• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Maximum temperature for C2D?

Y

yevaud

Gawd
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
969
Haven't seen anyone discuss the maximum (under load) temperatures for the C2D procs in this forum yet.

What would you suggest as an upper limit?

I've ran a P4 northwood as high as 61°C under load for extended periods without any ill effects. I doubt that would be reasonable for the C2D.
 
Thats a really annoying sig, im suprised they havent caught that yet.
 
Low 50s should be the maximum your core2duo proc should ever get. Once you reach 55C and above the life of your processor will potentially diminish.

High 60s are fine and dandy for a northwood, but the core 2 duo is 65nm which means those temps will probably cause the chip to deteriorate quickly.
 
hey i have a question also on the base of this thread. if i were to read my cpu's temp what would be more accurate and reliable?

1.) Asus p5w dh deluxe AI BOOSTER windows program

or

2.) CORE TEMP BETA windows program

im just curious because i have an e6400 overclocked at 3ghz and AI BOOSTER shows idle temp of 35 degrees C and my load temp of 40 degrees C of temp . But the CORE TEMP program shows 51 degrees C and load 60 degrees C. when i set the e6400 to its regular FBS back to 2.14ghz the AI BOOSTER and bios show the same idle temp and the CORE TEMP does not it shows 10 degrees difference. which temp should i figure is mroe accurate? i figure the AI booster since when idle it is similar with the bios temps. is that true?
 
oh also i am not watercooling i am air cooling but not with stock hsf. i have a pretty good aftermarket fan on the cpu.
 
Drexion said:
Low 50s should be the maximum your core2duo proc should ever get. Once you reach 55C and above the life of your processor will potentially diminish.

High 60s are fine and dandy for a northwood, but the core 2 duo is 65nm which means those temps will probably cause the chip to deteriorate quickly.
Click to expand...

i poop on this entire post. its so full of wrong information, im not even going to START correcting it.
 
Drexion said:
Low 50s should be the maximum your core2duo proc should ever get. Once you reach 55C and above the life of your processor will potentially diminish.

High 60s are fine and dandy for a northwood, but the core 2 duo is 65nm which means those temps will probably cause the chip to deteriorate quickly.
Click to expand...
Are you just making it up, or are those official numbers?
 
viper650 said:
i poop on this entire post. its so full of wrong information, im not even going to START correcting it.
Click to expand...
Instead of posting this useless insult and sounding so fucking uppity, why don't you just correct the mistakes ?
You're saying running a processor 24/7 at over high temps will not shorten its lifespan ? You're saying I'm wrong about the temps ? Or you just want to boost your ego by putting me down ?

Morty said:
Are you just making it up, or are those official numbers?
Click to expand...
60+ is the danger zone, so when people ask I say dont cross 55.

111ur0.gif
(source).
 
Thanks, Drexion.
Some folks are just frigging useless. Don't sweat it- they're not worth the effort.

I've got a E6400 at a stable OC of 2.4 using PC4000 DDR ram and a 3:5 mem divider. Temps just touch 40C after several hours of Prime95. Looks like I'm good to go.
 
viper650 said:
i poop on this entire post. its so full of wrong information, im not even going to START correcting it.
Click to expand...

Then why post @ all??????????????????
 
Drexion said:
111ur0.gif
(source).
Click to expand...

I wonder why the 6300 and 6400 have a higher temperature tolerance than the 6600 and 6700. Then the 6800 is higher than the two before it, but not as high as the low-end two.

Wacky.
 
Hmmm...I thought I read 70c somewhere. Where did you get those graphs Drex?
 
Russell said:
I wonder why the 6300 and 6400 have a higher temperature tolerance than the 6600 and 6700. Then the 6800 is higher than the two before it, but not as high as the low-end two.

Wacky.
Click to expand...


Prolly the extra cache.... That would be my guess. But that doesnt explain the 6800 tho.


Weird.
 
Drexion said:
Click on the link labelled "source" :p
Click to expand...

Lol, I'm trying to fix my insomnia issues...really. :p What a load of info on that site!
 
"Cover" means the heatspreader on the CPU, or what? So the actual core can actually be a bit hotter, I would guess. Anyway, odd numbers. Maybe the fact that it's 65 nm means that it can't run at as high temperatures as other, larger, CPUs? According to Freescale, the G4 can run at 110°C maximum. I've heard reports of the G5 often hitting high 70s for long periods of time, without taking any damage.

But those were 90 nm processors. Maybe that's the reason?
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
Anyway, odd numbers. Maybe the fact that it's 65 nm means that it can't run at as high temperatures as other, larger, CPUs?
Click to expand...
Yep, not only for processors, but any equipment generally speaking, the lower the nm, the less voltage / temperature it can successfully sustain.
 
Drexion said:
Yep, not only for processors, but any equipment generally speaking, the lower the nm, the less voltage / temperature it can successfully sustain.
Click to expand...

True, it seems that as the die's get smaller the voltage has also dropped, but Not the power consumption (amps). look at the Willamette/Northwood/Prescott/Prescott 2M.
The dies got smaller and smaller but power consumption went up, up, up until recently with conroe. It is better architecture that leads to better power consumption not necessarily smaller die sizes.

Example, The larger Willamette or even Northwoods would fry at 85c but the much smaller Prescotts would run fine at 85c.
 
It makes perfect sense that the needed voltage drops as the CPU shrinks, since it means the distance the electrons need to travel is shorter. (If you build up static and get a shock, it can often be in the tens of thousands of volts...) But I think its odd that it can't operate at as high a temperature just because it's smaller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top