Ugh well I have real temp set at 95 TJmax for my Q66. Unless someone says else I am just going off that.
Printable View
Ugh well I have real temp set at 95 TJmax for my Q66. Unless someone says else I am just going off that.
Heh, actually I doubt that.
It looks like they moved the main temp monitoring to the DTS. It's readings can even be seen in the bios (at least of some boards).
They improved the accuracy and the operating range of the DTS. Hopefully it's going to be on par or better than the 65nm DTS.
yay! thankyou Intel!
another confirmation of the impossible... 30ºC ambient and 30ºC on first and second cores (no to mention 25ºC 27ºC for the other two lasting cores)... this is with the 90ºC tJMax and a Q6600 G0 @ 1.336v 3.2Ghz... i find this amusing :)
100C is the right TjMAX for 65nm quads... If intel have said 105C, I would believe it... But anything less then 100C is bullsh/t...
what about Ci7
Idle temps are often inaccurate, it does not necessarily mean that the TJmax is wrong. Read more about it here.
95 is the right one for 65nm quads..... 100 is for 45nm.
Guys.. I think you don't take the inaccuracy of DTS logic into account which raises the more you go to lower temperatures.
I already mentioned several times that DTS was designed to catch the hot point (Tj,max) of CPU so that's the place where it reports most accurate results (still might be some deg. off).
thks Nickel020 im at it.