Cpu Thermal Monitor On Or Off

If you disable Intel TM, will your CPU melt downward if cooling fails?

• Thread starter Habeed
• Showtime appointment Nov 4, 2010

• #1

On my ASUS sabertooth motherboard in that location is a BIOS option called "Intel TM" which is brusk for "thermal monitor". Similar most overclockers, I disable information technology. I know this feature harms overclocks because it throttle the CPU in order to stay below TDP, or 130W used.

One thing I am curious about : with this feature off, if I were to run the cpu without a heatsink, would the CPU shut itself downwardly (or throttle to the farthermost) to prevent a meltdown, or would it melt itself into a flaming puddle like those dramatic videos of older AMD cpus a few years agone?

That is, are there other layers of thermal protection to forestall a catastrophic failure that can't be disabled by software?

I know that in the aforementioned heatsink-less test a few years dorsum, the Intel chip did fine without failing. I believe information technology fifty-fifty booted up without a heatsink, albeit with greatly reduced performance.

Aug 25, 2001

53,586

7,896

126

• #2

It will melt down. Don't disable TM. Btw, it doesn't limit you to TDP, that's the chore of the PCU, and BIOS controls how that works.

• #three

On my ASUS sabertooth motherboard there is a BIOS selection called "Intel TM" which is curt for "thermal monitor". Similar most overclockers, I disable it. I know this feature harms overclocks because information technology throttle the CPU in order to stay below TDP, or 130W used.

uh, information technology does non HARM overclocking... it makes overclocking Safety... it has absolutely no negative impact on your OC and should never be disabled. if your OC actually pushes such loftier temps so it will impairment the CPU and and then your OC (and organisation) will fail

that being said, I am pretty sure its not called intel TM.

Oh, and I Think you heard that you lot are supposed to disable the intel Power SAVING feature that throttles your CPU WHEN IDLE... not the feature that throttles it when its nearly to melt.

are in that location other layers of thermal protection to foreclose a catastrophic failure that can't be disabled by software?

no, why would at that place need to exist?

• #4

uh, it does non HARM overclocking... it makes overclocking SAFE... it has ahttp://forums.anandtech.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=30709890bsolutely no negative impact on your OC and should never be disabled. if your OC actually pushes such high temps then information technology volition damage the CPU and then your OC (and system) volition fail

that being said, I am pretty sure its not chosen Intel TM.

Information technology certainly was dorsum in the P4 days....

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/intel-thermal-features/alphabetize.html

Automatic thermal monitoring mechanism #1 (TM1)
Automatic thermal monitoring machinery #2 (TM2)

Although I agree with you, turning them off is stupid... especially since control features should be more than advanced at present.

Oh, and I Think y'all heard that yous are supposed to disable the intel POWER SAVING characteristic that throttles your CPU WHEN IDLE... non the characteristic that throttles it when its about to melt.

That's Intel SpeedStep, check for that in your BIOS Habeed, and play nigh with turning it off/on to see if it effects the overclock.

are there other layers of thermal protection to preclude a catastrophic failure that tin't exist disabled by software?

no, why would there need to be?

Actually in that location is a tertiary system which controlls your organisation... Emergency overheating detector, which basically shuts the machine downward if the CPU reaches ~125 °C IIRC. Huge risk of losing whatever you were working on though, and repeatedly hitting 125 °C is going to really shorten your CPU life...

Atomic number 82

• #v

It certainly was back in the P4 days....

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/intel-thermal-features/index.html

Automatic thermal monitoring machinery #ane (TM1)
Automatic thermal monitoring machinery #2 (TM2)

Although I hold with you, turning them off is stupid... particularly since control features should be more advanced now.

according to the article you linked the P4 mechanism in question COMBINES the "throttle on idle to relieve ability" and "throttle when too hot". In modern processors the ii are separate.

• #six

You'd probable notice a bluescreen before anything bad could happen and subsequently wouldn't be able to kicking if your CPU was so hot information technology was burning.

• #seven

vi.2.3 THERMTRIP# Signal

Regardless of whether or non Adaptive Thermal Monitor is enabled, in the event of a catastrophic cooling failure, the processor will automatically shut down when the silicon has reached an elevated temperature (refer to the THERMTRIP# definition in Table 5-1). THERMTRIP# activation is independent of processor action. The temperature at which THERMTRIP# asserts is not user configurable and is not software visible.

Assertion of THERMTRIP# (Thermal Trip) indicated the processor junction temperature has reached a level beyond which permanent silicon harm may occur. Measurement of the temperature is accomplished through an internal thermal sensor. Upon assertion of THERMTRIP#, the processor will shut off its internal clocks (thus halting program execution) in an attempt to reduce the processor juntion temperature. To further protect the processor, its core voltage (VCC, 5TTA FiveTTD and VDDQ must be removed following the exclamation of THERMTRIP#. Once activated, THERMTRIP# remains latched until RESET# is asserted. While the assertion of the RESET# signal may de-assert THERMTRIP#, if the processor junction temperature remains at or in a higher place the trip level, THERMTRIP# will again exist asserted after RESET# is de-asserted.

Your processor wont melt.

*edit*
That beingness said, in that location actually isn't a reason to plow it off. PROCHOT# is the equivalent to anti-lock brakes, and THERMTRIP# would best be described as airbags. Much better to avert the accident all together than having a safety i.

October 14, 2003

eight,209

iii,070

136

• #viii

That is, are in that location other layers of thermal protection to prevent a catastrophic failure that can't be disabled by software?

I agree with the others in this thread. It won't melt the CPU just won't damage overclocking either.

There are two technologies to protect the CPU from overheating

TM-Thermal Monitor, kicks in when your CPU hits ~85C or so. Since its bad for your CPU running that loftier(not to mention your organisation volition experience randomly slow), you shouldn't be overclocking it high enough to accomplish those temps, or employ good enough cooling and then it doesn't reach that temp.

Catastrophic failure circuitry-This is ane matter you cannot disable. It kicks in when the temp increase far exceeds 85C and tin can burn your CPU in matter of minutes. It'll shut the chip down.

• #9

I believe the numbers on i7s are 100*C PROCHOT# and 105*C THERMTRIP#. As far as I know Intel doesn't publish the TJMax until the processor is EOL; however, consumer testing places the TJMax effectually 100.

Oct ix, 1999

11,522

750

126

• #10

I believe the numbers on i7s are 100*C PROCHOT# and 105*C THERMTRIP#. Equally far equally I know Intel doesn't publish the TJMax until the processor is EOL; however, consumer testing places the TJMax around 100.

I tin can tell you its over 93C Thats what my i7 would hit in the summer with xxx-35c ambient temps. Never failed a prime burn examination even after 72hours.

To the OP exercise not disable it, at that place is no betoken equally has been mentioned.

• #11

well once CPU goes to 85c information technology shut downs computer... hmmm

• #12

I enabled it and tested information technology. Worked fine without throttling. Gauge I will leave it on. 85 C is really hot and if information technology reaches that because at that place'south dust on the fan or something I would rather have information technology clock down than harm itself.

Ordinarily I am all for "performance at any price" but a BSOD sure drags on the performance.

• #13

It purpose isn't to prevent melt down, only to forestall BSOD. If cooling is bad plenty to cause melt down, then those won't help fifty-fifty if it is on. If cooling was skillful but are degraded due to grit or bad fan, and then information technology will throttle the CPU to keep PC alive and then you will realize the overheating problem and fix it appropriately.

• #xiv

Well I snooped effectually on Intel's site to see if they accept updated any temperature information. Unfortunately they just had the useless TCASE temperatures listed for desktop variants.

Bloomfield/Gulftown 67.9 TCASE
Lynnfield 72.7 TCASE
Clarkdale 72.6 TCASE
Mobile Nehalem Quads 100 TJUNCTION
Mobile Nehalem Dual 105 TJUNCTION
Q6600 G0 71 TCASE

I believe a Q6600 G0 has a TJUNCTION of 100*C, only for the life of me cannot find that strait from Intel. The closest I can find to an official source is from the makers of RealTemp, who apparently got that number from IDF. If current day packaging retains the aforementioned tolerances and thermal properties of the Q6600 G0 information technology wouldn't be too far fetched to apply 95/95/100*C as the TJUNCTION of Bloomfield/Gulftown/Lynnfield respectively.
I don't believe the packaging has changed, but Intel is sure to accept fiddled with the tolerances. I call up its safe to say the TJUNCTION is somewhere within the 95-105*C range on todays processors.

Either way, I have been using the easy button of temperature measurements for a while now. Instead of trying to relate the Digital Temperature Sensor to an equivalent temperature on our electric current scales, I translate the DTS results on its own native scale: Distance to TJMAX. No affair what the latest generations unknown TJUNCTION is prepare to, its much easier to know your 20 units away from it instead of all the variables in trying to convert that to *C.

There are many "proficient" opinions on this forum of what a safe operating temperature is for any processor. By using the DTJMAX scale I take advantage of the countless man hours and expensive testing equipment that Intel uses to decide safe operating parameters without whatsoever of the paranoia or overconfidence of an "experts" opinion.

I'm not saying run your processor overvolted right upward confronting the TJUNCTION 24/7 as you may see degraded life, merely to become familiar with the DTJMAX calibration every bit it removes a lot of the incertitude.

• #15

How-do-you-do Ben90, most of the newer chips have Tjmax in a register in the CPU. It's actually Tj-target which AFAIK should be the minimum temperature for Tjmax. For instance with the Q6600 if Tj-target was 90°C and had a tolerance of -ten°C to + 5°C then the existent temperature could be anywhere betwixt 90°C to 105°C when DTS=0 probably depending on if the manufacturing process had a farewell or not. Nehalem might be plus or minus 5%, so with Tjmax (target) at 100°C that could be 100°C to 110°C, no real black and white figures though unfortunately.

I don't claim to be whatsoever sort of proficient, information technology'south just my ain understanding of it. Until Intel come out and publicly publish tolerances it'southward remains an Intel undercover and Intel seem to be very good at keeping secrets.

IIRC the Realtemp Q6600 figure is empirical.

• #16

I could have sworn Intel published the q6600's Tjmax about a year agone. I searched and searched to no avail so I gauge I must have been dreaming.

In my searching I re-read some more Intel docs and found the IA32_TEMPERATURE_TARGET register Dufus mentioned. It really didn't go into much detail and I'yard confused to exactly how this works. Is this value what determines the Tjmax directly or is it just the offset of the unknown value?

• #17

Kinda both. It'south not the true temperature but meant to be taken every bit Tjmax IIRC. As yous earlier said, it'due south less complicated to just use the relative measurement and not worry about absolute ones. Run across if this helps.

Link courtesy of user sram at hardforum.com

Last edited: November 11, 2010

• #18

I could have sworn Intel published the q6600's Tjmax about a twelvemonth ago. I searched and searched to no avail so I guess I must have been dreaming.

In my searching I re-read some more Intel docs and found the IA32_TEMPERATURE_TARGET register Dufus mentioned. Information technology really didn't get into much item and I'chiliad confused to exactly how this works. Is this value what determines the Tjmax direct or is it but the first of the unknown value?

I thought that Intel published all that info after a chip EOL so it should be out at that place somewhere...

Kinda both. Information technology's not the true temperature but meant to be taken as Tjmax IIRC. As you earlier said, it'south less complicated to just use the relative measurement and not worry about absolute ones. See if this helps.

Link courtesy of user sram at hardforum.com

Good read, and you lot were indeed correct with your previous argument -

PROCHOT# trip temperature will vary from role to function

Nehalem has improved the Digital Thermal Sensor circuit
– Expanded temperature range – unlikely to ‘bottom out’
– Calibration accuracy is improved
– Gradient error is reduced

Future processors may written report temperatures in °C

Sounds good.

Last edited: Nov xi, 2010

• #nineteen

Question : running OCCT with Intel TM on, I've noticed I tin can get spikes to 89 Celsius or so.

It doesn't throttle at all. Not sure what Intel TM is doing...maybe it doesn't kick in until I striking TJMax?

For those of yous who make fun of the temps :

I've got pretty good cooling : this is a chip running with hyperthreading on, using a Noctua DH-14 with quiet fans, at 4.095 ghz at i.37 volts. TBH I am happy with spikes to 89 or so...average CPU temp is 85 at about between the cores. There'southward also 12 gigs of ram installed, all running at 1600 MHZ cas 7. (putting more load on the IMC) Remember, this is likewise with OCCT, which is a load far greater than any real application. And it'due south survived over 40 hours of testing at these temps with 0 errors. Ambient temps in the room are frequently a bit loftier as well (as loftier as 85 farenheit)

It idle at 37 C, and during a game it reached lx C at worst.

• #xx

Throttling doesn't happen via the CPU until y'all hit Tjmax when DTS=0, providing TM is enabled. ACPI might start throttling before that also.

There is a sticky bit (stays set until software resets it) that will get fix if yous striking Tjmax and that would be your all-time indication. IIRC Realtemp shows this as "Log" under thermal status. You lot might also see a "HOT" also.

Last edited: Nov 12, 2010

• #21

Throttling doesn't happen via the CPU until you hit Tjmax when DTS=0, providing TM is enabled. ACPI might start throttling earlier that too.

There is a sticky chip (stays set until software resets it) that will get set if you hit Tjmax and that would be your best indication. IIRC Realtemp shows this every bit "Log" under thermal status. You might also see a "HOT" too.

Your CPU will hang as before long as yous hit TjMax, throttling occurs at 5 caste beneath TjMax.

• #22

Ah, 5 degrees beneath. That would be 95 C, which I have non managed to hitting even so, even on the hottest cadre in a hot room with bad airflow.

Earlier posters in this thread were saying 85 C, which is why I asked.

Proficient to know.

• #23

Ah, 5 degrees below. That would exist 95 C, which I have not managed to hit yet, fifty-fifty on the hottest core in a hot room with bad airflow.

Earlier posters in this thread were saying 85 C, which is why I asked.

Good to know.

I'thou not an expert on bit specifics, but I believe C2D TjMax = 80, C2Q = 100. Some say coretemp has wrong TjMax considering c2q TjMax is actually fourscore, making it sure temps higher than bodily.

The sensor on die works funny. Think of it as the number when it is 0 caste and it volition decrease as temp increases. As it gets to 5, throttle kicks in. When information technology reaches 0, all ability to CPU will be cut.

• #24

Your CPU will hang as soon as you hit TjMax, throttling occurs at 5 caste below TjMax.

If throttling occurs below Tjmax it is usually due to ACPI. If your hanging when hitting Tjmax then there is something not quite correct with your system. Possibly attempt a BIOS update.

Later on a bit of earthworks around I found this to try and explain a trivial further. Movie courtesy of burebista on TPU

Tjmax is 100°C with Realtemp showing the calculated temperature and DTS value. Note how on the start core the DTS value which is 7-scrap (reads 0 to 127), has wrapped effectually 0 to prove a altitude of 126 (-ii) from Tjmax. The thermal condition is HOT considering the cadre temperature is currently above Tjmax. The second cadre shows LOG because the core was at or higher up Tjmax at some fourth dimension between powering on the CPU and taking the screen shot. The glutinous fleck (LOG) has been fix to record that event. If and when the first core cools downwards beneath Tjmax then HOT will change to LOG.

With todays CPUs y'all may notice that once DTS reaches 0 it no longer wraps effectually. In other words it will only report a maximum temperature of Tjmax even if the temperature continues to climb higher than this.

• #25

In any case, I have not been able to become within five degrees of TJMax. The hottest I take always managed to go it was 93 degrees C on core ane, which would correlate to 7 degrees from TJMax.

And actually, these numbers are probably wrong. I've read i theory that is most likely right : different cores in an i7 CPU have different setpoints for TJMax. This prevents them from all throttling at the same time. That would explain why my "hottest" core is always, no matter what, well-nigh exactly viii degrees "hotter" than my "coldest" core.

Since the temps are really distances from TJ Max, and Occam's razor suggests that the temps should be the aforementioned in each cadre given equal workload, this ways that each cadre's TJMax is dissimilar.

At present that I know how Intel TM actually works, I'grand going to leave it on with all hereafter overclock builds. 95 C (or 5 from TJMax) is HOOOT. There is zip gained by letting the CPU become hotter than that. Even the well-nigh extreme overclocker volition accept cooling better than that. (which means TJMax is 85 C for a C2D)

• Advertising
• Cookies Policies
• Privacy
• Term & Atmospheric condition
• Well-nigh united states

• This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your feel and to keep yous logged in if you register.
  By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

Source: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/if-you-disable-intel-tm-will-your-cpu-melt-down-if-cooling-fails.2117613/

Share this post