AMD Athlon XP 1700+ Palomino Thermal Management? \ VOGONS

AMD Athlon XP 1700+ Palomino Thermal Management?

Topic actions

Post a reply

First post, by gryffinwings

Posted on 2018-09-22, 15:46

gryffinwings Offline

Rank Member

Rank: Member
Posts: 101
Joined: 2018-09-09, 17:40
Location: San Diego

Hi guys, I was wondering about how much heat the 1700+ Palomino puts out. I'm not sure what is normal for it, haven't found much information about it. Currently, I'm using an all aluminum Coolermaster heatsink with Arctic MX4 thermal paste and modified with an adapter to run an 80mm Arctic F8 3 Pin Fan. My setup used to see temps around 60*C maybe higher under load. I'm still seeing max temps at 58*C, so I definitely see cooler running and it does cool down faster going from under load to idle. Are these temperatures considered pretty cool for this processor?

PS: All temperature readings taken from BIOS.

Main Computer: Custom - Intel 12900K, Asus Nvidia 3080 Ti, 64 GB DDR5.
Retro Computer: Packard Bell Legend I - AMD 286, 640KB RAM
Retro Computer: Dell Dimension 4400 - Pentium 4 2.8 GHz FSB 400 MHz, ATi Radeon 9600XT, Sound Blaster Live!, 768 MB RAM.

Reply 1 of 7, by The Serpent Rider

Posted on 2018-09-22, 16:35

The Serpent Rider Offline

Rank l33t++

Rank: l33t++
Posts: 5653
Joined: 2017-03-25, 19:07
Location: The Hole

BIOS = idle temp. That's a bit too much.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.

Reply 2 of 7, by gryffinwings

Posted on 2018-09-22, 16:58

gryffinwings Offline

Rank Member

Rank: Member
Posts: 101
Joined: 2018-09-09, 17:40
Location: San Diego

The Serpent Rider wrote:
BIOS = idle temp. That's a bit too much.

Sorry, forgot to clarify, I took BIOS temps after running some software, so it was still dissipating heat, I finally found software that I can get some in Windows XP temps, Motherboard Monitor works great.

Currently with just running Windows XP and playing music, I get temps at 55*C. At BIOS from cold system boot, my max is 52*C. I'll be providing better test temps after I run a couple of games that I know run decently on this system.

Reply 3 of 7, by okenido

Posted on 2018-09-22, 23:22

okenido Offline

Rank Member

Rank: Member
Posts: 123
Joined: 2017-09-21, 20:42

Most BIOSes run the cpu at 100% because there is no throttling there. So you are actually reading the full load temps if you stay in bios long enough... !

Reply 4 of 7, by The Serpent Rider

Posted on 2018-09-23, 03:21

The Serpent Rider Offline

Rank l33t++

Rank: l33t++
Posts: 5653
Joined: 2017-03-25, 19:07
Location: The Hole

Most BIOSes run the cpu at 100%

They aren't.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.

Reply 5 of 7, by gryffinwings

Posted on 2018-09-23, 03:33

gryffinwings Offline

Rank Member

Rank: Member
Posts: 101
Joined: 2018-09-09, 17:40
Location: San Diego

The Serpent Rider wrote:
Most BIOSes run the cpu at 100%

They aren't.

I didn't think so, but I was quietly waiting for someone that could answer this. BIOS puts either no load on the CPU or almost none, so why the heck would the CPU be running at 100% if there isn't anything to use all the CPU resources?

Reply 6 of 7, by matze79

Posted on 2018-09-23, 06:19

matze79 Offline

Rank l33t

Rank: l33t
Posts: 2945
Joined: 2014-12-12, 14:25
Location: Germany, Frankonia

Athlon XP has no Thermal Control.

It simply burns if you overheat it. Except your Motherboard offers some protection..

https://www.retrokits.de - blog, retro projects, hdd clicker, diy soundcards etc
https://www.retroianer.de - german retro computer board

Reply 7 of 7, by alvaro84

Posted on 2018-09-23, 06:20

alvaro84 Offline

Rank Member

Rank: Member
Posts: 431
Joined: 2007-05-24, 05:04
Location: Hungary

gryffinwings wrote:
I didn't think so, but I was quietly waiting for someone that could answer this. BIOS puts either no load on the CPU or almost none, so why the heck would the CPU be running at 100% if there isn't anything to use all the CPU resources?

Well, they are and they aren't. (One of) the CPU (cores) spins in a perpetual loop waiting for user input, very busy yet not doing anything sensible. Most of its execution units are idle and modern CPUs can take advantage of it, letting most parts just go into a lower power state. But for some reason true "idle" function isn't implemented. Empty windows desktop always uses less power than BIOS screens. And the same goes for DOS prompt, to a level where an empty DOS prompt can consume more power than some games. (Measurement were taken on various "686+" class systems from SlotA K7 to Tualatin and P4.) Heavier loads like a Quake timedemo can be definitely more power hungry though.

Shame on us, doomed from the start
May God have mercy on our dirty little hearts

Go to top of page Go to top of page

Back to General Old Hardware

Main menu

Common searches