1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Centech non contact infrared digital thermometer

Discussion in 'Overclocking' started by Phil Weldon, Dec 5, 2007.

  1. Phil Weldon

    Phil Weldon Guest

    Considering the difficulty in finding a system health monitor utility that
    works well with my EVGA 680i SLI motherboard, my Centech non contact
    infrared digital thermometer is the best workaround I have found. And at
    only $7 US, quite a bargain.

    The Centech (item 93983-2VGA at Harbor Freight
    http://ww2.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Category.taf?f=bylogo&logourl=centech.gif&brand=Cen-Tech )
    seems to be accurate to within ~ one degree C. For your $7 US you get, in a
    device about the size and shape of a fat USB thumb drive that offers
    temperature measurement range: -33 C to 110 C, Fahrenheit or Celsius
    selectable
    accuracy: +/- 2%
    resolution: 0.1 degree
    distance to spot diameter ratio: 1:1
    fixed emissivity: 0.95 fixed
    measurement modes: Hold / Minimum / Maximum

    PLUS digital clock and stopwatch.

    If you get easily board by details, just resolve to purchase this
    inexpensive tool and skip the rest of the post. But I'll bet you get hooked
    by this new way of examining PC system temperatures.

    With my EVGA 680i SLI motherboard, E4300 @ 2.7 GHz, 1.275v core, Patriot
    DDR2 memory @ 1200 MHz, 2.150v, nForce (chipset) @ 1.200v, nVidia 8800 GTS
    320 MByte at stock speeds and voltage

    and an ambient temperature of 26.8 C (80 F) [ central heating thermostat
    stuck ]
    system at idle TAT reports Core0 and Core1 temperatures of 39 C and 37 C
    respectively

    nVidia Monitor SpeedFan 4.33 Centech
    CPU: 34 C CPU: 34 C ThermalTake 7i heatsink
    fins: 34 C
    System: 40 C AUX: 40 C Chipset heatsink fins: 44.7
    C
    GPU1: 54 C Core: 54 C Back of video card opposite
    GPU: 44.8 C
    HD0: 32 C Hard drive pc
    board: 33.4 C
    HD1: 30 C Hard drive pc
    board: 29.1 C
    Core0: 22 C Sound control foam,
    inside case wall: 27.6 C
    Core1: 22 C Antec NEO 550 HE PS
    box exterior: 29.7 C
    Ambient: 0 C ????
    System: -65 C ????

    After 15 minutes with 100% TAT load on both cores
    ambient air temperature 26.8 C (80 F)
    TAT reports Core0: 68 C, Core1: 67 C

    nVidia Monitor SpeedFan 4.33 Centech
    CPU: 63 C CPU: 63 C ThermalTake 7i heatsink fins:
    35.2 C
    System: 40 C AUX: 40 C Chipset heatsink fins: 47.3 C
    GPU1: 55 C Core: 55 C Back of video card opposite
    GPU: 44.6 C
    HD0: 32 C Hard drive 0 pc
    board: 33.9 C
    HD1: 30 C Hard drive 1 pc
    board:
    Core0: 52 C Sound control foam,
    inside case wall: 27.8 C
    Core1: 52 C Antec NEO 550 PS box
    exterior: 30.5 C
    Ambient: 0 C ????
    System: -65 C ????

    Conclusions:

    nVidia Monitor and SpeedFan 4.33 report three identical temperatures at
    idle and three identical temperatures at 100% TAT load. What nVidia Monitor
    calls 'System' and SpeedFan 4.33 calls 'AUX' must be from a thermistor on
    the motherboard (the chipset heatsink fins are too hot for 'System' / 'AUX'
    to be the chipset temperature, and what is left but the motherboard?

    The Core0 and Core1 temperatures at idle reported by SpeedFan 4.33 are
    completely bogus as they are more than 4 C below ambient room temperature.

    Both nVidia Monitor and SpeedFan 4.33 report identical GPU temperatures. It
    seems reasonable to me that the ~ 45 C reported by Centech for the back side
    of the 8800 GTS card (opposite the GPU) as it just pokes along is a
    reasonable correlate to the ~ 55 C GPU temperature reported by nVidia
    Monitor and SpeedFan 4.33.

    Air temperature inside the case can easily be measured by aiming the Centech
    at thermally nonconductive rough surface (in my case, the black sound
    control foam an a piece of black construction paper give the same readings.

    What REALLY interests me is the relatively low temperature of the
    ThermalTake 7i heatsink fins (temperature measured near fin edges ~ 1/4"
    from where the heat pipes attach) compared to the TAT reported temperatures.
    It makes me question the thermal resistance between the CPU die and the heat
    spreader and/or the thermal resistance between the heatspreader and the base
    of the heatsink. When under 100% TAT loads there is a 68 C - 35.2 C = 32.8
    C drop from the TAT temperatures to the ThermalTake 7i heatsink fins near
    the heat pipes. When at idle, there is a 39 C - 35.2 C = 3.8 C drop from
    the TAT temperatures to the ThermalTake 7i heatsink fins near the heat
    pipes. I believe the two temperature drops, plus the total power
    dissipation plus the ambient air temperature should be enough to figure the
    thermal resistance between the CPU die and the heatsink base.

    Makes me seriously consider,when I finally have a 'Penryn' Quad upgrade in
    hand, removing the E4300 heat spreader and attaching the heatsink directly
    to the CPU die (it worked for my bare die Pentium III 1 GHz 100 MHz FSB, so
    why not for the E4300? Attaching the heatsink efficiently to a small die (8
    X 8 mm?) is going to be very difficult compared to attaching the ~ 4" cube
    ThermalTake 7i to the ~ 40 X 40 mm integral heatspreader. I wonder if
    variable quality of the CPU die / integral heat spreader contributes a large
    part of the difference in overclocking limits seen in overclocking sites?

    Hypotheses welcome!

    Phil Weldon
     
    Phil Weldon, Dec 5, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Phil Weldon

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh interweb Phil Weldon typed:


    <snip some very interesting stuff>

    > I wonder if
    > variable quality of the CPU die / integral heat spreader contributes
    > a large
    > part of the difference in overclocking limits seen in overclocking
    > sites?


    All I can say is that I hope Intel have got their act together with IHS
    fitting since the Tualatin days.

    Before I got this E4500 and since the Tualatin I've used only AMD CPUs. When
    I was using Tualatins I would remove the IHS and do as you're postulating
    Phil, have the CPU cooler* in direct contact with the core, as the AMD's
    did.

    What I discovered on removing the IHS' was that there seemed to be layer of
    TIM between the die and the IHS that varied in thickness from CPU to CPU,
    with the thinnest being 0.5mm and the thickest around 1.5mm. I never saw a
    core actually in contact with an IHS. If Intel are still doing things the
    same way then IHS fitting could well be the major difference between
    performance with different CPUs.

    Unfortunately I don't have the money to risk my CPU by removing the IHS, I
    can't afford to replace it easilly. Also, it overclocks by 50%. The
    experiment needs to be done my someone with a poorly-performing CPU and more
    money than I have. <g>

    It would be interesting to know....
    --
    TTFN,

    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, Dec 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Phil Weldon

    Fishface Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:

    > Unfortunately I don't have the money to risk my CPU by removing the IHS,
    > I can't afford to replace it easilly. Also, it overclocks by 50%. The experiment
    > needs to be done my someone with a poorly-performing CPU and more money than I have. <g>
    >
    > It would be interesting to know....


    I have read that the core falls below the socket when the IHS is removed. People
    have removed the metal part and depend upon the HSF to hold the CPU in the
    socket. Spring tension is also reduced by removal of the IHS.

    I got the dog E4500 up to 3 GHz in the Biostar 965PT. 11 x 273 at 1.375v vCore.
    It does not like a fast CPU clock and lowered multiplier. The second E4500 does
    the 3 GHz at 9 x 334 with 1.3375v. I could only get it to 3.150 Ghz with 1.375v, but
    I didn't try the higher multiplier and lower CPU clock on that one. The core
    temperature under load seems to be lower than the E6400 at 3.2 GHz by about
    15° C, even with vCore at 1.375 volts vs. 1.28 volts.
     
    Fishface, Dec 6, 2007
    #3
  4. Phil Weldon

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh interweb Fishface typed:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    >> Unfortunately I don't have the money to risk my CPU by removing the
    >> IHS, I can't afford to replace it easilly. Also, it overclocks by 50%.
    >> The experiment needs to be done my someone with a poorly-performing CPU
    >> and more
    >> money than I have. <g> It would be interesting to know....

    >
    > I have read that the core falls below the socket when the IHS is
    > removed. People have removed the metal part and depend upon the HSF
    > to hold the CPU in the socket. Spring tension is also reduced by removal
    > of the IHS.


    Yeah, I figured a modifed cooler would need to be used.

    > I got the dog E4500 up to 3 GHz in the Biostar 965PT. 11 x 273 at
    > 1.375v vCore. It does not like a fast CPU clock and lowered multiplier.
    > The second
    > E4500 does the 3 GHz at 9 x 334 with 1.3375v. I could only get it to
    > 3.150 Ghz
    > with 1.375v, but I didn't try the higher multiplier and lower CPU
    > clock on that one. The core temperature under load seems to be lower
    > than the E6400 at 3.2 GHz by about 15° C, even with vCore at 1.375
    > volts vs. 1.28 volts.


    Getting there. I don't think any of these CPUs are a "dog". :)
    --
    Cheers,

    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, Dec 6, 2007
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Erik Finskas
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,972
    Michael
    Oct 16, 2003
  2. Mark
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    502
    Paul Keinanen
    Oct 3, 2004
  3. Novel

    Problems about pic thermometer

    Novel, Mar 3, 2009, in forum: Embedded
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    624
    linnix
    Mar 4, 2009
  4. Jacobs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    749
    Jacobs
    Aug 3, 2010
  5. AES
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    585
Loading...

Share This Page