| |
VK4XAC > CPU 20.04.05 00:47l 84 Lines 2848 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : F90049VK4XAC
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: CPU Temperatures - Normal???
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0EA<DB0RES<ON0AR<ON0AR<F6KMO<KP4IG<W1NGL<
VK6HGR<VK4TRS<VK4DGQ<VK4WIE
Sent: 050419/2334Z @:VK4WIE.#BNE.QLD.AUS.OC #:34922 [Brisbane] FBB7.00g
From: VK4XAC@VK4WIE.#BNE.QLD.AUS.OC
To : CPU@WW
Hi Wayne and everyone.
This story is getting more and more interesting with each reply.
>
> From: M5WJF@GB7MAX.#28.GBR.EU
> To : CPU@WW
>
>
> Mmm...I had a couple of public and private packets on this, and I've done
> a bit of research now into the CewntaurHauls/Cyrix III series, which
> throws up two ranges, depending on where you look for information.
>
> Most of the range is supposed to be within 0 - 70 C, but there are a
> couple of CPU's that are designed to run at 80 to 85 C. Although I've not
> yet found the specification for my early chip, I suspect it is probably
> within spec.
>
> Anyway, the Intel PIII is in the board, under the same heatsink/fan as the
> Cyrix, and the Chipset is now running at a steady 45C (was much cooler
> working with the Cyrix), CPU Core is 32 - 38C, and AUX is a steady 28C
> (small increase).
Very interesting set of temps here Wayne. It sounds a bit strange to me that
the CPU temp is lower that the board chipset temps.
What is the mother board your are running??
>
> Obviously there's a different diode arrangement in the Intel sensing the
> temperature.
>
> One possible reason for the increase in chipset temperature may be the
> lack of L2 Cache in the Cyrix, perhaps the Intel is forcing the
> motherboard to do a greater share of the work?
Yes you could be correct in that assumption, but the above temps still seem
different than would appear to be mormal spec.
I just love computers, always an exception somewhere....
>
> Anyway, just taking a break here from a Cisco Practical, just wasted a
> couple of hours trying to enable 802.1Q Encapsulation on a Cisco 2501
> Router, it supports sub-interfaces, which led me up the garden path, but
> only for VPN over PPP, NOT the VTP support for the VLANS I was trying to
> set up...duh!
>
> Interestingly, if you miss out the Encapsulation command and enter an IP
> for the sub-interface, the Router reports that it can't enable the
> interface without IEEE 802.1Q or Cisco ISL being set up first, yet there
> are no commands available to do this on a 2500 Series!
>
> Sorry, not interesting to many, just thought I'd share.
>
> 73 de Wayne M5WJF@GB7MAX.#28.GBR.EU
This is what I really love about systems.This is really the fun part and you
got to have a good sense of humour...!!! When you are trying to set something
up out of the box, the pix on the instructions shows the device, the versons
are all correct, but these instruction do not follow the chipset setup on the
screen.
Don't we all just love a challenge...!!!!!
Hope you get passed this prac Wayne... All the best from DownUnder...
73 - Al, VK4XAC @ VK4WIE.#BNE.QLD.AUS.OC
Message timed: 09:20 on 20 Apr 05
Local Time, Brisbane, Australia. (-10Hrs UT.)
Message sent using WinPack V5.5 (Freeware!)
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
