e8400 fuss about temps

[UTFan81]

I've seen a lot of threads at various boards including this one about the temp sensor being borked in the e8400. I've also read that it's a bios/mobo issue with the new 45 cpus. What is the truth? Everywhere I look someone is claiming something different.

 

[KenAF]

According to Intel, it is a motherboard compatibility issue.

 

[MTDEW]

But doesnt CoreTemp read the temp readings right from the core diodes, not the motherboard?

 

[krunt]

Originally posted by: KenAF
According to Intel, it is a motherboard compatibility issue.

Anyone have an intel board? I am no expert on how these things work at the programing/engineering level, but if it is a motherboard compatibility issue then Intel boards should not have that problem right? Maybe the 45nm technology was too young to get it right in the p35 chipsets, but how about the x** boards. still the same problem? I am guessing that this site does not attract the types of folks who run intel motherboards so the answer may be hard to find.

For the OP, it is a problem if you overclock because you have no idea how much you are pushing your cpu. By all accounts these cpus can take allot but who knows if all of these 4ghz overclocks are actually running at much higher temps then we believe and will die in six months. Sure that probably is not the case, but we can't know until we have at least a ballpark figure on the cpu temps.

I am disappointed in these motherboard manufactures (yes, again) They have had the 45nm specs and chips long enough to have boxes printed which proclaim the 45nm compatibility yet haven't actually worked out the details of a feature that is so vital to the enthusiast market they aim these boards at.

 

[mcturkey]

Just because you can run it at 4GHz+ stable now doesn't mean it will last. Without reliable temperature reads, we have no real effective way of knowing for sure that we're not going to burn up the CPUs after a few weeks or months of use. And this ultimately is what has me stuck waiting now trying to decide between a Q6600 o/c'd to 3.0 or an E8400 o/c'd to 4.0. If the E8400 is going to be able to reliably hit that speed and last a couple of years, then it's an obvious choice. But if I'm limited to around 3.5, then having four cores slightly slower seems a bit more tempting, as I often have quite a lot of stuff running at once.

I just hope this temperature reading issue gets resolved soon, because my tax return money is going to arrive in a week or two, and I'd like to get this going.

 

[MTDEW]

I heard that.
I have a Q6600 running at 3.3ghz and an e8400 on the way.
Now im not so sure the e8400 is going in this pc.
I may just throw it in my backup pc and wait and see.

 

[BigMoosey74]

Can I ask why you are buying a new dual core when you have an OCd quad?

 

[MTDEW]

Can I ask why you are buying a new dual core when you have an OCd quad?

Sure can.
Because im addicted to pc hardware.

I usually have no less than 3 pc's at my home that are "up to date" for gaming/ video encoding etc...etc..

Its my hobby and i wouldnt trade it for any other one. :thumbsup:

 

[UTFan81]

yeah this whole thing kinda makes me glad I got an e6750 in Dec though. not worth the risk for me who only gets to buy a cpu once a blue moon.

 

[Zenoth]

It's a BIOS/software compatibility issue.

My E8400's temperatures read well under Hardware Monitor, Lavalys EVEREST Ultimate, SiSoftware Sandra Lite, and finally my motherboard's own latest BIOS revision (which saw more compatibility fixes a few days prior to the retail release of the 45nm chips). But on the other hand, Core Temp just don't read the temps properly, and my old BIOS (revision F4) did not read the temperatures properly. And while I had BIOS F4 installed, both EVEREST and SiSoftware couldn't read the temperatures at all (it showed 64ºC at idle, and the number never refreshed).

After I installed BIOS F7 (the latest final one, although there's a newer beta, F8b which I haven't tried yet) then the PC Health Status read the temperatures properly (the number updates constantly, and the actual temperatures are way more accurate and plausible). And then most of the software I use can now read the temps properly (but still not all of them can, such as Core Temp). So in the light of all that am inclined to believe that it has to do with BIOS and/or software's actual version/compatibility, and nothing else (my take is on the BIOS'es). The 45nm chips are very new models, and most, if not all "recent" motherboards were released weeks if not months before, which means that the manufacturer still have to and currently still are working on improving the compatibility with the "current" motherboards.