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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe the pci bus is eating power, or maybe it’s the drives?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.