| 1 |
On Friday 06 November 2009 17:57:09 Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Harry Putnam wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> writes: |
| 4 |
> >> [OT] |
| 5 |
> >> Why does everyone else have a CPU that is so much hotter than |
| 6 |
mine. |
| 7 |
> >> Mine has never been over 40C or about 100F and I run folding |
| 8 |
with my rig |
| 9 |
> >> in my bedroom. Even back when this rig was new and people had |
| 10 |
rigs |
| 11 |
> >> close to mine, I still ran cooler. I'm even air cooled. Water |
| 12 |
and |
| 13 |
> >> puters make me nervous. |
| 14 |
> >> [/OT] |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > I'd be mighty suspicious of a incorrect sensor. There is really |
| 17 |
no |
| 18 |
> > way the cpu itself is never over 102. Assuming, that is, we're |
| 19 |
not |
| 20 |
> > talking about a `vic-20', or `commodore 64'. and I would not be |
| 21 |
surprised |
| 22 |
> > if those cpus didn't go over 100. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> This is a Abit NF7 v2.0 mobo with a AMD 2500+ CPU. I have even |
| 25 |
checked |
| 26 |
> the BIOS temps and they are very close, if not a little lower, |
| 27 |
than what |
| 28 |
> Gkrellm reports. From what I have found with google, no one has |
| 29 |
> reported them to have errors. I figure the only reason the BIOS |
| 30 |
may be |
| 31 |
> a little lower is that it is just starting up. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> I don't have any reason not to think they are correct. The temps |
| 34 |
change |
| 35 |
> with load and a change in room temp. I have seen it get close to |
| 36 |
100F |
| 37 |
> when I forgot to leave the A/C on one time. I do have a large CPU |
| 38 |
> cooler tho. It's a ThermalTake Volcano 12 with the fans set to |
| 39 |
adjust |
| 40 |
> with the temps. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
The various CPU temp sensors do measure something the the way they |
| 43 |
rise and fall often correlates to the actual temperature, but not to |
| 44 |
a temperature scale. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives