Q6600 well under 50C Now

[dadi_oh]

I saw the announcement about Intel finally releasing the Tjmax numbers in August. So I updated my Realtemp Tjmax and I am now only 47C on the worst core. A good psychological boost to be under 50C

 

[a_ump]

nice man, i want my q6600 higher than 3.2ghz but that's going to have to wait till i upgrade, probly this xmas to a good p45 or an X48. can you oc any higher stably, on the intel website up to 70 celcius your good.

 

[Mussels]

didnt we know TJmax was 95C, all along?

 

[pepsi71ocean]

nice man, i want my q6600 higher than 3.2ghz but that's going to have to wait till i upgrade, probly this xmas to a good p45 or an X48. can you oc any higher stably, on the intel website up to 70 celcius your good.

i got to 3.4 Stable on my 680i Lt, the problem is there are to many FSB holes. you can give a 1525QDR a try, it worked for me, need to tune out the voltages a little bit.

Intel give you a huge marking, intel chips only start throttling around 80c. i got my 6600 up to 3.7GHz before it died. the big problem is that the never 6600's don't clock so well or so ive heard.

 

[unclewebb]

I'd take Intel's recent TJMax release for the 65nm CPUs with a grain of salt. There are lots of CPUs out there that don't agree with their numbers and so far they don't have any explanation for the inconsistencies.

They've decided that my E6400 has a TJMax=70C. If I were to use that number, my idle temperatures when air cooled would drop to about 23C below the actual core temperature. At the other end, when an IR thermometer says the IHS is at 85C, that implies the core temperature is probably about 90C based on testing by rge over on the XS forum and Intel says that based on the new TJMax specs, my CPU is only at 70C. That's BS and anyone that has done some testing knows it.

For a Q6600 G0 I'd use TJMax=100C and for the B3 I'd use 90C. There's a reason why RealTemp and Core Temp have decided to ignore the latest news release from Intel.

 

[Mussels]

I'd take Intel's recent TJMax release for the 65nm CPUs with a grain of salt. There are lots of CPUs out there that don't agree with their numbers and so far they don't have any explanation for the inconsistencies.

They've decided that my E6400 has a TJMax=70C. If I were to use that number, my idle temperatures when air cooled would drop to about 23C below the actual core temperature. At the other end, when an IR thermometer says the IHS is at 85C, that implies the core temperature is probably about 90C based on testing by rge over on the XS forum and Intel says that based on the new TJMax specs, my CPU is only at 70C. That's BS and anyone that has done some testing knows it.

For a Q6600 G0 I'd use TJMax=100C and for the B3 I'd use 90C. There's a reason why RealTemp and Core Temp have decided to ignore the latest news release from Intel.

^ unclewebb does know what he's talking about with this stuff, i'd listen to him.

 

[dadi_oh]

didnt we know TJmax was 95C, all along?

I think Realtemp had 100C iirc so taking it to 95C gained me 5C. Not sure about what other programs like speedfan or coretemp defaulted to.

 

[dadi_oh]

I'd take Intel's recent TJMax release for the 65nm CPUs with a grain of salt. There are lots of CPUs out there that don't agree with their numbers and so far they don't have any explanation for the inconsistencies.

They've decided that my E6400 has a TJMax=70C. If I were to use that number, my idle temperatures when air cooled would drop to about 23C below the actual core temperature. At the other end, when an IR thermometer says the IHS is at 85C, that implies the core temperature is probably about 90C based on testing by rge over on the XS forum and Intel says that based on the new TJMax specs, my CPU is only at 70C. That's BS and anyone that has done some testing knows it.

For a Q6600 G0 I'd use TJMax=100C and for the B3 I'd use 90C. There's a reason why RealTemp and Core Temp have decided to ignore the latest news release from Intel.

hmmm. I didn't realize that. I have to admit I would trust you over Intel

It's sort of a moot point to me anyways since I only really care how far I am from throttling and if the system is stable. I have tons of margin and the system is rock solid so that is what matters.

BTW. What about the E8xxx series? I have an E8200 and E8400 that I use Realtemp to monitor. What should I use for Tjmax?

 

[dadi_oh]

nice man, i want my q6600 higher than 3.2ghz but that's going to have to wait till i upgrade, probly this xmas to a good p45 or an X48. can you oc any higher stably, on the intel website up to 70 celcius your good.

I can do 3.7GHz for benching but it takes more voltage than I want and it will reset the machine if I prime95 for about 20 minutes. The extra 180MHz isn't worth it to me... although the benches sure look nice It really helps out my GTX 260 in 3dMark06 but it's just a number. With my GTX 260 at 783 core 1566 shaders 2600 memory I can play any game I have at max settings on my 1680X1050 monitor.

 

[dadi_oh]

^ unclewebb does know what he's talking about with this stuff, i'd listen to him.

That's a 10-4 affirmative charlie 40 roger

(cb lingo to shorten the word "yes")

 

[sneekypeet]

you has PM!

 

[dadi_oh]

I adjusted my Tjmax in Realtemp back to 100C as per Unka Webb and now my chip runs hotter

Was nice while it lasted....

 

[EarlZ]

Real temp defaulted it to 100c TjMax, afaik.

 

[trickson]

I saw the announcement about Intel finally releasing the Tjmax numbers in August. So I updated my Realtemp Tjmax and I am now only 47C on the worst core. A good psychological boost to be under 50C

Great temps and great OC . Hey what mobo are you using ? And what are you using for a HSF ?
I would love to get mine above 3.4 GHz but any thing past this 3.4GHz is not stable and I can not keep it at 3.4 as my HSF sucks . The 680i mobo is also very limiting .
Great JOB !

 

[dadi_oh]

Great temps and great OC . Hey what mobo are you using ? And what are you using for a HSF ?
I would love to get mine above 3.4 GHz but any thing past this 3.4GHz is not stable and I can not keep it at 3.4 as my HSF sucks . The 680i mobo is also very limiting .
Great JOB !

It is in my system specs. The motherboard is a ASUS P5K-E Wifi (P35 chipset) and I am on Swiftech watercooling for both the CPU and the Northbridge. I can get very high FSB (over 500MHz) with this mobo so I dropped my multi and am running a higher FSB. From what I understand the Intel chipsets are much better for OCing the Quads. Seem to hear lots of problems with Nvidia chipsets OCing quads.

What are your voltages and temps when you get to 3.4GHz? Do you think you are temperature limited?

 

[trickson]

It is in my system specs. The motherboard is a ASUS P5K-E Wifi (P35 chipset) and I am on Swiftech watercooling for both the CPU and the Northbridge. I can get very high FSB (over 500MHz) with this mobo so I dropped my multi and am running a higher FSB. From what I understand the Intel chipsets are much better for OCing the Quads. Seem to hear lots of problems with Nvidia chipsets OCing quads.

What are your voltages and temps when you get to 3.4GHz? Do you think you are temperature limited?

Temps loaded are way high I have seen 67c with the ultra chill tech cooler . with 1.5 Vcore . the fact is this mobo is limited and I know the cooling is as well . I am looking at alternatives right now . Thank you for the input . I am not sure I want to go with a water cooling out fit . But I wil be looking at the mobo for sure .

 

[FilipM]

I'd take Intel's recent TJMax release for the 65nm CPUs with a grain of salt. There are lots of CPUs out there that don't agree with their numbers and so far they don't have any explanation for the inconsistencies...

A bit off topic but what is true now for the E8xx series then...What Intel said - 100C or as Uncle Webb stated in his calibration article - 95C ?

 

[unclewebb]

rge over at XS has done some thorough testing. Intel says that the E8x00 Dual Cores have a TjMax=100C. When the DTS sensor reports zero, my IR thermometer shows 95C. That implies that there must be a 5C gradient between what I'm measuring on top of the IHS and the actual core temperature.

It makes sense that the core is slightly hotter than the temperature I'm able to measure on top of the IHS so I've adjusted TjMax to 100C for the E8x00 CPUs.

Core Temp originally guessed that it was 105C and RealTemp guessed that it was 95C. The truth, according to Intel, is half way between those numbers.

At the last IDF conference, Intel released TJMax specs for the 65nm CPUs. In my opinion, those numbers were WAY out there so they've contacted the programmer of Core Temp with some updated numbers. I don't agree with this newer version of the truth either.

For my E6400 B2, Intel originally stated that TJMax=70C. Now they have bumped that up to 80C. My opinion, based on testing and the fact that a 5C gradient exists between IHS and core, is that the truth is probably closer to 90C and that's what RealTemp is presently using.

When DTS=0 for this CPU, the IHS is at 85C and to me that implies that the cores are at 90C. Heat transfers very quickly from the cores to the IHS. If I were to use Intel's latest TJMax numbers then my core would be reported at 80C even though the IR gun on top of the IHS is showing 85C. That's just not possible.

 

[dadi_oh]

When DTS=0 for this CPU, the IHS is at 85C and to me that implies that the cores are at 90C. Heat transfers very quickly from the cores to the IHS. If I were to use Intel's latest TJMax numbers then my core would be reported at 80C even though the IR gun on top of the IHS is showing 85C. That's just not possible.

To quote Bugs...

" I know this defies the laws of physics but, you see, I never studied law"

 

[a_ump]

I adjusted my Tjmax in Realtemp back to 100C as per Unka Webb and now my chip runs hotter

Was nice while it lasted....

what do you mean? why would we need to change it back was something proven that it should be 100? i found this though

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-dts-specs,news-29460.html

which would make temps even better.

 

[dadi_oh]

what do you mean? why would we need to change it back was something proven that it should be 100? i found this though

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-dts-specs,news-29460.html

which would make temps even better.

The general poop on the forums is that the 65nm numbers from Intel are whacked. I am trusting the authors of Realtemp and coretemp on this one since they have taken the actual measurements experimentally.

It is all just a moot point for me anyways. I don't really care what the readout is telling me. I have 45C+ to Tjmax so lot's of margin and I am 100% stable. I was really just kidding around with the numbers game. I think the 45nm numbers from Intel are OK though so I changed my E8400 and E8200 settings in Realtemp to 100C.

 

[a_ump]

could you give me a link to these people's of real temp that did these experiements or a link to tjmax for a q6600 G0?

 

[dadi_oh]

could you give me a link to these people's of real temp that did these experiements or a link to tjmax for a q6600 G0?

yhpm

 

[FordGT90Concept]

didnt we know TJmax was 95C, all along?

It's 85C on my Xeon 5310s.