Re: CPU temp?
2008/6/1 Paolo <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 09:41:35AM +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote:
>> What could explain the differences between these reported temperatures?
> 2 degC betwwen cores doesn't sound too much, also considering param spread
The 2 degree difference between core0 and core1 isn't what confused
me, rather, the different tempuratures reported by acpi, sensors, and
the /proc file.
> The ACPI value comes from other module - might be an average, and the
> acpi module might use a different formula and/or different params (the
> coretemp is likely more correct, being very hw-specific).
An average of what? According to sensors, the machine only has temp
sensors on the CPU dies, not on the hard drive or memory or whatever.
And the apci and /proc temps are not the average of the core temps.
>> Also, am I to believe that "crit = +100.0??C" means that the CPU can
>> get up to 100 degrees before damage? This is an Intel CoreDuo
> 120+ degC actual silicon T isn't uncommon as max operating T. 100 degC
> is likely a derating which allows for a reasonable margin before the
> chip goes out of spec.
Really? I've melted older (pentium 3,4) CPUs at around 80, probably
even less. I don't know how far the sensor on the P4 is from the die,
but it can't be _that_ far. AMD's I've seen get that hot and live
(well, once). I understand that they are made of the same materials in
similar processes, but the differences are probably akin to Huyndai
and BMW (same basic idea, huge quality difference).
> Physical damage occurs at quite higher T.
> Of course, don't expect much long-term reliabilty if you keep your chips
> close to that limit for long time (or better, with high duty-ratio).
I try not to :) I actually find that Arctic Silver can make a few
degree change in temp, even with a clean heatsink and a decent fan.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?