Why is the author showing a chart of room temperatures? CPU temperature is what matters here. Expecting a CPU to be stable at 100C is just asking for problems. Issue probably could have been avoided by making improvements to case airflow.

▲

Jolter 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I would expect the CPU to start throttling at high temperatures in order to avoid damage. Allegedly, it never did, and instead died. Do you think that’s acceptable in 2025?

▲

ACCount37 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Thermal throttling originated as a safety feature. The early implementations were basically a "thermal fuse" in function, and cut all power to the system to prevent catastrophic hardware damage. Only later did the more sophisticated versions that do things like "cut down clocks to prevent temps from rising further" appear.

On desktop PCs, thermal throttling is often set up as "just a safety feature" to this very day. Which means: the system does NOT expect to stay at the edge of its thermal limit. I would not trust thermal throttling with keeping a system running safely at a continuous 100C on die.

100C is already a "danger zone", with elevated error rates and faster circuit degradation - and there are only this many thermal sensors a die has. Some under-sensored hotspots may be running a few degrees higher than that. Which may not be enough to kill the die outright - but more than enough to put those hotspots into a "fuck around" zone of increased instability and massively accelerated degradation.

If you're relying on thermal throttling to balance your system's performance, as laptops and smartphones often do, then you seriously need to dial in better temperature thresholds. 100C is way too spicy.

▲

baobabKoodaa 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What does room temperature have to do with any of this? Yes, you can lower your CPU temperature by lowering your room temperature. But you can also lower your CPU temperature by a variety of other means; particularly by improving case airflow. CPU temperature is the interesting metric here, not room temperature.

▲

FeepingCreature 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

No but it's also important to realize that this CPU was running at an insane temperature that should never happen in normal operation. I have a laptop with an undersized fan and if I max out all my cores with full load, I barely cross 80. 100 is mental. It doesn't matter if the manufacturer set the peak temperature wrong, a computer whose cpu reaches 100 degrees celsius is simply built incorrectly.

If nothing else, it very clearly indicates that you can boost your performance significantly by sorting out your cooling because your cpu will be stuck permanently emergency throttling.

▲

izacus 5 days ago | parent [-]

I somehow doubt that, are you looking at the same temperature? I haven't seen a laptop that would have thermal stop under 95 for a long time and any gaming laptop will run at 95 under load for package temps.

▲

FeepingCreature 5 days ago | parent [-]

i7 8550u. Google confirms it stabilizes at 80-85C.

That said, there's a difference between a laptop cpu turbo boosting to 90 for a few minutes and a desktop cpu, which are usually cooler anyway, running at 100 sustained for three hours.

	▲	hedora 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		There’s something very odd with those temps. It’s hitting 100C at > 95% iowait. The CPU core should be idle when that happens. Maybe the pci bus is eating power, or maybe it’s the drives?

▲

formerly_proven 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Strange, laptop CPUs and their thermal solutions are designed in concert to stay at Tjmax when under sustained load and throttle appropriately to maintain maximum temperature (~ power ~ performance).

▲

ACCount37 5 days ago | parent [-]

And those mobile devices have much more conservative limits, and much more aggressive throttling behavior.

Smartphones have no active cooling and are fully dependent on thermal throttling for survival, but they can start throttling at as low as 50C easily. Laptops with underspecced cooling systems generally try their best to avoid crossing into triple digits - a lot of them max out at 85C to 95C, even under extreme loads.

	▲	dezgeg 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		For handhelds the temperature of the device's case is one factor as well when deciding the thermal limits (so you don't burn the user's hands) - less of a problem on laptops.

▲

userbinator 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Expecting a CPU to be stable at 100C is just asking for problems.

I had an 8th-gen i7 sitting at the thermal limit (~100C) in a laptop for half a decade 24/7 with no problem. As sibling comments have noted, modern CPUs are designed to run "flat-out against the governor".

Voltage-dependent electromigration is the biggest problem and what lead to the failures in Intel CPUs not long ago, perhaps ironically caused by cooling that was "too good" --- the CPU finds that there's still plenty of thermal headroom, so it boosts frequency and accompanying voltage to reach the limit, and went too far with the voltage. If it had hit the thermal limit it would've backed off on the voltage and frequency.

▲

swinglock 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The text clearly explains all of this.

▲

baobabKoodaa 4 days ago | parent [-]

No it does not. Which part of the text do you feel explains this?

▲

chmod775 4 days ago | parent [-]

First off, there's a chart for CPU temperature at the very top and they do talk about it:

> I also double-checked if the CPU temperature of about 100 degrees celsius is too high, but no: [..] Intel specifies a maximum of 110 degrees. So, running at “only” 100 degrees for a few hours should be fine.

Secondly, the article reads:

> Tom’s Hardware recently reported that “Intel Raptor Lake crashes are increasing with rising temperatures in record European heat wave”, which prompted some folks to blame Europe’s general lack of Air Conditioning.

> But in this case, I actually did air-condition the room about half-way through the job (at about 16:00), when I noticed the room was getting hot. Here’s the temperature graph:

> [GRAPH]

> I would say that 25 to 28 degrees celsius are normal temperatures for computers.

So apparently a Tom's Hardware article connected a recent heat wave with crashing computers containing Intel CPUs. They brought that up to rule it out by presenting a graph showing reasonable room temperatures.

I hope this helps.

	▲	baobabKoodaa 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Hmmh. On a new reading, you're right, the Tom's Hardware reference does justify it. Though I still wouldn't have discussed room temperature at all as it doesn't bring any useful extra information after already monitoring for the CPU temp.

▲

perching_aix 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Expecting a CPU to be stable at 100C is just asking for problems.

No. High performance gaming laptops will routinely do this for hours on end for years.

If it can't take it, it shouldn't allow it.

	▲	bell-cot 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I've not looked at the specifics here - but "stable at X degrees, Y% duty cycle, for Z" years is just another engineering spec. Intel's basic 285K spec's - https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/241060/... - say "Max Operating Temperature 105 °C". So, yes - running the CPU that close to its maximum is really not asking for stability, nor longevity. No reason to doubt your assertion about gaming laptops - but chip binning is a thing, and the manufacturers of those laptops have every reason to pay Intel a premium for CPU's which test to better values of X, Y, and Z.