• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

CPU temp at idle is 10 degrees less in W2k than WinME?????

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

ripper

Registered
Joined
May 17, 2001
From a long-time lurker/learner.

System:
1.0Gg T-bird @ 1.4G (1.85v, 10x140)
Millennium Glaciator HS/F
Epox EP-8kta3 mobo
dual boot WinME/Win2k

I recently fashioned a "cardboard/tape" duct from the 120mm side case fan to the CPU so that the CPU would have intake air at room temp approx 29C vs. the 31-31C ambient case air temp).

Prior to ducting: (for both WinME and Win2k)

MBM5 for WinME
MBM4.18 for Win2k (haven't installed newest yet).

Room temp: 29C
Case temp: 31C
CPU idle: 44-45C
CPU load (cpuburn): 52C


After duct installed: (WinME only)

Room temp: 29C
Case temp: 31C
CPU idle: 41-42C
CPU load (cpuburn): 48C

A drop of 4C for both idle and load temps.....not bad at all. I didn't bother checking the temps in Win2k assuming that they would be the same.

Well I was playing around last night and booted into Win2k. I had flashed the Mobo BIOS to the latest Epox release and I wanted to see if Win2k liked it (I had read a few posts about system instability w/the latest BIOS and Win2k). I booted into Win2k and the initial CPU/system temps were 41/31...same as in WinME.

I messed around doing system maintenance stuff for a few minutes. I checked the temps again and was surprised to see the CPU/System temps at 35/31. I thought "that can't be right. I continued to watch the CPU temps fall, to my amazement. It finally bottomed out at 29/31. The CPU was at idle and room temp. I didn't think that was possible so I started cpuburn to see what the max load temp would get to. After approx 5 mins the temps topped out at 48/32, same as WinME.

I turned off cpuburn and went to bed, as it was getting late, thinking I would look at it again in the morning. I figured the different versions of MBM was the reason I was getting such large differences in temps.

I checked the temps in the morning and they were at 28/30 (CPU/System). I had pretty much convinced myself that either MBM4 or 5 was giving misleading CPU temps so I booted back into WinME to see if the CPU temps would jump immediately to 41C. The desktop came up and the CPU/System temps were 30/31.

I sat and watched the CPU temps slowly rise from 30C to 41C then stop. This leads me to think that the two versions of MBM are reporting temps correctly (relatively speaking).

I am only running APM on both OS's. All the super duper power management features have been disabled in the BIOS as I don't have a need for it and it tends to be buggy. As a result ACPI is not installed in either WinME or Win2k.

My question is: Is there any other way to explain the temp differences other than Win2k has much superior power management capability than WinME??
 

Hoot

Inactive Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2001
Location
Twin Cities
I'd say you lost, or never had halt-on-idle implemented in Win ME. For that to happen, you need to have ACPI enabled in bios and also in Win ME. If, when you installed Win ME, you had ACPI enable in the bios, then Win ME should have installed and enabled support for it. If you enabled ACPI after Win ME was installed and before Win 2k was installed, then when you installed Win 2k it was enabled, but not in Win ME. If you re-run the setup.exe in Win ME an follow it through to the end, it should enable ACPI and you can benefit from halt-on-idle there also.

Hoot
 
OP
R

ripper

Registered
Joined
May 17, 2001
Hey Hoot:

The thing of it is...ACPI is not installed on either OS; as well as being disabled in the BIOS. In Device manager under "Computer" the machine is listed as "Standard Computer". If ACPI is enabled/installed it did it behind my back.

Oh well...one of life's little mysteries.
 

Hoot

Inactive Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2001
Location
Twin Cities
That's interesting. Sounds like i'm way off base on this one. Let me back up and simply say that halt-on-idle does work with Windows ME. Makes a big difference on my machine here. Now let me see if I can get this wrong again. ;D
Have you ever tried a halt-on-idle program under Win ME? Perhaps you have to install one at least once for the .dll file to be installed. Try waterfall, rain, or the like. Once you install one of them, see if it helps your temps. Once you uninstall it, the halt-on-idle should remain. That's
how it worked on my machine.
This occurred quite a few months ago and I might be remembering it wrong. Ole Hoot does well in real time, but suffers data loss after a month or two.

Hoot
 
OP
R

ripper

Registered
Joined
May 17, 2001
Well I installed Rain2.0.

The temp is 33C and falling. Great stuff. I've used rain in the past but the fact that cpu usage shows 100% while running it has allways bothered me.

I suppose it's something I can live with now.

Can't beat such cool idle temps and with load temps not breaking 50 I have no complaints at all.
 

Slain

Member
Joined
May 15, 2001
Location
Woking (near London) U.K.
Hoot I belive Win2K automatically installs halt-on-idle. It's so much smarter than the crap OS's Macro$haft gives to the joe bloggs user.
I run win2K and off load my CPU is at ambient temp too.
 
OP
R

ripper

Registered
Joined
May 17, 2001
Well....I'm on vacation and hence several hundered miles away from my coputer (I miss it.......sniff).

I'll uninstall Rain 2.0 when I get home and see if the halt on idle will remain in WinME.

Wife and kids are calling............................