A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » Overclocking AMD Processors
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why all the concern over heat?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 30th 04, 04:39 PM
jakesnake66
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why all the concern over heat?

After reading thousands of posts here and elsewhere regarding overclocking
amd cpus, it seems to me that most overclockers (and pc builder/enthusiasts)
are too concerned about heat - or at least their concerns about particular
heat ranges are off the mark. Mind you, I'm by no means an expert, but I've
overclocked many cpu/mobos and graphics cards, and I often run cpus in heat
ranges that a lot of people seem to consider undesirable or even dangerous.
Is there any real danger running an athlon at 60+ degrees C under load?
Doesn't AMD consider anything under 80-90C "safe?" It seems like the
consensus is that desirable temp ranges are 40-50C, with the upper end of
that giving a lot of people concern, and causing many to go to greater
lengths for cooling. I've seen people brag about temps under 40C, as if
they've really accomplished something. Have they? We're only going to use
these cpus a couple years (at most) anyway, so any supposed
shortening/lenthening of life seems irrelevant to me. On this particular
pc, I'm running a mobile 2500 at 2.3ghz using a TR2M1. I have two 80mm case
fans that I leave off most of the time because of the noise. If I can
believe Sandra, I idle at about 54C, and top out around 64C after 30 minutes
of gaming. My 9800Pro g-card is slightly oc'ed and puts off a bit of heat
itself. The computer runs great, and I see no evidence that my temp range
causes any negative consequences.
Just looking for a little discussion.
Thank you,

jakesnake





  #2  
Old October 30th 04, 05:07 PM
Larry Gagnon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:39:36 +0000, jakesnake66 wrote:

After reading thousands of posts here and elsewhere regarding
overclocking amd cpus, it seems to me that most overclockers (and pc
builder/enthusiasts) are too concerned about heat - or at least their
concerns about particular heat ranges are off the mark. Mind you, I'm
by no means an expert, but I've overclocked many cpu/mobos and graphics
cards, and I often run cpus in heat ranges that a lot of people seem to
consider undesirable or even dangerous. Is there any real danger running
an athlon at 60+ degrees C under load? Doesn't AMD consider anything
under 80-90C "safe?" It seems like the consensus is that desirable temp
ranges are 40-50C, with the upper end of that giving a lot of people
concern, and causing many to go to greater lengths for cooling. I've
seen people brag about temps under 40C, as if they've really
accomplished something. Have they? We're only going to use these cpus
a couple years (at most) anyway, so any supposed shortening/lenthening
of life seems irrelevant to me. On this particular pc, I'm running a
mobile 2500 at 2.3ghz using a TR2M1. I have two 80mm case fans that I
leave off most of the time because of the noise. If I can believe
Sandra, I idle at about 54C, and top out around 64C after 30 minutes of
gaming. My 9800Pro g-card is slightly oc'ed and puts off a bit of heat
itself. The computer runs great, and I see no evidence that my temp
range causes any negative consequences.
Just looking for a little discussion. Thank you,

jakesnake



Jakesnake: I agree wholeheartedly! I have said similar things on posts to
this newsgroup in the past: many overclockers spend so much time and
effort and worry over heat when it has been shown that there is a huge
variability between motherboards, reporting software, heat sensors, heat
sensor postions, BIOS reporting, etc, - in other words there is no
ACCURATE basis to compare heat reports between various installations.

Secondly, it appears most overclockers are also keen techos - and thus
they change their systems frequently as you said - so why bother worrying
about your precious CPU when you'll probably replace it in 2-3 years!

If I were to be cynical I would propose that perhaps the whole heat issue
has been blown out of all proportion by the marketing machines of the
computer cooling industry! Are we being sold a "bill of goods" to keep our
economies ticking over?

I have always maintained that many overclockers also do not pay enough
attention to their ambient room temperature issue first - before going out
and spending a ****load of money on fans and even fancier and pricier
cooling solutions. Secondly, they also often have a tendency to put too
many fans in their boxes, thus unnecessarily increasing airflow turbulence
inside the case (rather than creating a nice easy continuous unturbulent
flow of air from the front lower case up through the back upper part of
their case).

I would suggest that any CPU temperature from 35-65 or perhaps even 70
(for shorter periods of time) is not an issue for overclockers.

Larry Gagnon, A+ certified tech.

--
********************************
to reply via email remove "fake"

  #3  
Old October 30th 04, 06:23 PM
The Big Homer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Word.


"Larry Gagnon" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:39:36 +0000, jakesnake66 wrote:

After reading thousands of posts here and elsewhere regarding
overclocking amd cpus, it seems to me that most overclockers (and pc
builder/enthusiasts) are too concerned about heat - or at least their
concerns about particular heat ranges are off the mark. Mind you, I'm
by no means an expert, but I've overclocked many cpu/mobos and graphics
cards, and I often run cpus in heat ranges that a lot of people seem to
consider undesirable or even dangerous. Is there any real danger running
an athlon at 60+ degrees C under load? Doesn't AMD consider anything
under 80-90C "safe?" It seems like the consensus is that desirable temp
ranges are 40-50C, with the upper end of that giving a lot of people
concern, and causing many to go to greater lengths for cooling. I've
seen people brag about temps under 40C, as if they've really
accomplished something. Have they? We're only going to use these cpus
a couple years (at most) anyway, so any supposed shortening/lenthening
of life seems irrelevant to me. On this particular pc, I'm running a
mobile 2500 at 2.3ghz using a TR2M1. I have two 80mm case fans that I
leave off most of the time because of the noise. If I can believe
Sandra, I idle at about 54C, and top out around 64C after 30 minutes of
gaming. My 9800Pro g-card is slightly oc'ed and puts off a bit of heat
itself. The computer runs great, and I see no evidence that my temp
range causes any negative consequences.
Just looking for a little discussion. Thank you,

jakesnake



Jakesnake: I agree wholeheartedly! I have said similar things on posts to
this newsgroup in the past: many overclockers spend so much time and
effort and worry over heat when it has been shown that there is a huge
variability between motherboards, reporting software, heat sensors, heat
sensor postions, BIOS reporting, etc, - in other words there is no
ACCURATE basis to compare heat reports between various installations.

Secondly, it appears most overclockers are also keen techos - and thus
they change their systems frequently as you said - so why bother worrying
about your precious CPU when you'll probably replace it in 2-3 years!

If I were to be cynical I would propose that perhaps the whole heat issue
has been blown out of all proportion by the marketing machines of the
computer cooling industry! Are we being sold a "bill of goods" to keep our
economies ticking over?

I have always maintained that many overclockers also do not pay enough
attention to their ambient room temperature issue first - before going out
and spending a ****load of money on fans and even fancier and pricier
cooling solutions. Secondly, they also often have a tendency to put too
many fans in their boxes, thus unnecessarily increasing airflow turbulence
inside the case (rather than creating a nice easy continuous unturbulent
flow of air from the front lower case up through the back upper part of
their case).

I would suggest that any CPU temperature from 35-65 or perhaps even 70
(for shorter periods of time) is not an issue for overclockers.

Larry Gagnon, A+ certified tech.

--
********************************
to reply via email remove "fake"



  #4  
Old October 30th 04, 06:26 PM
Apollo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"jakesnake66" wrote in message
...
After reading thousands of posts here and elsewhere regarding
overclocking
amd cpus, it seems to me that most overclockers (and pc
builder/enthusiasts)
are too concerned about heat - or at least their concerns about
particular
heat ranges are off the mark. Mind you, I'm by no means an expert,
but I've
overclocked many cpu/mobos and graphics cards, and I often run cpus in
heat
ranges that a lot of people seem to consider undesirable or even
dangerous.
Is there any real danger running an athlon at 60+ degrees C under
load?
Doesn't AMD consider anything under 80-90C "safe?" It seems like the
consensus is that desirable temp ranges are 40-50C, with the upper end
of
that giving a lot of people concern, and causing many to go to greater
lengths for cooling. I've seen people brag about temps under 40C, as
if
they've really accomplished something. Have they? We're only going
to use
these cpus a couple years (at most) anyway, so any supposed
shortening/lenthening of life seems irrelevant to me. On this
particular
pc, I'm running a mobile 2500 at 2.3ghz using a TR2M1. I have two
80mm case
fans that I leave off most of the time because of the noise. If I can
believe Sandra, I idle at about 54C, and top out around 64C after 30
minutes
of gaming. My 9800Pro g-card is slightly oc'ed and puts off a bit of
heat
itself. The computer runs great, and I see no evidence that my temp
range
causes any negative consequences.
Just looking for a little discussion.
Thank you,

jakesnake


Hi,

IMHO it comes down to stability, the same cpu will be stable at a
low(er) temperature for a certain overclock. I don't aim to run my
(amd) system cool for an extended cpu life but for a higher overclock.

I'm running a mobile 35w XP2400 at 220 x 12, 1.85v. Above 45-48C I get
prime errors within a few minutes, it usually runs around 35-37C under
load from seti and is 24hr prime stable.

The temps quoted are socket not core so you could say that above 55-58C
core temp I get instability.

HTH

--
Apollo


  #5  
Old October 30th 04, 07:17 PM
papasurf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well said and I wholeheartedly agree. If my system is stable I am not
worried about temps.
"jakesnake66" wrote in message
...
After reading thousands of posts here and elsewhere regarding overclocking
amd cpus, it seems to me that most overclockers (and pc
builder/enthusiasts)
are too concerned about heat - or at least their concerns about particular
heat ranges are off the mark. Mind you, I'm by no means an expert, but
I've
overclocked many cpu/mobos and graphics cards, and I often run cpus in
heat
ranges that a lot of people seem to consider undesirable or even
dangerous.
Is there any real danger running an athlon at 60+ degrees C under load?
Doesn't AMD consider anything under 80-90C "safe?" It seems like the
consensus is that desirable temp ranges are 40-50C, with the upper end of
that giving a lot of people concern, and causing many to go to greater
lengths for cooling. I've seen people brag about temps under 40C, as if
they've really accomplished something. Have they? We're only going to
use
these cpus a couple years (at most) anyway, so any supposed
shortening/lenthening of life seems irrelevant to me. On this particular
pc, I'm running a mobile 2500 at 2.3ghz using a TR2M1. I have two 80mm
case
fans that I leave off most of the time because of the noise. If I can
believe Sandra, I idle at about 54C, and top out around 64C after 30
minutes
of gaming. My 9800Pro g-card is slightly oc'ed and puts off a bit of heat
itself. The computer runs great, and I see no evidence that my temp range
causes any negative consequences.
Just looking for a little discussion.
Thank you,

jakesnake







  #6  
Old October 30th 04, 10:40 PM
Ed Light
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Over 60 is possible instability territory. So, if you routinely run 60 and a
hot day comes along, you're into unknown territory.

I duct my cpu heat out the back and it saves all my internal components lots
of cooking. System is at 25c.

A friend bought a pre-built pc and his palomino was running at 9v with a
little 60mm fan type cheap heatsink, with no case fan! I think he was
getting 65c idle cpu. 3 caps on his motherboard leaked brown stuff from the
heat, and his DVD reader went bad. So heat can kill -- the less of it, the
better. Less just -- feels good!

--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.


  #7  
Old October 30th 04, 10:41 PM
Ed Light
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Apollo" wrote
The temps quoted are socket not core so you could say that above 55-58C
core temp I get instability.


That's what Gigabyte tech support told me -- over 60c is no-man's land.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.


  #8  
Old October 30th 04, 10:43 PM
Wes Newell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:39:36 +0000, jakesnake66 wrote:

After reading thousands of posts here and elsewhere regarding
overclocking amd cpus, it seems to me that most overclockers (and pc
builder/enthusiasts) are too concerned about heat - or at least their
concerns about particular heat ranges are off the mark. Mind you, I'm
by no means an expert, but I've overclocked many cpu/mobos and graphics
cards, and I often run cpus in heat ranges that a lot of people seem to
consider undesirable or even dangerous. Is there any real danger running
an athlon at 60+ degrees C under load?


Not overclocked, there's probably not much danger, but overclocked to the
MAX and lets say stable at 50C could very possible and even likely to
corrupt your whole system at higher temps.

Doesn't AMD consider anything under 80-90C "safe?"


No. They rate the MAX die temp at stock speeds as that (for XP Line). A64
line is much lower, like 70C max.

It seems like the consensus is that desirable temp ranges are 40-50C,
with the upper end of that giving a lot of people concern, and causing
many to go to
greater lengths for cooling. I've seen people brag about temps under
40C, as if they've really accomplished something. Have they?


50C under load for the XP line shouldn't present any problems unless the
CPU is overclocked. Then, it may be too hot to reach the speed one is
trying to reach.

We're only going to use these cpus a couple years (at most) anyway, so
any supposed shortening/lenthening of life seems irrelevant to me. On
this particular pc, I'm running a mobile 2500 at 2.3ghz using a TR2M1. I
have two 80mm case fans that I leave off most of the time because of the
noise. If I can believe Sandra, I idle at about 54C, and top out around
64C after 30 minutes of gaming. My 9800Pro g-card is slightly oc'ed and
puts off a bit of heat itself. The computer runs great, and I see no
evidence that my temp range causes any negative consequences. Just
looking for a little discussion. Thank you,

If it's running fine, then don't worry about it. The same setup on another
board may read the temps as 45C and 55C, and even lower on yet another MB.
It's all relative, and without knowing the base ambient temp, and the case
temp, there's not much one can say one way or the other. The cooler you
have is good cooler so I wouldn't worry about it. Now if the case temps
are more than 10C above room temp, then you don't have very good case
cooling.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  #9  
Old October 31st 04, 01:18 AM
Michael Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wes Newell wrote:
[...]
If it's running fine, then don't worry about it. The same setup on
another board may read the temps as 45C and 55C, and even lower on
yet another MB. It's all relative, and without knowing the base
ambient temp, and the case temp, there's not much one can say one way
or the other. The cooler you have is good cooler so I wouldn't worry
about it. Now if the case temps are more than 10C above room temp,
then you don't have very good case cooling.


Damn, you took the words right out of my mouth

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open


  #10  
Old October 31st 04, 02:06 AM
Ed Light
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ed Light" wrote

A friend bought a pre-built pc and his palomino was running at 9v with a

Make that 1.9v


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
R9800NP - overclocking problem power_ranger Overclocking 20 April 19th 04 08:08 AM
Processor Heat Sink Repair/fine tuning Overclocking AMD Processors 1 January 18th 04 12:27 AM
heat pad or heat sink compound? Larry Gagnon Overclocking AMD Processors 1 November 16th 03 08:38 PM
Opteron Overclocking? Adrian Richards Overclocking AMD Processors 9 October 5th 03 03:20 PM
rather straightforward heat problem Jan Biel General 3 August 25th 03 08:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.