New Intel Q9450 (2.66Ghz) CPU Idle Temp Equiry

[viol37]

Hey there guys,

Today I managed to get my hands on a new Intel Q9450 and upgraded from my old Q6600.

I'm a little concerned at the idle temp of my Q9450.

I'm using a Zalman 9700NT pure copper cooler my average idle temp for my Q6600 running at a stock speed of 2.4Ghz was ranging from 30 to 34.

I assumed with the Q9450 that considering that it is based on 45nm wafer that it would run cooler therefore my idle temps would be lower that what I was achieving with my Q6600 but my current idle temp for the Q9450 ranges from 38 to 40.

Does this sound about right to you guys?

I would appreciate any feedback.

Vio|37

 

[edrom]

No, that can't be right.

Is that temp as per BIOS or CPUZ or what?
It may be that an update to CPUz is needed for correct temp reading - I read about that somewhere..

What is BIOS temp reading?

The obvious: did you get a good thermal compound connection? (that's something I always worry about.. I'm such a noob!) Also the thermal connection needs to be, uh, set, several iterations of hot and then PC off to cool down..

My q9450 is on pre-order.. not sure when it will get here. prolly not until 1st week in april.

but pls keep us posted as to your progress, benchmarks, etc.

what mobo you have? memory?

edro

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: viol37
Hey there guys,

Today I managed to get my hands on a new Intel Q9450 and upgraded from my old Q6600.

I'm a little concerned at the idle temp of my Q9450.

I'm using a Zalman 9700NT pure copper cooler my average idle temp for my Q6600 running at a stock speed of 2.4Ghz was ranging from 30 to 34.

I assumed with the Q9450 that considering that it is based on 45nm wafer that it would run cooler therefore my idle temps would be lower that what I was achieving with my Q6600 but my current idle temp for the Q9450 ranges from 38 to 40.

Does this sound about right to you guys?

I would appreciate any feedback.

Vio|37

What are you using to get that temp? IF it's a software program, it could be calculating the temp of the wrong Tjunction value, thus skewing your results.

 

[aigomorla]

coretemp can not accurate display temps, but they report the highest temps. Even on my QX.

RealTemp is really off, it tells you the tjunction and not actual temps. So its like a tick meter telling you how much more you can go without shut down.

Speedfan and everest, good luck getting to work.


give the developers some time.

 

[newbiepcuser]

Is there an updated BIOS for your motherboard for the new 45nm CPU?

 

[Sind]

Ah new processor, new find your temps game. With the E8400 I am still guessing through the use of 3+ programs whom some give the same, others off within 5-10 deg. Manufacturers need to provice more info to people so they can update there temp monitoring progs properly, not have it a seeming guess game. Grats on the proc btw, looking at it closely to get my quad core jive on.

 

[viol37]

Hi all,

I always use the BIOS when it comes to measuring CPU temps.

This morning I checked the idle temp and found that it was sitting on 35, which ain't bad.

I just assumed that less voltage, would mean lower temps but I was wrong but it's OK.

I also always use good thermal compound as I'm using Arctic Silver 5.

I'm using the latest BIOS rev 1101 for my motherboard and I have check Asus' CPU support list and they state that the Q9450 for the Striker II Formula has been supported since BIOS rev 0501.

My Specs:
Asus Striker II Fomula (1333 FSB)
Intel® Core?2 Quad Q9450 2.66Ghz
ThermalTake Toughpower 750 watt (modular)
Zalman CNPS 9700NT (100% Pure Copper)
x2 Corsair Twin2X Dominator 2048MB PC8500 (1066Mhz) = 4096MB
x3 Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10000 RPM 16MB Buffer = 207GB (RAID0)
Custom 1.44MB with Integrated Card Reader (CF, SD, MMC, SM, MemoryStick, Microdrives)
x2 Inno3D GeForce 8800GTS 512MB DDR3 OC Edition (700/2000Mhz) = SLI
SoundBlaster X-Fi XtremeGamer

Vio|37

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I suspect the 266mhz higher clock speed has something to do with it. I've always noticed when overclocking that heat seems to be more relational with clockspeed than voltage.

In other words if you keep the clockspeed the same and increase the volts the temps will go up, but if you keep the volts the same and increase the clockspeed the temps will go up faster. I think too many people see a 1:1 relationship between volts and temps and thats just not true.

For example, I have a terrible B3 E6400 (a real heater and pretty much a dud overclocker) and it takes a pretty hefty voltage increase just to get it stable at 3150mhz and insane amounts over that. But at 3150 1.38v after vdroop (1.48 bios) it runs cooler than an E8400 cranked past 4ghz. on less volts

 

[Quiksilver]

Have you set the vCore manually to what it should be at stock? I don't trust a BIOS to do that for me, could pump way more voltage than needed.

 

[bryanW1995]

What aigomorla meant is that whenever new chips come out it typically takes a couple of months to get all the software to work properly with them. be patient and it will work out.

 

[viol37]

Hi all,

In terms of voltage I am running everything at default with the exception of my memory voltage which has been manually set to 2.2v.

Below are all my default voltage settings:

vCore = 1.21
1.2 = 1.21
NB = 1.26
SB = 1.50
CPU PLL = 1.52
CPU VTT = 1.10

Vio|37