Mikewarrior2
Diamond Member
Modified motherboard, of course, since no manufacturer has made a reliable, diode reading mb other than the fujitsu-siemens.
Void Your Warranty Internal Diode Testing.
and, a few quotes to those who don't click the link
<< If you look closely at the two graphs, then you notice that the case temperature, the motherboard's CPU temp, the ambient temperature, and the room temperature are all the same for both tests. However, there is a 7C difference in the internal diode temperature under load. I reproduced this phenomenon by making an excessively thick application of Arctic Alumina, and that produced a temperature 5C higher than a proper application. You can also see in the second graph around 25 minutes where I briefly turned off the fan on the heatsink. The diode temp immediately responded (and cooled down again when I powered the fan back up) but the mobo sensor couldn't see it. >>
<< Second, if the motherboard probe cannot detect a 7C difference in temperature, then if I had to rely only on that probe for notice of CPU over heating then I would make damn sure >>
So, I don't want to sound like i'm bragging, but nah nah nah to all the people who thought that using socket-thermistor's was an accurate way of testing, or that socket-thermistors were good enough, or just plain said I was dumb. There you have results, a 7C internal diode temp with artic alumina had zero effect on the mb socket-thermistor.
The compression is actually even more than i thought it would be... 5-7C diode with no socket-thermistor reading movement. Now come and tell me that you can actually use this method for testing. All statements based on heatsinks/greases can't be made if tested with socket-thermistor due to the tremendously inaccurate nature.
Mike
Void Your Warranty Internal Diode Testing.
and, a few quotes to those who don't click the link
<< If you look closely at the two graphs, then you notice that the case temperature, the motherboard's CPU temp, the ambient temperature, and the room temperature are all the same for both tests. However, there is a 7C difference in the internal diode temperature under load. I reproduced this phenomenon by making an excessively thick application of Arctic Alumina, and that produced a temperature 5C higher than a proper application. You can also see in the second graph around 25 minutes where I briefly turned off the fan on the heatsink. The diode temp immediately responded (and cooled down again when I powered the fan back up) but the mobo sensor couldn't see it. >>
<< Second, if the motherboard probe cannot detect a 7C difference in temperature, then if I had to rely only on that probe for notice of CPU over heating then I would make damn sure >>
So, I don't want to sound like i'm bragging, but nah nah nah to all the people who thought that using socket-thermistor's was an accurate way of testing, or that socket-thermistors were good enough, or just plain said I was dumb. There you have results, a 7C internal diode temp with artic alumina had zero effect on the mb socket-thermistor.
The compression is actually even more than i thought it would be... 5-7C diode with no socket-thermistor reading movement. Now come and tell me that you can actually use this method for testing. All statements based on heatsinks/greases can't be made if tested with socket-thermistor due to the tremendously inaccurate nature.
Mike
