Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPU Temperature

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CPU Temperature

    As many of you know, we have had excessive temps here over recent weeks, often well into the 40s (°C, of course). I like to minimise aircon use and the temp in my office often exceeds 30°C. Of recent weeks, one of my computers with an Intel Prescott 3 GHz CPU started to show excessive temp warnings with the threshold set at 70°C. Even at rest, it was often over 65°C. I cleaned all the dust and dog's hairs out of the system, to no significant avail. So, why should the temp start to become excessive, when it was OK before?

    I decided to attack the problem more radically. My first act was to remove the heat sink. I noticed what appeared to be an excessive amount of thermal grease but, more important, all the white stuff had migrated to the periphery of the chip's heat transfer plate and there was just clear grease in the centre (about 15 mm across without the thermal conductor). I wiped off as much grease as possible then carefully cleaned off the rest with kitchen paper wetted with white spirit, with 4 or 5 clean wipes before the paper came off clean. Same with the heat sink. I then put a small blob of thermal conducting grease on the centre of the chip plate and spread it carefully with a piece of Mylar, so I could just see a layer of white over the whole chip surface. I replaced the Intel heat sink and fan.

    Problem solved: it worked a good 3-4°C cooler, but still came up to 68-69°C on prolonged intensive CPU use.

    Moral of the story: if your CPU overheats, check that whoever put in the cooler used the correct amount of grease and that it has stayed where it is needed and the white conducto filler has not been squeezed out.

    However, I was still not satisfied, so I bought a 3rd party (Lexus) cooler of similar design and dimensions as the original Intel cooler. The fan on this was much bigger than the Intel one and the whole caboodle was fabricated from copper, as opposed to extruded light alloy. This dropped the temp another ~8°C so, on standby, the temp was ~54°C with a room temp of 32°C. At prolonged 100% CPU usage, it stayed below 60°C. Furthermore, it didn't sound like Concord taking off!

    However, other ramifications followed. The case design includes a duct that takes outside air directly to the CPU fan, which blows it across the fins into the cabinet. The case was equipped with an 80 mm extraction fan. Because the bigger CPU fan was blowing a larger volume of hotter air radially from the fans, the system chips heat sink, which was in the direct blast, became hotter. Where, previously, they stabilised at about 45°C, they increased to 55°C with the new CPU cooler. I therefore put in a 120 mm case fan instead of the little Mickey Mouse one that came with the computer: system temp reduced to 48°C and even lower noise level. Very happy!!!

    My video computer is OK thermally, but the Intel fan sounds like a whole squadron of Concordes taking off. I intend dealing with it, as well, to reduce the noise.
    Brian (the devil incarnate)

  • #2
    Glad you managed to quiet your system down when tackling the heat problem. My MacBook's CPU often gets above 70°C. This is not dangerous to the CPU, but the otherwise whisper-quiet (which is an understatement!) system gets quite loud when temps rise.

    In other news, ten days of uptime! Yay!
    There's an Opera in my macbook.

    Comment


    • #3
      my 3.0 prescott is typically ~39C idle and ~50C load. That's overclocked with the voltage raised just slightly, you can see my cooler/case in my sig
      Q9450 + TRUE, G.Skill 2x2GB DDR2, GTX 560, ASUS X48, 1TB WD Black, Windows 7 64-bit, LG M2762D-PM 27" + 17" LG 1752TX, Corsair HX620, Antec P182, Logitech G5 (Blue)
      Laptop: MSI Wind - Black

      Comment


      • #4
        Sorry, boo-booed about the CPU cooler, it's Nexus, not Lexus. The model in question is shown here.



        Infinitely better than the Intel junk which you can see:

        Brian (the devil incarnate)

        Comment


        • #5
          They didn't call that series of Intel chips PrescHot for nothing!

          Comment


          • #6
            So true

            Another interesting thing is that Intel is losing the efficiency race to AMD;

            InfoWorld article....

            Some independent groups have pitted AMD and Intel engines in power-efficiency tests, the results of which have cropped up in the past couple of weeks. If you've been reading my Sustainable IT blog, you'll have already read about one such study conducted by Neal Nelson and Associates. In it, Nelson pitted a 3GHz server running AMD Opteron against a 3GHz server running Intel Xeon.

            Nelson determined that the AMD-based server used 7.3 to 15.2 percent less power at five different user load levels and 44.1 percent less power while the systems were idle and waiting for work.

            That, he said, translates to annual electricity savings between $20.29 and $36.04 per server, depending on the workload, the study concluded. At idle speeds, it amounts to a $99.76 per-server, per-year saving.

            The test elicited some heated discussion the likes of which you might expect during an election year. Some suggested that Nelson must have been paid off by AMD to have reached his findings; others aimed a bit higher than just below the belt, at least keeping comments and criticism in the context of Nelson's methodology instead of his morality.

            Nelson still stands by his testing, though he plans to run more benchmarks using a new Intel processor. He expects to have results in around a week, and I'll share them.

            AMD, not surprisingly, was quite pleased with Neal's results. Intel issued this statement: "We stand by all of our energy-efficient claims, period. We also recommend that IT managers who don't do their own in-house testing turn to the dozens to hundreds of independent and certifiable benchmark organizations for the best, most credible perspective."

            As I said, Nelson's tests aren't the only ones to emerge in the past couple of weeks suggesting that AMD has developed more energy-efficient processors than Intel.

            A couple of weeks ago over at Tom's Hardware, Bert Töpelt and Daniel Schuhmann posted the results of their own power-efficiency tests between several Intel and AMD processors. In terms of raw energy efficiency, AMD consistently had a better showing. "Whenever low acquisition costs, low follow-up costs, as well as low power consumption are important, AMD's processors are still first choice. AMD also currently offers the cheapest dual-core processor. Finally, AMD processors are very suitable for use in quiet systems," they concluded.

            However, unlike Nelson, the guys over at Tom's considered other factors when rating the CPUs. In addition to energy efficiency, they equally weighted in chip price and performance. In that context, Intel's Core 2 Duo E6700 topped anything AMD had -- though AMD's offerings are nearly all superior to the rest of Intel's.

            Meanwhile, over at AnandTech, Jason Clark and Ross Whitehead recently had an AMD Opteron Socket-F machine square off against an Intel Xeon Woodcrest machine in what they dubbed a "Low-Power Server CPU Shoot-out." Their conclusion: "AMD is clearly the leader when it comes to performance per watt using the workloads in this article."
            Dr. Mordrid
            ----------------------------
            An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

            I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

            Comment


            • #7
              I'd still rather have a Corvette than a Ford Focus.
              Q9450 + TRUE, G.Skill 2x2GB DDR2, GTX 560, ASUS X48, 1TB WD Black, Windows 7 64-bit, LG M2762D-PM 27" + 17" LG 1752TX, Corsair HX620, Antec P182, Logitech G5 (Blue)
              Laptop: MSI Wind - Black

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by |Mehen| View Post
                I'd still rather have a Corvette than a Ford Focus.


                It's true that the energy efficiency of the older Intel chips was worse than AMD ones, as Dr. M points out. I mean, saving 25 bucks a year on a server is really significant After all, the Xeons and Opterons mentioned in the article are both VERY old technology, long since outmoded.

                However, I'm given to understand that the latest 65 nm chips from Intel run much cooler with 2-4 cores and are therefore more energy efficient.

                I have one AMD CPU computer and it is hairier at running such apps as voice recognition (which I use a lot), compared with Intel ones. Over the past 20 years, I must have bought/built/sold over 200 PCs. Many of these were for instruments or ECAD apps. These have included Cyrix processors with FP co-processors: the Cyrix co-processors inevitably overheated and crashed when doing heavy maths (this was the days when they were in a 40-pin DIL package! Intel ones worked faultlessly). Since then, I had an Intel-only policy which I broke once with the AMD one (I was stony-broke at that time) which I have here still, used only for backing up data files, now.
                Brian (the devil incarnate)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Brian, they didn't compare AMD to Netburst Xeon, they compared AMD to Woodcrest Xeon (Core 2 Duo architecture)
                  Last edited by Nowhere; 29 July 2007, 04:32.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Nowhere View Post
                    Brian, they didn't compare AMD to Netburst Xeon, they compared AMD to Woodcrest (Core 2 Duo architecture)
                    "In it, Nelson pitted a 3GHz server running AMD Opteron against a 3GHz server running Intel Xeon."

                    "Meanwhile, over at AnandTech, Jason Clark and Ross Whitehead recently had an AMD Opteron Socket-F machine square off against an Intel Xeon Woodcrest machine in what they dubbed a "Low-Power Server CPU Shoot-out." Their conclusion: "AMD is clearly the leader when it comes to performance per watt using the workloads in this article.""

                    "the guys over at Tom's considered other factors when rating the CPUs. In addition to energy efficiency, they equally weighted in chip price and performance. In that context, Intel's Core 2 Duo E6700 topped anything AMD had -- though AMD's offerings are nearly all superior to the rest of Intel's."
                    Last edited by Brian Ellis; 29 July 2007, 04:28.
                    Brian (the devil incarnate)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well, yeah, guys at Tomshardware are gamers...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I dont think the temp on my laptops CPU ever get below 70 degrees C.

                        Even with just webbrowsing it hovers around 73 degrees. My HD is a usually a hair short of 45 degrees C. - Which I take as a sign of the general case temp; the HD being parked most of the time.

                        When I play games, the CPU temp is hovering around 100 degrees C.

                        Its been fine like this since I bought it, a year and a half ago.

                        ~~DukeP~~

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X