CPU at 75 Degrees C at boot! Help!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Naj
  • Start date Start date
Ok, I installed BIOS rev. 1.04 for my motherboard. That helped in
several respects. It is now recognizing my processor, my memory and
dual-channel mode, which is a very good thing. More importantly, my
boot up temp is now around 40 C, rising up to 48-50 C after a few
minutes, which seems much more reasonable. I am going to follow the
various suggestions made and clean off the processor and heatsink,
reapply a thin layer of thermal grease, and hope for the best. Thanks
for everyone's help.
 
Your temps will show a tad higher, before XP, Win2K, or NT load. These OS's
have CPU throttling, built in, that shaves about 10C off your temps at idle.
There used to be a program, a few years back called CPIIdle, that did the
same thing in Win9x. My temps show approx. 10C higher, when viewing in CMOS
as opposed to viewing through 3rd party prog in Windows.

-
Naj stood up at show-n-tell, in
(e-mail address removed), and said:
 
I ran Rain, a small CPU-idling prog, when I was running Win98SE, and as you
pointed out it lowered my CPU temps 10°C or more across the board. Now with
XP Pro, I get the CPU idling except in one app: Foxpro (DOS). It uses 50%
of both logical CPU's at all times, thus increasing the temp, even when
doing nothing. I found a small (1k) prog called DosIdle that serves the
same function as Rain, and now my CPU is laid-back when Foxpro is loaded.
 
Yeah, I remember Rain as well. I never really liked the interface, on that
one. CPUIdle just seemed a bit more aesthetic, notification area-wise.
Plus, it worked in tandem with Motherboard Monitor, which was kinda nice.

-
Bob Davis stood up at show-n-tell, in
[email protected], and said:
 
Yeah, I remember Rain as well. I never really liked the interface, on that
one. CPUIdle just seemed a bit more aesthetic, notification area-wise.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Rain's interface was, well, non-existent--but it worked well enough
where you didn't need one.
I think CPUIdle used more resources, if I recall, which is why I used Rain.
There was also a Waterfall, a Rain spinoff, that I think had an interface,
but I never tried it.
Plus, it worked in tandem with Motherboard Monitor, which was kinda nice.
Click to expand...

MBM is still around, and I'm using it on my new system.
 
Strontium said:
Yeah, I remember Rain as well. I never really liked the interface, on
that
one. CPUIdle just seemed a bit more aesthetic, notification area-wise.
Plus, it worked in tandem with Motherboard Monitor, which was kinda nice.

-
Bob Davis stood up at show-n-tell, in
[email protected], and said:


--
Strontium

"It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every
now, and then, I kick the livin' shit `outta me." - Lit
Click to expand...



Where do y'all buy these books that read from the bottom to the top to learn
how to write like this?
 
The Barton runs pretty cool at around 30-33 C when properly installed.
"Tweaking" your bios settings could also be the culprit, the automatic
settings work fine. Overclocking a state of the art chip like the
Barton really isn't worth the time or the energy.
Click to expand...

why the hell you posting in a overclocking newsgroup then?

wow, a £70 chip performs like a £400 one... hardly "worth" it is it??

and btw, how is extra thermal paste going to crack a core?
 
Adam Overlag Webb said:
why the hell you posting in a overclocking newsgroup then?

wow, a £70 chip performs like a £400 one... hardly "worth" it is it??

and btw, how is extra thermal paste going to crack a core?
Click to expand...

glad to hear your bios was the culprit! I've never heard of cracking
the core with too much thermal paste, but I imagine it can't hurt to
be paranoid about it. There's not much room to see what's going on
when you clamp the heatsink on, and if the paste does not expand quick
enough to compensate for the pressure of the clamps, well, that could
explain how a lot of people might be cracking cores.
 
Adam Overlag Webb said:
why the hell you posting in a overclocking newsgroup then?
Click to expand...

Oh, I was just trying to help somebody figure out why their cpu was
overheating, nothing against over-clockers. But over-clockers need to
be honest, they don't save money. Sure you might get a faster chip,
but the warranty is void, and it probably will only last a fraction of
its intended lifetime. So why would I want to void my warranty and
get a shorter lifespan of the chip for such a small gain?

If you overclock by 150 Mz (500 mz in AMD measurements, LOL), you
are only gaining a few percentage points in power gained. Of course
if you live by the thrill of annihilating zombies or whatever, then
the choice is clear, burn baby burn. But it isn't really any cheaper
in the long run. And of course even if you do not overclock,
eventually in a few years those circuits in the chip will turn to mush
eventually anyways, electricity erodes like water does.

In a couple of months we'll see the new AMD 64 bit chips coming
out, so if I was going to buy a new chip, I'd wait about six months
after they introduce that chip/motherboard combo for the prices to
level out and get the bugs out. Or maybe they will have (they probably
already do) a dual board that will support Barton chips, that could be
interesting.

If I was a gamer, I'd get a video card with 128 mb of memory, and
then worry about the main cpu/motherboard combo.


Have a great day.
 
But over-clockers need to
be honest, they don't save money. Sure you might get a faster chip,
but the warranty is void, and it probably will only last a fraction of
its intended lifetime. So why would I want to void my warranty and
get a shorter lifespan of the chip for such a small gain?
Click to expand...
Wrong.

First, a lot of money is saved. And second, overclocked within the limits
of the core will not drastically reduce the lifespan of the cpu. It will
have the same life expectancy as comparable rated cpu. IOW's, a 1700+
clocked to the default voltage/speeds of a 2400+ will have the same life
expectancy assuming they have the same core.
 
Aster said:
why the hell you posting in a overclocking newsgroup then?
Click to expand...

Oh, I was just trying to help somebody figure out why their cpu was
overheating, nothing against over-clockers. But over-clockers need to
be honest, they don't save money. Sure you might get a faster chip,
but the warranty is void, and it probably will only last a fraction of
its intended lifetime. So why would I want to void my warranty and
get a shorter lifespan of the chip for such a small gain?

If you overclock by 150 Mz (500 mz in AMD measurements, LOL), you
are only gaining a few percentage points in power gained. Of course
if you live by the thrill of annihilating zombies or whatever, then
the choice is clear, burn baby burn. But it isn't really any cheaper
in the long run. And of course even if you do not overclock,
eventually in a few years those circuits in the chip will turn to mush
eventually anyways, electricity erodes like water does.

In a couple of months we'll see the new AMD 64 bit chips coming
out, so if I was going to buy a new chip, I'd wait about six months
after they introduce that chip/motherboard combo for the prices to
level out and get the bugs out. Or maybe they will have (they probably
already do) a dual board that will support Barton chips, that could be
interesting.

If I was a gamer, I'd get a video card with 128 mb of memory, and
then worry about the main cpu/motherboard combo.
[/QUOTE]
And what if you overclock by 966MHz? What if you can get a £55 chip to
speeds AMD don't even sell at? And if my chip dies after three years instead
of ten, do I really give a damn? Who keeps a chip for ten years? Lastly, how
will anyone know that I overclocked the chip?
 
Back
Top