Canandaigua NY :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
Printable View
Canandaigua NY :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
I'm pretty sure I'll be getting a B3. It will be very hard to believe if I get a G0. However, I won't be sad if I get a B3.
Thanks for pointing this out as an advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakir_Akbari
The definitions shown on Processor Spec Finder page are helpful
"Thermal Design Power: (Also referred to as Thermal Guideline) The maximum amount of heat which a thermal solution must be able to dissipate from the processor so that the processor will operate under normal operating conditions.
Thermal Specification: The thermal specification shown is the maximum case temperature at the maximum Thermal Design Power (TDP) value for that processor. It is measured at the geometric center on the topside of the processor integrated heat spreader. For processors without integrated heat spreaders such as mobile processors, the thermal specification is referred to as the junction temperature (Tj). The maximum junction temperature is defined by an activation of the processor Intel® Thermal Monitor. The Intel Thermal Monitor’s automatic mode is used to indicate that the maximum TJ has been reached. "
The Q6600 B-3 has
Thermal Design Power: 105W
Thermal Specification: 62.2C
http://processorfinder.intel.com/Det...l9um&OrdCode=#
and a Q6600 G-0 has
Thermal Design Power: 95W
Thermal Specification: 71C
http://processorfinder.intel.com/Det...lacr&OrdCode=#
After reading the Intel Processor Spec Finder page , I think the lower TDPs of the new steppings mean that the CPUs now run stable at higher temperatures. I have mistakenly believed that a TDP changing from 105w to 95w meant the processor uses 10W less power. What it seems to mean is that a heatsink needs to dissipate 10W less heat because the CPU runs stable at higher temperatures.
So I think a correct re-wording of the specs for a Q6600 G-0 is that a CPU cooler must dissipate thermal energy at a rate of 95W to keep Tcase temperatures under 71C to prevent throttling at 2.4GHz.
Likewise, X3210 G-0 requires a cooler that will dissipate heat at a rate of 100W to keep Tcase under 85C at 2.13GHz.
http://processorfinder.intel.com/Det...lacu&OrdCode=#
Core temperatures could be used as a conservative approximation to Tcase.
One cannot infer stable operation at higher frequencies simply requires that Tcase stays below the Thermal Specification of a lower frequency. Increasing voltage to make an increased frequency work increases heat exponentially as well as introducing issues besides heat. At some point as voltage increases, TDP increases and Tcase drops.
For example, the QX6850 G-0 needs a cooler to dissipate 130W to keep Tcase below 64.5C for 3GHz operation.
Here is one resource that shows delta T values (temp difference between ambient air and cpu) for a lot of CPU Coolers. If you are overclocking, you would look at the 150W column for values less than (Thermal Specification) minus (air temperature on the intake side of the heatsink).
http://www.frostytech.com/articlevie...id=2150&page=5
I believe you can increase frequency without impacting TDP and TCase. Increasing vcore to maintain the frequency is what creates havoc with the TDP and TCase
Got my X3210. Its a B3 as expected. I'll start testing later tonight :)
got mine as well, it is B3.. I'll test later tonight or tomorrow hopefully, I am bleeding my watercooling right now.
Looking forward to hearing some overclocking results.
I got a B3 also. Stepping is: L644F013
Thanks guys I'm going to wait to see a few results before I order but I also have to unload my current chip first.
So what is everyone getting? I'm getting around 3Ghz on mine. After that I have to give it too much volts, simply not worth it.
I am at 3 GHz now, with volt on auto. It's a B3. But I can't get coretemp to work, so I'm not sure about the temps. I really like coretemp, but it will not display my X3210 temps.
A more accurate comparison for the Q6600 would be the X3220. The Q6600 is 2.4 stock 9x266, the X3220 is 9x266 as well.. However, the x3210 is 8x266, thus it is no wonder it has different thermal specifications at stock!
the X3220 and X3210 seem like really affordable quad core chips.. hmmm maybe i should order one :shrug:
I solved my coretemp issue, had to enable all cores.
So far 3550 at 1.51 volt stable now. B3
What kind of cooling are you guys using? I'm hoping to get 3.2 below 1.5v.
Nice, temps? Cooling?Quote:
Originally Posted by hifiking
I'm using a Tuniq and can get to 3Ghz @ 1.35v stable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deux
Temps, 60C idle and 70'ish load orthos. Watercooling. I lapped the X3210, I have seen pancakes more even than the original X3210.Quote:
Originally Posted by SP33DFR34K
I should be ok then, Just need a new block to replace my storm
Forgot about this thread and started a new one...sorry!!
Anyhow, the link below is for starters.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...02&postcount=1
Actually, they changed the thermal specs on the X3220 as well - same as the X3210.Quote:
Originally Posted by vintage_guitar
Cap limit on mine seems to be 8x380 (3040). Any more, no matter how much volts I give it just crashes in Prime.
SP33 what board are you running? These Quads are bit more difficult to reach a high FSB. Also older 965/975/680I boards that were first revs have a hard time getting over 400FSB with Quads.
Abit QuadGT Bios 11Quote:
Originally Posted by vengance_01
I will have to lap my x3210 as temps are a little over the top. If Intel is so concerned about temps then perhaps they should address the GC issue as they will certainly run cooler with a FLAT IHS. This is the 4th CPU I have had to lap.
why is xeon cheaper then q6600 ????