Q6600 G0.
 

Because Real Temp's accuracy is based upon research, serious hands-on-real-world testing and analysis, while Core Temp is based upon documentation.

jerreece,

If you've studied the hundreds of pages of various Intel documents as unclewebb, rge and I have, or if you've read all 116 pages and each of the 2,879 posts on the Real Temp thread - http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=179044&page=116 - then it quickly becomes obvious that Real Temp is the temperature monitoring utility of choice, for users who are interested in monitoring core temperatures only.

Just click the "Settings" button and look at the features, then read the Real Temp documentation - http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.php

■Core Temp provides only a single TJ Max calibration for all Cores.

■Real Temp provides individual "Set TJ Max" calibrations for each Core.

■Real Temp is the only temperature monitoring utility that provides Idle calibration.

■Real Temp is the only temperature monitoring utility that provides a "Sensor Test" feature.

■Real Temp's unique features result from unclewebb's quick response to popular requests by users.

Comp :sol: