# Tcase Max temp



## yetanotherid (Jun 30, 2010)

wrench97 said:


> Pentium D's do run warm but the high of 62c is 5-10 degrees more then you should be seeing, what is the case fan setup, how many and where are they located?


Look at the GPU temperature. It appears to idle at 55 degrees. That's fairly normal. Why would 62 degrees while a CPU is working hard be a problem?

My CPU, while newer, is overclocked a little. It sits on 60 degrees with each core running at 70 degrees for hours on end while I'm converting video.

Personally I think the PC's temperatures look fine. Maybe the OP has picked up a malware infection he's not aware of that's slowing things down. Maybe another piece of hardware is playing up and confusing the MB. Maybe it'd be more prudent to look at CPU usage to see how high it is, and if it's sitting at 100%, looking to see what's warming the CPU up rather than looking for ways to cool it more.


----------



## yetanotherid (Jun 30, 2010)

*Re: I think I need a new CPU and I have NO idea what to buy.*



satirelaugh said:


> Anyone have any other ideas?


Mainly the same idea.
Use task manager to see what your CPU usage is like when things start to slow down.
You might have to take the side off the case to see if you can pinpoint the noise a little better. The 1991 "grinding" you refer to sounds similar to the way hard drives used to thrash around while they moved data back and forth because PCs generally didn't have much RAM. Maybe your hard drive is dying.


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: I think I need a new CPU and I have NO idea what to buy.*



yetanotherid said:


> Look at the GPU temperature. It appears to idle at 55 degrees. That's fairly normal. Why would 62 degrees while a CPU is working hard be a problem?
> 
> My CPU, while newer, is overclocked a little. It sits on 60 degrees with each core running at 70 degrees for hours on end while I'm converting video.
> 
> Personally I think the PC's temperatures look fine. Maybe the OP has picked up a malware infection he's not aware of that's slowing things down. Maybe another piece of hardware is playing up and confusing the MB. Maybe it'd be more prudent to look at CPU usage to see how high it is, and if it's sitting at 100%, looking to see what's warming the CPU up rather than looking for ways to cool it more.


if your running an i7 or i5 then 70 degrees c at load is ok but not when its a pentium d or core 2 duo or quad it isn't.


----------



## yetanotherid (Jun 30, 2010)

*Re: I think I need a new CPU and I have NO idea what to buy.*



greenbrucelee said:


> if your running an i7 or i5 then 70 degrees c at load is ok but not when its a pentium d or core 2 duo or quad it isn't.


On what information do you base that advice?
I have a Q9450 in this PC which is overclocked to 3.2 gig.
It usually idles around 30 to 35 degrees depending on the ambient temperature. When I'm pushing all 4 cores really hard, the maximum temperature I've ever seen it hit is about 63 degrees. Two of the cores usually run about 5 degrees hotter, while the other two run around 10 degrees hotter. That's fairly normal as far as I know.

Intel list my CPU as having a TCase of 71.4 degrees.
Intel
I assume that's maximum. Mine usually runs at least ten degrees lower than that when it's at it's hottest.

My other PC runs a E6750 CPU. Same overclock. It's maximum remperature is generally five degrees or more lower then the quadcore when working hard. Intel list it's TCase as 72 degrees.


----------



## Wrench97 (May 10, 2008)

*Re: I think I need a new CPU and I have NO idea what to buy.*

T case is when it starts cutting back to save itself not the recommended max temp. What your temps are telling me is that you need better cooling or less OC.


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: I think I need a new CPU and I have NO idea what to buy.*

yes 71.2 may be the cut off point (when the cpu will shut off and you get a BSOD) for core 2 duos and quads but you dont actually want to get anywhere near that temperature the list at intel is not a recommended safe maximum the T case is when the cpu will shut off if it gets to that temp. some i7s cut off is 100 degrees c.

I would be worried if my cpu was running past 60 degrees and I run a core 2 duo clocked to 4GHz and it only gets to 53 degrees at full load.

I agree with wrench you either need better cooling or you need to lower the OC


----------



## yetanotherid (Jun 30, 2010)

*Re: I think I need a new CPU and I have NO idea what to buy.*



wrench97 said:


> T case is when it starts cutting back to save itself not the recommended max temp. What your temps are telling me is that you need better cooling or less OC.





greenbrucelee said:


> yes 71.2 may be the cut off point (when the cpu will shut off and you get a BSOD) for core 2 duos and quads but you dont actually want to get anywhere near that temperature the list at intel is not a recommended safe maximum the T case is when the cpu will shut off if it gets to that temp. some i7s cut off is 100 degrees c.


Well guys... I'd still like to see something which shows you're correct, especially given that this PC is getting on to a couple of years old and has always run the way it's running without a problem.
If the TCase temp is where the CPU starts cutting itself back, then that contradicts what greenbrucelee has said, at least according to Intel, because if you look at the Intel page I linked to earlier, it lists TCase temps as follows:
i7-920, 67.9 degrees.
i7-930, 67.9 degrees.
i7-860, 72.7 degrees.

That's three i7s with a Tcase of equal to or less than my CPU. So where does the generalisation that 70 degrees is okay for some i7s and i5s while it's too hot for my CPU come from?

greenbrucelee,
No doubt your CPU runs cooler than mine but no doubt you're using better cooling. On the other hand, my CPU runs at stock voltage. If I thought 60 degrees was too hot as you do I'd cool it better, but I haven't seen anything to suggest it is or that I should be worried.

I don't understand what Tjunction Max means exactly. Is it the maximum temperature of the cores? Mine never go much above 70 degrees at full load.
According to Intel the TJunction Max for my CPU is 100 degrees.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-dts-specs,news-29460.html


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: I think I need a new CPU and I have NO idea what to buy.*

that page on the intel site is not exact but what they have put is the general conscensus from Intel as when the cpus will start cutting back. I fyou have a look art most overclocking forums they will tell you the TCase is 80 some will say 100.

Tcase also has a lot do with what thermal compound you use and what cooler you are using. The temps on intel are base on the normal stock coolers you get and either the thermal padding that comes with it or the pre-applied paste.

With core 2 duos and quads I would never want to go past 60 degrees with i7s and i5s its an experiement as I have some BSOD on me when overclocking at 70 odd dgrees c whilst the i7-920 system I built and overclocked the week was working fine at full load at 75 degrees c.

Do you know that when cpus are made they are all created on the same die but it does not mean they are all the same. Some of those cpus will run hotter and be ok whilst some may not.

If you run real temp you will see what the TJ max is when the thermal junction of each core hits 0 then that core will fail. The TJ max is the max temperature the cpu can go to before it starts to throttle


----------



## yetanotherid (Jun 30, 2010)

*Re: I think I need a new CPU and I have NO idea what to buy.*



greenbrucelee said:


> With core 2 duos and quads I would never want to go past 60 degrees with i7s and i5s its an experiement as I have some BSOD on me when overclocking at 70 odd dgrees c whilst the i7-920 system I built and overclocked the week was working fine at full load at 75 degrees c.


Well to be honest that sounds to me like an opinion formed after using two CPUs and maybe not quite a scientific rule.
Firstly, if you're overclocking as much as you are I guess you're raising the CPU voltage? I don't, because I don't need to. I've never had a BSOD caused by the CPU which I'm aware of.
How do you know your BSODs are related only to temperature, with additional voltage not being a contributing factor.

I still don't understand why you wouldn't want to go past 60 degrees with a core 2 CPU when I've shown they have a higher Tcase than the i7s. And given that I've been running my CPUs that way for close to two years without a problem.
_
"I fyou have a look art most overclocking forums they will tell you the TCase is 80 some will say 100."_

I think you'll find it's the Tjunction value which is taken to be either 85 or 100, not Tcase, although I don't quite understand Tjunction yet. Is Tjunction max a fancy way of explaining the maximum core temperatures, or is it something else?


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

first there is no exact scientific rule when it comes to temperatures or overclocking as I said a cpu at the top of the die when made can be better at handling higher temps and voltages than a cpu made at the bottom of the die so this sort of debunks any tcase values. Tcase is based on what intel say are their recommended values by using the stock cooler that comes with their cpus and running the cpu in a perfect environment.

As for the TJ max when core 2 duos first came out it was said that if your using a temp monitoring program like real temp or hardware monitor then you should set the TJ max to 95. If any of the cores got to 95 then you would get a warning telling you the cpu was either starting to throttle back to stop getting hot or it was going to shut off. I would never want to get that hot. Now some people say 80 is the safest max temp. So this is where there is a lot of confusion. If you ask a lot of hardware techs, games and overclockers they will all tell you the same thing the want the most out of their cpus and for the least heat to be created so most will say don't want to go over 60 degrees with a core 2 duo or quad and they dont want to go over 80 with an i5 or i7. The cooler the better.

If you download real temp and have a look at the TJ max if the TJ max for all cores hits 0 then you have hit your max temp and your in trouble and vice versa read the link on the real temp page and download it to see for yourself http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/

The main reason most people on here will say you dont want to be going past 60 degrees c at full load is because the stress and strain the temps put on the cpu, plus the motherboard and especially the power supply (this is regardless of wether you have raised the voltages or not).

As it happens I did not have to raise my voltages with my cpu but did anyway to give it some room to breath when I was stressing it.

And BTW my opinion is not based on two cpus I have been overclocking and building system for the last 16 years.

just to try and make things clearer for you Tcase is the temp from the middle of the cpu and is usually 10-15 degrees lower than thermal junction so if Tcase says 70 then thermal junction of all cores is 90-95.


----------



## yetanotherid (Jun 30, 2010)

Okay. I installed Real Temp.

Firstly I should say that I have Speedfan installed an running. The quad core uses a stock Intel fan/heatsink combo but it's the type designed for the previous generation Core 2 CPU. In other words it's exactly the same as the stock cooler but the heatsink is larger. I'd forgotten about that when posting earlier as it's an Intel heatsink. It's the same as the one which came with my E6750 CPU. I replaced the original heatsink ages ago because the fan noise when the CPU was working hard was enough to annoy me. Using the E6750 size heatsink the fan doesn't spin as fast when the CPU is working hard. It also decreases the CPU temperature by 5 to 10 degrees over the smaller Q9450 heatsink.

I've got a couple of other programs installed which report CPU temperature and they're all in agreement on TCase and core temperature.

I didn't calibrate anything as the CPU generally idles at 10 degrees above ambient, or a little less, which is fairly normal.

Real Temp reported the same temperatures as SpeedFan when I installed it. TJunction max was set at 100. If I changed TJunction max to 85 Real Temp then reported core temperatures lower than the CPU temperature reported by SpeedFan. It's also obvious they were wrong because a TJ Max of 85 gave the cores a temperature roughly equal to the ambient temperature at idle. With TJ Max set at 100 Real Temp agreed with SpeedFan's core temperature readings. The core temperatures are generally 5 to 10 degrees hotter than CPU temperature, depending on the amount of work the CPU is doing.

For some reason changing the TJ Max value had no effect on the distance to TJ Max value displayed by Real Temp. I don't understand that.

The CPU was idling at just over 30 degrees. I fired up my video conversion program and set it about converting some high definition h.264 video, which kept the CPU cores running at a minimum of 97%. After 5 minutes or so CPU temperature seemed like it was going to sit at 54 degrees. The current ambient temperature isn't enough to get the CPU running as hot as it can when working hard on a hot day. So I used SpeedFan to reduce the CPU fan speed to about 700 RPM. That allowed the CPU to get to the kind of temperature it'd get to on a hot day... 62 degrees, with the cores sitting at around 70 degrees. At that point Real Temp was telling me the distance to TJ Max was still 30 degrees.

_"The main reason most people on here will say you dont want to be going past 60 degrees c at full load is because the stress and strain the temps put on the cpu, plus the motherboard and especially the power supply (this is regardless of wether you have raised the voltages or not)."_

I'm cursed with having to look at everything logically. I'm not saying that's incorrect, but I'd like to understand the logic behind it before accepting it isn't as it doesn't make sense to me. Heat is pretty much just wasted energy. Assuming the heat produced is directly related to how much power the CPU is using, how hot it gets is directly related to how well it's cooled.
If I've got a CPU which requires "X" amount of power when running flat out, and it gets hotter than 60 degrees using the stock cooler while doing so, I'm completely failing to see how a bigger heatsink can do anything but remove the heat being produced more efficiently. I don't understand how it could possibly effect the amount of power the CPU is using or for that matter the amount of heat it's producing. Instead, it seems like a pretty good example of why you should take even what most people say with a grain of salt, unfortunately even in a tech support forum.
I'm not saying excess CPU temperature isn't a bad thing and doesn't stress a CPU, I'm just not seeing how excess CPU temperature can stress the power supply more than normal (except for maybe the power supply itself running a little warmer due to the internal case temperature increasing).

_"As it happens I did not have to raise my voltages with my cpu but did anyway to give it some room to breath when I was stressing it."_

Head room to breath? I don't get it. Doesn't the CPU simply require a certain amount of power at a certain clock speed? Isn't raising the voltage on it's own an additional stress for the CPU to cope with? If you can run a CPU flat out at a certain voltage without errors, "head room to breath" sounds like a euphemism for "extra stress and higher temperatures" to me.


----------



## yetanotherid (Jun 30, 2010)

yetanotherid said:


> For some reason changing the TJ Max value had no effect on the distance to TJ Max value displayed by Real Temp. I don't understand that.


Okay, obviously I was having a dumb moment there.... I think.
Lowering the TJ Max value lowered the reported core temperatures (which were then wrong) but also lowered what Real Temp considered to be the maximum core temperature by the same amount (which I assume would then also be wrong). Regardless through, the difference between those two values, and therefore the "distance to TJ Max" being displayed would remain the same.

So changing the TJ Max value in Real Temp simply changes the temperatures being displayed by Real Temp. Doing so has no effect on the operating temperature of the CPU or how hot it can run (obviously), it doesn't effect Real Temp's ability to tell you how close you are to the maximum operating temperature of the CPU... all it does is effects Real Temp's ability to display the temperature correctly.

Is that correct?


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

yes that is why most people lower the TJ max setting because only an idiot would think running a cpu too 100 degrees c was okay.

Its technically the Tcase that is actually wrong, the one produced by intel because that is in the middle of the cpu and not between the cores which is where the bios and apps like real temp and hardware monitor read from.

Look at real remp again, you will see the core temperatures which as you rightly said will change if you change the TJ max but what your interested in is the reading below that where it says distance to TJ max. If this hits 0 your screwed if it hits whatever your tj max is your screwed.

Never believe speedfan for temperatures it hasn't been accurate since the core 2 duo came out. Only use it for seeing how fast your fans are running and nothing else.

The BIOS is most accurate place for everything.


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

sorry I Was adding to my post and my internet went down. I can't be bothered to write what I put as it was very long but I will paraphrase.

some CPUs can run at 140w this puts stress on the motherboard, power supply and other components.

more stress creates more power creates more heat, keeping the heatdown whilst running a full speed is what overclockers try to do so the better you can keep your cpu cool the more you can chuck at it but always need to mindful of having a safe limit.


----------



## Tumbleweed36 (May 14, 2005)

greenbrucelee said:


> sorry I Was adding to my post and my internet went down. I can't be bothered to write what I put as it was very long but I will paraphrase.
> 
> some CPUs can run at 140w this puts stress on the motherboard, power supply and other components.
> 
> more stress creates more power creates more heat, keeping the heatdown whilst running a full speed is what overclockers try to do so the better you can keep your cpu cool the more you can chuck at it but always need to mindful of having a safe limit.


Translation = A VW engine might pull a truck for a little while on a flat surface, but when you come to a hill that puts stress on it, one can almost bet it is going to die under the stress and most likely it will burn up or damage other components when that happens.


----------



## yetanotherid (Jun 30, 2010)

greenbrucelee said:


> yes that is why most people lower the TJ max setting because only an idiot would think running a cpu too 100 degrees c was okay.


So if you change the TJ Max setting, which doesn't lower your CPU's operating temperature, but only lowers the temperature the software is displaying, and if that keeps you happy your CPU is running nice and cool.... that doesn't make you an idiot?
And yes more stress creates more power creates more heat, unless you call it "headroom", apparently.....



greenbrucelee said:


> Look at real remp again, you will see the core temperatures which as you rightly said will change if you change the TJ max but what your interested in is the reading below that where it says distance to TJ max. If this hits 0 your screwed if it hits whatever your tj max is your screwed.


I looked at it quite closely as I explained in my post. Changing the TJ Max setting changed the temperature Real Temp was displaying for the CPU cores but it had no effect on the value being displayed as "distance to TJ Max". None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Zip. It remained the same. I found that to be odd and I don't understand why.
With TJ Max set at 100 Real Temp agrees with SpeedFan. Would changing it's recommended settings so it displays temperatures which don't make sense prove I'm running my CPU too hot?
I can't say I've ever rebooted and immediately gone into the BIOS to check if it's temperatures are the same as SpeedFan's, but there's nothing to tell me what SpeedFan is displaying isn't at least in the ballpark. CPU temperature is usually 5 to ten degrees above ambient at idle, core temperatures are 5 or so degrees above that.



Tumbleweed36 said:


> Translation = A VW engine might pull a truck for a little while on a flat surface, but when you come to a hill that puts stress on it, one can almost bet it is going to die under the stress and most likely it will burn up or damage other components when that happens.


Terrific. There's nothing like using a car analogy to not prove anything.
I'm not running a VW engine to pull a truck. An analogy regarding the size of the radiator and the amount of work the engine is doing might have been vaguely relevant to the discussion, although if I was happening to struggle with understanding the original stress/heat generalisation I think it would have gone over my head too.

Does anyone have any real facts to offer which actually show 60 degrees is too hot for a core 2 at full load... rather than "I wouldn't do it" etc, because I've got two years of regularly running both a Q9450 and an E6750 to that sort of temperature (at least during summer) to offer as evidence that it isn't.


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

Theres plenty about it on google you know, just type something like what is a safe temp for my cpu or something.

it doesn't matter about if someone can provide you with a sworn testamony its a tiny piece of silicone with lots and lots of transistors on it and they get hot because of electrical charges going through them. Why not find an electrical engineer and ask him or he what they think.

Now its upto you wether you believe us or not, why not visit some overclocking forums and they wil tell you the same things.

I used to test power supplies for living and have built systems for years just like the other guys on here. We are not lying.

Run prime 95 whilst displaying real temp and see what happens to the distance to TJ max.

You say you have two years experience, we are not saying that its gonna destroy your pc we are saying its better to be cooler than hotter and when you are getting past 60 then your entering the danger zone. Why do you think there are aftermarket coolers available for CPUs which do a better job than the standard coolers you get? Answer so they can get cooler temps and chuck more at the cpu without destroying components.

Think of it like a car engine, regularly redlining your engine when accelerating will eventually break it. Thats a fact that can't be denied. Why do you think people put cooling systems into cars? Answer:so they can push the car harder with out destroying components.

Now as I said earlier on when cpus are created they are created in batches on a die a cpu on the top of the die may be better at withstanding stress and heat than one at the bottom this why in some cases you will find two people with the exact same system but one can overclock really well and the other one can't.


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

Just to add since my 15 minute edit time limit expired.

My car has a 9000 rpm limit running the car close to 9000rpm all the time aswell as redlining it will almost certainly destroy the engine at some point even if the oil is regularly topped up and I make sure the water and cooling system is maintained. This is why you get your cars serviced by mechanics on a certain mileage (usually stated by the manufacturer in the log book how often it needs it) but even if you do regularly maintain it the car will eventually die if pushed all the time. This is also a reason why most people change gear at 3 or 4000 rpm instead of waiting until it redlines.

The same goes for CPUs if you do not keep the cooling system free of dust, fans oiled and make sure the PSU is working well then at some point it will fail too if pushed hard all the time.

So if you think of the cpu as a car with a rev counter lets say its 90 degrees (as opposed to the 9000 rpm) then changing gear or keeping the cpu below 60 or 6000 rpm is better than going past it.


----------



## yetanotherid (Jun 30, 2010)

greenbrucelee said:


> Theres plenty about it on google you know, just type something like what is a safe temp for my cpu or something.


I did just that when deciding what CPU to buy and whether to overclock it.
The trouble is, most of the info you find is just variations of the same heresay and myth found here.



greenbrucelee said:


> it doesn't matter about if someone can provide you with a sworn testamony its a tiny piece of silicone with lots and lots of transistors on it and they get hot because of electrical charges going through them. Why not find an electrical engineer and ask him or he what they think.


Because I wasn't worried about my CPU temperatures until someone who's never asked an electrical engineer the question themselves told me my CPU was running too hot.



greenbrucelee said:


> Now its upto you wether you believe us or not, why not visit some overclocking forums and they wil tell you the same things.


I have. I am aware however, that there's more mis-information given in almost any computer forums than there is correct fact.



greenbrucelee said:


> I used to test power supplies for living and have built systems for years just like the other guys on here. We are not lying.


I didn't say you were, but it's amazing how often the incorrect information offered as fact comes from people who should know better. And I'm starting to think the "distance to TJ Max" advise being offered here is a perfect example of that.
I've explained that changing the TJ Max setting on Real Temp has zero effect on the "distance to TJ Max" value being given. I've explained that when TJ Case is just over 60 degrees Real Temp tells me the distance to TJ Max is still 30 degrees. Yet you still claim my CPU is running too hot. You tell me to try something to prove you're correct, then when it doesn't you ignore it.



greenbrucelee said:


> Run prime 95 whilst displaying real temp and see what happens to the distance to TJ max.


I can push the CPU to 100% fine without prime 95 and I have looked to see what happens to the distance to TJ Max value. I've posted that information here but you keep ignoring it in preference to telling me to look at it again.

I also had a read here today. http://www.anandtech.com/show/2468/4
If I understand it correctly the CPU doesn't supply temperatures as such. All it does it supply the distance to TJ Max value. If you know the TJ Max value you can calculate the temperature from there.
If that's correct it certainly explains why I could change the TJ Max setting in Real Temp without it effecting the distance to TJ Max value because all I was doing was changing the temperature Real Temp displays. No matter what I set as TJ Max, Real Temp will still tell me when the distance to TJ Max has really hit zero, and according to it my hottest CPU temperatures are still 30 degrees off it. The real CPU TJ Max value will still be the same, I'm just being given advice to mess with a setting which does nothing more than effect the program's ability to accurately display the correct temperature when it gets there. At least that's how it appears to me.



greenbrucelee said:


> You say you have two years experience, we are not saying that its gonna destroy your pc we are saying its better to be cooler than hotter and when you are getting past 60 then your entering the danger zone. Why do you think there are aftermarket coolers available for CPUs which do a better job than the standard coolers you get? Answer so they can get cooler temps and chuck more at the cpu without destroying components.


I know why there's after-market coolers and I'm sure there's a place for them, however the answer you gave to your own question proves nothing. I could just as easily argue the aftermarket coolers available for CPUs shows good marketing can work more than it shows it's because CPUs run too hot, or that it shows there's a lot of people who overclock and need better than stock cooling, but in terms of offering evidence that my CPU has entered the danger zone after 60 degrees it's a non-event.
Even my MB doesn't seem to agree with you. It controls fan speed and it's still not running the stock Intel fan at full speed when TCase hits 60 degrees.



greenbrucelee said:


> Think of it like a car engine, regularly redlining your engine when accelerating will eventually break it. Thats a fact that can't be denied. Why do you think people put cooling systems into cars? Answer:so they can push the car harder with out destroying components.


Can we accept I'll understand any car analogy you can come up with, that I'll be of the opinion they're totally meaningless in terms of proving your point, and move onto pesky stuff like facts?



greenbrucelee said:


> Now as I said earlier on when cpus are created they are created in batches on a die a cpu on the top of the die may be better at withstanding stress and heat than one at the bottom this why in some cases you will find two people with the exact same system but one can overclock really well and the other one can't.


And yet you continue to generalise about the temperature capabilities of one model CPU when compared with another as though you'd not mentioned it earlier at all??



greenbrucelee said:


> "So if you think of the cpu as a car with a rev counter lets say its 90 degrees (as opposed to the 9000 rpm) then changing gear or keeping the cpu below 60 or 6000 rpm is better than going past it."


If you must persist with the car analogies as though you need to explain the relationship between heat and stress to me because you think I don't understand it, can we at least compare CPU temperature with a car's temperature guage, the CPU heatsink with a radiator, the CPU clock speed with engine RPM and CPU voltage with gas consumption, because mixing up the comparisons just makes the analogy seem fairly silly.
I do, without the need for car analogies however, understand the whole heat/stress thing completely. Should I use a nice analogy involving engine temperature and the likelihood of an engine seizing up to show you I understand what we're talking about, or would you find that a tad insulting?


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

I'm not really bothered if you use an anology or not. And by the way read post 8 I did meantion about CPUs being created on the die and some being better than others.

Now you say you understand it. I don't think you do at all TCase = center of cpu. TJ max = all cores. P+S = heat.

Tcase and TJ max can have a 15 degrees difference but it doesn't mean its ok to get near it.

Heres another one for you. Just because the spark goes out on a sparkler doesn't mean its ok to pick it up, it'll still be hot and you will get burned.


----------



## Tumbleweed36 (May 14, 2005)

This post has now become contentuous/arugmentative and there is no salient point being made that will convince the OP of the accuracy of what he has been told. The original question(s) have been answered by a trained expert with accurate information, however the OP prefers to continue to discuss/argue an issue and with vague concepts and dismiss the advice which has been answered many times. 

The thread is now repetitive and non-productive. The OP can either accept the recommendations of our professionals or reject them, but the points have been clearly made. This thread is now closed.


----------

