My e6600 hit over 113 degrees. What can I do?

Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
15
I moved my machine today, and unbeknownst to me, the stupid retention clips on the stock hsf came loose, and the hsf lost contact with the cpu. Before I realized this happened, I booted the machine into vista and had core temp report temperatures of 113 degrees celcius and higher. Needless to say, I'm pretty upset now. If I just reseat the hsf (with new thermal compound of course) should the processor be all right? Thanks for any advice.
 
Did the computer crash or anything? If you shut it off yourself it is probably ok... the only way to really tell is to reseat the heatsink and turn it on.
 
I shut the machine off myself. When I saw the temps in the tray, i just hit the power button. I didn't even want to wait for windows to shut down at those kinds of temps. It seemed to work find into the boot, just slower. Would the processor have throttled itself enough to prevent damage? I know they're supposed to be protected even if there is no heat sink attached, but I'm skeptical of that. At least it didn't catch on fire. . .
 
I shut the machine off myself. When I saw the temps in the tray, i just hit the power button. I didn't even want to wait for windows to shut down at those kinds of temps. It seemed to work find into the boot, just slower. Would the processor have throttled itself enough to prevent damage? I know they're supposed to be protected even if there is no heat sink attached, but I'm skeptical of that. At least it didn't catch on fire. . .

It should throttle down if you didn't disable it in bios. You might want to think of enabling a shutdown temperature in bios to make sure it doesn't happen again.
 
It should throttle down if you didn't disable it in bios. You might want to think of enabling a shutdown temperature in bios to make sure it doesn't happen again.

That's a good idea. Man, I haven't had to set a shut down temp since my Cyrix 686. . . Why on earth did Intel go with these terrible tension screws to hold the hsf on? I don't think I've ever hated any computer component more in my life than these stupid stock hsfs. . .
 
The CPU will throttle down to save itself at a certain point no matter what is set in the BIOS, there is a built in thermal tripping point which is set at some ungodly level only known to Intel gurus.

Check this video out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxNUK3U73SI

Yes, it features an old Pentium 4 but the functionality is in the current processors from Intel as well.
 
I forgot about that video too. When I first saw it, I was a devoted AMD user, and it made me sad. Who would have guessed that now it could be a relief to see it, lol.
 
Dont think at stock you can fry one of these. They take care of them self quite well ;)
 
The GF ran my computer (E6300 at the time) for over 20 minutes, checking her email and such, while I was in the middle of setting up the recent WC loop. It had no heatsink on it whatsoever. Bare chip, pieces EVERYWHERE.

She said to me, "Geez, for all the money you spent on this computer, it's not really all that fast"

The look I gave her, can only be described as "the look which a cow gives an oncoming train" :eek:
 
The GF ran my computer (E6300 at the time) for over 20 minutes, checking her email and such, while I was in the middle of setting up the recent WC loop. It had no heatsink on it whatsoever. Bare chip, pieces EVERYWHERE.

She said to me, "Geez, for all the money you spent on this computer, it's not really all that fast"

The look I gave her, can only be described as "the look which a cow gives an oncoming train" :eek:

That's a good story.

I agree with everyone else, Intel's built in thermal protection should keep the chip from cooking itself. Wouldn't want to find out for myself though.
 
Ever see the video where the chip blows a hole through the motherboard? I forget where I saw it, it was a long time ago. Good stuff :p
 
Ive seen that one, a cpu cant do that, its fake, they put a firecracker under the cpu.
 
You guys are just jealous that Amd is better at letting the magic smoke out of electronics.
 
The "worldwide standard" nowadays and for the last decade or so has been to quote or discuss CPU or computer temps in general in Celsius, not Fahrenheit, sooo... 113F = 45C which is fairly nominal. Intel processors are rated up to what, 74-75C these days before thermal shutdown occurs - whoever said they had their C2D up to 100C is smoking something he shouldn't... might have been 100F but it most definitely was not 100C - the C2D would have shut itself off long before that temp could even be in range.

45C is fine, nothing to seriously worry about but it wouldn't hurt to possibly take a look at the cooling in the system, or redo the CPU and HSF with some better thermal compound if you can. Stock HSF thermal compounds work but don't provide the best interface - Arctic Silver 5 is arguably the best "stuff" on the market today when applied correctly, and that's another thread all by itself sooo...
 
I booted the machine into vista and had core temp report temperatures of 113 degrees celcius and higher.
From the op.

The "worldwide standard" nowadays and for the last decade or so has been to quote or discuss CPU or computer temps in general in Celsius, not Fahrenheit, sooo... 113F = 45C

whoever said they had their C2D up to 100C is smoking something he shouldn't... might have been 100F but it most definitely was not 100C - the C2D would have shut itself off long before that temp could even be in range.

I think you missed the Celsius in the op's post. I do agree though that it shouldn't ever get that high since it is supposed to throttle and shutdown before then.
 
Well, that's why I went into detail about how such temps are impossible with today's processors. The only way one would ever hit 113C would be if the entire thermal protection circuit itself was totally FUBARed and the chip just skyrocketed out of control in terms of temps. It would probably have exploded around 105-ish, so the temps quoted in the OP were obviously wrong to begin with, hence my point.

So aside from the fact that something wasn't calibrated in the first place (a known issue on some boards with some CPUs that can be fixed with BIOS updates), the entire situation and readings were pooched from the gitgo. :)
 
Well, that's why I went into detail about how such temps are impossible with today's processors. The only way one would ever hit 113C would be if the entire thermal protection circuit itself was totally FUBARed and the chip just skyrocketed out of control in terms of temps. It would probably have exploded around 105-ish, so the temps quoted in the OP were obviously wrong to begin with, hence my point.

So aside from the fact that something wasn't calibrated in the first place (a known issue on some boards with some CPUs that can be fixed with BIOS updates), the entire situation and readings were pooched from the gitgo. :)

I remember a test with an amd processor to see how high they could get the temperature before the chip became unstable. I think they got to 90c and that was as high as they could get but it was still stable. I'm going to try and dig that up.
 
I think there's still a video out there someplace of some idiots (the world is full of 'em, yanno) that had an AMD Athlon machine, might have been a Celeron I can't remember for sure, and they were holding the HSF onto the CPU (it wasn't attached normally as it should have been). They turned the power on and held it there for a few moments, then pulled it off and the whole processor just exploded in a matter of seconds. Now, given those were older processors that typically ran even hotter than today's Core processors and AMD x2 series and Phenoms, but even so... without proper cooling - hell, without any cooling at all like that example of removing the HSF totally - the damned things literally will explode in a short period of time.

Amazing they work at all, sometimes. :)

But if the OP's temps were reading 113C at any point, there was something terribly inaccurate about the readings or the software that was reading it. Defective thermal diode, etc, could be a lot of reasons, but that CPU was never running at 113 Celsius, it just can't happen.
 
Ive seen that one, a cpu cant do that, its fake, they put a firecracker under the cpu.

Ever see the video where the chip blows a hole through the motherboard? I forget where I saw it, it was a long time ago. Good stuff :p

I think there's still a video out there someplace of some idiots (the world is full of 'em, yanno) that had an AMD Athlon machine, might have been a Celeron I can't remember for sure, and they were holding the HSF onto the CPU (it wasn't attached normally as it should have been). They turned the power on and held it there for a few moments, then pulled it off and the whole processor just exploded in a matter of seconds. Now, given those were older processors that typically ran even hotter than today's Core processors and AMD x2 series and Phenoms, but even so... without proper cooling - hell, without any cooling at all like that example of removing the HSF totally - the damned things literally will explode in a short period of time.

Amazing they work at all, sometimes. :)

But if the OP's temps were reading 113C at any point, there was something terribly inaccurate about the readings or the software that was reading it. Defective thermal diode, etc, could be a lot of reasons, but that CPU was never running at 113 Celsius, it just can't happen.

You talking about that video? If so I have seen it, its a fake.
 
I distinctly remember watching ZDTV (before it became TechTV) and "The Screensavers" many years ago. They had an episode where they were building an Abit BP6 dual Celeron system. They got the whole thing done (it was done in bits and pieces, of course, off camera most of the time) but the actual "unveiling" was live on the air. It was absolutely priceless... they checked everything like 3 times, then they turned on the power.

1...

2...

3...

BAM!!!

Like a freakin' gunshot, about 6 seconds after they turned it on this incredibly loud "BANG" was heard, and smoke was seen coming from the case which had the side removed. The HSF on one of the Celerons hadn't been clipped down properly and the CPU exploded in the socket - on live TV.

And they call these people experts... ugh. :)

So, CPUs can and do explode very quickly, at moderately high temps - but 113C? That damned thing would nearly evaporate at that temp. :D
 
So, CPUs can and do explode very quickly, at moderately high temps - but 113C? That damned thing would nearly evaporate at that temp. :D
I highly doubt that it would explode or evaporate at 113C thats not that hot. If you check the video that was linked in this thread the amd processor burns itself out at 298C which is a great deal hotter.
 
But if the OP's temps were reading 113C at any point, there was something terribly inaccurate about the readings or the software that was reading it. Defective thermal diode, etc, could be a lot of reasons, but that CPU was never running at 113 Celsius, it just can't happen.

These temps were from core temp. I have been running core temp, TAM, and speedfan in conjunction for a while, and if anything, core temp outputs the lowest temp of the three programs. I know the temperature seems outrageous, but there is no reason to suspect that the reading is inaccurate, given the fact that core temp has always been accurate for me.
 
You guys are getting your Celsius and your Fahrenheit scales mixed up. 298C would be roughly 568F so, there's simply no way in this reality a processor would ever get anywhere near 568 degrees Fahrenheit - it's simply impossible.

The 113 was most likely being read as Fahrenheit and not Celsius since 113C would be roughly 235F - the E6600 has a thermal rating of ~61 Celsius (140F) and an absolute max of 80 Celsius (176F). There is simply no way that processor ever ran at 113 Celsius, period. It would never get within 33 degrees Celsius of it unless as I stated before the thermal protection circuit was totally obliterated somehow and in all my decades of working with PCs I have never heard of a CPU simply failing to shut down or protect itself, it just doesn't happen.

The chance of such an occurrence - a chip failing to protect itself with thermal protection and shutting itself down - is basically the same as the chance that someone has/had an E6600 that was running steady at 113 Celsius. In other words, zero. :D Call up Intel technical support and ask "Why is my E6600 running at 113 Celsius?" and they'll hang up on you laughing.
 
You guys are getting your Celsius and your Fahrenheit scales mixed up. 298C would be roughly 568F so, there's simply no way in this reality a processor would ever get anywhere near 568 degrees Fahrenheit - it's simply impossible.

yep yep. you would have fan goop all over everything
 
You guys are getting your Celsius and your Fahrenheit scales mixed up. 298C would be roughly 568F so, there's simply no way in this reality a processor would ever get anywhere near 568 degrees Fahrenheit - it's simply impossible.

Did you watch the video? The proof is there. A processor isn't going to explode at those temperatures it will just fry as it did in that video. The old amd processors had no thermal protection so they could go that high with no heatsink. Even manufacturing processors they use a low temp solder that requires 350+ F temperatures to melt and the processors doesn't die at this temp.
 
I think electronics are a little more heat resistant than some people here think. While I'm dubious of the ability of the OP to have really reached 113C based on Intel's thermal ontrols, it certainly isn't impossible to believe that the chip could withstand those temps if it did. The melting point of silicon is 1414C, hence its use in things like pot holders and baking dishes and such, so 113C is pretty much nothing. We've had electronic chips working on the moon (daytime surface temp 110-120C) and even on Venus (daytime surface temp 480C) so again, 113C is not out of the realm of possibility.
 
100C+ is easily possible on a Core 2. Iv seen it on laptops alot. The fundamental architecture is the same so it is not impossible for a desktop to reach those temps.
 
100C+ is easily possible on a Core 2. Iv seen it on laptops alot. The fundamental architecture is the same so it is not impossible for a desktop to reach those temps.
Except you'll never get that high on a desktop chip the thermal protection will shut it down. I don't know if laptop chips have the same thermal limit, I know I had a P-M that got crazy hot (hot enough to burn your lap where the cpu was). If the chip were to reach 100c I doubt any real harm would be done since we see video cards reaching high 80's and low 90's in the Celsius range.
 
You folks reporting 80C+ temps must have something wrong in your machines, or your temp indicators are way off in terms of accuracy. When Intel says "The maximum temp this processor will be able to withstand is 80C" that means when and if the processor core thermal diode reads 80C that processor will shut itself down. Whatever your temp monitoring software says is irrelevant; what matters is what that thermal diode is actually reading.

Unless, as I stated above, the entire thermal protection circuit is defective itself, those processors will not function over 80C, period.

So, either your temp monitoring software needs to be adjusted or recalibrated, or you're doing something really wrong, but that 80C cutoff point is just that: it's going to cut itself off to protect itself from thermal damage.
 
The first PC I ever built was an AMD Athlon 1100+. I saved up for months working my first job at age 16. The proc itself was about $250. So I put the thing together and turn it on, and within 15 seconds my case starts smoking. I forgot to put thermal paste on. Pulled the proc out and there were scorch marks.
 
You folks reporting 80C+ temps must have something wrong in your machines, or your temp indicators are way off in terms of accuracy. When Intel says "The maximum temp this processor will be able to withstand is 80C" that means when and if the processor core thermal diode reads 80C that processor will shut itself down. Whatever your temp monitoring software says is irrelevant; what matters is what that thermal diode is actually reading.

Unless, as I stated above, the entire thermal protection circuit is defective itself, those processors will not function over 80C, period.

So, either your temp monitoring software needs to be adjusted or recalibrated, or you're doing something really wrong, but that 80C cutoff point is just that: it's going to cut itself off to protect itself from thermal damage.

dude. seriously? i'm sorry, just stop talking about things you don't know about

the processor can't function over 80c? please, that's not even to the boiling point of water. most plastics don't even melt by then.

i have taken a few chips that i know report temperatures pretty accurately, and turned off the fan just to see how hot i could get it. i saw 115c on my 3200+ clawhammer back in the day. i've run an fx-55 without a heatsink at all. i have a conroe-l that definitely broke your magical 80c, at elevated voltages and mhz no less ;) (though i suspect the last one to report around 5-10c high)

they are way way more robust than you make them out to be. hell, even the laptop chips are usually rated to 90-100c.. i had a 3700+ newark a while back, which is meant for laptops, and i explicitly remembering the rated temp being 95c.

now keep in mind that amd's laptop and desktop chips use the same exact silicon. the rated temperature is not the temperature at which the chip will fail, but the temperature at which the company rates the chip to function without errors using stock voltage and mhz. though just like how you can almost always exceed the stock mhz quite significantly with stock voltage, you can also go significantly above the rated temperature

that said, i am in no way saying that high temperatures are good for cpus. a good general rule of thumb is that for every 10c increase, the approximate lifespan halfs, all else remaining constant.


man, where's mwarps when i need him? :p
 
The GF ran my computer (E6300 at the time) for over 20 minutes, checking her email and such, while I was in the middle of setting up the recent WC loop. It had no heatsink on it whatsoever. Bare chip, pieces EVERYWHERE.

She said to me, "Geez, for all the money you spent on this computer, it's not really all that fast"

The look I gave her, can only be described as "the look which a cow gives an oncoming train" :eek:

And whatever happens to the good old CPU shutting down if it becomes too hot? Doesn't work anymore or what? I know for a fact past CPUs could do that. Newer CPUs become dumber, I guess.
 
Back
Top