CPU cooling software ?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by GraB, Jan 3, 2004.

  1. GraB

    GraB Guest

    Its been a bit hot lately.

    I have been using CPU Idle 5.8 for some time, but noticed that it
    didn't seem to be as effective when I switched from the K6-2 to the
    Duron. Just tried CPU Idle 6.0b. Worked great, quickly dropping temp
    from 44 to 32 deg, but then I played a sound. Screech! Applied VIA
    latency patch, rebooted and tried WinAmp. Computer instantly locks
    up. Out goes patch and CPU Idle 6.0b, back comes CPU Idle 5.8. Temp
    drops from 47 to 43. Not too impressive.

    Hardware: VIA KT266A chipset, Creative SoundBlaster Ensonique, Duron,
    with Win98SE.

    For this sort of hardware/OS combination can anyone recommend a good
    (preferably free) alternative to CPU Idle that won't cause sound
    problems?
    GraB, Jan 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. GraB

    GraB Guest

    On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:30:04 +1300, GraB <> wrote:

    >Its been a bit hot lately.
    >
    >I have been using CPU Idle 5.8 for some time, but noticed that it
    >didn't seem to be as effective when I switched from the K6-2 to the
    >Duron. Just tried CPU Idle 6.0b. Worked great, quickly dropping temp
    >from 44 to 32 deg, but then I played a sound. Screech! Applied VIA
    >latency patch, rebooted and tried WinAmp. Computer instantly locks
    >up. Out goes patch and CPU Idle 6.0b, back comes CPU Idle 5.8. Temp
    >drops from 47 to 43. Not too impressive.
    >
    >Hardware: VIA KT266A chipset, Creative SoundBlaster Ensonique, Duron,
    >with Win98SE.
    >
    >For this sort of hardware/OS combination can anyone recommend a good
    >(preferably free) alternative to CPU Idle that won't cause sound
    >problems?


    Just been experimenting with VCool. On its own it had no effect on
    CPU temp. So I tried running it WITH CPU Idle 5.8. No better than
    with CPU Idle on its own, which is only a small drop in temp. But,
    oddly, when I then closed VCool, leaving CPU Idle running on its own,
    the CPU temp plummeted. But the sound distortion came back. Aargh!
    GraB, Jan 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. GraB

    Dumdedo Guest

    On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 01:15:08 +1300, GraB <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:30:04 +1300, GraB <> wrote:
    >
    >>Its been a bit hot lately.
    >>
    >>I have been using CPU Idle 5.8 for some time, but noticed that it
    >>didn't seem to be as effective when I switched from the K6-2 to the
    >>Duron. Just tried CPU Idle 6.0b. Worked great, quickly dropping temp
    >>from 44 to 32 deg, but then I played a sound. Screech! Applied VIA
    >>latency patch, rebooted and tried WinAmp. Computer instantly locks
    >>up. Out goes patch and CPU Idle 6.0b, back comes CPU Idle 5.8. Temp
    >>drops from 47 to 43. Not too impressive.
    >>
    >>Hardware: VIA KT266A chipset, Creative SoundBlaster Ensonique, Duron,
    >>with Win98SE.
    >>
    >>For this sort of hardware/OS combination can anyone recommend a good
    >>(preferably free) alternative to CPU Idle that won't cause sound
    >>problems?

    >
    >Just been experimenting with VCool. On its own it had no effect on
    >CPU temp. So I tried running it WITH CPU Idle 5.8. No better than
    >with CPU Idle on its own, which is only a small drop in temp. But,
    >oddly, when I then closed VCool, leaving CPU Idle running on its own,
    >the CPU temp plummeted. But the sound distortion came back. Aargh!




    You do not need it, its built into Win98 and XP..

    That is as long as ACPI is being used..
    Dumdedo, Jan 3, 2004
    #3
  4. GraB

    Enkidu Guest

    On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:30:04 +1300, GraB <> wrote:

    >Its been a bit hot lately.
    >
    >I have been using CPU Idle 5.8 for some time, but noticed that it
    >didn't seem to be as effective when I switched from the K6-2 to the
    >Duron. Just tried CPU Idle 6.0b. Worked great, quickly dropping temp
    >from 44 to 32 deg, but then I played a sound. Screech! Applied VIA
    >latency patch, rebooted and tried WinAmp. Computer instantly locks
    >up. Out goes patch and CPU Idle 6.0b, back comes CPU Idle 5.8. Temp
    >drops from 47 to 43. Not too impressive.
    >

    47 is not too shabby for a Duron.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
    --

    Christmas comes but once a year, thank the gods. I don't think
    that I could cope with twice.
    Enkidu, Jan 3, 2004
    #4
  5. GraB

    Dave Taylor Guest


    > You do not need it, its built into Win98 and XP..
    >
    > That is as long as ACPI is being used..
    >
    >



    Windows 98 does not have a System Idle Process AFAIK, what is the
    equivalent OS process in windows 9x? What does ACPI have to do with it?
    Ciao, Dave
    Dave Taylor, Jan 4, 2004
    #5
  6. Dumdedo <> writes:

    >You do not need it, its built into Win98


    No it isn't.

    >and XP..


    In that case it depends on whether suspend-on-halt is enabled in the chipset
    (the original poster mentioned he was using AMD hardware). Quite often it
    isn't, because many (particularly cheaper) power supplies can't handle having
    a 60-80W load switched in and out potentially many times a second. So even if
    the OS halts the CPU (which Win2K/XP do), it may not have any effect.

    Peter.
    Peter Gutmann, Jan 5, 2004
    #6
  7. GraB

    K & S Guest

    On 5 Jan 2004 04:14:59 GMT, (Peter Gutmann) wrote:

    >Dumdedo <> writes:
    >
    >>You do not need it, its built into Win98

    >
    >No it isn't.




    Yes its implemented in ACPI go have a read..

    And I have fully tested it, with a Cooling Utile and ACPI, both gave the same
    results..


    >>and XP..

    >
    >In that case it depends on whether suspend-on-halt is enabled in the chipset
    >(the original poster mentioned he was using AMD hardware). Quite often it
    >isn't, because many (particularly cheaper) power supplies can't handle having
    >a 60-80W load switched in and out potentially many times a second. So even if
    >the OS halts the CPU (which Win2K/XP do), it may not have any effect.
    >
    >Peter.
    K & S, Jan 5, 2004
    #7
  8. K & S < writes:

    >On 5 Jan 2004 04:14:59 GMT, (Peter Gutmann) wrote:


    >>Dumdedo <> writes:
    >>
    >>>You do not need it, its built into Win98

    >>
    >>No it isn't.


    >Yes its implemented in ACPI go have a read..


    It only appeared in Win98SE, it was never in Win98 (unless you know something
    about Win98 that Microsoft doesn't).

    >And I have fully tested it, with a Cooling Utile and ACPI, both gave the same
    >results..


    By "the same results" do you mean they both had no effect on temperature, or
    they both resulted in a temperature drop? If you got a temp. drop then you
    must have one of the (very rare) systems that enables suspend-on-halt by
    default. As I said in my previous post, most systems disable this because you
    need a fairly solid power supply to handle it, so halting the CPU has no
    effect. To enable this, you need to poke around in chipset-specific PCI
    config registers, which is what the various CPU-cooling utilities do (along
    with putting the CPU in the STPGNT state if the OS doesn't support this).

    Peter.
    Peter Gutmann, Jan 5, 2004
    #8
  9. GraB

    K & S Guest

    On 5 Jan 2004 06:30:15 GMT, (Peter Gutmann) wrote:

    >K & S < writes:
    >
    >>On 5 Jan 2004 04:14:59 GMT, (Peter Gutmann) wrote:

    >
    >>>Dumdedo <> writes:
    >>>
    >>>>You do not need it, its built into Win98
    >>>
    >>>No it isn't.

    >
    >>Yes its implemented in ACPI go have a read..

    >
    >It only appeared in Win98SE, it was never in Win98 (unless you know something
    >about Win98 that Microsoft doesn't).
    >
    >>And I have fully tested it, with a Cooling Utile and ACPI, both gave the same
    >>results..

    >
    >By "the same results" do you mean they both had no effect on temperature, or
    >they both resulted in a temperature drop? If you got a temp. drop then you
    >must have one of the (very rare) systems that enables suspend-on-halt by
    >default. As I said in my previous post, most systems disable this because you
    >need a fairly solid power supply to handle it, so halting the CPU has no
    >effect. To enable this, you need to poke around in chipset-specific PCI
    >config registers, which is what the various CPU-cooling utilities do (along
    >with putting the CPU in the STPGNT state if the OS doesn't support this).
    >
    >Peter.




    It was on 2 models Asus MoBo Intel chipsets and I have only WIN98se, and yes
    they both produced the same drop..

    In fact the info on it came from a chap that use to visit here a lot, I tried
    it and it worked..

    I also use the Asus tool and you could see the Temp dropping..

    I think the tool was CPUidle..
    K & S, Jan 5, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    Arctic Cooling Silencer 64 Ultra CPU Cooler Review

    Silverstrand, Jun 24, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,082
    Silverstrand
    Jun 24, 2005
  2. John E

    CPU Cooling Solution

    John E, Dec 22, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,036
    Ed Morgan
    Dec 24, 2003
  3. John Smith

    CPU cooling

    John Smith, Jan 10, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    521
    ┬░Mike┬░
    Jan 10, 2004
  4. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    861
    Silverstrand
    May 17, 2006
  5. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    697
    Silverstrand
    May 26, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page