Need your help!

Dave Burbank
Dave Burbank
Joined: 30 Jan 06
Posts: 275
Credit: 1,548,376
RAC: 0

Ah but I did not pick the

Ah but I did not pick the processor/Tcase temperature as the golden standard, Intel did. In that particular thread I linked, we were discussing the highest safe temperature for a Q6600, and the only reference to this from Intel's documentation refers to the Tcase temperature, the center point on the surface of the IHS. I have yet to find any info on maximum core temperature from Intel.

I fully agree that the core DTS's are more accurate, and a better method for measuring the temperature of the CPU (I have the hottest core temp displayed in my task bar), but unfortunately when trying to determine if any given Q6600, or for that matter any C2D/Q, is operating within safe "spec" guidlines, one must fall back to the processor/Tcase temperature reading.

From Intel's website, Max Tcase value for B3 Q6600 : 62.2C http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL9UM
For a G0 Q6600 : 71C http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLACR

From what I've gathered on the net on max Tjunction/core temp : anywhere from 60-85C

EDIT :

Quote:
It sure does not help that Intel treats this all as some sort of state secret, and also something that we poor scum just should not care about.

I remember reading on Intel's developer forum how upset many of the developers were on this secrecy Intel has decided is so important. Many stating they would be happy to sign NDA's if only they could read the documentation on these "top secret" MSR's, which would allow them to properly utilize the processors full potential.

Kinda reminds me of something someone once said.....Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers!!!

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers. - Richard Feynman

archae86
archae86
Joined: 6 Dec 05
Posts: 2,842
Credit: 3,380,124,703
RAC: 2,877,743

RE: RE: ...in other

Message 70832 in response to message 70820

Quote:
Quote:
...in other words, I think Speedfan is closer to the truth for Q6600 B3 stepping than is Coretemp--there is a 15C offset because of this issue

{snip)
I fully realize I could be wrong and am curious to how you have come to your conclusion.


As I mentioned in my first post, my conclusion was driven by comparison at the one reference point I can reasonably reliably set.

I've done this particular comparison much more carefully today.

I own an E6600 and a Q6600 system, in the same case, with the same fans, and same motherboard model. Comparison of the two in normal operation gave me my initial conclusion that probably the correct TJunction for the two is the same.

Here is today's experiment--the attempt was to set the on-die temperature to very nearly the same for both boxes, and to very nearly room ambient temperature.

The method was to remove the side panel of the case, run a 2 foot square box fan right next to it with near zero CPU activity for about 15 minutes (until trend graphs suggested the temperature had nearly bottomed). I then powered off the box, but left the external fan running for at least a half hour each. I believe at this point the case structure and parts were very nearly at ambient. I booted the systems, and logged the temperatures as soon after boot as I could--though I waited about a minute for the CPU cores to cool from their activity during boot.

Here are the results as logged by Speedfan 4.32 (that is, assuming the correct TJunction for E6600 and for my Q6600 is 85.

reading E6600 Q6600
Core 0 24 25
Core 1 25 21
Core 2 21
Core 3 24
Motherboard 27 29
"Processor" 14 22
Hard Drive 28 30
Ambient 25.6 25.3

While it is distressing that the on-die sensors report some temperatures slightly below ambient, that error for the on-die sensors is smaller than for the E6600 systems "processor" sensor (which I think is on the motherboard--anyone know?).

More to the point, the 25,21,21,24 values obtained from assuming the proper TJunction reference is 85 are far closer to reasonable, and far closer to matching the E6600 (which should be a very close match in truth, given the experimental setup, that are the 40, 36, 36, 39 given by assuming TJunction of 100.

I realize lots of folks think differently--I think they are wrong, and I've tried to be as clear as I can here about my reasoning and evidnence.

Zhang Chi
Zhang Chi
Joined: 27 Aug 06
Posts: 210
Credit: 4,371,508
RAC: 353

I've really learnt more about

I've really learnt more about CPU from your replies.
Thanks a lot!

Hello everyone!I'm Zhang Chi from China.I am 16 and I am a middle school student.And I love science. I want to be a scientist in the future!

Dave Burbank
Dave Burbank
Joined: 30 Jan 06
Posts: 275
Credit: 1,548,376
RAC: 0

I hear your reasoning, and

I hear your reasoning, and understand where your coming from, but I still must disagree.

The problem I have with your conclusion is that you're assuming a Q6600 and a E6600 have similar thermal profiles. In your test you determine the proper Tjunction to be 85C by reasoning that this value sets the temperature of your Q6600 closer to the value read from your E6600.

Since a Q6600 is little more than two E6600's stuck side-by-side on on a single PCB, it makes much more sense to me that a Q6600 would run significantly hotter than a E6600, even at idle. I think the fact that 3 out of the 4 cores in your experiment are running below ambient temperature is strong evidence that 85C is the incorrect Tjuntion value.

The E6600 maximum heat output (TDP) is 65W, while the Q6600's is almost twice as much at 105W (recently lowered to 95W with the latest revision). I believe that this helps prove that the two CPU's should not share the same Tjunction.

We can debate the proper value for weeks, each side having valid arguments, but I figure where better to go than the horses mouth. I've just sent Intel's technical support center an e-mail, hopefully within a few days they'll respond with the answer we're looking for. It's truly sad that they don't openly disclose this information.

EDIT : Sorry for all of the technical jargon and acronyms....it's not me....blame it on the CPU, I mean Computer Industry.

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers. - Richard Feynman

archae86
archae86
Joined: 6 Dec 05
Posts: 2,842
Credit: 3,380,124,703
RAC: 2,877,743

RE: I hear your reasoning,

Message 70835 in response to message 70834

Quote:
I hear your reasoning, and understand where your coming from, but I still must disagree.


Further Deponent sayeth not.

Dave Burbank
Dave Burbank
Joined: 30 Jan 06
Posts: 275
Credit: 1,548,376
RAC: 0

RE: Further Deponent

Message 70836 in response to message 70835

Quote:

Further Deponent sayeth not.

?
English isn't a strong suit of mine.

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers. - Richard Feynman

archae86
archae86
Joined: 6 Dec 05
Posts: 2,842
Credit: 3,380,124,703
RAC: 2,877,743

RE: RE: Further Deponent

Message 70837 in response to message 70836

Quote:
Quote:

Further Deponent sayeth not.

?
English isn't a strong suit of mine.


I'm dropping out of this interaction. I don't think my comments on your comments would usefully influence you, and any value I might have in guiding others is already provided by previous posts.

The quoted term is an old phrase from legal contexts--roughly it says the guy speaking is finished.

Dave Burbank
Dave Burbank
Joined: 30 Jan 06
Posts: 275
Credit: 1,548,376
RAC: 0

RE: I'm dropping out of

Message 70838 in response to message 70837

Quote:
I'm dropping out of this interaction. I don't think my comments on your comments would usefully influence you, and any value I might have in guiding others is already provided by previous posts.

I'm sorry, but it is you who sounds as if no words could change your mind.

I wish you're right, that would mean I'm running 15C cooler than I thought I was. but Intel's own Thermal Analysis Tool uses a Tjunction of 100, that gotta stand for something.

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers. - Richard Feynman

Dave Burbank
Dave Burbank
Joined: 30 Jan 06
Posts: 275
Credit: 1,548,376
RAC: 0

After a few e-mails pointing

After a few e-mails pointing me towards data sheets I'd already looked through which contained no info on the correct Tjunction value, I received this this... I hope I'm not getting the run-around.

Quote:

Hello David,

Thank you for contacting Intel(R) Technical Support.

If you are interested in obtaining this information, the only way to obtain it is to contact one of our authorized distributors. You will need to work with a Field Application Engineer (FAE) at one of our distributors. A list of our distributors can be found at the following web site:

http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/asmo-na/eng/46168.htm

Once you get to this site, select your location, then select from a list of our distributors to find one that is located in your area.

If you are outside the United States, please access the following link and select a location, to find the closest authorized distributor:
http://www.intel.com/buy/index.htm

Adolfo S.
Intel(R) Technical Support

It's like I asked them what the secret ingredient in Coke is.

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers. - Richard Feynman

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.