E6600 Temps

Xilikon said:
The other reason is my inability to run it for 24 hours stable at stock speed and stock voltage, hence my observation.
Click to expand...

That would definitely be a starting point to work towards an RMA, but the temp difference between cores on idle is something that almost all C2D's I've seen experience...very common.
 
cornelious0_0 said:
That would definitely be a starting point to work towards an RMA, but the temp difference between cores on idle is something that almost all C2D's I've seen experience...very common.
Click to expand...

It's already being processed and I'm getting a full refund since the store technician also noticed instabilities.

 
neither core temp nor tat will run on my vista 64 system. tat window will appear for a flash but then close, core temp gives me a cannot load driver error. wtf?????
 
I have a new HP xw8400 workstation (2 x Xeon 5150, 2.66GHz), and the difference of temps between the cores under full load has reached over 25C!

The 2nd core on each cpu was always much hotter, and even reached 83C at one point, where the other core was only in the 50s. Most of the time the 1st cores hovered in the mid-to-upper 40s and the 2nd cores in the low-to-mid 70s.

This was with 4 instances of Prime95 (-A0 through -A3) with affinity set for each core, running the torture test w/ memory adjusted to fill up most of the ram.
 
LawGiver said:
neither core temp nor tat will run on my vista 64 system. tat window will appear for a flash but then close, core temp gives me a cannot load driver error. wtf?????
Click to expand...


TAT won't run on X64. However, for Core Temp...

Start, run, bcdedit.exe -set loadoptions DDISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECKS

This removes the forced driver signing so apps like Core Temp can now work ;)
 
I ran into the same issue with core temp on my V/64 system. I tried your run command but did not notice any difference. Do I need to reboot after running that before it will take effect?

Edit: if I want to re-enable forced driver signing, what's the command for that?
 
unclewebb
i have been wondering for a while now what my true temp was and i ran across this thread. i tried your test and lowered everything down.

e4300 = 6x200 @1.13v
batch# = Q643A026

room ambient now is 22c
coretemp 0.94 reads 25/27 at idle
coretemp 0.95 reads 42/43 at idle

so by what you have said i am assuming coretemp 0.95 is reading my chip wrong and coretmp 0.94 is right?
 
Update : They sent it to Intel as a double-check and even Intel told it's defective after disassembling the IHS themselves and seeing the solder not fully covering both cores. Without the solder covering all the core, almost half of the core isn't touching the IHS at all (this expain the bad temp differences). I just got a full refund... It's very very rare to get a defectivue CPU from the start and I was the unlucky guy to get it. At least, my gut feeling is right :)

For those who bitch at me for attempting to RMA a "good" CPU which can't be overclocked too much, just check the facts before tossing a wild accusation of fraud. My E4300 may take a bit more voltage to reach the same OC ballpark compared to others but I'm perfectly happy since it is running as expected with only the temps holding me back, which is the expected behavior.

Back to subject... unclewebb, it's a interesting finding and we should start to think the temperature readings isn't a accurate way to gauge how hot it is but merely to trip a throttle or a shutdown. For this purpose, accuracy take the back seat.

 
Start, run, bcdedit.exe -set loadoptions DDISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECKS
Click to expand...

I still cannot get V/64 to run CoreTemp 0.95 after using the above run command.

Any suggestions?
 
Worth a try.

Edit: but it didn't work. Once I acknowledge the driver failed to load msg, it keeps giving me the same msg over and over until I kill it (CoreTemp) with Process Explorer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top