"The P4-560's Heat Can Crash and Kill"

[klah]

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041114/index.html

Our experiences with the P4 system during this review can be called disillusioning, compounded by the fact that we followed Intel's specifications. Or in other words: Any normal user would not do things any different.

In either case, the temperature thresholds for the zones close to the processor on the motherboard we used were exceeded under a high processor load. It is easy for Intel to refer to the maximum chassis temperature here by simply adding a small note to the processor package. But in reality, this requirement is not quite easy to fulfill, since the graphics card, several drives and additional components contribute to heating up the system.
...
So, should a vendor release a product that is only able to run at its maximum performance under special circumstances? The fastest processors certainly are very exclusive devices, but that should not cause more troubles than necessary. The customer wants products that simply work! Think about that before releasing faster products, Intel.
...
Our suspicions were confirmed. While the P4 always ran hot, our tests show that the P4-560's heat factor is enough to make the processor throttle.

I guess Tom has his own office now so he feels free to let his site be critical of INTC.

 

[Lithan]

Maybe this will get the noobs to shut up about how "Heat and power consumption don't matter". I suspect they are all loyal readers of tom's.

 

[LTC8K6]

Using the virgin Intel boxed cooler, the processor will certainly run within its specified parameters even under high workload. However, dismounting the cooler forces the user to clean the processor and the cooler surface in order to deploy a fresh thermal compound - which is exactly where problems begin.

End of story. The chip was flawless with the reference cooler and pad.

It was also flawless with a good heat sink compound.

Next.

 

[Wingznut]

So, if you use Intel's stock cooler and thermal pad, there are no problems.
If you use a decent thermal compound (i.e. Arctic Silver), there are no problems.
If you use crappy generic white thermal grease, you might run into problems.

Astounding!!!

:roll:

 

[DAPUNISHER]

The only viable solution is to get a thermal compound that is based on silver oxide, resulting in much better thermal conductivity. But let's be honest: How many users apart from those who are into tuning and overclocking really care about their thermal compound?

Let's be honest? What a tool! The same group that doesn't care about their thermal compound is also the same group that isn't at all likely to remove the cooler or even open the case and look inside! :disgust: So they suddenly attempt to look non-Intel partial and this is the angle they pick? That if you use cheapo T.I.M. after removing the cooler you might experience thermal throttling? Like I said, what a tool

 

[cbehnken]

Ummm, I believe that a chip that runs so hot that the thermal grease makes a difference at stock speed is bull$hit. Using standard thermal grease in my sig....

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

The only viable solution is to get a thermal compound that is based on silver oxide, resulting in much better thermal conductivity. But let's be honest: How many users apart from those who are into tuning and overclocking really care about their thermal compound?

Let's be honest? What a tool! The same group that doesn't care about their thermal compound is also the same group that isn't at all likely to remove the cooler or even open the case and look inside! :disgust: So they suddenly attempt to look non-Intel partial and this is the angle they pick? That if you use cheapo T.I.M. after removing the cooler you might experience thermal throttling? Like I said, what a tool

not the most stellar review from Tom's. kind of silly actually.

 

[LTC8K6]

Ummm, I believe that a chip that runs so hot that the thermal grease makes a difference at stock speed is bull$hit. Using standard thermal grease in my sig....

You are overclcoking with cheap thermal compound? How much did you save? Would a better TIM give you lower temps? Why wouldn't you want lower temps?

The TIM pad has always been a one time use item. This is true of AMD's pads as well.

You should always use a high quality thermal compound, not "grease", and you have to replace the TIM pad with something if you remove the heatsink.

This is just Tom trying to cBS Intel.

I thought Tom's "AMD's catching on fire" story was ludicrous as well, and I was a diehard Intel user at the time.

 

[Lithan]

Im using radioshack silicon-goop. 5gram tube for $1.90. A64 winchester 3000+ @ 1.70vcore 2600mhz 100% stable with stock cooler (which I believe is inferior to Intel stock cooler). Run 24/7 with xp-120 and AS5, but Primed and gamed for over a week on stock cooler+white paste. White paste actually performs better for me than stock pcm. I also have reseated and not changed PCM with no problems before. I think this was actually Tom's way of downplaying Intels heat problem (Amd's at toms catch fire, Intels at toms (with more than 150% heat output) throttle in a very unlikely situation, but work just dandy in any other situation. Fair and balanced.)

Also ran Northwood 2.26 @ 3.8ghz for more than a month using white paste.

 

[Intelman34]

I want to know what utility they used that shows when the processor is throttling.

My 3.4ghz 775 Prescott is running at 3.85ghz with 1.43Vcore and the stock cooler. When the cooler had the factory goo on the bottom, the CPU would run around 61-63C under full load. Now I have AS5 on it and I can't pass 56C. It is always running two instances of Folding@Home and I haven't had an issue yet.

I am looking for a better aftermarket LGA775 cooler though. I just can't decide which one.

 

[cbehnken]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

Ummm, I believe that a chip that runs so hot that the thermal grease makes a difference at stock speed is bull$hit. Using standard thermal grease in my sig....

You are overclcoking with cheap thermal compound? How much did you save? Would a better TIM give you lower temps? Why wouldn't you want lower temps?

The TIM pad has always been a one time use item. This is true of AMD's pads as well.

You should always use a high quality thermal compound, not "grease", and you have to replace the TIM pad with something if you remove the heatsink.

This is just Tom trying to cBS Intel.

I thought Tom's "AMD's catching on fire" story was ludicrous as well, and I was a diehard Intel user at the time.

??

The heat sink GREASE (yes it is similar in texture to grease, don't correct my terms when they suit the situation fine) came with my heatsink (Thermaltake Silent Boost K8). I am running 46 degrees at 2488 Mhz(Max prime95 load for 48+ hours) on my Socket 754 3200+. I am very pleased with my o/c and my temps.

What I AM saying is that I think Intel's chips are far to close to their maximum tolerences now. While I agree that all modern chips need thermal compound, the brand and quality of it should only be a really big issue if you are o/c.

 

[Lithan]

If you like silence you might try the new zalman. I love the xp-120... but it is a real hassel to remove (likes to rip procs out of the socket and bend pins, with my p4p800 it was almost impossible to safely remove.) Also, not too many boards are fully compatible with it.

I never noticed that serious a temp difference between TIM's to be honest. 5*C tops I'd guess. And if you are within 5*C of overheating, that's problem if you ask me. A hot day could put you 5*C up before you'd even bother turning A/C on.

 

[Thermalrock]

i own an tbird 1400mhz that runs at 72°C idle and 79-83°C load. since more than 3 years 24/7. amd said it can take up to 95 so i never bothered to improve things. id bet on it lasting several more years. its not oc tho. and i dont really care much for that pc anyway, just keeping it around till it dies if it does. i think in the summer it goes alil higher than that too up to 87-88. never crashes never gives me any trouble. how much does intel say a prescott can take? if you stay bellow that i wouldnt worry too much.

 

[imported_whatever]

Originally posted by: Thermalrock
i own an tbird 1400mhz that runs at 72°C idle and 79-83°C load. since more than 3 years 24/7. amd said it can take up to 95 so i never bothered to improve things. id bet on it lasting several more years. its not oc tho. and i dont really care much for that pc anyway, just keeping it around till it dies if it does. i think in the summer it goes alil higher than that too up to 87-88. never crashes never gives me any trouble. how much does intel say a prescott can take? if you stay bellow that i wouldnt worry too much.

that hot... i am surprised.
before my current system, i had a thunderbird 1333 that would get up to about 64C. that was on stock cooler and the SECOND time i put it on (ie reused thermal pad). did you have no airflow in your system?

 

[Thermalrock]

its still running and i turned the case fans off right away 3 years ago. my psu and cpus fan dont have a feature to run faster if the case gets hotter so it made it hotter but more quiet. its still insanely loud (very thin alu case + geforce 3) but with case fans it was at a point that would give me a headache instantly. i just made sure it stayed bllow the 95° amd allowed and thought id be fine. and well i was as i said its still running 24/7. doesnt have dust filters never bothered to clean the inside either. i really dont care much for the thing and wont cry if it breaks but it hasnt and doesnt look like it will. i think if you dont oc and stay bellow whatever intel or amd say is max temp youll be fine.

 

[LTC8K6]

What I AM saying is that I think Intel's chips are far to close to their maximum tolerences now

Nope, or Prescotts wouldn't overclock as good as they do on air.

It's still not grease, no matter how many times you use the term.

Tom's article makes no sense whatsoever to me.

How many computer geeks do not know that you have to replace the TIM pad with thermal compound if you remove the heatsink? How many geeks even use the pad anyway? Who is going to remove the heatsink? Overclockers most likely, and they know all about the pad and the use of good thermal compound.

Almost no regular Joe who uses a computer will ever remove the heatsink from the CPU.

Removing the original heatsink pad and using crappy thermal compound voids the warranty anyway.

The whole article is just silly.

 

[Lithan]

You consider less than 10% overclocks good? Current top prescott is 3.8. How many people are hitting 4.2 on stock cooling in a typical environment? Saying that something overclocks so that means the chips aren't thermally limited is foolish because overclockers go to lengths standard users would never go to in dealing with heat.

http://www.intek-uk.com/TCGheatdata.htm

Hmm... What's the "G" in tcg stand for?

 

[LTC8K6]

There are plenty of threads around here with good Prescott overclocks and good temps on air. No question about it at all in my mind. I wouldn't have said it if I didn't believe it.

Standard users of Intel chips will never see the silly scenario that Tom used. Their Prescotts will run fine all day long at their rated speeds and they will be entirely satisfied.

Firingsquad:

Using the D925XECV2 motherboard and its latest BIOS, which fixes a problem with Intel?s burn-in mode, the 3.8GHz Pentium 4 scaled up to 4.3GHz ? the highest setting available ? without crashing. It didn?t prove to be as reliable in games, so we dropped it to 4.2GHz, where the platform worked without issue.

Looks like Intel could certainly have released a 4ghz Prescott if they wanted to.

 

[LTC8K6]

If you are using Intek's product then you can certainly call it what they call it.


It's still not a grease, though.

 

[Lithan]

If they could have they would have released 4ghz. They didn't because they couldn't. And thermal grease is actually a common term for thermal paste/thermal goop/thermally conductive grease. Grease just means that it is viscous.


http://www.google.com/search?h...amp;btnG=Google+Search

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Lithan
If they could have they would have released 4ghz. They didn't because they couldn't.

Completely untrue. They didn't, because they felt the resources would've been put to better use speeding up the introduction of future (read: dual core) products.

 

[cbehnken]

Thanks for sticking up for my grease term Lithan, didn't think LTC would be so hard about a common term... lol

 

[cbehnken]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Lithan
If they could have they would have released 4ghz. They didn't because they couldn't.

Completely untrue. They didn't, because they felt the resources would've been put to better use speeding up the introduction of future (read: dual core) products.

You honestly believe that? That want to allow AMD to have the highest rated processor for months?

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: cbehnken

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Lithan
If they could have they would have released 4ghz. They didn't because they couldn't.

Completely untrue. They didn't, because they felt the resources would've been put to better use speeding up the introduction of future (read: dual core) products.

You honestly believe that? That want to allow AMD to have the highest rated processor for months?

I really don't think competition with AMD keeps Intel up awake at night. And I'm speaking figuratively since I recognize they have a night shift.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: gururu

Originally posted by: cbehnken

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Lithan
If they could have they would have released 4ghz. They didn't because they couldn't.

Completely untrue. They didn't, because they felt the resources would've been put to better use speeding up the introduction of future (read: dual core) products.

You honestly believe that? That want to allow AMD to have the highest rated processor for months?

I really don't think competition with AMD keeps Intel up awake at night. And I'm speaking figuratively since I recognize they have a night shift.

cbehnken, I know it for a fact. (I work for Intel, as a Photolithography Technician.)

It's about the long run, not just for a few months. If scrapping 4ghz means the timely delivery of a very nice dual core product, who's going to care next year? Remember, it takes years to develop and manufacture a processor.

gururu, of course AMD is a concern. They make very good products and are very strong competition. To say that Intel isn't concerned would be very arrogant of them, and a recipe for losing their lead.