Quote Originally Posted by fart_plume View Post
Ok, Das Capitolin I have a couple of questions. First Are you using software to read the temps from the internal diodes of the cpu or do you have a thermal probe in the heatsink. The reason I ask is most of us use software to read the temps. And yes we know the thermal probe method is more accurate. It took me testing several different programs to get one that even read my temps even close to correct.
The second question i have is your setup housed in a case or an open test bed?
You are incorrect. A thermal probe is not more accurate than the core temp diode inside the processor (source: Intel Corporation, Arctic Silver Corporation, and my own testing.) Even in theory, this concept is completely flawed. How can you obtain an accurate reading of what's inside by measuring from the outside? The internal core diode is the best way to go. Here's a quote from my article, which further details my answer:

At the start of each test, the ambient room temperature was measured to track any fluctuation throughout the testing period. EVEREST Ultimate Engineer Version 4.20.1170 was then utilized to create core loads and measure each individual CPU core temperature. It's important to note that software-based temperature readings reflect the thermistor output as recorded by the BIOS. For this reason, it is critically important to use the exact same software and BIOS versions throughout the entire test cycle, or the results will be incomparable. All of the units compared in our results were tested on the same motherboard using the same BIOS and software, with only the product itself changing in each test. These readings are neither absolute nor calibrated, since every BIOS is programmed differently. Nevertheless, all results are still comparable and relative to each products in our test bed.

One unfortunate problem is that CPU's report temperatures as a whole number and not in fractions. This in turn causes the motherboard BIOS and subsequent software applications such as EVEREST to also report to the nearest whole number. To compensate for this, our tests were conducted several times after complete power down thermal cycles. Conversely, the ambient room temperature levels were all recorded and accurate to one-tenth of a degree Celsius.
The Q6600 was used in our Best CPU Cooler Performance - Q1 2008 project. There are several reasons NOT to use this processor for testing and comparing thermal pastes, but here are my top three:

1) It doesn't offer a single core reading. Multiple core readings allow for a degree of fluctuation and error.
2) The Q6600 does not get hot enough to create large differences between good/bad TIM products.
3) The stock Intel Thermal Cooling Solution is the best way to get high temps, and it uses a four-corner push-pin mount. This mounting system is very low pressure, and does not compress the elements together with nominal force.

So while you're probably wondering why I would use a socket 478 P4 3.0 OC'ed to 3.6, here are my top three reasons:

1) Single core reading. It is what it is, and there's no confusing the results with an average of four cores. Furthermore, dual and quad core CPU's rarely ever have the same temperature between cores.
2) It gets hot. Add some voltage, and it gets REAL hot.
3) The Intel socket 478 compression-lever thermal cooling solution is probably the best ever made by Intel. The unit does not slide or twist, and it compresses evenly with good force. Additionally, it features a perfect 1" round copper core, which ensures that the same amount of TIM coverage is compared in every test.