Heat probs reported for Intel E8400s

Quote:

---

Temperature rising as overclockers break into sweat

By INQUIRER staff: Friday, 01 February 2008, 9:34 AM

A HEAP of heat problems with Intel’s E8400 microprocessor are being reported on a host of hardware forums.

Users are claiming that the sensor diodes aren’t up to scratch and that’s causing the overclockers to get overheated themselves.

That’s not something Intel is admitting. A response from an Intel techie to a user over at OC Forums claims it has nothing to report on sensor problems but that just seems to be adding fuel to an already crackling blaze.

A search on Saint Google reveals there’s plenty of heated discussion raising people’s temperatures around the world. µ

---

Link

Some links for the threads:
XS thread
XS thread
XS thread
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread....post1032003123
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?p=9946992

Anyone knows what's going on with temp. reports?Maybe a botched readings?

OMFG bad sensors, the end of the world! :rolleyes:

Sure intel just drops 10% from sensor reading, making it look good in reviews!!


;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Sure intel just drops 10% from sensor reading, making it look good in reviews!!


;)

---

XS thread
XS thread
XS thread

The question is the CPU really get hot? or is just the sensor mis reporting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

XS thread
XS thread
XS thread

---

Oh boy,
Should have taken a look at the links posted in first post. :ROTF:

Sorry! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metro.cl

The question is the CPU really get hot? or is just the sensor mis reporting...

---

Yep,that's a big question.Anyone knows if someone tried to measure the temps directly on the IHS?

Lets hope this temp problem gets sorted.

Looks like when I re-bench my E8400 this weekend I'll stick a probe on the IHS and see what sort of temps I get. I know they overclock like beasts and that works for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler

Looks like when I re-bench my E8400 this weekend I'll stick a probe on the IHS and see what sort of temps I get. I know they overclock like beasts and that works for me.

---

With your measurement on the very IHS,it should make it easier for us to know if the temps are just botched readings or the real deal(although the temp. of the core differs from the IHS temp. of course).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metro.cl

The question is the CPU really get hot? or is just the sensor mis reporting...

---

Wasn't that an issue when the e6x50's were released? Only on the other side of the scale?

Since they use less power than the E6xxx series its easy to conclude they dont run hot, but rather colder.

Anyone tried with TAT instead to measure the thermals?

Sounds more like wrong numbers from the program(s) used.

There are certainly something wrong with the temperature of E8400. Ex, my Q6600 at 1.58v loaded at 65C when i touch the radiator it felt warm. On the other hand, my E8400 @ 1.4v loaded at 70C, i feel very cool on my radiator.

its not just the e8400's, the qx9650's have the same problem. probably an issue on all the 45nm processors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

OMFG bad sensors, the end of the world! :rolleyes:

---

Not the end of the world... But a huge annoyance nonetheless. Especially for those that are overclocking. Kinda tough to monitor the temps if they are incorrect now isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Since they use less power than the E6xxx series its easy to conclude they dont run hot, but rather colder.

---

HUUUUGE misconception.

Okay, maybe not huge, but still a notable misconception I see at a lot of places.

Basically: yes, it may have a lower heat output per clock-volt, but because the die size is significantly smaller (and IHSs are not super functional), you cannot make generalizations about temps. Power density is no longer the same.

In fact, each HSF handles different heat-dump characteristics differently...some have very high load capacities but use it on a small chip at medium load and it can't move the heat away fast enough leading to high temps. The opposite is also true for some sinks.

And not to sound snobby or anything, but you go to phase/DI/LN2 and OC, you're largely flying blind for CPU temps--why do people rely on them so much on air/water? Heck, when B1 ES Conroes were around, we had nothing to know the temps and that didn't stop us from getting the exact same clocks we would eventually get with temp software. Practice your HSF mount, and just overclock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GripS

Not the end of the world... But a huge annoyance nonetheless. Especially for those that are overclocking. Kinda tough to monitor the temps if they are incorrect now isn't it?

---

Why is an annoyance? If my E8400 is rock stable with a moderate voltage but the reported temps are too high, I'm perfectly fine since it's stable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Why is an annoyance? If my E8400 is rock stable with a moderate voltage but the reported temps are too high, I'm perfectly fine since it's stable.

---

On a moderate voltage it's ok,BUT some people are considering putting more than 1.45V(which in and on itself could cause electromigration effect after long periods of time and damage the chip,even without taking the temperatures in consideration).So the temp. readings are important,but as Bail_w said in his post,the heatsink of his cooler felt cold so the chip probably has either the bad IHS contact and therefore bad heat transfer ,or the temps. are simply misreported(which could just annoy some people who are used to knowing every little detail in their precious system,and i personally can't blame them)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

HUUUUGE misconception.

Okay, maybe not huge, but still a notable misconception I see at a lot of places.

Basically: yes, it may have a lower heat output per clock-volt, but because the die size is significantly smaller (and IHSs are not super functional), you cannot make generalizations about temps. Power density is no longer the same.

In fact, each HSF handles different heat-dump characteristics differently...some have very high load capacities but use it on a small chip at medium load and it can't move the heat away fast enough leading to high temps. The opposite is also true for some sinks.

And not to sound snobby or anything, but you go to phase/DI/LN2 and OC, you're largely flying blind for CPU temps--why do people rely on them so much on air/water? Heck, when B1 ES Conroes were around, we had nothing to know the temps and that didn't stop us from getting the exact same clocks we would eventually get with temp software. Practice your HSF mount, and just overclock.

---

Ok if we stay at stock clocks for abit. 45nm uses about half the wattage from what we have seen in reviews. And the 45nm chips is about 74% the size of 65nm.

Also if you check the usual sensor reading programs. They all seem to show very different temperatures. In short, we just need updates to the programs with the new sensor information and base values.

The version of TAT program floating around does not work with the Wolfdale's. Intel has responded that TAT was released for professional software developers only under a NDA (non disclosure agreement). It may or may not be updated and was not intended for general public use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Ok if we stay at stock clocks for abit. 45nm uses about half the wattage from what we have seen in reviews. And the 45nm chips is about 74% the size of 65nm.

Also if you check the usual sensor reading programs. They all seem to show very different temperatures. In short, we just need updates to the programs with the new sensor information and base values.

---

No argument there, but we don't buy expensive motherboards and HSFs to stay at stock settings.

1) they have lower stock voltages, which is huge for heat (considering user voltages haven't really gone down...), and
2) reach higher clocks

Power density is up for our purposes, therefore we should not expect OC'd temps to necessarily be better, even if heat output is lower.

Anyway, my main point is that temps are essentially useless for overclocking. Once you know you have good HSF/IHS contact, that's all you need (at least if you know what you're doing...and if you don't, don't overclock until you do).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

On a moderate voltage it's ok,BUT some people are considering putting more than 1.45V(which in and on itself could cause electromigration effect after long periods of time and damage the chip,even without taking the temperatures in consideration).So the temp. readings are important,but as Bail_w said in his post,the heatsink of his cooler felt cold so the chip probably has either the bad IHS contact and therefore bad heat transfer ,or the temps. are simply misreported(which could just annoy some people who are used to knowing every little detail in their precious system,and i personally can't blame them)

---

That's the point, some people are annoyed. As you usually say, % of overclockers and people that are actually worried about their temps is negligible. But for that %:

a) It's a bad contact between the IHS and the core itself. Intel must fix it.
b) The sensors are bad calibrated. I want them fixed, but I understand that most of the people don't care about it, so it won't have priority in Intel's problems-to-fix list.
c) They are really that hot. Intel can't do anything. This one is impossible though, because 45nm and low voltages used. The reason is a) or b).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

That's the point, some people are annoyed. As you usually say, % of overclockers and people that are actually worried about their temps is negligible. But for that %:

a) It's a bad contact between the IHS and the core itself. Intel must fix it.
b) The sensors are bad calibrated. I want them fixed, but I understand that most of the people don't care about it, so it won't have priority in Intel's problems-to-fix list.
c) They are really that hot. Intel can't do anything. This one is impossible though, because 45nm and low voltages used. The reason is a) or b).

---

You need a few more options in your list.

d) There is no problem, only with OC due to heat density.
e) Programs we use to read sensors are doing it wrongly. (Specially considering 3 programs gives 3 very different results).

@STaRGaZeR

The c) part is not entirely impossible(look at Vapor's posts).Smaller die size coupled with higher voltages(than required for the 45nm process) and coupled with large increases in working frequencies(over 1Ghz overclocks) could lead to to problems(heat density).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

You need a few more options in your list.

d) There is no problem, only with OC due to heat density.
e) Programs we use to read sensors are doing it wrongly. (Specially considering 3 programs gives 3 very different results).

---

d) I don't think is that one, because it happens at stock too.
e) The only problem with monitoring programs is that the guy who actually writes the program (I'm talking about CoreTemp and Everest) has to adjust the Tj.Max temp for every processor model out there. Once it's adjusted, and for E8400 is already adjusted, the problem can only be a) or b).

Quote:

---

@STaRGaZeR

The c) part is not entirely impossible(look at Vapor's posts).Smaller die size coupled with higher voltages(than required for the 45nm process) and coupled with large increases in working frequencies(over 1Ghz overclocks) could lead to to problems(heat density).

---

Yeah, but again it happens at stock too, so no high voltages. And at stock voltage the heat density of the 45nm parts alone is not enough to create the problem.

I think the reason is simply a bad calibrated sensor, and nothing else.

I don't really give a $hit about the temp sensors, it's the degradation reports from guys using only 1.4v and less that worries me.

I think Intel is lying to you boys:D:doh: Did I just say that:rotf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrcape

I don't really give a $hit about the temp sensors, it's the degradation reports from guys using only 1.4v and less that worries me.

---

I was wondering about that one too.Can you post some links for the reports ,please?

Well informal, they aren't officially reports, but symptoms reported. I can poke around and find some links if you'd like. There were posts on this site about it. Of course, it was brushed off as a PSU or CPU issue lol. There was also a poll going on at some greek forum that had interesting results showing degradation over a week or so of time with low~medium volts.

The idea of what high volts are goes out the window as it should with this new architecture. I think it totally skews the current methodology of how to get a good, safe over clock. That's why I don't see why people think the current board and bios offerings make any sense. Sure 45nm can run on them, but it's starting to seem like putting a porche engine in a mustang body.

This is sorta bringing up a chicken before the egg argument. So what side is everyone taking? Are these new chips designed for todays boards and chipsets? Are todays boards and chipsets designed for yesterday's chips? Does fancy cooling matter as much anymore?

Thanks for the informations mrcape.
It sure sounds like electromigration effect,but i must say i'm a bit sceptical about it happening in "weeks time-frame".I would've expected it to show up after several months of heavy overvolting(>1.5V),not in weeks time.
Could it be that since the increased stress on the VRM(after excessive OCing),some of the components of the mobos started to fail?It would have looked like you described it.But if the chips(in question) experienced the same behaviour in a brand new motherboards,then it would mean sure degradation.Also like you said,it could be PSU failing,too.
If you get a hold of some links,post 'em up please.Thanks :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

I think Intel is lying to you boys:D:doh: Did I just say that:rotf:

---

And somewhere in this forum you talked about AMD thread crapping... well done brother :up:

I agree with Vapor we are getting too hung up on temps and VID's and pack dates and week this that and the other. Just bench it and see how you go. You'll either be lucky or unlucky with the cpu you have.

As for degredation I'd like to see a mass of people on XS get it first rather than rumours from a Greek forum etc. It is true though that this is a new process using new metals and we are sticking 50% more volts through a cpu which has smaller surface area, so if you need a long lived chip then just give it 1.3v and hit 4Ghz or abouts. That's still not shabby.

But if you are XS then stop whinging about things and just do it. I'm doing 4.5GHz plus at 1.55v.

On a stock Intel heatsink.

Which aint bad at all......

Regards

Andy

And snap into a slim jim!

Accurate temps reading is meaningful data.

VTT / FSB voltage will cause the cpu to overheat if it is up too high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FUGGER

VTT / FSB voltage will cause the cpu to overheat if it is up too high.

---

no disrespect, but i dont think much users that oc actually touch more than vmem and vcore (maybe vmch and vpcie).

Anyways it could be very well true, that high VTT/FSB voltage increases the temprature.

Not to beat a dead horse here but this is something I said well over a year ago. Temp does not matter. What matters is stability. If your stabil then your overclock is good...


Ply

2 x E8400@1.425v, 4 GHz 24/7, TT BT VX = 0 problems.

If they die, I'll report here.

Running @ 1.45V for 2 weeks so far fine. Temps ~40C till TJmax :) Heatpipes are cold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

no disrespect, but i dont think much users that oc actually touch more than vmem and vcore (maybe vmch and vpcie).

Anyways it could be very well true, that high VTT/FSB voltage increases the temprature.

---

AUTO sometimes might be even worse because MB itself sets too high value if you overclock

Reading over the forums (briefly) sounds like what we see with Everest with Phenom before the recent build or with CoreTemp with Brisbane... there is no official support from AMD or Intel on providing information on the DTS other than what the author of CoreTemp has extracted for C2D's...

It could be that the calibration algorithm has simply changed or that the wrong MSRs are being read, and the legacy MSRs are just getting the wrong digital value.... this is probably nothing at all, other than the Inquirers seemling clocklike attempt to smudge/blackmark any Intel new release by digging around in the forums.

Then again, there could be a problem with the DTS and temperatures are better taken from the socket than at the core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Thanks for the informations mrcape.
It sure sounds like electromigration effect,but i must say i'm a bit sceptical about it happening in "weeks time-frame".I would've expected it to show up after several months of heavy overvolting(>1.5V),not in weeks time.
Could it be that since the increased stress on the VRM(after excessive OCing),some of the components of the mobos started to fail?It would have looked like you described it.But if the chips(in question) experienced the same behaviour in a brand new motherboards,then it would mean sure degradation.Also like you said,it could be PSU failing,too.
If you get a hold of some links,post 'em up please.Thanks :).

---

It is not electromigration that should be a concern with respect to the newness of this product, but TDDB.

(If I read the context of your refrence to EM correctly).

If there are people concerned about a safe overclock, my advice would be never exceed the Vmax spec'ed by Intel... as this is the spec that Intel states the CPU can handle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwi

AUTO sometimes might be even worse because MB itself sets too high value if you overclock

---

yeah i agree, but most go manual anyway so VTT/FSB stays the same. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

yeah i agree, but most go manual anyway so VTT/FSB stays the same. ;)

---

Yeah how could you go auto with vtt/gtl if it's (auto) designed for 65nm which needs more? For me, setting it lower made all the difference in getting a stable setting at or over 4ghz.

This is a great paper. I'd like to see a continuation with present day examples (boards/chipsets/chips).

How to figure out if you have a bad sensor:
1. Attach ln2 tube
2. Top off tube with LN2
3. Check sensor

If it says it cold bugging and registers as 48C, bad sensor :)

On my board in windows core temp reports 42c minimum temp no matter what, load are 51 core 0 and 61 core 1, that's at 4ghz. On the other hand gigabyte's cpu utlity reports 30 idle and 51 load. Cpu doesn't experience any problems beside one, C1E when enabled crashes system.

is the temp sensor prob only with E8400s? how about E8200 & E8500?

I'm concerned about temp readings on these cpu as mine HAS degraded over the space of a week, with 4ghz first requiring 1.3375, and now requires 1.3825, 4250mhz used to require 1.425, now requires 1.4625.


Loss of clocks happened over the space of a day..one day i primed 4ghz for 12.5 hrs, and when done, went up to 4.25ghz, again primed for 12 hrs.

Left the systems on idle, came back, it wasn't stable. Prime would not run for more than 1 minute.

I spent some time verifying the board was ok, that ram was not the cause, all parts proven stable using other components.

So, during this, cpu was under fuson block in Maximus Formula SE. I never mounted cpu with aircooler. But temps never budged from 35c CPU and 40c DTS0 and DTS1.

So, on air, temps went over 70c DTS at stock, which seems a bit high for 45nm, but oh well.

I'll be checking throttling next time I get a chance...I don't think it's an issue tho...

And I'm sorry, but "stable" isn't good enough for me. Stable can include TM1/2 throttle, with no notice given to user, without knowing what to look for. Without accurate temp readings, it's impossible to verify that throttle is an issue without specific software, and hence my need for such temp readings...it's nice to know how far away you are...

no hw mfg actually advertizes or guarantees a thermal diode to work properly.
you could have a cpu or gpu or other chip with defective temp reading and it would not get rma'ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

no hw mfg actually advertizes or guarantees a thermal diode to work properly.
you could have a cpu or gpu or other chip with defective temp reading and it would not get rma'ed

---

I agree with you. So how do we go about getting accurate on die temp readings? maybe they could leave a hole in the IHS so we could use our own thermal probes.

The thermal diode could only be calibrated for stock voltage anyway.

Is the problem only with the E8400s ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ANP !!!

Is the problem only with the E8400s ??

---

and the new 45nm Q. ps, can u pm me a link to a bigger version of your avatar? :clap::D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ugly n Grey

I agree with you. So how do we go about getting accurate on die temp readings? maybe they could leave a hole in the IHS so we could use our own thermal probes.

---

Would this cause problems with mounting?

I was thinking about the SIDE of the IHS not the top :) lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ugly n Grey

I was thinking about the SIDE of the IHS not the top :) lol

---

That would be wise.

I once purchased a 5.25" bay fsn controller that came with thermal probes, and I saw a great increase in temperature by putting a probe between the heatsink and processor.

Duh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuffinFlavored

That would be wise.

I once purchased a 5.25" bay fsn controller that came with thermal probes, and I saw a great increase in temperature by putting a probe between the heatsink and processor.

Duh?

---

no wonder. :D did the heatsink have contact to the HS at all? in generall the contact-surface is smaller and a greater amount of the heat has to go through the tim to finally reach the heatsink. the best way is always metal -> metal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadaveca

I'm concerned about temp readings on these cpu as mine HAS degraded over the space of a week, with 4ghz first requiring 1.3375, and now requires 1.3825, 4250mhz used to require 1.425, now requires 1.4625.


Loss of clocks happened over the space of a day..one day i primed 4ghz for 12.5 hrs, and when done, went up to 4.25ghz, again primed for 12 hrs.

Left the systems on idle, came back, it wasn't stable. Prime would not run for more than 1 minute.

I spent some time verifying the board was ok, that ram was not the cause, all parts proven stable using other components.

So, during this, cpu was under fuson block in Maximus Formula SE. I never mounted cpu with aircooler. But temps never budged from 35c CPU and 40c DTS0 and DTS1.

So, on air, temps went over 70c DTS at stock, which seems a bit high for 45nm, but oh well

---

This is the type of finding that is concerning! You're not the only one, and it seems priming for hours at over 1.4v is damaging the chips even if kept cool.

This proves to me that the sensors are not read correctly. I on the other hand tried to go from a 8-pin 12V to 4-pin 12V and only noticed roughly 2C difference (it fluctuates a lot and hard to get a good screen shot of it). If anything I noticed that Everest and Coretemps didn't always show the exact same temp readings as it did when I had the 8-pin 12V connection.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1..._temp_4pin.jpg
Both of these pics are stock using a 4-pin 12V connection. As you can see the idle temps are 40C-42C




http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...MaxFormula.jpg
This pic shows the E8400 stock using the 8-pin 12V connection as you can see the idle temps are roughly 4C-8C higher.


I always knew that using an 8-pin 12V connection may raise temps. However, it doesn't explain why the temps are higher then my E6850 which hovers in the early-mid 30C range.

My original 45nm QX9650 had 2 cores overheating and I had it RMA'd
You can read my story here.
To cut a long story short 2 of the cores were running 21C hotter than the other 2 cores. Any amount of load which stressed all 4 caused a system crash.
My replacement CPU does not suffer from this problem....although there is still a bit of a difference between core temperatures, it is nowhere near as bad.
I am going to investigate the 8Pin 4Pin thing Eastcoasthandle as my motherboard as a 4Pin socket but I am using half of my 8Pin adaptor (it splits), perhaps I should use the 4pin adaptor which is also included with my PSU?
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

This proves to me that the sensors are not read correctly. I on the other hand tried to go from a 8-pin 12V to 4-pin 12V and only noticed roughly 2C difference (it fluctuates a lot and hard to get a good screen shot of it). If anything I noticed that Everest and Coretemps didn't always show the exact same temp readings as it did when I had the 8-pin 12V connection.

Both of these pics are stock using a 4-pin 12V connection. As you can see the idle temps are 40C-42C


This pic shows the E8400 stock using the 8-pin 12V connection as you can see the idle temps are roughly 4C-8C higher.


I always knew that using an 8-pin 12V connection may raise temps. However, it doesn't explain why the temps are higher then my E6850 which hovers in the early-mid 30C range.

---

i have to try that and see if the 8pin 12V connector really causes a higher temp reading. Also anyone knows why using the 8pin supply would cause a higher temp? :confused:

It seems quite odd...

8-pin provides more available CURRENT to cpu. Depends on board design, but AFAIK, second set of phases(5-8) is driven by additional 4 pins as well. If I am wrong, I'd love some clarification.

On a side note, my cpu has further degraded. 4ghz now only stable 1.41v real(DMM).

also, dts0-1 temp difference of 16c while on air, cpu temp is always offset 5c from DTS0, no matter what cooling.

So, for my cpu, throttle will not happen until max cpu temp as specified by intel has been exceeded by +30c.

In my case, thermal reading problems are gonna kill this cpu under normal use. I won't RMA, tho, because I am too honest, but I won't buy another Intel chip, either, until I hear that there is a new core revision, or something changes, as it's obvious Intel is not concerned about these cpu's dying...even if they knew they would before they left the factory. I'd advise others to do the same, or they'll never be concerned, and I won't build a pc for anyone using 45nm chips, either.

I got bit by INtel and faulty BadAxe boards, I'll not have my name further tarnished for supplying OTHER faulty parts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

i have to try that and see if the 8pin 12V connector really causes a higher temp reading. Also anyone knows why using the 8pin supply would cause a higher temp? :confused:

It seems quite odd...

---

My motherboard (P5E3) only has a 4Pin ATX connector. Since my Enermax Infiniti PSU's 8pin can split into 2 4Pins, I am using one of those to power my system.

Am I better of using the proper 4Pin ATX connector which is in the box? or will it not make any difference as using half of the 8Pin adaptor would be the same?

Thanks

cadaveca

That sucks :(
I only RMA'd mine as I was running at stock (never O/C'd it) and was not stable at stock because it was overheating.
I am sorry to hear your having such bad issues with your CPU....this reminds me of the Northwood sudden death syndrom, but compounded by the fact it occurs in much less time and with hardly any overvolting!

FYI the mainstream Quads out in March are C1 stepping. Intel Errata document talks of a new 45nm C1 stepping

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadaveca

...On a side note, my cpu has further degraded. 4ghz now only stable 1.41v real(DMM)...but I won't buy another Intel chip, either, until I hear that there is a new core revision, or something changes, as it's obvious Intel is not concerned about these cpu's dying...even if they knew they would before they left the factory. I'd advise others to do the same, or they'll never be concerned, and I won't build a pc for anyone using 45nm chips, either.

I got bit by INtel and faulty BadAxe boards, I'll not have my name further tarnished for supplying OTHER faulty parts.

---

Aww, I am so sorry for you... NOT!

1. Have you read the electrical specification for 45nm parts?

2. Have you seen the absolute maximum rating of 1.45V for Vcore in there?

3. Have you seen something like this on your processor box?

http://img245.imagevenue.com/loc411/..._122_411lo.jpg

You knowingly exceeded manufacturer specifications so why are you complaining now? Why such a bitter tone against Intel?

If I were you (honest as you say), I would just warn the others not to make the same mistake you did. If you didn't overvolt it, then it would be a different story, this way you have no right to complain.

That's why I mentioned no RMA for me, thanks. So quick to judge...:shrug:

And, if you read the Intel white papers, maximum voltage is 1.45v, not 1.225.

1.225 is the MAX VID, not maximum voltage, BTW.:fact:


And, if you read all my posts on the issue, the degredation initially happened BEFORE i gave the chip more than 1.425v. Now, I must digress, it is possible that voltage spikes carried the voltage over 1.45v, and hence my non-interest in an RMA.

But, you fail to notice that due to the temperature readings, and how these play a role in throttling, the way my cpu was, it wold have damaged itself before EVER beginning to throttle. Maximum temp Intel states via whitepaper explictly states maximum 71.4c, however, due to the bad sensors, my cpu would not begin to throttle until 100c.

This throttling issue is why I hold no trust in Intel's 45nm chips.

Just so we are clear tho...I have a QX9650 that does not have any temp issues as this 8400 does.

This tells me that thier binning process is flawed, or they simply just don't care. I'm not about to risk mine, or other's, money on that chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audiofreak

Aww, I am so sorry for you... NOT!

1. Have you read the electrical specification for 45nm parts?

2. Have you seen the absolute maximum rating of 1.45V for Vcore in there?

3. Have you seen something like this on your processor box?

http://img245.imagevenue.com/loc411/..._122_411lo.jpg

You knowingly exceeded manufacturer specifications so why are you complaining now? Why such a bitter tone against Intel?

If I were you (honest as you say), I would just warn the others not to make the same mistake you did. If you didn't overvolt it, then it would be a different story, this way you have no right to complain.

---

VID is from 0.85V – 1.3625V for the E8400. But you can read what's on that label as well as core temps to get VID (from my understanding).

The max Core voltage is 1.45V (page 17, someone correct me if I am wrong). E6000 series CPUs are able to go as high as 1.55V (page 20)

hmmm, Corsair HX-620 PSU (separate 4-pin and 8-pin leads), E8400 and DFI LT LP P35 T2R.

There was no difference in Idle temps using either lead/connector.
Loaded Optimized defaults, killed all unnecessary programs and services and let it rest for 5 minutes that checked with CoreTemp and Everest.
Tried twice for each connector about 8 minutes apart.

Same results (no change between 4 and 8 pin) at 4200MHz with 1.4v CPU using same methodology.
CPU VTT was set at 1.2v for the 4200 tests.

1st Core is 3-4 degrees hotter with Optimized defaults and 5-6 degrees hotter with 1.4v.

While I love the high OCs, I too am very nervous about the "wonky" temp readings.

Anyone else tried 4 vs 8 pin connections?

IDK about heat problems, we can't know that even with IHS measurements which are always plus >15C cooler than the hottest internal core temp, but the QC on these new chips is very poor and it looks certainly like a rushed launched whilst knowing of these problems. The chips have a large oc variation, some are very good and some not, QX is noticebley better than all and lower voltages kill/degrade the chips than before. AFAIK, the DTS are known to be faulty on all desktop/mobile Penryns, including why the mobile half was retracted and delayed from launch since that is where temps will count immensely. These desktop chips weren't and that looks more like market play to not lose major profits if they had recalled them. Coretemp and most software we've seen is reading the DTS reported temps correctly but the DTS are themselves faulty, most of the time they are stuck and at many other times very high/very low readings on all cores or more frequently, just two cores. We had to return our batches of E8200 and E8400 at work this last week because they were faulty in the same way and my boss won't tolerate that since it's a very crucial parameter in any business environment. You have CPU fanspeed control, oc headroom, stability and throttling which is all decided on the reported temps. My own E8400 was stuck at 6C no matter what but I should have a newer batch soon. I hope they get these problems sorted including short supplies which means our prices have shot up. :(

I wonder what Intel is using as a QC test platform. Current boards? P45?

The errata document that JohnZS posted a link to is very interesting. I wonder how many of those error workarounds will get into upcoming bioses.

I think I figured out what is going on here. I am not 100% sure and I am by no means the brightest bulb in the light shop, but I think our motherboards (or in my case the ASUS P5E3) might be sending high voltage for FSB Termination.
I had a read of this QX9650 Datasheet

Now, I don't quite understand the whole electrical technical data, but it looks to me like the FSB Termination Voltage should be ~1.15V Max?
Now the minimum I can set FSB Termination Voltage on my P5E3 is 1.20V
CPU PLL Voltage it reads like the maximum Intel suggest should be no more than 1.55V?
The minimum my ASUS board will let me select is 1.50V
I was naive thinking that FSB Termination of 1.38 and SPU PLL of 1.56 were safe, but not anymore.
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnZS

I think I figured out what is going on here. I am not 100% sure and I am by no means the brightest bulb in the light shop, but I think our motherboards (or in my case the ASUS P5E3) might be sending high voltage for FSB Termination.
I had a read of this QX9650 Datasheet

Now, I don't quite understand the whole electrical technical data, but it looks to me like the FSB Termination Voltage should be ~1.15V Max?
Now the minimum I can set FSB Termination Voltage on my P5E3 is 1.20V
CPU PLL Voltage it reads like the maximum Intel suggest should be no more than 1.55V?
The minimum my ASUS board will let me select is 1.50V
I was naive thinking that FSB Termination of 1.38 and SPU PLL of 1.56 were safe, but not anymore.
John

---

Would enabling loadline calibration help?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Would enabling loadline calibration help?

---

Thanks for the suggestion :up:
As far as I have been able to figure out, the Load Line Calibration minimises VDroop under load. so therefore you require less voltage to be set into the VCore.

I have re-read my post and I didn't really make myself clear, what I meant to say was that the lowest value which are availible n the options are 1.20V for FSB Termination and 1.50 for CPU PLL....you cannot set any lower as those values are not availible.

Now, my calucations might be off, or I may not have read the datasheet for the QX9650 correctly...but it looks like the ASUS P5E3 is overvolting FSB Termination and is near the Electrical Specification Maximum for the CPU PLL.

Of course... I might be wrong....but if I am right... or even nearly right... it is quite worrying that a board with everything @ stock... overvolts!

and in turn it could explain the crazy temperature readings and why there are reports of chips dying.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnZS

Thanks for the suggestion :up:
As far as I have been able to figure out, the Load Line Calibration minimises VDroop under load. so therefore you require less voltage to be set into the VCore.

I have re-read my post and I didn't really make myself clear, what I meant to say was that the lowest value which are availible n the options are 1.20V for FSB Termination and 1.50 for CPU PLL....you cannot set any lower as those values are not availible.

Now, my calucations might be off, or I may not have read the datasheet for the QX9650 correctly...but it looks like the ASUS P5E3 is overvolting FSB Termination and is near the Electrical Specification Maximum for the CPU PLL.

Of course... I might be wrong....but if I am right... or even nearly right... it is quite worrying that a board with everything @ stock... overvolts!

and in turn it could explain the crazy temperature readings and why there are reports of chips dying.

John

---

:up:

The Maximus Formula has similar settings as the P5E3. It would be interesting to see if this ever gets resolved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadaveca

That's why I mentioned no RMA for me, thanks. So quick to judge...:shrug:

---

Not judging you, just saying that you should not overvolt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadaveca

And, if you read the Intel white papers, maximum voltage is 1.45v, not 1.225.

---

I said that haven't I? I only pointed out that the max voltage or VID or whatever you want to call it can be lower for any particular CPU. For example, that particular 8200 says 1.225V on the box and it runs at 1.15V default.

That said, I wouldn't dare pushing the voltage up over 1.200V because 45nm process may be (due to smaller features) more prone to electromigration than the older manufacturing processes especially considering new (and unproven) materials used.

So what I am advising is more caution (yes I know this is XS forum but still).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadaveca

Now, I must digress, it is possible that voltage spikes carried the voltage over 1.45v, and hence my non-interest in an RMA.

---

That is quite possible giving that the majority of boards now support Vdroop disabling which is actually a feature put there to protect both the VRD MOSFETS and the CPU.

Clarification: if you disable Vdroop, you get more straight voltage (which seems desirable), but when the CPU consumes lot of power during load (benchmark for example) and then abruptly stops doing that, the excess voltage/current has nowhere to go and forms a positive spike which could cross the defined rating much easier.

As for the temperature reading, I wasn't following the other posts. I can only say that I have noticed (even though I haven't overvolted my E8200) that the core temperatures differ sometimes by several degrees. At the moment I have 39c and 43c idle at 3.6GHz with (somewhat poorly seated due to a weak spring) Zalman 9500. I am not sure whether I should worry about that difference?

And this old article is worth reading:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MjMw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

:up:

The Maximus Formula has similar settings as the P5E3. It would be interesting to see if this ever gets resolved.

---

I wonder what other motherboards have for those settings?
With any luck some sort of clarification will be made soon, and hopefully BIOS updates which resolve this issue as it is scary to think that @ Stock settings the FSB Termination Voltage is 0.05V higher than the MAXIMUM allowed by Intel and that the CPU PLL Voltage is near the maximum tolerance for the CPU.

Is it anywonder there are many people having problems with these 45nm CPU's...and it might not be Intel's fault, but the fault of the motherboard manufacturers for not implementing the correct settings in the BIOS

John

Strange...

Not only Core #0 is cooler by 4-5 degrees Celsius:
http://img183.imagevenue.com/loc191/..._122_191lo.jpg

But it also has lower utilization (DivX 6.8 encode from VirtualDub which I would expect to peg both at 100%):
http://img234.imagevenue.com/loc101/..._122_101lo.jpg

Has anyone else noticed something like that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnZS

I think I figured out what is going on here. I am not 100% sure and I am by no means the brightest bulb in the light shop, but I think our motherboards (or in my case the ASUS P5E3) might be sending high voltage for FSB Termination.
I had a read of this QX9650 Datasheet

Now, I don't quite understand the whole electrical technical data, but it looks to me like the FSB Termination Voltage should be ~1.15V Max?
Now the minimum I can set FSB Termination Voltage on my P5E3 is 1.20V
CPU PLL Voltage it reads like the maximum Intel suggest should be no more than 1.55V?
The minimum my ASUS board will let me select is 1.50V
I was naive thinking that FSB Termination of 1.38 and SPU PLL of 1.56 were safe, but not anymore.
John

---

I am using a e8400 with an asus P5K deluxe mb bios 705 and fsb termination in the bios changes for 45nm and is set standard(auto) at 1.10v per what it says in the bios options.

My cpu still has the temp issues mentioned in this thread but has not suffered any stable oc decrease yet but I am only using 1.30v and 4ghz.

i havent read thru the whole thread but mine reads like this

40/45c in core temp idle this is only a fake reading.
the minute you start priming the temps reach 60 to 65c. (with 1.45v 4.2ghz)
stop priming and they go back down and stay at 40/45

now using Smart guardian and speed fan you can also see the cpu temp, which is not the core temp but the temp of the onboard temp probe.

this reads much less and is a more realistic number and will fluctuate according to load. and again the minute you prime, it slams up to 55-65c depending on how wwell my air cooling is working. (ambient temps, room temps playing their part on keeping the cpu cooler)


the moral of the story stop using core temp until things are fixed.

if you also are using the DFI P35 Dark T2R/s the bios lets you adjust the cpu temp +/- to reflect a more accurate temp.
use that to get a better reading.

but yes the E8400 cpu's do not report CORE TEMP correctly. and as far as i know core temp is the only reading thats wrong.

Lestat: A core temperature reading is based on the hottest point within a core gathered from multiple on chip sensors and will always be greater than a reading from a motherboard CPU diode. With a good air cooler, a core temperature reading can also drop by 20C pretty much instantaneously when you go from full Prime load to no load. That's normal.

Processor throttling is based on one thing; how far the core temperature of your processor is away from TjMax which CoreTemp can read and display in real time. Go into Options->Settings and tell it to show that value. That's the only temperature number that's important and CoreTemp is the only program that shows that data correctly.

Strange senzors on these chips.
With coretemp i have 40/40C in idle and 47/40 in load at stock speed. I seems odd that only one core gets hotter.

And i have a problem with my DFI DARK (965). CPU vCore is set on auto and the VID = 1.125. But the actual vcore is 1.15 and i can not set a lower value. Besides that cpu-z is reading totally wrong (1.232).

I hope only the vcore is higher than is should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plaicd

I am using a e8400 with an asus P5K deluxe mb bios 705 and fsb termination in the bios changes for 45nm and is set standard(auto) at 1.10v per what it says in the bios options.

My cpu still has the temp issues mentioned in this thread but has not suffered any stable oc decrease yet but I am only using 1.30v and 4ghz.

---

Interesting... looks like ASUS have not quite added full 45nm support to the P5E3 (X38) based chipset in the BIOS.....yet.

What I would be interested to see is the QX9770 Datasheet as I have a feeling it's PLL Voltage might actually be 1.55V and it's Termination Voltage around the 1.2V mark.

I hear that the core Voltage is 1.30V...a shade higher than the QX9650 voltage of 1.25.

John

@alex17 GTX: at least your 1st & 2nd core temps are close, mine is way off! i've reasted my heatsink even 3x & still get the same readings. OC'ed & only the 1st core bumps 3c higher while the 2nd one doesn't move

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o...lt05-temps.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Since they use less power than the E6xxx series its easy to conclude they dont run hot, but rather colder.

Anyone tried with TAT instead to measure the thermals?

Sounds more like wrong numbers from the program(s) used.

---

hmm, Presscott C0 rev comes to mind.

TAT doesn't work with E8xxx series (at least not "publicly" available 2.05 version). If anyone has newer version it would be nice if they shared it with us.

This is why I have held off on an 8xxx chip. The degradation of clock speed really worries me. Intel has a great OC rep, which is why some of us buy their cheapies. I think this is much worse than AMD and the errata bug in Phenoms. At least they dont die and people have pushed a whole lot of voltage into them to try and clock them high.

mine is 65c in orthos small fft
idle around 40c
1.45v
4.2ghz
temps seem perfectly normal considering the amount of vcore im pushing into a 45 nm cpu with an oced 8800gt in the same loop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex17 GTX

Strange senzors on these chips.
With coretemp i have 40/40C in idle and 47/40 in load at stock speed. I seems odd that only one core gets hotter.

---

There are numerous reports of the on chip sensors getting stuck at fixed values. Most CPUs have one sensor stuck at idle but when overclocking with additional core voltage and MHz under full load they start to work OK. If the core temperatures don't change when TaskManager goes from 0% to 100% and back to 0% load then the on chip sensor is stuck. At 50C that isn't much of a problem other than it's annoying. Intel calibrates these sensors to operate accurately at 100C +/- 20C so I'd be very surprised to hear about a stuck sensor at higher values near the throttling point.

Quote:

---

And i have a problem with my DFI DARK (965). CPU vCore is set on auto and the VID = 1.125. But the actual vcore is 1.15 and i can not set a lower value. Besides that cpu-z is reading totally wrong (1.232).

---

How do you know that CPU-z is wrong and how do you know that your actual vcore is 1.15 volts? What you set in the bios and the VID of your chip may or may not have anything to do with the voltage that your CPU ends up getting. I've found that CPU-z is very accurate, especially on the older P965 chipset. VID is like a suggested voltage for a CPU but some motherboards may decide to ignore that value and set the voltage to what it thinks is best.

I don't know about the DFI board but I know on my Asus P5B Dlx (965) that setting vcore to AUTO can be dangerous when overclocking. AUTO sounds nice and safe but I've seen 1.60 volts at idle when vcore was set to AUTO in the bios. That kind of voltage might damage or degrade a new 45nm CPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power5

This is why I have held off on an 8xxx chip. The degradation of clock speed really worries me. Intel has a great OC rep, which is why some of us buy their cheapies. I think this is much worse than AMD and the errata bug in Phenoms. At least they dont die and people have pushed a whole lot of voltage into them to try and clock them high.

---

One part for the "durability" story of AMD chips is probably the SOI mix they are using in production.We've seen even a burn-in with some Phenoms,ie KTE's Phenoms exhibited this:after a longer burn-in periods,the chips could actually gain more Mhz with the same Vcore(although it could go either way,as one of his Phenoms did that)

I wonder if the new metal gates in transistors intel uses in Penryn refresh has anything to do with possible more pronounced electromigration effect with >1.45Vcore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

I wonder if the new metal gates in transistors intel uses in Penryn refresh has anything to do with possible more pronounced electromigration effect with >1.45Vcore?

---

metal vs glass.
I guess that is one effect with electrons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

How do you know that CPU-z is wrong and how do you know that your actual vcore is 1.15 volts? What you set in the bios and the VID of your chip may or may not have anything to do with the voltage that your CPU ends up getting. I've found that CPU-z is very accurate, especially on the older P965 chipset. VID is like a suggested voltage for a CPU but some motherboards may decide to ignore that value and set the voltage to what it thinks is best.

---

With my E6700 this board was pretty accurate. The VID was 1.325, in cpu-z it was 1.296- 1.312 and in smart guardian exactly the same. DFI Dark has small vdroop and it gets smaller when i plug in the cable for crossfire stability. (almost no vdroop from what cpu-z shows). BUT with E8400 everything is messed up:
BIOS: 1.15
CPUZ: 1.232
Smart Guardian: 1.23
SpeedFan: 1.23
That can't be right. :shakes:
Anybody else with DFI DARK and 8400 around here?

alex17 GTX: You've got three programs in agreement at approximately 1.23 volts so why don't you want to believe them? The bios setting should be the one you least believe. Those software programs are reading from an on board sensor and seem to be right.

The 965 chipset was developed long before chips with very low VIDs were available for testing so it's likely that some boards can't give the cpu a low enough voltage no matter what you set the voltage to in the bios.

Let's assume the board can't give 1.15 becouse it's too low. But even when i pump more voltage it's almost the same thing, but now exactly the same difference between bios vcore and cpuz. I have to measure the vcore with DMM. If you are wright it means i can kill the chip becouse i don't know the real vcore.
I Have doubts becouse my cpu has the same FPO as another two cpus and both of them can do 4GHz stable with 1.28V. I don't think mine need 1.36V for 4G.

There is a lot of variation from one person's set-up to another on how much vcore they're going to need to be stable.

On the Mainboard tab of CPU-Z it shows what chip is being used to report voltages. My Asus P5B uses a Winbond W83627DHG which CPU-Z is programmed to read correctly.

Use a DMM to confirm but until then go by CPU-Z. The programmer put a lot of effort into supporting as many boards as possible, including yours, to correctly report core voltage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

VID is from 0.85V – 1.3625V for the E8400. But you can read what's on that label as well as core temps to get VID (from my understanding).

The max Core voltage is 1.45V (page 17, someone correct me if I am wrong). E6000 series CPUs are able to go as high as 1.55V (page 20)

---

I think the 1.55v maximum applies to Q6000 series processors as well.

http://download.intel.com/design/pro...s/31559205.pdf
Page 17.

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/9...lah8400ml9.jpg

My cores wont go lower than this even when lowering the ambient to like 19C from 24-25C. My GPU and other components drop accordingly but my lil 8400 dont wanna play. Well, well as long as it clocks as a b*tch and doesnt burn up... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

My Asus P5B uses a Winbond W83627DHG which CPU-Z is programmed to read correctly.

---

Here is mine.

If anyone is in the same situation gime some advice. Tomorrow night i wanna play again with this chip, and i hope i can pass the 518FSB wall. But i don't want to kill my chip and i don't have a DMM right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power5

This is why I have held off on an 8xxx chip. The degradation of clock speed really worries me. Intel has a great OC rep, which is why some of us buy their cheapies. I think this is much worse than AMD and the errata bug in Phenoms. At least they dont die and people have pushed a whole lot of voltage into them to try and clock them high.

---

They also aren't done in 45nm.

The IT8718 is a very common motherboard monitoring chip which I believe is used on many Gigabyte boards. CPU-z definitely supports that chip.

http://www.cpuid.com/hwmonitor.php

I've tried flashing my P5E3 v0703 to the latest version which is 0808 and for some reason my system is not stable at all :(
It has not made any differences in the selection of FSB Termination or CPU PLL voltages, perhaps ASUS are not aware of the datasheet? or 45nm support is still ongoing until we see the mainstream Quad 45nm cores?
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnZS

I've tried flashing my P5E3 v0703 to the latest version which is 0808 and for some reason my system is not stable at all :(
It has not made any differences in the selection of FSB Termination or CPU PLL voltages, perhaps ASUS are not aware of the datasheet? or 45nm support is still ongoing until we see the mainstream Quad 45nm cores?
John

---

That is strange. bios 0808 is dated 1/02/2008 on the ftp server. ftp://ftp.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/socket775/P5E3/

While the p5k deluxe bios 0705 that has different voltages for 65/45nm is dated 12/20/2007. :shrug:

Another member of XS has the same problems with DFI Dark. It seems that this board overvolts when it enters windows (about +100mv). I'm not sure he used a DMM, but if this is true than both bios and software read the real vcore. And we (dfi dark users) have to wait for a new bios that will fix the problem. :(