 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> In the mean time, this morning, it started up ok, without problems, and
> all temperatures are at normal levels. I really wonder what might have
> happened.
Btw, did you check that something wasn't consuming CPU time? Was the CPU
at 100% load?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
On 17/02/2014 12:20 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> My i7 PC does that too sometimes. It seems to have to do with some
> arcane Windows process... I checked with the task manager and one or
> another process was active.
Arcane indeed.
I downloaded Process Explorer to see if I could find out what was
causing it. Cyber-man's magic. Whooo! :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
Le 17/02/2014 17:26, Warp a écrit :
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
>> In the mean time, this morning, it started up ok, without problems, and
>> all temperatures are at normal levels. I really wonder what might have
>> happened.
>
> Btw, did you check that something wasn't consuming CPU time? Was the CPU
> at 100% load?
>
IIRC, he said that the temperatures of cores were fine (and low) when
the incident happened. Of course, if it was at start-up of the computer,
they hadn't had the time to heat yet. (I guess they have that big
inertia of a block of alu-copper attached to them, something the other
chip might not have)
--
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
On 17-2-2014 17:26, Warp wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
>> In the mean time, this morning, it started up ok, without problems, and
>> all temperatures are at normal levels. I really wonder what might have
>> happened.
>
> Btw, did you check that something wasn't consuming CPU time? Was the CPU
> at 100% load?
>
Well, that I forgot to check indeed. But I am pretty sure it was not the
case. The system was neither slowed down at all.
@ Le_Forgeron: the temperatures of the cores remained low the whole day.
Only the TMPIN1 of the motherboard showed an abnormal temperature of 99,
according to the CPUID Harware Monitor.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
On 17-2-2014 23:09, Stephen wrote:
> On 17/02/2014 12:20 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>> My i7 PC does that too sometimes. It seems to have to do with some
>> arcane Windows process... I checked with the task manager and one or
>> another process was active.
>
> Arcane indeed.
> I downloaded Process Explorer to see if I could find out what was
> causing it. Cyber-man's magic. Whooo! :-)
>
>
svchost, SearchIndexer, taskmgr, are some of the arcanes (to me)
although normally they do not take up much cpu time.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] free fr> wrote:
> IIRC, he said that the temperatures of cores were fine (and low) when
> the incident happened.
Of course they were because the fan was spinning so fast. It doesn't
mean the load wasn't at 100%.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> Well, that I forgot to check indeed. But I am pretty sure it was not the
> case. The system was neither slowed down at all.
The CPU load being high doen't necessarily mean that the system becomes
sluggish.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
On 22-2-2014 18:22, Warp wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
>> Well, that I forgot to check indeed. But I am pretty sure it was not the
>> case. The system was neither slowed down at all.
>
> The CPU load being high doen't necessarily mean that the system becomes
> sluggish.
>
True indeed. However, what set off the fan seems to have been the
extreme high temperature (99C) somewhere on the motherboard. Related to
a core? I don't know. I do not pretend to understand the works ;-)
There is a huge lot of confusion on the web about what TEMPIN0, TEMPIN1
and TEMPIN2 are referring to. Nobody seems really to know. So, examples
given, some say:
TEMPIN0=System Temp
TEMPIN1=North Bridge
TEMPIN2=South Bridge
others guess:
TMPIN0 = SYS
TMPIN1 = CPU
TMPIN2 = MCH
and others, comparing HWMonitor with Everest Ultimate come to:
BIOS - HWMonitor - Everest
SYS = TMPIN0 = Motherboard
CPU = TMPIN1 = CPU
MCH = TMPIN2 = Northbridge
I cannot bake any bread from that :-(
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
> There is a huge lot of confusion on the web about what TEMPIN0, TEMPIN1
> and TEMPIN2 are referring to. Nobody seems really to know. So, examples
> given, some say:
Most BIOS settings have a page that shows temperatures and fan speeds,
the manual of the motherboard should tell you what each one is. I assume
the confusion is because different motherboard manufacturers use
different "channels" for different purposes.
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
On 24-2-2014 9:36, scott wrote:
>> There is a huge lot of confusion on the web about what TEMPIN0, TEMPIN1
>> and TEMPIN2 are referring to. Nobody seems really to know. So, examples
>> given, some say:
>
> Most BIOS settings have a page that shows temperatures and fan speeds,
> the manual of the motherboard should tell you what each one is. I assume
> the confusion is because different motherboard manufacturers use
> different "channels" for different purposes.
>
Which leads of course to the expected question of 2.50 Martian Dollars:
/where/ is that manual? I have none; I cannot find anything on the web
resembling docs.
motherboard: Pegatron Corporation 2AB6
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |