If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Solution to browser hogs 100% CPU on Win7 64-bit 1GB RAM AMD Turion
In message , ultred ragnusen
writes: On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 03:09:44 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: Check RAM usage first. I should have mentioned that I checked three things first, all of which were consistent: 1. The CPU was at 100% whenever I browsed (more on that later) 2. The RAM is pretty much at 90% almost all the time (give or take) 3. The NETWORK isn't doing anything (but Windows update on the side) My summary on the RAM is that it's certainly maxed out, but, it was maxed out when the computer was born, and the browser couldn't have been unusable. I doubt that. It would have been pretty sluggish when new, if that was the case, which seems unlikely. The browser would just have been slow (but more on that below). They have a bit perhaps, but the main thing that _has_ changed is the average size of webpages - not so much images or text, but _vast_ amounts of code. IMO, anyway. I agree and have more details, after looking at this for hours. A. The worst browsers are the Chromium based browsers (by far!) B. The number of tabs makes a huge difference (especially in Chrome!) Well, I mostly use Firefox, and find the number of tabs there makes quite a difference. C. Yes. Some web pages, especially web forums, are CPU killers! Turning off and/or blocking a lot of things helps there - certainly ad.s (ABP or the other one), and probably a good hosts file. To the extent that 1G of RAM isn't really enough these days - even for XP, let alone 7. Do do the Task Manager check. The RAM is, as expected, "maxed out" at around 80% to 90% most of the time, but my point is that all I want is to get the computer to browse like it did when it was born - which is to say - to browse slowly - but not impossibly. (Is the HD light - assuming there is one - on a lot?) Remember it was born as an XP machine, _and_ when web pages had far less script running. FWIW, I run XP here, on a single core 1.3 GHz machine. It originally had 1G; I'd bought 2G (the most it can take), but didn't get round to fitting it for some time, and noticed little difference when I did - but in those days, was only using 7xx M according to task manager, so that's not surprising. Now, with just Firefox 26 (granted, with about 30 tabs) running, I'm usually around 1.4G used. I think I made HUGE inroads to solving the problem by deleting all Chromium-based browsers. Some opened nine (9) - yes - NINE processes, just to open the "settings" page (Epic did that). But *all* the Chromium-based browsers were memory hogs because they opened up separate processes. (That's not necessarily the reason. A single process can use a lot of CPU.) So my conclusion is that, on an old no-name cheap WinXP-Win7 laptop with little RAM, Chrome-baesed browsers are just out of the question. I do run Chrome (the last one that will run on XP); I think it uses about the same amount of RAM as Firefox does. (I haven't tweaked Chrome as much as I have Firefox.) [] With Java & Avast & anything Google (e.g., Google Drive) removed, I can now browse with Pale Moon in a way that does not redline the CPU all the time such that any page doesn't take a minute or more to load. Good. But I'd still get more RAM if you can - it'll cheer up the machine no end. (Some years ago my brother had an XP laptop with 256M of RAM - upping that made it like a new machine!) At this point, it's barely usable - especially with only one tab open - which I guess is how we did it in the olden days of WinXP. Though as another has said, the possibility of blocked vents (or in extremis a failed fan) _will_ slow down a CPU if it gets too hot; you can easily check that by running something that monitors the assorted built-in sensors. (I use SpeedFan - not using any of its fan-control ability, just to monitor the sensors, but there are plenty of others.) I saw Paul's suggestion where I didn't look at the fan speed but the fan is definitely working as it's as loud as a freight train most of the time. If it's noisy, that might well mean it's working hard to blow air through narrowed channels somewhere. I'll do something to clean vents (although they don't look blocked) and I'll elevate the bottom so the ports are clear - and I'll load that SpeedFan utility to check the fan speed and the CPU temperature. Depending on what has been built into the mobo and whether SpeedFan has drivers for the chips involved, it may find several temperatures it can monitor: on this machine it finds "Core 0", which I presume is the processor, "HD0", and two others, which I assume are other points on the board. (Paul will probably suggest, especially if you tell us which machine/board it is - Belarc Advisor is a good utility for finding out that sort of thing.) I guess if the CPU is throttled to half, then it would max out sooner at that throttle point - is that what you're suggesting might be happening? I think it would, though if it's getting close to the temperatures at which it might throttle back, it's in danger of shutting down completely to protect itself, which Windows tends not to like - and such temperatures shorten the lives of other parts (I had a HD that stopped suddenly). But this may not be happening - SpeedFan or similar should tell you. So I'd o check the temperatures o add more RAM You might also consider going back to XP, though I did hear when 7 first appeared that it _can_ be configured to be less demanding/more efficient than XP. I don't know though. I have a 7 machine that is single core, and has 3G RAM - seems to work OK, though not lightning fast (the stickers imply it was originally Vista). [I still have a W98 machine with 128M, which runs fine with Firefox 2, but I only access one site with it, with up to about four tabs.] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The fifth bestselling detail of all time: the Ford Transit. (RT/C4 2015-5-24.) |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Solution to browser hogs 100% CPU on Win7 64-bit 1GB RAM AMD Turion
Wolf K wrote:
1. The CPU was at 100% whenever I browsed (more on that later) 2. The RAM is pretty much at 90% almost all the time (give or take) 3. The NETWORK isn't doing anything (but Windows update on the side) That means there's very little room for adding and removing OS/program modules and data as needed. I was wrong on the RAM percentage. I installed SpeedFan and watched the CPU with a Chromium-baed browser, which predictably hit 100% when in use and 0% when not, where the RAM in Task Manager only hovered around 60% to 68% while the CPU temperature was from about 151dF to 167dF in SpeedFan. Everything is better though, now that I deleted all the Google stuff, all the java stuff, all the updaters, and anything else I could, like Avast. It still hits 100% every time I use a Chromium-based browser, but it is barely useable. As someone said, it 'walks' but it won't run. Here's a screenshot at 0% https://s18.postimg.org/iuyuw3np5/image.jpg And, a few moments away from that at 100% https://s18.postimg.org/acpersjrd/100.jpg The only thing that changed between them was the web browser. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Solution to browser hogs 100% CPU on Win7 64-bit 1GB RAM AMD Turion
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
Turning off and/or blocking a lot of things helps there - certainly ad.s (ABP or the other one), and probably a good hosts file. I googled for a "good hosts file" and found this "WINHELP" hosts file http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm I just installed it so I won't know if it works or not, so I thank you for that suggestion. I already don't see some ads, so that's a bonus right there. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Solution to browser hogs 100% CPU on Win7 64-bit 1GB RAM AMDTurion
ultred ragnusen wrote:
Wolf K wrote: 1. The CPU was at 100% whenever I browsed (more on that later) 2. The RAM is pretty much at 90% almost all the time (give or take) 3. The NETWORK isn't doing anything (but Windows update on the side) That means there's very little room for adding and removing OS/program modules and data as needed. I was wrong on the RAM percentage. I installed SpeedFan and watched the CPU with a Chromium-baed browser, which predictably hit 100% when in use and 0% when not, where the RAM in Task Manager only hovered around 60% to 68% while the CPU temperature was from about 151dF to 167dF in SpeedFan. Everything is better though, now that I deleted all the Google stuff, all the java stuff, all the updaters, and anything else I could, like Avast. It still hits 100% every time I use a Chromium-based browser, but it is barely useable. As someone said, it 'walks' but it won't run. Here's a screenshot at 0% https://s18.postimg.org/iuyuw3np5/image.jpg And, a few moments away from that at 100% https://s18.postimg.org/acpersjrd/100.jpg The only thing that changed between them was the web browser. DWM is wasting CPU as well. The chipsets back when the MT-30 was introduced, probably don't have programmable shaders, and there's a good chance a lot of the graphics stack is being software emulated. And that's not helping matters. My laptop has the same problem, ancient graphics subsystem, and no way to fix the graphics. Graphics age faster than CPUs do. Paul |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Solution to browser hogs 100% CPU on Win7 64-bit 1GB RAM AMDTurion
On 2/1/2018 7:36 PM, ultred ragnusen wrote:
Wolf K wrote: 1. The CPU was at 100% whenever I browsed (more on that later) 2. The RAM is pretty much at 90% almost all the time (give or take) 3. The NETWORK isn't doing anything (but Windows update on the side) That means there's very little room for adding and removing OS/program modules and data as needed. I was wrong on the RAM percentage. I installed SpeedFan and watched the CPU with a Chromium-baed browser, which predictably hit 100% when in use and 0% when not, where the RAM in Task Manager only hovered around 60% to 68% while the CPU temperature was from about 151dF to 167dF in SpeedFan. snip That seems a little hot. Have you removed dust form the fan and heat sink, or replaced the heat sink compound in the last year or two? |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Solution to browser hogs 100% CPU on Win7 64-bit 1GB RAM AMD Turion
Mike S wrote:
That seems a little hot. Have you removed dust form the fan and heat sink, or replaced the heat sink compound in the last year or two? I never did anything. I don't know how hot the CPU should be, and I've only used SpeedFan for a few hours, but it's pretty consistent right now around 150dF to 165dF. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Solution to browser hogs 100% CPU on Win7 64-bit 1GB RAM AMD Turion
Wolf K wrote:
It's best to get a matched set. IMO less at than 40 pounds for 2GB, upgrading that old laptop is a bargain. That being said, your strategy of eliminating as many background processes as possible is a good one. I will look for RAM. In addition to the background processes, and the HOSTS file that someone suggested, I went to a web forum that I frequent and was appalled at all the web sites it tries to visit. To catch them, I put Irfanview on 1/2 second capture, and then scrolled through the results. Here are the web pages that it *waited* to load in a single session - none of which were the web site I was logged into! These are in order of occurrence. 0.0.0.0 ap.lijit.com 0.0.0.0 securepubads.g.doubleclick.net 0.0.0.0 loadus.exelator.com 0.0.0.0 as.casalemedia.com 0.0.0.0 adservice.google.com 0.0.0.0 www.google-analytics.com 0.0.0.0 optimized-by.rubiconproject.com 0.0.0.0 beacon-us-iad3.rubiconproject.com 0.0.0.0 googleads.g.doubleclick.com 0.0.0.0 googleads.g.doubleclick.net 0.0.0.0 api.viglink.com 0.0.0.0 pagead2.googlesyndication.com 0.0.0.0 www.googleapis.com 0.0.0.0 bcp.crwdcntrl.net 0.0.0.0 ad.crwdcntrl.net 0.0.0.0 track.adform.net 0.0.0.0 cdn.viglink.com 0.0.0.0 b.scorecardresearch.com 0.0.0.0 magnetic.t.domdex.com 0.0.0.0 adclick.g.doubleclick.net 0.0.0.0 ib.adnxs.com 0.0.0.0 garage.bimmerfest.com 0.0.0.0 i.ytimg.com 0.0.0.0 184.72.239.143 0.0.0.0 d1r55yzuc1b1bw.cloudfront.net 0.0.0.0 cse.google.com 0.0.0.0 tags.crwdcntrl.net 0.0.0.0 a.tribalfusion.com 0.0.0.0 ib.adnxs.com 0.0.0.0 api.verticalscope.com 0.0.0.0 fonts.gstatic.com 0.0.0.0 pxl.connexity.net 0.0.0.0 v12group.com 0.0.0.0 mid.rkdms.com 0.0.0.0 aa.agkn.com 0.0.0.0 www.googletagservices.com These 36 are only the ones that I had to wait for because a half second would otherwise be too slow to capture the notification, so we can assume about 50 web sites are consulted with each page view on this web forum. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Solution to browser hogs 100% CPU on Win7 64-bit 1GB RAM AMD Turion
ultred ragnusen wrote:
To catch them, I put Irfanview on 1/2 second capture, and then scrolled through the results. Here are the web pages that it *waited* to load in a single session - none of which were the web site I was logged into! These are in order of occurrence. OMG. There are more than 75 sites which load when I go to the web forum. I just compiled this list by opening two browsers (to slow the machine down) and then capturing a spot on the screen in Irfanview at 0.3 seconds for 500 screenshots. Here's what it captured in that time frame without me moving the mouse or changing the page! 0.0.0.0 15.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 184.72.239.143 0.0.0.0 a.tribalfusion.com 0.0.0.0 aa.agkn.com 0.0.0.0 acds.prod.vidible.tv 0.0.0.0 ad.crwdcntrl.net 0.0.0.0 adclick.g.doubleclick.net 0.0.0.0 ads.adaptv.advertising.com 0.0.0.0 ads.pubmatic.com 0.0.0.0 adserver.adtechus.com 0.0.0.0 adservice.google.com 0.0.0.0 ap.lijit.com 0.0.0.0 api.verticalscope.com 0.0.0.0 api.viglink.com 0.0.0.0 as.casalemedia.com 0.0.0.0 b.scorecardresearch.com 0.0.0.0 bcp.crwdcntrl.net 0.0.0.0 beacon-us-iad2.rubiconproject.com 0.0.0.0 beacon-us-iad3.rubiconproject.com 0.0.0.0 cdn-ssl.vidible.tv 0.0.0.0 cdn.digitru.st 0.0.0.0 cdn.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 cdn.viglink.com 0.0.0.0 cm.g.doubleclick.net 0.0.0.0 cse.google.com 0.0.0.0 csi.gstatic.com 0.0.0.0 d1r55yzuc1b1bw.cloudfront.net 0.0.0.0 dz2fz0bgyq9tn.cloudfront.net 0.0.0.0 fonts.googleapis.com 0.0.0.0 fonts.gstatic.com 0.0.0.0 g2.gumgum.com 0.0.0.0 garage.bimmerfest.com 0.0.0.0 googleads.g.doubleclick.com 0.0.0.0 googleads.g.doubleclick.net 0.0.0.0 i.liadm.com 0.0.0.0 i.ytimg.com 0.0.0.0 ib.adnxs.com 0.0.0.0 images.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 imprnjmp.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 js.gumgum.com 0.0.0.0 load77.exelator.com 0.0.0.0 loadus.exelator.com 0.0.0.0 magnetic.t.domdex.com 0.0.0.0 match.adsrvr.org 0.0.0.0 match.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 mid.rkdms.com 0.0.0.0 ml314.com 0.0.0.0 opps.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 optimized-by.rubiconproject.com 0.0.0.0 pagead2.googlesyndication.com 0.0.0.0 pixel.tapad.com 0.0.0.0 px.moatads.com 0.0.0.0 pxl.connexity.net 0.0.0.0 s1.adform.net 0.0.0.0 secure-ads.pictela.net 0.0.0.0 securepubads.g.doubleclick.net 0.0.0.0 syn.search.spotxchange.com 0.0.0.0 sync.search.spotxch.com 0.0.0.0 tags.bluekai.com 0.0.0.0 tags.crwdcntrl.net 0.0.0.0 tap2-cdn.rubiconproject.com 0.0.0.0 tpc.googlesyndication.com 0.0.0.0 track.adform.net 0.0.0.0 trc.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 trk.vidible.tv 0.0.0.0 v12group.com 0.0.0.0 vid.pubmatic.com 0.0.0.0 vidstat.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 vpaid.pubmatic.com 0.0.0.0 wf.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 www.google-analytics.com 0.0.0.0 www.googleapis.com 0.0.0.0 www.googletagmanager.com 0.0.0.0 www.googletagservices.com 0.0.0.0 www.storygize.net 0.0.0.0 x.skimresources.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Solution to browser hogs 100% CPU on Win7 64-bit 1GB RAM AMDTurion
On 1/31/2018 8:40 AM, ultred ragnusen scribbled: Did browsers alwasys run so slowly in the past, and if not, then what did they do to make browsers so slow - but more useful - what browser will run on this machine which I was given as a freebie as a spare laptop. Originally WindowsXP according to the sticker on the faceplate. Currently Windows7 Ultimate SP1 (I updated it a few days ago to current) AMD Turion 64, 1.61GHZ 1GB RAM, paging is automatic (currently at 1601MB) 37.1GB HDD (6.46GB free) I first noticed Chrome was hogging 100$ of the CPU with multiple processes, as was Internet Explorer. I googled for the best browsers for older machines, and will try Epic, Firefox, Midori, Palemoon, and Iron. The question is only one of how did we put up with such horrid speeds (60 seconds per page or worse) in the past? Probably we didn't - it's probably that browsers got fat - but that leaves the question then of an un-fat browser that works on an older Win7 machine with only 1GB of RAM. Any suggestions on browsers (other than buy a new machine)? The whole issue about browsers is so screwed up. They changed the formatting of programming, moved the positions is what they did, so when you use an older browser and a newly programmed webpage, the old browsers cannot decide where to put the data on the pages themselves, which makes them run real slow and screw up. We are finding only firefox quantum can keep up with old web pages and new ones. The rest, are a nightmare, including the MS explorer 11. We are using old Safari, Opera 12, and also explorer 9, and the whole issue behind most of the battle, is the moved positions. Notice can be made if using an old programmed webpage that the thing actually has moved to the right all its data, and will not center up on the new browsers anymore. This is all a crock of **** of the corporate world, that they claim, you have to have the new one to view their webpages with, or they will block you from loading the pages. Funny, the normal websites of normal people will not block you. Nothing like a rotten crook to steal your loot by running trackers on you through the new browsers. Firefox will not let them do that. Its the only one I know of that keeps to their guns about privacy. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Solution to browser hogs 100% CPU on Win7 64-bit 1GB RAM AMDTurion
ultred ragnusen wrote:
ultred ragnusen wrote: To catch them, I put Irfanview on 1/2 second capture, and then scrolled through the results. Here are the web pages that it *waited* to load in a single session - none of which were the web site I was logged into! These are in order of occurrence. OMG. There are more than 75 sites which load when I go to the web forum. I just compiled this list by opening two browsers (to slow the machine down) and then capturing a spot on the screen in Irfanview at 0.3 seconds for 500 screenshots. Here's what it captured in that time frame without me moving the mouse or changing the page! 0.0.0.0 15.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 184.72.239.143 0.0.0.0 a.tribalfusion.com 0.0.0.0 aa.agkn.com 0.0.0.0 acds.prod.vidible.tv 0.0.0.0 ad.crwdcntrl.net 0.0.0.0 adclick.g.doubleclick.net 0.0.0.0 ads.adaptv.advertising.com 0.0.0.0 ads.pubmatic.com 0.0.0.0 adserver.adtechus.com 0.0.0.0 adservice.google.com 0.0.0.0 ap.lijit.com 0.0.0.0 api.verticalscope.com 0.0.0.0 api.viglink.com 0.0.0.0 as.casalemedia.com 0.0.0.0 b.scorecardresearch.com 0.0.0.0 bcp.crwdcntrl.net 0.0.0.0 beacon-us-iad2.rubiconproject.com 0.0.0.0 beacon-us-iad3.rubiconproject.com 0.0.0.0 cdn-ssl.vidible.tv 0.0.0.0 cdn.digitru.st 0.0.0.0 cdn.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 cdn.viglink.com 0.0.0.0 cm.g.doubleclick.net 0.0.0.0 cse.google.com 0.0.0.0 csi.gstatic.com 0.0.0.0 d1r55yzuc1b1bw.cloudfront.net 0.0.0.0 dz2fz0bgyq9tn.cloudfront.net 0.0.0.0 fonts.googleapis.com 0.0.0.0 fonts.gstatic.com 0.0.0.0 g2.gumgum.com 0.0.0.0 garage.bimmerfest.com 0.0.0.0 googleads.g.doubleclick.com 0.0.0.0 googleads.g.doubleclick.net 0.0.0.0 i.liadm.com 0.0.0.0 i.ytimg.com 0.0.0.0 ib.adnxs.com 0.0.0.0 images.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 imprnjmp.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 js.gumgum.com 0.0.0.0 load77.exelator.com 0.0.0.0 loadus.exelator.com 0.0.0.0 magnetic.t.domdex.com 0.0.0.0 match.adsrvr.org 0.0.0.0 match.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 mid.rkdms.com 0.0.0.0 ml314.com 0.0.0.0 opps.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 optimized-by.rubiconproject.com 0.0.0.0 pagead2.googlesyndication.com 0.0.0.0 pixel.tapad.com 0.0.0.0 px.moatads.com 0.0.0.0 pxl.connexity.net 0.0.0.0 s1.adform.net 0.0.0.0 secure-ads.pictela.net 0.0.0.0 securepubads.g.doubleclick.net 0.0.0.0 syn.search.spotxchange.com 0.0.0.0 sync.search.spotxch.com 0.0.0.0 tags.bluekai.com 0.0.0.0 tags.crwdcntrl.net 0.0.0.0 tap2-cdn.rubiconproject.com 0.0.0.0 tpc.googlesyndication.com 0.0.0.0 track.adform.net 0.0.0.0 trc.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 trk.vidible.tv 0.0.0.0 v12group.com 0.0.0.0 vid.pubmatic.com 0.0.0.0 vidstat.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 vpaid.pubmatic.com 0.0.0.0 wf.taboola.com 0.0.0.0 www.google-analytics.com 0.0.0.0 www.googleapis.com 0.0.0.0 www.googletagmanager.com 0.0.0.0 www.googletagservices.com 0.0.0.0 www.storygize.net 0.0.0.0 x.skimresources.com The very last one is related to WordPress. https://en.forums.wordpress.com/topi...imresourcescom Paul |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Solution to browser hogs 100% CPU on Win7 64-bit 1GB RAM AMDTurion
Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-02-02 02:32, ultred ragnusen wrote: Mike S wrote: That seems a little hot. Have you removed dust form the fan and heat sink, or replaced the heat sink compound in the last year or two? I never did anything. I don't know how hot the CPU should be, and I've only used SpeedFan for a few hours, but it's pretty consistent right now around 150dF to 165dF. IMO the CPU should be "warm", ie, about blood-temperature. The CPU package has a max temperature which is close to the boiling point of water. High power laptops are more likely to reach such temperatures, if you run Prime95 torture test or the like. This is a tradeoff between fan speed and noise level, versus achieving a wide margin on temps. The silicon die itself, could probably take around 135C long term. The package around it is called "organic" as opposed to the older "ceramic" packaging. A switch to organic saved money, but reduced the max temperature for safety. In other words, the packaging around the CPU die gets "soft" if the CPU were to get too hot. And this is also why the CPU has THERMTRIP, which should cut the power before anything bad happens. The condition before that happens is handled by "throttling". THERMTRIP and throttling might be separated by about 20C or so. Hitting THERMTRIP implies the fan stopped spinning, or the heatsink clips came off, and so on. Back in the Athlon days, a sensor was placed under the CPU socket. It had a long reaction time. If the heatsink fell off an Athlon, the CPU die would incinerate, before the sensor went off. And as well, the sensor was "software based". The CPU crashes at high temperature, before it has time to read the sensor and realize the temperature was spiking. This changed in the THERMTRIP era. The sensing is done purely in hardware, has a simple threshold, and reacts quickly. The sensor is on the silicon die itself. This allows a CPU to shut down, before it is damaged. Even if the heatsink falls off (a clamp snaps), it can still kill the power in time. THERMTRIP gates PS_ON#. An example of something with less exemplary protection, is the video card. If the fan stops spinning on a video card, the temperature rises until the plastic fan parts start to melt. The die gets hot enough to damage it and prevent future correct operation. And when you take it apart, you can see thermal damage. And all because the fan stopped spinning. It would cost, oh, about a dollar to prevent that from happening. Just about every big modern piece of silicon, has a substrate diode for temperature monitoring, even if it is only intended for lab work. ******* The communal knowledge at the time, for Athlon, was 65C was the recommended top operating die temperature. If you were running Prime95, and the die temperature was going over 65C, you were supposed to go out and buy a larger heatsink. But some other processors are operated "within an inch of their lives" - examples being little $17 processors in tablets, that lack cooling fans, and they use the chassis as a heatsink. Any prolonged CPU usage on those, leaves them "cruising in throttle country" and you can see the temperature bumping it's head on an invisible line. Whereas desktops with a cubic foot of copper and aluminum, less so. My other machine, the silicon die cruises around 40-45C. The VCore regulator overheats, before the CPU does :-( (I would have to make a custom heatsink to fix this, and it would also mean weeks of downtime until I perfected a solution. There might not be any mounting holes... Small quantities of TIMs cost a fortune. We had a roll of TIM material once, that the guys used to toss around in the lab, that cost $500 per roll.) [Available in sheets and rolls, for a sandwich with the heatsink] http://www.teknational.com/thermal/30/index.html When I bought my last motherboard, that's the one thing I overlooked, and got screwed on. Too small of a VCore heatsink. And even a high motherboard price, does not guarantee an adequate design. Paul |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|