processor usage when in bios question

Jarhead7236

Member

​

Joined

Apr 9, 2003

• Sep 4, 2003

• #1

is it 100%? i was told it was but i'm looking for verification...thanks all.

 

Mizzery

Member

​

Joined

Jun 9, 2002

Location

Troy, NY

• Sep 4, 2003

• #2

cpu usage in bios is generally very low, temps should be considered idle.

 

OP

Jarhead7236

Member

​

Joined

Apr 9, 2003

• Sep 4, 2003

• Thread Starter
• #3

thanks, i figured that and was surprised to have someone tell me otherwise...i've read that it's about a 4-6C (idle) jump once in windows...is that somewhat accurate?

 

Last edited: Sep 5, 2003

Mizzery

Member

​

Joined

Jun 9, 2002

Location

Troy, NY

• Sep 5, 2003

• #4

no temp you will read is accurate. Use temps relativey. The software in windows may interperate the sensors differently than the bios software. The process of windows booting up may eat up enough cpu usage that it heats up the chip as well.

 

c627627

c(n*199780) Senior Member

​

​

Joined

Feb 18, 2002

• Sep 5, 2003

• #5

Hm. I thought all software simply read in Windows what you see as temp in BIOS, no?

It's the sensor itself that may or may not be accurate but how can the display of the sensor reading be different unless the system is under stress versus being idle.

 

OP

Jarhead7236

Member

​

Joined

Apr 9, 2003

• Sep 5, 2003

• Thread Starter
• #6

i've read that most sensors are inaccurate (can be as much as 10-15C off) and that a stable system is all that should satisfy but i'm having a hard time accepting over 45C idle temps...before i flashed to the new bios, i was getting 40C idle @ 205x11 @ 1.6V, now it's at 49C idle....currently at 214x11, trying to get back to 220x11...running P95 with a 61C load temp...i'll eventually put a ducting mod in but don't really wanna mess with this case...

 

L337 M33P

Member

​

Joined

Jun 5, 2003

Location

TEH INTERNETS

• Sep 5, 2003

• #7

The answer lies in My Thread

The sensor being monitored is actually the under socket thermistor and not the CPU die itself. Asus was getting stick for the motherboard not reporting temperatures accurately so they artificially tweaked the BIOS readings to make them seem closer to the real value.

 

OP

Jarhead7236

Member

​

Joined

Apr 9, 2003

• Sep 5, 2003

• Thread Starter
• #8

i should've mentioned that i was talking about my gigbayte bios...sorry for the confusion....

 

Mizzery

Member

​

Joined

Jun 9, 2002

Location

Troy, NY

• Sep 5, 2003

• #9

even if the readings are innacurate 61 is still getting pretty warm. You should probabally look into better cooling. If its stable, how close are you to being unstable? Like 1 more fsb and you crash? IF thats the case then changes in ambient will probabally be enough to bring your system to a halt.

As for temps being screwy - i don't even monitor my temps. Thats why their not posted in my sig, cause even if I did pay attention to them, they wouldn't be accurate. Newbs would get the idea that if the temps they are seeing aren't as good as other peoples, then thats bad.

 

L337 M33P

Member

​

Joined

Jun 5, 2003

Location

TEH INTERNETS

• Sep 5, 2003

• #10

Jarhead7236 said:

i should've mentioned that i was talking about my gigbayte bios...sorry for the confusion....

Click to expand...

lol D'oh - but Asus readings are screwy too

 

OP

Jarhead7236

Member

​

Joined

Apr 9, 2003

• Sep 5, 2003

• Thread Starter
• #11

stable is running F@H all night and day w/out hiccups...granted P95 does lock the system up after about 3 hours but if i can fold w/out errors, i'll take that.....i think a lot of it is airflow, too...