Praz: I understand what you're saying. It looks like in Prime when one core fails then 3 cores run at 100% and 1 at 0% but if you tell it to run 3 instances of Prime on a Quad then you get the four cores working together on the problem.
I can't say it hasn't crossed my mind.do you have any plans to try embedding a thermo coupler into the IHS
I'm not sure what new information we'd end up with though. We know TjMax for 45nm and based on that and how 45nm IHS readings compare to 65nm, I think we can be pretty confident with TjMax for the majority of the 65nm CPUs so what's left? Intel has told us about slope error so we know that variable exists and we have a way to correct for that.
About the only thing that I don't have any hard evidence to prove is how many degrees hotter should a core be reporting compared to the ambient temperature or water temperature during the Ultra-Idle test. Given that a good water set-up or a good air cooler or even the Intel OEM cooler with the copper core all perform within a couple of degrees of each other during Ultra-Idle, I tend to think that about 5C to 7C over ones baseline air/water temperature is pretty reasonable. Maybe an embedded sensor might get us another degree closer to the truth but given the less than perfect nature of these sensors, I'm having a tough time seeing the point vs cost of that.
With there being some unknown error in how Intel sets TjMax as well as slope error, an individual test on 1 or 5 or 10 processors won't be enough data to confirm anything.
With these sensors, the reported temps are about as real as they're ever going to get. Intel didn't release enough information at the IDF, and I don't imagine they ever will, to get us any closer to the real temperature than what we are now.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks