Rediculous P4 Max temperature claim

imported_Apprentice

Junior Member
Jun 2, 2004
3
0
0
I just ran into a couple of people claiming that newer P4 processors could reach 137 degree Celsius temperatures without becoming damaged. According to the source they apparently are able to do this by "slowing themselves down so that they don't damage themselves, but can still run."

They weren't content with my answer that I thought they were making an idiotic statement, so I called their bluff by phoning Intel dircetly and getting the skinny on it. I was informed that the P4 3.40E processor can achieve a maximum temperature of 73.2C before it completely shuts itself (and supposedly the computer) off for protection. The 3.0 is able to attain 69.1C before doing the same.

Converted into Farenheit, that's 163F, or 156F respectively, so I think these guys have their wires crossed, and Intel agrees with me. However that's not enough for them, and I think this needs some backup. You guys have the best reputation in my mind, so here I am.

Can anybody verify either Intel's claims as being short of the truth, or the claims of these guys as being absolutely rediculous?

What heat in Celsius is the Pentium 4 processor able to achieve and still become physically damaged? How hot is it able to run before the computer itself starts experiencing problems running in general?

Intel says 73.2C those babies shut right down. These guys say up to 137C they start slowing themselves down to protect themselves and any higher damages them.

Why would you even want to run that hot anyway? You wouldn't, but the righteous have a god and their god is false. We can't prove the bible, but we sure as heck can prove this.

Thanks in advance, looking forward to real info, real backup, and a real opportunity to dispel some myths.
 

wkwong

Banned
May 10, 2004
280
0
0
they must of confused F with C, lol.

most intel cpu's begin to crash at around 70-80c. tom's hardware had a video before of the cpu temps with heatsinks removed for different processors. even though the P4 can withstand a lot of heat, I am sure it cannot run at 137 C.
 

myocardia

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2003
9,291
30
91
Originally posted by: wkwong
they must of confused F with C, lol.

most intel cpu's begin to crash at around 70-80c. tom's hardware had a video before of the cpu temps with heatsinks removed for different processors. even though the P4 can withstand a lot of heat, I am sure it cannot run at 137 C.
Quite obviously.
 

JBT

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
12,094
1
81
137C??!?!!? those things would be toast, not just running slower !!! :Q
 

imported_Apprentice

Junior Member
Jun 2, 2004
3
0
0
Do you have a link to the video? I can't seem to find it in Tom's myriad of topics. They referred to this video as well, so it would be killer to find out that it's Farenheit there as well.
 

imported_Apprentice

Junior Member
Jun 2, 2004
3
0
0
Thanks for the link! It doesn't show off the newer processors, so i'm not sure if that's what they were referring to. The funny thing is after the first tested CPU they forget the decimal places in the temperatures. I can't wait to run my Athlon XP 1400+ at 698C! *snicker*
 

Kalmah

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2003
3,692
1
76
After I first built my current computer and turned it on, the temperature rose to a little over 80 c and automatically shut itself off. (The heatsink wasn't latched properly)
 

Wingznut

Elite Member
Dec 28, 1999
16,968
2
0
So, let me get this straight...

You got the answer directly from Intel, and that's STILL not enough proof for these guys? Ummm... Why are you bothering having a conversation with them??? ;)
 

klah

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2002
7,070
1
0
There are two independent thermal sensors in the Pentium 4 processor with 512-KB L2 cache on 0.13 micron process. One is the on-die thermal diode described in Section 3.4.7.1. The other is the temperature sensor used for the Thermal Monitor and for THERMTRIP#. The Thermal Monitor?s temperature sensor and the on-die thermal diode are independent and isolated devices with no direct correlation to one another. Circuit constraints and performance requirements prevent the Thermal Monitor?s temperature sensor and the on-die thermal diode from being located at the same place on the silicon. As a result, it is not possible to predict the activation of the thermal control circuit by monitoring the on-die thermal diode.

From section 3.4.7.3 here: ftp://download.intel.com/design/Pentium4/guides/25216101.pdf

The 135C figure is an internal reading of the silicon temperature. The 70-75C Max is read from the center of the IHS.
 

carlosd

Senior member
Aug 3, 2004
782
0
0
This is not posible since at this temperature the silicon would melt.:laugh:
Long time ago I don't believe a word from intel.:thumbsdown:
 

mechBgon

Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
Oct 31, 1999
30,699
1
0
Originally posted by: klah
There are two independent thermal sensors in the Pentium 4 processor with 512-KB L2 cache on 0.13 micron process. One is the on-die thermal diode described in Section 3.4.7.1. The other is the temperature sensor used for the Thermal Monitor and for THERMTRIP#. The Thermal Monitor?s temperature sensor and the on-die thermal diode are independent and isolated devices with no direct correlation to one another. Circuit constraints and performance requirements prevent the Thermal Monitor?s temperature sensor and the on-die thermal diode from being located at the same place on the silicon. As a result, it is not possible to predict the activation of the thermal control circuit by monitoring the on-die thermal diode.

From section 3.4.7.3 here: ftp://download.intel.com/design/Pentium4/guides/25216101.pdf

The 135C figure is an internal reading of the silicon temperature. The 70-75C Max is read from the center of the IHS.
Thank you for saving me the trouble, klah :) Here is an article with some follow-on info for those who might be interested, although it's getting a bit old at this point: http://www.overclockers.com/articles517/

Oh, and check your speeling of the werd "ridiculous", Apprentice ;)
 

bjc112

Lifer
Dec 23, 2000
11,460
0
76
Originally posted by: Wingznut
So, let me get this straight...

You got the answer directly from Intel, and that's STILL not enough proof for these guys? Ummm... Why are you bothering having a conversation with them??? ;)