Aha! I did make a mistake.
I misread the specs for my old Arctic Freezer 7 Pro. Its so dusty from sitting in the garage for a year that I mistook 4700 "cm2" for RPM. Its a cheap CPU cooler for a good reason. Even at 3500RPM the TT Smart Fan II is considerably more quiet, but I only use the full speed for benchmarking. Try one, you'll like it.
If you look at my CPU fan speed while at 3.2GHz and 1.57v, you'll see that it was only running at 2500RPM.
Increase your voltage and see if it shows on CPUz. It won't because the top box in CPUz is the processor's factory settings (same as the 2.4GHz in your case, etc.). The bottom box is actuals and doesn't include voltage. Apparently you saw your mistake and had to reduce your core speed to avoid looking silly.
I could have reduced my voltage to stock so that CPUz and EasyTune showed the same number (as you did), but that wouldn't prove that the E6400 runs fine at that voltage without going anywhere near 80C. And
that was the entire point of my post.
The E6400 will run stably at stock voltages with the stock fan @ 2.8GHz, which is an accurate comparison to your E6600 @ 3.0GHz. So I have no idea what you're trying to prove with this.
That heat graph doesn't prove a thing, other than the fact that a 120mm fan at 1300RPM cools better than an 80mm fan at 2930RPM. But, the heat sinks, mounting, and thermal paste all play a role in the result too.
I suspect your CPU cooler chart's author tossed these fans on the CPU without allowing the thermal paste to set. It wouldn't really matter for a basic comparison between the coolers, as long as they were all seated correctly and use the same thermal paste. Or maybe it was crap paste to begin with, as we use Arctic Alumina. Otherwise I can't explain those poor results, and I sure can't duplicate them on our systems.
Just because an overclocked system starts and runs a few programs doesn't mean its stable. My system will boot at 3.2GHz with stock voltages too, and probably not error under normal circumstances. Big deal. I constantly benchmark so being stable is important. Run Prime95 for 24 hrs with stock voltages and no errors on a E6400 @ 3.2GHz and then I'll be impressed. It has to be run on both cores at the same time to give an accurate result.
Anything short of that proves nothing. I'd have to see those screen shots to believe it. (You'll have to google how to run Prime95 on both cores at the same time as I can't be bothered explaining it nor looking it up for you.)
Oh wait, you don't have a E6400 to test. I guess you'll just have to take my word for it, or find someone who can prove me wrong, because you can't.
You either didn't understand my point about the video from the beginning or disagreed with it. Either way, I couldn't care less. I still feel the same about the video. It doesn't show anything special about that peltier cooler as is. I can come pretty close to that temp with my fan turned all the way up. And BTW, I didn't even have my back case fan connected for that screen shot.
Overclocking a C2D is nothing more than raising FSB, and vcore voltage at some point, and if you go high enough MCH voltage at some point (although most people won't get that far unless they have a very good motherboard). Anyone can do it. Making your system stable, and proving it to be so is a little more complicated.
I've owned a custom computer business for over 6 years now. I've built hundreds of systems and overclocked more than I can count. I posted my results to show that they don't jive with your statements. Even with the evidence staring you in the face, you refuse to accept the results. I'm fine with you thinking whatever you want because I'm less than impressed with your knowledge and your manners.
Have a nice day.