Help me get this Q6600 to 3.2GHz+

[Teitoku]

:thumb: Yeah..freezer 7 sucks..I didn't wanna say anything ..but..yeah.

Well gee, thanks for the after-the-fact input.
Funny how I always buy what's currently touted as top choices, only to hear 2-3 years later "Oh yeah, _____ sucks" every time.


One oddity I noticed is that Cores #0 and #1 run about ten degrees hotter than #2 and #3. I also saw this with my old cooler, though it was only a five degree difference. Is this something that known to happen with quad core CPUs, or did I just botch the past three HSF installations in the same exact way each time?

 

[Inches]

Well gee, thanks for the after-the-fact input.
Funny how I always buy what's currently touted as top choices, only to hear 2-3 years later "Oh yeah, _____ sucks" every time.


One oddity I noticed is that Cores #0 and #1 run about ten degrees hotter than #2 and #3. I also saw this with my old cooler, though it was only a five degree difference. Is this something that known to happen with quad core CPUs, or did I just botch the past three HSF installations in the same exact way each time?

I've got a X3210, which is like a Q6600 w/an 8x multi and yeah cores 0 and 1 run hotter. I think it has to do with the fact that Intel used to build quad from two dual chips and 0 and 1 get the data first, but that's just my guess.

 

[Jorona]

I've got a X3210, which is like a Q6600 w/an 8x multi and yeah cores 0 and 1 run hotter. I think it has to do with the fact that Intel used to build quad from two dual chips and 0 and 1 get the data first, but that's just my guess.

Most 65nm Quads run like this because they are two separate dies. The IHS doesn't always mate perfectly to both, so you end up with a pair of warmer cores.

45nm Quads don't have this issue.

 

[Teitoku]

Ah, makes sense! Thanks to both of you for saving me from the frustration of re-installing the heatsink for nothing.