[Dunedan]

> […] so I am surprised he has done that and expected stability at 100C regardless of what Intel claim is okay.

Intel specifies a max operating temperature of 105°C for the 285K [1]. Also modern CPUs aren't supposed to die when run with inadequate cooling, but instead clock down to stay within their thermal envelope.

[1]: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/241060/...

[epolanski]

I always wonder: how many sensors are registering that temp?

Because CPUs can get much hotter in specific spots at specific pins no? Just because you're reading 100, doesn't mean there aren't spots that are way hotter.

My understanding is that modern Intel CPUs have a temp sensor per core + one at package level, but which one is being reported?

[lucianbr]

There's no way on Earth Intel hasn't thought of this. Probably the sensors are in or near the places that get the hottest, or they are aware of the delta and have put in the proper margin, or something like that.

[epolanski]

I haven't said they didn't think about it, I'm just asking due to sheer ignorance.

[enronmusk]

Yes, I have read the article and I agree Intel should be shamed (and even sued) for inaccurate statements. But it doesn't change the fact it has never been a good idea to run desktop processors at their throttling temperature -- it's not good for performance, it's not good for longevity and stability, and it's also terrible for efficiency (performance per watt).

Anyway, OP's cooler should be able to cool down 250W CPUs below 100C. He must have done something wrong for this to not happen. That's my point -- the motherboard likely overclocked the CPU and he failed to properly cool it down or set a power limit (PL1/PL2). He could have easily avoided all this trouble.