• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why You Can't Measure Beneficial Effect OF Silver Greases

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Ignore the polemics of ridicule and exaggeration.

Thread = "Arctic Silver...Good????"...plus "Arctic Silver Did Nothing" at ArsTechnica...plus "Test" by obviously unqualified site showing no benefit from Arctic Silver = but 3 "recent" instances of popular doubt, (how many more??),...brought on no doubt by "faulty measurements"...the reason for original post.
John C.
 
John,

I had not seen the thread at ARS.

"I got no difference when I applied Arctic Silver, oh and by the way, the thermistor measuring the temperature is about 1 cm (~1/2 inch) away from the CPU core."

THAT is funny!

BTW, I just tested the Dodge Viper and Dodge Neon and got no significant difference in acceleration.
(Of course, I tested them on an icy road.)

Nevin
 
I get a variance of roughly 10-15C between a thermistor in socket reading and a internal p3 diode reading(7vca vs cusl2). Unfortunately, i never tried this with anything other than AS.



Mike
 
eia430
I certainly did not mean to mislead anyone, but the temperature measurements I had listed several posts back were what I thought we could expect. Not actual measurements. I hope that was clear to everyone. I've got no test equipment except a few Radio Shack probes which I can't actually fit in the perfect position. I don't test this sort of thing for a living nor do I have access to a lab or those who do. But I did stay in a "Holiday INN Express last night!" Actually I have taken a graduate level heat transfer course but that was a LONG time ago. I felt compelled to contribute more than just "yep" in the 2nd post.
One purpose of my example was to show that the typical probe stuck somewhere in the heatsink MIGHT show no real difference between the heatsink compounds when in fact there is probably a significant difference, if you could measure it.
BTW I use the Circuit Works stuff since I got it free (almost as good) with an Alpha Pep66 and ran my 2 ea. CII 566@952 during June and July, the hittest months of the year. (OK, I put one back down to 850mhz recently).

johncar
yes, I've seen the numbers. Artic Silver 10 to 12 times higher conductivity than straight silicon based grease. 8X just made my numbers come out nicely. Might be 8X anyway with possible air pockets in the material and possible differences in thickness of the heatsink compounds.

Dyflam
Listing the "air inlet temperature" as 75°F is the same as saying the ambient temperature is 75°F = 23.88°C in my example.


 
Johncar, Nevin, These people (arstechnica, and other sites) are not publishing in the journal of sciences, nor will they ever, it is their own websites. They are regular people testing the things around them in ways regular people expect. They may not satisfy both of you guys, but what would you much rather they do? nothing? I'm sure that you both were absolutely perfect and made no mistakes when you were learning about thermodynamics. I think it's commendable that that attempts are even being made to compare different things. This forum that you are posting on is on a site that was not built by an electrical engineer with an illustrious career (and apparantly infallible to nevin(those with illustrius careers)) spaning decades. Yet this site deals with computer technology and does so to a respectible degree. I'm sure that you are well aware that Anand was quite young, one of many very fallible but commendable tinkerers out there, when he started this site. If our imprecision, our "polemics and exaggerations" the apparent sub-standardity of our work is beneath you two then why be here? why read these articles? Why not be at a site where the published articles will be to a degree of precision that satisfies you guys? Get used to the fact we are regular people here, and if our standards are not as high as yours you can always go to a community where they are.

I have a suggestion, why don't you (Johncar) write an article about the "only" way that you think interface performance should be tested. Then e-mail it to different sites. Sites are always looking for new articles to publish. If you think this community is lacking in something that you are strong in, then bring us to speed on it.
 
Nevin, if you were to try to expand your horizons to new areas, I'm sure that many people could find faults with your first tries. I hope these people are not as snoddy as you have become. But then again, if you no longer are understanding of the mistakes made by first journys then you must have already stopped trying to expand your own horizons. You are in a community of explorers and tinkerers, those that constantly try to expand their horizons and make mistakes and deal with them as they go along. If this is substandard to you, well... you came into our world, we didn't come into yours.
 
Eia430,

When I made mistakes testing products or components early in my career, the procedures and results were reviewed by a senior engineer, the mistakes were caught and the test procedures were corrected. The invalid results were not posted to a forum or web site where they were relied upon by thousands of people thereby causing financial damage to the company producing the product being tested.

For example:

There was an incredible heatsink produces a couple of years ago that would outperform even the best of today. The sites that reviewed it did not understand (and did not want to learn) that due to its innovative design, their standard seat-of-the-pants test methods would not provide accurate performance data. The reviews were marginal, and the company folded. We would not be debating the Alpha vs Hedgehog vs Arcticooler comparison if this heatsink had not been ruined by the negative publicity.

Another review site compared thermal compounds in late 1999, by putting a thermistor on the heatsink. Not surprisingly, the Radio Shack compound won the comparison since it kept the heatsink the coolest. The best greases finished at the bottom of the pack. Even when I pointed out that a 1/4 inch layer of mud from the garden would have finished in first place since the heatsink would have stayed stone cold, the site refused to even consider that there could be a flaw in their testing procedure. This test, with its 180 degree backwards results, is still quoted from time to time as proof that R.S. thermal grease is really the best.
(My compound wasn't out and was not in the test so the challenge to the results was not personal.)

So yes, the misinformation is harmful. It hurts the companies trying to offer a superior product and it hearts the computer users who end up with an inferior product because he did not have valid information to base a decision on.

Nevin
 
i find it very funny that eia430 shows up on the bbs and automatically thinks that he's the $hit compared to everyone else, especially people like JohnCar who know's what he's talking about.



Mike
 
Might I also add, that while you think nevin is acting "Snoddy", it is you who came into this perfectly fine thread and started acting like an @sshole discounting what JohnCar was talking about.

It is very ironic that while you claim this is a forum for sharing idea's, you are the one coming in there discounting everyone elses ideas with your own idiotic posts.

I also find it funny that you were not a part of "our world" until very recently you were not part of "our world" as in Nevin's and JohnCar's and everyone elses.

Once again, I will reiterate that you have come into a perfectly normal forum, you spew unprovoked profanities at people and make personal attacks. Why? Has JohnCAr done something to you personally? Do you hold a grudge against him because he know's waht he is talking about? Or are you just a stupid $hit? Since you obviously have nothing to contribute other than saying $hit about everyone else, why don't you leave "our world" and go somewhere where you can be as SNODDY as you want to be?


Mike

 
eia430,
Infallibility...never claimed it, neither did Nevin...neat trick for you to try to paint us both with that unpopular brush...typical of your tactics.

Neat trick #2...who made you the spokesman for the majority of people at this and other sites??...suggesting they agree with you. Sorry, as far as we know, you've got your own one vote.

Then you wrote..."have a suggestion, why don't you (Johncar) write an article about the "only" way that you think interface performance should be tested".

It's been done, aavid.com, "Thermal Performance Of Interface Material In Microelectronics Packaging Applications"...using temp drop across
the interface, just as DaddyG and Nick Stone know and said it should be done...but with appropriate test procedure impossible to duplicate in the field. Best that can be done in the field is to measure comparative internal/diode temps as Nevin does...but that does not get the absolute conductivity of materials as in Aavid's test. But diode temps' comparisons do get full benefit in lower degC of chip in a particular system/install, what's needed to make good decisions, as Nevin pointed out.

And when we wrote, "....but 3 "recent" instances of popular doubt, (how many more??),...brought on no doubt by "faulty measurements", the reason for original post"....note the uncritical phrase "popular doubt", esp "doubt"...we are not snobs as you suggest, not inferring incompetence, nor demanding laboratory precision in the field, (that's your neat fabrication/trick #3), just tried to "explain why" their measurements can't get correct results at best, mislead at worst. What's wrong with that??

But neither this nor any explanation will satisfy "you". Just hope it confirms validity of our original post, hopefully not forgotten, to readers.
Fully expect your next barrage...but don't expect a response, we've made our case several times over.
John C.
 
I wish I could ignore what EIa430 says, but he does seem to think that he is the conscience of this BBS. You could not get any farther from the truth. WHen someone like JohnCar or Nevin come in and state "FACTS", the rest of us BBS users learn from these "facts". WE users do not view Nevin as snoddy, nor has he ever been snoddy.

NOr do we view EIA430 as the messiah of the bbs that will lead us into a glorious new age in BBSing... I think eia430 needs a serious reality check, cause he's obviously living in some dream world where everything he says is written in stone.



Mike
 
I think that eia430 is putting up a good arguement. A model university student. 😉
Little harsh and directed at times, but thats called human nature.
People keep mentioning "facts".
But whos to say what facts are true?
There are positive and negative results when using the silver goo.
If someone who was "respectable" and did some tests and exercised their extened knowledge of theory, and then labelled their results as "facts".
Why would you bow down and render these as 100% truths?
So what if research was flawed? Or methods used are flawed?
If one person never spoke up or challenged thoes "truths", how would you ever find out they are incorrect? Or how would you ever improve on them?
Ever see the leading scientist botch an entire project becasue they mis-wrote one number?
eHEHeh I have. Ive seen many many "leading scientists" screw things up. I worked at a government laboratory for a year.
Ive had positive results with the artic silver.
I dont see how my temp reading of 50c before the silver grease, and then the 45c reading after the grease does not clearly show an improvement.
So the discussion has moved from The effectiveness of silver grease to, a two sided discussion about the theorys of thermal dynamic heat distrobution.
I think the proof is in the pudding.
Joncar, you got your stuff down, but tell me, is there something more effective then the silver paste? Or is the radio shack stuff as effective as the silver stuff?
Bottom line, is it better?
 
Nevin, There are extremes out there, and I will agree with you that measuring from the heatsink only will give a 180 degree results. For that person to not see that right off hand is a sin. But I can also find quite a few reviews that have taken the time to measure from behind the cpu slug using a thermistor that's designed to be mounted there. I'm not defending total 180 degree information. What I'm defending are reviews that are done in a manner that is usable to most people. Just because it was not done in a lab with a fully insulated conductor with controlled heat sources on both sides does not mean the information is unusable. To say that it is "impossible" or near so is what I'm working against. For most people out there saying that there was a measured drop of 7 degrees between two different greases measured from behind the cpu slug is enough. I don't think people care about secondary heat pathways, or clamping force, or surface roughness, insulation used, etc.

I do agree though that totaly wrong information is very destructive, and your sample of the review that had 180 out of phase information is a testimonial to that. But I think you'll agree with me that, that particular review is the exception rather than the rule.
 
it is one thing to debate and argue, but it is completely another to say, and i quote eia430 on this "stop talking out of your rear orifice" to someone like johncar, who clearly know's what he is talking about. At this point, it degrades from a discussion to just plain personal and unwarranted attacks.

Secondly, i belive JohnCar has already said that silver grease is better, but there are many instances where silver grease's benefit cannot be measured. Take your socket A mb that uses a thermistor underneath the cpu to read cpu temps. Not only are temp readings condensed overall(they never reach as high as htey should), but the results are inaccurate. Because of this, in certain cases, the difference in air-temp behind the cpu is not measureable when comparing silver grease versus Radio shack grease.

Make no doubt about it, with p3 internal diode temp readings, silver grease(both artic silver and chemtronics stuff) is far better than radio shack stuff. Ignoring the fact that diode readings differ from not only chip to chip but mb to mb, if you run a test with only 1 cpu on 1 mb, and are genuinely reading internal diode temps, you will see better results with silver grease.


Mike
 
Mikewarrior You must be blind, or you can't read. I had already apologized to Johncar about my first post to him and gave an explanation as to how it happened. Do you have the ability to post something other than curse words? What do you have in your head? I am interested in debating points, not in a cursing match with a person that knows nothing else but to curse.

As to "our world" if you had half a brain you would have picked up that it was made in reference to tinkerers and in general tech websites. Not a single website and definately not a single forum.

Ok, Mr. Warrior, I've replied to your cheap-shots but you've hit my limit of effort that I'll put towards cheapshots. I'll reply to any debate points you may have, but it's not worth anything to address your curses. Curse all you want, it falls on deaf ears. But you really must put more thought into your attempted insults. I didn't even feel it.
 
You forget, that while there has been one review with a 7 degree improvement, there are several reviews taht say there is either no improvement, or only a 1 degree improvement(hard ocp, and several others).

And then there are ones, like pham computer saying that his cpu ran hotter with artic silver than it did with radio shack stuff. And several people on this bbs saying they get no improvement as well.

I could easily see that for ever good(proper temp measurement, proper test methods) review, there is at least 1 that is just plain awful.

The problem with the bad reviews, like Pham Computers, is their "ignorance" to why they got the results they got. He claimed only a 3 degree variance between every single grease he tried, including radio shack stuff, mpu 3.7, hte alpha stuff, etc. Add in the fact that in order for him to get 31C on his chip, he would have needed an ambient of around 10-12C, coupled with his "i'm standing by what I'm saying" attitude makes an even worse review.

Mike
 
Johncar, you said

"But diode temps' comparisons do get full benefit in lower degC of chip in a particular system/install, what's needed to make good decisions, as Nevin pointed out"

I've been trying to argue that point with you, you simply said that it could not be done based on changes in the ratios of secondary heat pathways affecting the primary pathway. So which is it? Are you correct when you say that you do get full benefit in lower deg temp of chip in a particular system? Or when you say that you can't get accurate results based on the effects of secondary pathways? Make up your mind on which one is "correct."

Infallibitily, no you did not claim it but Nevin effectively claimed it for you. He listed your past accomplishments in support of the likely hood that you are correct now. I countered with the accomplished and respected people in the past that swore the earth was flat, and that the earth was the center of the universe. Even respected and accomplished people can and have been wrong.

Neat trick #2 I can suggest (and will be correct in doing so) that most people in this and other websites agree with me that current methodologies used in testing is adequately accurate. As proof I can use the popularity of this and other sites. If people looked at the reviews on this website and other websites as inadequate, they would not visit this and other sites. But they do come don't they? A vote of popularity = vote of acceptance.

Neat trick #3 you said "nor demanding laboratory precision in the field"
But you did. When I said that it was possible to measure the full benefit of greases measured from under the cpu slug you said it cannot be accurate based on secondary heat pathways. Who would care about secondary heatpathways and the effects of it's ratio change in relation to the primary heat pathway? only a lab. You infered lab precision by bringing up something that can only be measured in a lab.

All the "tricks" inclusive... Johncar, I'm sure you're not naive. In any public debate it is part of the game to put a spin on things. Nevin does the same thing in a much more crude manner... "dangerous like a 16yo with a 3mo driver's licence."

But all of this still does not settle the mystery of your statements. Are you correct when you say one thing? or are you correct when you say the complete opposite? In one post it's impossible to quantify the full benefits of silver grease based on measuring from under the cpu slug. In another post (your last one) it is possible to measure the full benefits of silver grease from under the cpu slug. I'm confused, enlighten me.
 
Mr Warrior, you said "it is one thing to debate and argue, but it is completely another to say, and i quote eia430 on this "stop talking out of your rear orifice" to someone like johncar, who clearly know's what he is talking about. At this point, it degrades from a discussion to just plain personal and unwarranted attacks."


I'll spell this out in caps so you can read it and not mistake it for anything else. I AGREE WITH YOU. There, was that clear enough? in plain enough english? In my VERY NEXT post to Johncar I apologized for doing so and even explained why it happened to begin with. If this isn't clear enough for you I have no idea how to make it any more clear than I already have. Another post from you indicating that you still don't understand this and I'll start thinking you have a quarter brain instead of half.
 
eia430,

You said to Johncar, (Highlight added)


<< Are you correct when you say one thing? or are you correct when you say the complete opposite? In one post it's impossible to quantify the full benefits of silver grease based on measuring from under the cpu slug. In another post (your last one) it is possible to measure the full benefits of silver grease from under the cpu slug. I'm confused, enlighten me. >>



You're confused, but I'm at a loss. I have read Johncar's last post through several times and cannot find the statement you attribute to him.

Is this neat trick #4, put words in someone else's mouth (keyboard?) then challenge them to defend something they never said.

You are too tricky for me.

Nevin has left the building.
 
Sammyson you wrote &quot;If one person never spoke up or challenged thoes &quot;truths&quot;, how would you ever find out they are incorrect? Or how would you ever improve on them?&quot;

A person that understands the purpose and need for debates. You also understand the need to question. It feels good to be understood.

As for being a bit harsh and directed, what can I say? we all have our faults. But it is still better to be a curious cat than a mindless nonquestioning heard animal (sheep.)

Thanks for the support, hopefuly one of these days we'll be in an informative debate ourselves.
 
Sammy Son, you wrote......
I've had positive results with the artic silver. I dont see how my temp reading of 50c before the silver grease, and then the 45c reading after the grease does not clearly show an improvement.
So the discussion has moved from The effectiveness of silver grease to, a two sided discussion about the theorys of thermal dynamic heat distrobution.
I think the proof is in the pudding.
Joncar, you got your stuff down, but tell me, is there something more effective then the silver paste? Or is the radio shack stuff as effective as the silver stuff? Bottom line, is it better? End quote.

First of all, go back and read the original post, where you will see that the issue was not about the effectiveness of silver grease, but about the ability to &quot;measure&quot; that effectiveness with certain mobo sensor locations...and then explains why that can happen, the heat distribution is simply part of the explanation re the measurement problem, it is not the issue eia430 makes it to be. Can anyone deny that they have seen posts &quot;doubting&quot; the effectiveness of silver grease based on &quot;their measurements&quot; which show no or very little improvement re lower temps?? Well our objective was to explain &quot;why&quot; they may not have gotten lower temps from &quot;their&quot; sensors. We know silver grease is the best interface material, but not everybody has been able to demonstrate that with their particular sensor setup...agreed?? And in the last paragraph we say that the full beneficial effect of silver grease can be measured with Intel chips' thermal diodes.

Your 5C improvement definitely shows an improvement, but if it is not the difference between &quot;in chip&quot; diode measurements, chip might actually be running &quot;more&quot; than 5C cooler, depends on the location of sensor if not a thermal diode. But that was not our main point, main point was to explain to the &quot;doubters&quot; why their sensors showed &quot;no or little improvement&quot;. Subject says...Why You Can't Measure Beneficial Effect Of Silver Grease. &quot;Measure&quot; and &quot;Beneficial&quot; are the key words, and said it all as far as we're concerned.

We have no problem with people reporting variable beneficial effects
of silver grease, as they can also evolve from variable cpu loadings, as well as and in combination with less than ideal sensor locations.
But when they report no or very little improvement &quot;and conclude&quot; that silver grease is no better than RS stuff, they need to be shown why their results, (and not questioning sensor accuracy), may not be valid indicators of performance. Hope you agree.
John C.
 
Nevin, I'd hate to admit this but you are right, I was going from memory and got one little detail incorrect. I'll clarify.

Johncar wrote in his last post
&quot;But diode temps' comparisons do get full benefit in lower degC of chip in a particular system/install, what's needed to make good decisions, as Nevin pointed out.&quot;

Which is in direct conflict with what he said
&quot;When silver grease is applied to the principal heat transfer path thru the hs, this causes a &quot;redistribution&quot; of the heat flows thru &quot;all&quot; heat flow paths. The major heat flow hs path gets a &quot;little more&quot; of the constant total heat flow because of its new lower thermal resistance. But that &quot;little more&quot; comes from the other &quot;minor heat flows&quot; paths, like thru the bottom and/or the edges of the chip. So those minor heat flow paths see a much higher percentage change in their heat flow than the low percentage change in the main/hs flow path. Besides which, the heat flow changes are in opposite directions, increasing in the main/hs path and decreasing in the other minor heat flow paths.&quot;

In short he just said that you would need to measure all secondary heat paths and therefore you cannot simply measure in one location. Johncar just did not want to accept a quatified measurement from a single location to be able to show &quot;full&quot; benefit. Then in his last post he said it is possible to get &quot;full&quot; benefit from one location. Of course he accepts it coming from you but not from me. Well, what about all the other heat flow paths that he talked about? do they magicly become nonchanging variables when you measure from the inside the die and changing variables when you measure from 5 thousanths of an inch away? (the other side of the die below the chip on the opposite side of a sheet metal 5 thousanths of an inch thich that the chip is fused to)

I guess secondary heat pathway effects apply against showing full benefits when he's debating with me but they somehow change and don't apply against showing benefits when he's aggreeing with you. This is what I mean when I said &quot;which is it? are you correct when you say it one way or when you say it the complete opposite way.&quot;

The error I made was referring to it as a thermistor below the chip rather than a diode inside the chip. Location is irrelevent because secondary heat pathways will exist either way and still cannot be accounted for by measuring in only one location. What I pointed out was that Johncar's argument needing to measure secondary heat pathways to show &quot;full&quot; benefit of silver grease magicly evaporated when he aggreed to you in his last post about being able to show &quot;full&quot; benefits from a single location. So when was he right?

 
I would like to reply to everyone asap but I must now stop and come back tomorrow. Boy, debating back and forth sure does suck up time... cheers (till tomorrow)
 
Here's what eia430 just wrote......
Johncar wrote in his last post &quot;But diode temps' comparisons do get full benefit in lower degC of chip in a particular system/install, what's needed to make good decisions, as Nevin pointed out.&quot;

Which is in direct conflict with what he said &quot;When silver grease is applied to the principal heat transfer path thru the hs, this causes a &quot;redistribution&quot; of the heat flows thru &quot;all&quot; heat flow paths. The major heat flow hs path gets a &quot;little more&quot; of the constant total heat flow because of its new lower thermal resistance. But that &quot;little more&quot; comes from the other &quot;minor heat flows&quot; paths, like thru the bottom and/or the edges of the chip. So those minor heat flow paths see a much higher percentage change in their heat flow than the low percentage change in the main/hs flow path. Besides which, the heat flow changes are in opposite directions, increasing in the main/hs path and decreasing in the other minor heat flow paths.&quot;

In short he just said that you would need to measure all secondary heat paths and therefore you cannot simply measure in one location.
End quote.........

Note that the last sentence starts with &quot;IN SHORT HE JUST SAID&quot; which means this is &quot;his interpretation&quot; of what we wrote...trick #n, doesn't read well, doesn't understand the cooling process, or what?? Nowhere do we say you have to measure all secondary heat paths. Our comments, correct btw, simply state that resistance changes in one heat path affect heat flows in all heat paths. Where do we say you would need to measure all secondary heat paths??

The simple relevant explanation is that when heat flows change in those heat flow paths, so do temp drops from the source/chip/die along the heat flow paths. Then it follows that any temperatures along those heat flow paths are affected not only by the reduction in source/chip/die temp from effect of silver grease, but also by the consequential change in heat flows. Therefore, the change in some temp along those heat flow paths should not be the same as the change in chip/die/diode temp...which measures the &quot;full effect&quot; of the silver grease. Now if someone wants to argue about how much difference that causes in temp changes at the 2 locations, just remember the posts and reviews which said silver grease had &quot;no effect&quot; according to their measurements somewhere along those heat flow paths, which means they measured &quot;no or very little change&quot; in their temps. We simply explain why it's possible to get such misleading results.

So by no stretch of &quot;in short he said&quot; did we contradict ourself. And we're getting tired of shooting down these endless trumped up claims...which is just a waste of everyone's time, unless some may be getting a better understanding of the cpu cooling process.
John C.

 
Mikewarrior2, thanks a lot for the criticism of my awful &quot;review,&quot; in which I never published on my website. :| I merely posted some numbers that I got, which I later suggest that they are incorrect. I guess you've forgot that I responded to you in my earlier post regarding this?

I posted the results of my personal test on this forum first in order to get opinions from more experienced members on this forum, because I too suspected errors in my testing methods. Needless to say, I received plenty of responses that help me narrow down my problems. Using this post by Clay Autery as a guide, I've found that the error in my test could be caused by:

1)Lack of Ambient temperature measurement (I sincerely believed this to be a non-factor because I performed two rounds of testing with reversing order)

2)Not using popular CPU heating software such as RC5 or Prime95 (the CPU stability test I used is not accepted by anyone here, so this could be one of the main causes of my error.)

3)The heatsink installation pressure applied on the CPU (this is also another important factor because the P3125 heatsink I used had screws for attachment, although I made sure that every screws were screwed in until I couldn't turn it anymore.)

Like I said before on this forum (and also to those who've e-mailed me regarding this), I &quot;belive&quot; Artic Silver is the best thermal compound on the market, my result serves only to show what can happen with similar situation (possibly not fully stressing the CPU) and the system (very tight fit between heatsink and CPU) that I had.

And please remember also that I used the CPU internal thermal diode for temperature readings, so what I got was just relative numbers to show differences between the thermal compounds/grease in my test and not necessary an accurate measure of the CPU's true temperature.

Ok, I guess I'll stop my &quot;ignorance&quot; here and hope someone can enlighten me.... 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top