heat doesn't matter?

According to this article (bottom of page):

http://www.digital-daily.com/cpu/amd-barton400/index02.htm

"As regards the temperature, it doesn't make sense striving for low values. The thing is all the latest AMD processors are able running stably at 85 C (or higher) core temperature. So it's much better to turn down the fan's rpm and thus reduce/eliminate the noise coming from the cooler. But if the temperature happens to be too high, the processor won't burn down - the system will be simply running unstably. At worst, the anti-overheating protection snaps on whose threshold on many motherboards is et to 110 C (the irreversible damage to the processor come up at 120-130 C)."

that writter is not a OCer...because heat does matter when it comes to a stable OC...for a stock processor...yes it can handle up to 90C (some can handle past 100C)...go to AMD to read up on what CPU's max out at what temps...and heat comes into play around 55 - 60C when running a stable OC...

I rate this artice a -10 for OCers...and I am being nice...

ya, i agree.... heat is a big factor.... cooler the temp faster you can go... hotter you get the system will become unstable. even at stock i can not imagine those kinda temps... my stock 750 t-bird and XP1600 would both become unstable when the temps got into the mid 60's.... they would reset or lock up... the only way i could play games in the summer was if i had the A/C on ( this was before i was into oc'ing.... the system in my sig has NO problomes

Instability is most definatley affected by heat, as stated in the quote you posted. When you run a CPU stock, it can handle much higher temperatures than an overclocked one, so this is not always the case. Heat may also speed up the process of electromigration. This happens with both age of a CPU and the stress that the CPU is under. Basically the electrons that are running in the core begin to jump around and move on paths that they are not supposed to be moving on, and this causes CPU death.

I would heed that advice with a lot of caution. It is widely known that CPU stability can be highly attributed to heat, and therefore keeping the temperature down is a good idea when overclocking (which is why we are here, isnt it).

With best regards,
Tray

glock19owner said:

I rate this artice a -10 for OCers...and I am being nice...

Click to expand...

second that.

lol
I think whoever wrote the article most likely mistook 110C with 110F...
There is no mobo you can settup the termal protection at 110C.
My mobo supports from 55C up to 70C.
All AMD cpus are rated 85C or 90C. It may be ok to operate at high themps but not while OC...
The guy should have read a little before writing...

I don't even OC and I'd freak out if I got anywhere close to those temps!!

What a heck?

I didn't even bother clicking on that link, but running the quoted "85 C (or higher)" will reduce the expected life time of your CPU, overclocked or not...

Whoever wrote that is uninformed. But hey....you wanna run your PC that hot be my guest. Just be ready for the funeral.

EDIT: I saw the benchies that guy provided.....totally bogus. An AMD @ 2.4 will be neck and neck with a Oced Pentium 4 in games. This further adds to my suspicion. Plus he kept the AMDs FSB @ 200...no ****** wonder the Pents won "his" tests

the 2.4ghz pentium4c performed better in quake than a 2.4ghz barton... BULL ****...

Yes, running a CPU that hot will lower its expected lifespan, and probably lower the lifespan of everything around it. It's just NOT a good idea. Run as cool as you can - if you're around 50C or so, don't worry about it. But in a non overclocked rig I still wouldn't run anything above 55C. Overclocked I wouldn't run above 45C.