Are my i7 950 temps reasonable?

[stipalgl]

Hello there, the following system was just assembled:

Coolermaster HAF 932
Core i7 950
EVGA X58 SLI LE
3 x 2 GB G.Skill DDR3 - 1600 MHZ
GeForce GTX 260 Core 216
Corsair 750TX
3 x 1 TB HD's

I'm using the Xigmatek S1283 with a mounting kit I purchased to convert it to 1366 and have applied Arctic Silver 5 between the heatsink and CPU. The processor is running at stock, no overclocking done on it.

Temps at idle:

43
42
42
41

Temps at load after running Prime95 for several minutes:

86
86
84
80

I've already reapplied the thermal paste and reseated the heatsink once, and the same temperatures are occuring. Northbridge temps in BIOS are 56 C and case temps are 29 C.

Would anyone be able to chime in with advice? Is the CPU cooler not as good as others like the Noctua? Should I replace the large fans in the case with more, smaller ones to drop temps in case? Should I look into cooling the northbridge?

Thanks in advance.

 

[MisterDonut]

If you want, you can try lapping to see if there are any improvements. Otherwise, you might've overapplied the thermal paste (I did that -_-). Perhaps invest in a new cooler ? I dunno how Xigmatek stuff performs, but with temps like that, especially on stock, it's always likely to be a mis-seated heatsink...I don't know anybody with a 950, but I don't think you should be running so high on load with an aftermarket cooler. Then again, could just be a bad cooler =/. Noctua UH-12P is a good one as far as I've read. Case fans will shed a few degrees off your temps, but inadequate case fans shouldn't make stock run that high. If you are intent on sticking to aircooling, I'd recommend a TRUE, Zalman CNPS10x Flex/Quiet, Megahalems, UH-12P, etc. for overclocking. Xigmatek Dark Knight was a fine cooler, but I've never heard of recommendations for it around my community. If you wanna go with an alternative to air, Corsair H50 cools slightly better than the best aircoolers. Cooling the NB will shed an easy ~3c maybe ?

 

[stipalgl]

Thanks for the quick reply Donut,

I believe that the amount of thermal paste applied is correct. I added even less than a tiny rice grain and spread it across the surface. The sheet was so thin, you could practically see the metal underneath at times. I have a hard time believing it is the thermal paste.

I should also note that the second time around, I added less thermal paste and the temp readings were still pretty identical.

Perhaps it could be the cooler, but review sites in the past have had nothing but high praise for the S1283. Would it really be inferior to something like the Noctua or Megahalem?

Thanks.

 

[MisterDonut]

The Megahalem and TRUE are both the top aircoolers as far as I know, but I wouldn't necessarily deem it inferior. I've seen near identical temps come from all of the top aircoolers out there. There is another post in the CPU section about someone shaving off 18c from lapping; it sounded like a badly crafted/designed/warped? contact plate, but that's just in theory...I didn't really read the thread, the thoughts just ran through my mind. If people have achieved good results with the cooler, then it should work fine.

 

[Ayah]

Are those overclocked temps or stock temps? (Have to ask)

 

[Deinonych]

It's hard to make sound judgment without knowing the ambient temp in your room, but my idle temps are slightly lower than yours, by a couple of degrees. Those load temps are at least 10C higher than what I get running Prime95. Could be an airflow problem in your case.

 

[MisterDonut]

stock temps, that's why the load temps seem unreasonable

 

[stipalgl]

Yeah, the temps are for stock settings. I tried overclocking but the temps at idle shot up to near 50 C for 3.6 GHz. I didn't even bother trying to run Prime at those settings.

The ambient temp in the room is about 17 - 20 C depending on the time of day. I actually have a digital thermometer display in my room. Case temps in the BIOS are reported to be around 29 C.

I'm not sure if I should switch the entire CPU heatsink, or just the fan, or perhaps reconfigure the airflow in the 932. Any further ideas? I appreciate all the help.

 

[rgallant]

-have you set the vcore , could be auto is over volting the 950 , if not a new cooler could be in order,
-[I'm using the Xigmatek S1283 with a mounting kit I purchased to convert it to 1366] is the base too small for a i7 ?

 

[Ayah]

Those temperatures are way too high for stock. Something is wrong.

 

[MisterDonut]

Stock voltage most likely always overestimates the vcore, but I don't think it would set it THAT high to the point where load temps are blistering. New heatsink

 

[stipalgl]

Vcore is set to 1.100 V and CPU-Z reports it to be 1.094 v.

Vdroop is on, most other settings are stock or default with the exception of RAM. It was defaulted at 1066 MHz and I had to manually adjust it to 1600, multiplier is 2:12 with uncore setting at 24X.

This continues to baffle me.

 

[kranky]

Assuming you used the proper amount of thermal compound, my first guess would be the heatsink isn't making good contact with the CPU. Maybe removing and reinstalling it would be easy enough to try.

 

[stipalgl]

Admittedly, this would be the third time reseating it, the other two yielding the same results.

I feel I should note that the heatsink was purchased from someone else, and so it was not brand new. Is it even remotely possible to have a dud heatsink?

 

[kranky]

If you've tried reseating it already with no improvement, might be no point in doing it again. I missed that you tried that already in your OP. They aren't complex, though. With a proper application of thermal compound, and seated well against the CPU, the heatsink simply draws away the heat. The fan dissipates the heat collected by the heatsink.

What could cause it to not work effectively, given that your CPU is running stock? Poor contact with the CPU. Improper thermal compound application. Non-functional fan. And I think the most likely is poor contact with the CPU, as MisterDonut said.

 

[KamiXkaze]

Just what everyone has said not very good temp for stock.

 

[Saga]

Necro-ing this thread because I've spent the past few days fighting a 950 with a CNPS9700 Zalman on it. (Razor thin layer of cerimique)

With the fan on the max setting, core remp reads 45c idle, 72c load at 3.06ghz 0.9v vcore.

OC'd to 3.8ghz @ 1.117v, sits around 50c idle, 75c load. Knock the fan from max to min though and that quickly hits 85c.

Now, granted, the SLI 280GTX setup is generating significant ambient heat, but this seems a tad silly to me. I think I've just come to the conclusion that these chips run stupid hot. A phone call to Intel told me that as long as I'm not hitting 90+ load routinely the chip should maintain it's expected life, but I find that claim somewhat dubious.

 

[Bob K]

My i7-950 with a Cooler Master Geminii heat sink runs mid to high 40s celsius at idle and fans at 100%. I have case intake and exhaust fans running 110 CFM and 2 CPU cooler fans running 35 CFM. I see mid to high 80s after a few minutes on Prime95.

These are 130W chips. I'd love to hear how people are keeping them cooler than that.

 

[walk2k]

I have the same problem(?)

Just built a new pc, specs.
i7 950 (3.06Ghz stock)
Asus P6X58D-E
AC Freezer 7 Pro rev2

Pretty sure I applied the cooler properly.. put the clips in, then carefully set the cooler in place, thermal paste was already applied, pushed down and wiggled it just a tiny bit, then screwed down both screws all the way, they are tight. Then plugged in the fan power header to the MB cpu fan slot.

Yes the fan is spinning.. Speedfan reports about 1800 rpm. Asus Qfan is disabled..

Temps:
Idle on BIOS screen: 38c
Idle in Windows (Speedfan reporting) cores range from 38c to 41c
Intel Burn test, 8 threads, Standard stress, 75-77c !!

Is this normal? I can't see how put the cooler in wrong or anything.

edit: CPU-Z shows Vcore at 0.9xx idle and 1.1xx under load.
I have an Antec 300 with 140mm top fan and 120mm back fan blowing air out from the cpu area and a 120mm side blowing in (on low speed, but still they move good air). Plus PSU fan... Can't imagine the airflow being a prob.

I tried O/C it briefly to about 3.6 but using AUTO Vcore the Asus set it to 1.4xxx volts IDLE and it was running at 50c idle.. didn't even want to try running Burntest.

All I want from this is maybe slight OC to 3.6 or 3.8, I though the Freezer7 Pro would be able to handle that

 

[Zap]

IMO all these temperatures (from a year ago to now) are all somewhat "normal." Why do I say this? Every heatsink used for those "complaining" of high temperatures has been merely 3 heatpipes (Xigmatek S1283, Zalman CNPS9700, AC Freezer 7 Pro rev2). That limits their ability to transfer heat. All else equal, to transfer more heat you need more heatpipes.

Note that load temperatures of 80-90°C is within the normal operating temperature of a stock clocked Intel CPU (however much "enthusiasts" deny it).

 

[mb103051]

I have a 920 DO with the dfi board x58 T3eH6 6 gigs of gskill ram and i have found using a fluke digital temp meter that the everest is spot on with this board anyway..
I use a 92mm cobra by xigmatec with 4 heatpipes at 8mm each..A 3.8 with turbo on im seeing temps of 38-42c Idle and load temps of 74-78c.
I have great case cooling with a lian li pc 17 case..
I am a temp nut with any system i have or work on...the temps you have are normal with your setup imo...a better cooler and you will be golden..my cpu voltage is set to 1.15v in bios and with turbo boost on and full load it goes to 1.17v...
if i let bios set the volts its 1.24v... and temps go up accordingly..ck your volts ....I have a decent 920 and others have run less voltage and gotten like temps...if volts ck out id get a better cooler...your close to getting where you want it...
let me tell you though running at a straight 3.8 with no turbo on seems a waste to me..I can see no change in performance at all in benches and real world use...best thing about turbo is temps stay nice and cool but if needed at 100% temps stay in the mid 70s...

 

[Zap]

let me tell you though running at a straight 3.8 with no turbo on seems a waste to me..I can see no change in performance at all in benches and real world use...best thing about turbo is temps stay nice and cool but if needed at 100% temps stay in the mid 70s...

Are you thinking of Turbo (dynamic overclocking) or EIST (dynamic underclocking)?

I think that some have gotten higher overclocks with Turbo/EIST disabled, but for non-extreme overclockers I see no reason to not leave Turbo and EIST enabled.

 

[walk2k]

Well I "fixed" it. Got it running stable and reasonably cool at 3.84Ghz.

The problem was the "auto" vcore setting was WAY overvolting it. It was like 1.36v in windows then when I launched Burntest it would jump to 1.46v, temps would spike to 85+ immediately and the computer would instantly shut down/reboot...

I set vcore to 1.1875v (manual) which reads 1.176v in windows, which is the same as the stock volts.

Temps at 3840 are now 35-43c idle and 78-83c under full Burntest "max" load, never saw it higher than 83 and it passed the "max" test several times without errors (at 50 Gflops ..booya!) I also managed to play Fallout: New Vegas for several hours with no problems, which is all I care about right now! (and temps during game were 45-55c, thats actually a little lower than my old C2D E8400 lol..)

Only thing I want to figure out is why it doesn't under-volt it during desktop / 1.92ghz use like it does stock. Has something to do with the vcore bios setting, have to mess with the "offset" instead of using "manual" I guess..
Edit: well I tried messing with offset and it sucks, it overvolts it to 1.24+ even on the lowest/minimum setting (something like 0.00625) and you can't set it to 0 or negative values so... the hell with it. It runs perfectly at 1.1875v.


Thanks for the responses.

 

[walk2k]

Are you thinking of Turbo (dynamic overclocking) or EIST (dynamic underclocking)?

I think that some have gotten higher overclocks with Turbo/EIST disabled, but for non-extreme overclockers I see no reason to not leave Turbo and EIST enabled.

I have both enabled, but CPU mult. is manually set to 24x.

As far as I have seen, "turbo" doesn't do dick, it always runs at 24x (3.2Ghz stock). If it ran at 23x it would be the rated speed of a i7 950 @ 3.07Ghz, but honestly I've never seen it run at 23x. It either runs at 12x (1600) idle or 24x (3200) with any kind of load on it at all...

EIST still works fine overclocked, load speed is 3.840Ghz (160x24) and idle is still half that (x12) 1.920Ghz and a LOT cooler (36-42c).

 

[fluffmonster]

Auto voltage on Gigabyte boards is also way too much, even at stock bclk.