Q9450 Build.. Confirm temp issues.. please help

Hi. First post and hoping to get some help or advice. Ive Built a new system, which is as follows...

Board = Asus Striker II Formula ( bios 1201 latest )
Cpu = Q9450 ( Stock speed at present )
Cpu Cooler = Zalman 9700 NT Cooler ( changing to Tuniq 120 ) (AS5 paste )
Memory = Corsair 4GB DDR2 XMS2 Dominator PC2-8500C5 TwinX
Case = Coolermaster RC-1000 Cosmos
G-Cards = 2 x Asus 9800 GX2 - Quad Sli
PSU = Coolermaster Real Power 1000w Modular Power ( Fan to exterior of case )

Build went very well, and cable management is clean. Firstly had to update bios to support CPU. That sorted, installed Vista 64bit Ultimate. Installed latest 174.74 nvidia drivers, directx and all OS update.

Ive been reading through different forums on a temp reader for the quad core and people either use coretemp or realtemp.

Ive used Realtemp, With the following reading at stock ( no overclocking)
Tested the sensors
Also ive reseated the cooler 3 times.. all with very similar results.

Idle..
Core 1 = 49c
Core 2 = 42c
Core 3 = 46c
Core 4 = 46c

Load.. ( Latest Prime 95 )
Core 1 = 58c
Core 2 = 54c
Core 3 = 56c
Core 4 = 57c

Ive read on other forums of people having idle temp of around 32c and max load 48-50c.

Questions...
Now what i would like to know. Are these temps right?
or is the Cpu running too hot (possible faulty)?
Have I specced or built the system wrong? as in the case im using?
Can any1 offer any help to try and set my mind at rest and get the system running right?

Thanks In Advance

Michael.

how was you able to update the bios without the cpu being installed? did u had to install a old socket 775 cpu in it for it to boot up because has far as i know, you can boot up a system without a cpu.

those temps look too high for my liking

Im using realtemp 2.4 and idle im getting 41 42 44 44 ,under load after 5 mins of prime its 64 61 60 61.

Bios was updated after OS was installed..

It doesn't sound too bad as far as the temperatures go. Remember that these are quad core. Those that idle at 30-40 degC are most likely under water. I have a Xeon X3350, the same as a Q9450 with a xeon name instead and that idles low 40s/high 30s and load is mid 50s and thtis with air cooling. And as far as your choice of cooler, I'd suggest that you get a Thermalright Ultra-120 extreme.

Other than that the Striker II formula probably doesn't make things any better with that hot NB and poor cooling, and i can empathise as I have the same board!

Aye the NB does run quite hot. Might have to change the build slightly and go for a 790i ultra and ddr3, or go full water cooling for the 780i. Will have to research it more.

I have this cpu and mine idles in the low 40's and mine is on water. I even flushed out my watercooling system and reseated several times but no change. They do seem to idle at quite high temps whether this is a true temp I doubt it. Core temp gives an even higher temp.

damm so the temps realy are that bad? whoops looks like a q6600 is the way to go

your using a non intel based board and thats where the issue is. There is a problem with the bios interpreting data from the diodes(temp) wrongly and can be completely off, this doesnt seem to happen with intel boards. My e8400 gets to load @ 52C (roughly) with ac7 which isnt the high end but after 3 hours the heatsink is still reasonably cold so its certainly not 50~.
Take the temp readings with a pinch of salt as they are incorrect, try real temp as that seems to give a better reading(probably not correct) than the rest. Also people have different houses etc and so could be colder/warmer there and that could effect temps by alot.

Yep, my BIOS (Gigabyte GA-P35-DS4) shows my Q9450 at 27ºC! Which it can't physically be.

Just tried RealTemp, not sure how to calibrate it (if I need to?), but the initial out-of-the-box values are showing me 35-37ºC at idle. The computer has been booted up for an hour, but has not done anything (I'm busy writing emails and word processing), so effectively is idle.

I have an air cooler, a Zalman CNPS9700 LED, similar to your NT version. The fan speed of which is set manually to spin at the minimum (1100RPM).

My Nzxt Lexa case has a 120mm fan embedded in the side-window, though, and this blasts cool air from the outside literally directly into the path of the Zalman CNPS9700, which then swiftly exits the chassis via a rear exhaust fan. Ambient room temperatures are 24ºC.

Ok update time. Just stripped down the computer and installed a Tuniq Tower 120 CPU Cooler and just to be different i used Arctic Cooling MX-2 Thermal Compound. She booted up first time .. sweeeeet.
I then rebooted the system and overclocked the beasty to 3.2Ghz and kept the cooler fan at approx 1200rpm ( very quiet ) and i mean VERY quiet....

Then i started a few tests. Temps measured with Real Temp 2.41


Idle for approx 2 hours...

Core 1 = 40
Core 2 = 36
Core 3 = 38
Core 4 = 38

Prime95 100% cpu usage for approx 2 hours..

Core 1 = 51
Core 2 = 45
Core 3 = 49
Core 4 = 49

Much better as you can see and thats overclocked to 3.2Ghz :) :)

I have to say either i had the system setup wrong before ( unlikely ) Or the Tuniq Cooler is Just amazing. Checked alot of reviews on the thermal compound and it seems to be the dogs b's also.

Time to read up on this chip and see what it can be pushed to stable. Tho 3.2 is wicked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjwilson

I have to say either i had the system setup wrong before ( unlikely ) Or the Tuniq Cooler is Just amazing. Checked alot of reviews on the thermal compound and it seems to be the dogs b's also.

Time to read up on this chip and see what it can be pushed to stable. Tho 3.2 is wicked.

---

The Tuniq Tower is a very well regarded air cooler. The Q9450 should hit 3.8Ghz without too much hassle. Getting over 4Ghz is when the voltage really starts to climb and it's not advisable without excellent cooling (especially for 24/7 use). It takes me 1.4v to get my E8200 (similar but dual core) Orthos stable at 4Ghz. I dropped it last night to 3.96Ghz (8x495) and managed to drop the voltage down several steps. The last few hundred Mhz usually require a large boost in voltage so unless you really need it or want to show off for benchmarks I wouldn't bother.

Actually it`s pretty hard to hit 3.8GHz or above on the Q9450.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grimpy

Actually it`s pretty hard to hit 3.8GHz or above on the Q9450.

---

You will hit an FSB wall between 460-475. Most people get 3.6-3.7ghz with a very small number making 3.8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grimpy

Actually it`s pretty hard to hit 3.8GHz or above on the Q9450.

---

Oh really? My bad, I had (foolishly) assumed it was similar to the E8xxx. I guess the extra heat in the same space is an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atmadden

You will hit an FSB wall between 460-475. Most people get 3.6-3.7ghz with a very small number making 3.8.

---

Sounds odd. Normally the FSB wall is linked to the motherboard chipset.

EDIT: On my E8200 I was able to Orthos fine at 525 FSB by dialing the multiplier back. Might go higher but I didn't bother check.