From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

I've got two systems running windows 11. A little over a year older is
an i5 that seems to run about 10-15 degrees cooler than this new one.
The latest one has an Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (Arrow Lake) processor. As
said, this one always seems to run hotter than the i5. It does look
after some googling this is well within normal for the system.

Sitting here now with Core Temp, Firefox and, BBird open it runs
smoothly at about 90F. If I open and close something, it might jump up
to 115F for a brief second and goes back down quickly. I like to keep
this computer running during the day because it sorts out my spam emails nicely and I don't have to go through them on my phone if I'm out. This
gets me to my question, finally.

I do have time as a screen saver, though I often just turn off the power
to the monitor. If I get back to this machine and it has the screen
saver on, the temperature will be something like 108F. Once I start
using it again, it works its way back down. It's still at 90F now. So
what is running in the background to cause it to run 18F hotter when not
in use, than when I'm actually using it? Can it be something as simple
as the screen saver? Or do other processes notice the idle system and
start doing something?

I'm gonna turn the screen saver off, turn off the monitor, and check
later to see if it is any different.
--
Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 3/12/2026 4:37 PM, sticks wrote:

I've got two systems running windows 11.  A little over a year older is
an i5 that seems to run about 10-15 degrees cooler than this new one.
The latest one has an Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (Arrow Lake) processor.  As said, this one always seems to run hotter than the i5.  It does look
after some googling this is well within normal for the system.

Sitting here now with Core Temp, Firefox and, BBird open it runs
smoothly at about 90F.  If I open and close something, it might jump up
to 115F for a brief second and goes back down quickly.  I like to keep
this computer running during the day because it sorts out my spam emails nicely and I don't have to go through them on my phone if I'm out.  This gets me to my question, finally.

I do have time as a screen saver, though I often just turn off the power
to the monitor.  If I get back to this machine and it has the screen
saver on, the temperature will be something like 108F.  Once I start
using it again, it works its way back down.  It's still at 90F now.  So what is running in the background to cause it to run 18F hotter when not
in use, than when I'm actually using it?  Can it be something as simple
as the screen saver?  Or do other processes notice the idle system and start doing something?

I'm gonna turn the screen saver off, turn off the monitor, and check
later to see if it is any different.

So I just got back to this machine and I'll be damned it appears the
screen saver might be the culprit. Turning on the monitor just now it
was down at 93F. That's 15F just to run the darn screen saver? I'll
check a few more times, but if this is the case I think I'll just leave
the screen saver off and turn the monitor off, or just leave it run.

I was on the other win 11 machine, and to be specific it runs a Intel
Core i5 10400 (Comet Lake) processor. Doing the same things on that one
it plods along at on about 73F. Both work well, but the core ultra
processors do run a little hotter.
--
Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 17:52:41 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:

<snip>

I'm gonna turn the screen saver off, turn off the monitor, and check
later to see if it is any different.

So I just got back to this machine and I'll be damned it appears the
screen saver might be the culprit. Turning on the monitor just now it
was down at 93F. That's 15F just to run the darn screen saver? I'll
check a few more times, but if this is the case I think I'll just leave
the screen saver off and turn the monitor off, or just leave it run.

I was on the other win 11 machine, and to be specific it runs a Intel
Core i5 10400 (Comet Lake) processor. Doing the same things on that one
it plods along at on about 73F. Both work well, but the core ultra >processors do run a little hotter.

It would be interesting to put a Kill-a-Watt meter on that PC and get a baseline when it's just idling, then see what happens to the power
consumption when you step back and let the screensaver kick in.

On the SS topic, I thought those went away when CRT displays went away.
I haven't seen one in a very long time, but I remember there were some
very cool ones. I liked the one where pipes appear on the screen,
turning in random directions to connect to other pipes, or something
like that. Like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3TcDrcfzSQ

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 12/03/2026 21:37, sticks wrote:

I've got two systems running windows 11.  A little over a year older is
an i5 that seems to run about 10-15 degrees cooler than this new one.
The latest one has an Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (Arrow Lake) processor.  As said, this one always seems to run hotter than the i5.  It does look
after some googling this is well within normal for the system.

Sitting here now with Core Temp, Firefox and, BBird open it runs
smoothly at about 90F.  If I open and close something, it might jump up
to 115F for a brief second and goes back down quickly.  I like to keep
this computer running during the day because it sorts out my spam emails nicely and I don't have to go through them on my phone if I'm out.  This gets me to my question, finally.

I do have time as a screen saver, though I often just turn off the power
to the monitor.  If I get back to this machine and it has the screen
saver on, the temperature will be something like 108F.  Once I start
using it again, it works its way back down.  It's still at 90F now.  So what is running in the background to cause it to run 18F hotter when not
in use, than when I'm actually using it?  Can it be something as simple
as the screen saver?  Or do other processes notice the idle system and start doing something?

I'm gonna turn the screen saver off, turn off the monitor, and check
later to see if it is any different.

Have you considered cleaning the inside of the box and removing all the
dust? You should also clean the fans and apply high-quality thermal
paste to the CPU, after first removing the old paste with 99.9% alcohol.

You never know this might be the solution for your nagging problems.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:

I've got two systems running windows 11. A little over a year older is
an i5 that seems to run about 10-15 degrees cooler than this new one.
The latest one has an Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (Arrow Lake) processor. As said, this one always seems to run hotter than the i5. It does look
after some googling this is well within normal for the system.

Sitting here now with Core Temp, Firefox and, BBird open it runs
smoothly at about 90F. If I open and close something, it might jump up
to 115F for a brief second and goes back down quickly. I like to keep
this computer running during the day because it sorts out my spam emails nicely and I don't have to go through them on my phone if I'm out. This gets me to my question, finally.

I do have time as a screen saver, though I often just turn off the power
to the monitor. If I get back to this machine and it has the screen
saver on, the temperature will be something like 108F. Once I start
using it again, it works its way back down. It's still at 90F now. So
what is running in the background to cause it to run 18F hotter when not
in use, than when I'm actually using it? Can it be something as simple
as the screen saver? Or do other processes notice the idle system and
start doing something?

I'm gonna turn the screen saver off, turn off the monitor, and check
later to see if it is any different.

Speedfan, and other utilities can monitor fan speeds. Just a little
increase in fan speed that may not be noticeable to your ears can result
in decreased temperatures.

Your mobo may even have included a monitoring tool to check fan speeds.
Else, there are several 3rd party tools for that, like:

Speedfan
HWmonitor
Open Hardware Monitor

Some overclock tools also monitor fan speed. Best is one that shows a
history of temperature measurements, so you can see how fan speeds
changed. Alas, you'll have to know what you were running at the time
the history graph shows a jump in fan speeds. Those same tools can also monitor CPU temperature, so a history of CPU temps can help identify
when CPU usage was high, and remained high, to see if those events
correspond with fan speeds. The GPU can also generate more heat, like
when playing video games.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:

On 3/12/2026 4:37 PM, sticks wrote:

I've got two systems running windows 11.  A little over a year older is
an i5 that seems to run about 10-15 degrees cooler than this new one.
The latest one has an Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (Arrow Lake) processor.  As >> said, this one always seems to run hotter than the i5.  It does look
after some googling this is well within normal for the system.

Sitting here now with Core Temp, Firefox and, BBird open it runs
smoothly at about 90F.  If I open and close something, it might jump up
to 115F for a brief second and goes back down quickly.  I like to keep
this computer running during the day because it sorts out my spam emails
nicely and I don't have to go through them on my phone if I'm out.  This >> gets me to my question, finally.

I do have time as a screen saver, though I often just turn off the power
to the monitor.  If I get back to this machine and it has the screen
saver on, the temperature will be something like 108F.  Once I start
using it again, it works its way back down.  It's still at 90F now.  So >> what is running in the background to cause it to run 18F hotter when not
in use, than when I'm actually using it?  Can it be something as simple
as the screen saver?  Or do other processes notice the idle system and
start doing something?

I'm gonna turn the screen saver off, turn off the monitor, and check
later to see if it is any different.

So I just got back to this machine and I'll be damned it appears the
screen saver might be the culprit. Turning on the monitor just now it
was down at 93F. That's 15F just to run the darn screen saver? I'll
check a few more times, but if this is the case I think I'll just leave
the screen saver off and turn the monitor off, or just leave it run.

I was on the other win 11 machine, and to be specific it runs a Intel
Core i5 10400 (Comet Lake) processor. Doing the same things on that one
it plods along at on about 73F. Both work well, but the core ultra processors do run a little hotter.

Instead of running a screen saver that animates the screen, or rotates
through images, just use a solid color background, like black. You
could also set the screen saver to show the time, but slow the animation
to minimum. Hopefully you are using the screen savers that were bundled
with Windows, not some 3rd party screen saver that could be running
scripts or animations.

If you use power options to turn off the monitor, there is no point in
also enabling the screen saver unless you enable the option to login to
escape the screen saver.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Thu, 3/12/2026 6:52 PM, sticks wrote:

On 3/12/2026 4:37 PM, sticks wrote:

I've got two systems running windows 11.  A little over a year older is an i5 that seems to run about 10-15 degrees cooler than this new one. The latest one has an Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (Arrow Lake) processor.  As said, this one always seems to run hotter than the i5.  It does look after some googling this is well within normal for the system.

Sitting here now with Core Temp, Firefox and, BBird open it runs smoothly at about 90F.  If I open and close something, it might jump up to 115F for a brief second and goes back down quickly.  I like to keep this computer running during the day because it sorts out my spam emails nicely and I don't have to go through them on my phone if I'm out.  This gets me to my question, finally.

I do have time as a screen saver, though I often just turn off the power to the monitor.  If I get back to this machine and it has the screen saver on, the temperature will be something like 108F.  Once I start using it again, it works its way back down.  It's still at 90F now.  So what is running in the background to cause it to run 18F hotter when not in use, than when I'm actually using it?  Can it be something as simple as the screen saver?  Or do other processes notice the idle system and start doing something?

I'm gonna turn the screen saver off, turn off the monitor, and check later to see if it is any different.

So I just got back to this machine and I'll be damned it appears the screen saver might be the culprit.  Turning on the monitor just now it was down at 93F.  That's 15F just to run the darn screen saver?  I'll check a few more times, but if this is the case I think I'll just leave the screen saver off and turn the monitor off, or just leave it run.

I was on the other win 11 machine, and to be specific it runs a Intel Core i5 10400 (Comet Lake) processor.  Doing the same things on that one it plods along at on about 73F.  Both work well, but the core ultra processors do run a little hotter.

Are those temperatures F or C ?
These sound like C numbers.

i5-10400 PL1=65W PL2=134W for T=28 seconds 6C 12T 6 core Ultra 5 225 PL1=65W PL2=121W 10C 10T (6) PCore (4) ECore

There are some air coolers at 250W capability. There are
ones better than the Noctua. You can also use a water block
with pump and reservoir, to smooth out the temps. But at
those power levels, a lot of things will work for you.

The power versus core count, isn't a linear function. A CPU can
draw half the rated power, if one core is railed, and that's because
the one core runs at 5.1GHz. Whereas if all the cores go to max
(and hit the power limiter), the clock would be 4.4GHz and that
slight drop in speed, doesn't need as much VCore, which helps a lot.

On AMD, another weirdness is that while a CCX may seem to have eight
cores in the structure, the performance scales differently after the
fourth core. That means that setting a VM to four cores, might give
a slightly better than expected result.

Older processors have their own weirdness. They used ring busses,
they had multiple rings (a "three ring circus"), and those left
a lot of performance on the floor. My old Test Machine is
6 cores, but thanks to its single stage ring, the performance
scales to only 5 cores worth. I'm losing a core of work, just
because of the rings.

The machine with the big heatsink, it started life at 58C when
railed on all cores. A check today, shows it running at 70C, so now
it has to come part and be re-pasted, and I have to fit a support
to take the strain off the socket. I blame the leaning heatsink for
the poor thermal paste performance. I have the threaded rods, but
I'll need the wingnuts and fender washers for adjusting the
height of the support needed. Using two threaded rods, you can
adjust the slope of the support (if it needs to be tilted a bit).

Whereas the heatsink in my daily driver is about half the weight,
and no support needed there. The same for an Intel in-box heatsink
or a Wraith Stealth, light and not likely to be leaning.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

sticks wrote:

So what is running in the background to cause it to run 18F hotter when
not in use, than when I'm actually using it?

Assuming you've got a decent amount of RAM (16GB or more?) there's no
harm to try turning off memory compression, if it doesn't help, you can re-enable it.

run powershell "as administrator"
disable-mmagent -mc
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Clean Your Ass! wrote:

sticks wrote:

The latest one has an Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (Arrow Lake) processor.  As >> said, this one always seems to run hotter than the i5.

Have you considered cleaning the inside of the box and removing all the
dust?

That machine can't be more than 1 year old ...

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Fri, 3/13/2026 4:07 AM, Andy Burns wrote:

sticks wrote:

So what is running in the background to cause it to run 18F hotter when not in use, than when I'm actually using it?

Assuming you've got a decent amount of RAM (16GB or more?) there's no harm to try turning off memory compression, if it doesn't help, you can re-enable it.

run powershell "as administrator"
disable-mmagent -mc

The Memory Compressor, runs in response to the level of "memory pressure".

In my tests, in early Windows 10, I made Win10 run in a VM where only
256MB of RAM was offered. The OS ran (you can't do this today due to bloat), but the Memory Compressor was railed. I could open Notepad, but not do
any significant work in it, at that level. The File Explorer may have
crashed during shutdown (256MB wasn't enough to allow the machine to
shut down properly).

Whereas if you lift the RAM amount to the "recommended minimum" 1GB for Win10, then just like magic, the Memory Compressor is not consuming cycles.

If a person has 16GB of RAM, there is no particular reason to be switching it off (all the way from 1GB of RAM available to 16GB of RAM available, the MC should not be using cycles). Not many people manage to surgically load their machine to exactly the right amount to rail the MC, without tipping something else over while trying to do that.

You can modify the BCD file, to indicate what amount of RAM you want
the machine to have access to. You don't even need to unplug DIMMs to
determine how the machine would work under low available RAM. This is the
terse note in my notes file -- there may be at least one more of these somewhere.

*******
bcdedit: change memory available

bcdedit /set {18b123cd-2bf6-11db-bfae-00e018e2b8db} removememory 1536

bcdedit /deletevalue {18b123cd-2bf6-11db-bfae-00e018e2b8db} removememory

msconfig.exe

131072
114688 ==> truncatememory 0x1c00000000 (in a specific Windows Bootloader object, not in "current")
*******

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Paul wrote:

If a person has 16GB of RAM, there is no particular reason to be switching it off (all the way from 1GB of RAM available to 16GB of RAM available, the MC should not be using cycles). Not many people manage to surgically load their machine to exactly the right amount to rail the MC, without tipping something else over while trying to do that.

In my case, it turned out the compression made the difference between
fan running all the time, or only running when the machine was actually
doing stuff (win11 + firefox + thunderbird between them manage to
consume over 10GB of RAM, so firing up one extra app such as freecad, libreoffice or orca does it).

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
[...]

So I just got back to this machine and I'll be damned it appears the
screen saver might be the culprit. Turning on the monitor just now it
was down at 93F. That's 15F just to run the darn screen saver? I'll
check a few more times, but if this is the case I think I'll just leave
the screen saver off and turn the monitor off, or just leave it run.

Why do you use a screen saver in the first place?

Yes, you said it shows the time, but that's probably because you use a
screen saver, so it might as well show something.

As Char also mentioned, screen savers are a thing of the very distant
past, when monitors had CRTs which were susceptible to burn-in and
could not be programmatically put into stand-by mode. But for decades
already, Windows can just turn the screen off after a set not-in-use
time [1]. 'Problem' solved.

[1] 'Turn my screen off after ...' in Settings.

[...]
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 19:22:32 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

On the SS topic, I thought those went away when CRT displays went away.
I haven't seen one in a very long time, but I remember there were some
very cool ones. I liked the one where pipes appear on the screen,
turning in random directions to connect to other pipes, or something
like that. Like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3TcDrcfzSQ

AFAIK the reason for a "screen saver" doesn't apply to LCD/LED monitors.
Some people use one for security reasons (screen lock) or maybe just like looking at the pictures. If DOESN'T save energy. It's been a long time
since I used one of them. I turn the monitor off when not using it. Your computer's settings probably allow that, rather than running a program.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I don't see any god up here." -- Yuri Gagarin (1934-1968), Soviet
cosmonaut
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 3/13/2026 12:50 AM, Paul wrote:

On Thu, 3/12/2026 6:52 PM, sticks wrote:

On 3/12/2026 4:37 PM, sticks wrote:

I've got two systems running windows 11.  A little over a year older is an i5 that seems to run about 10-15 degrees cooler than this new one. The latest one has an Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (Arrow Lake) processor.  As said, this one always seems to run hotter than the i5.  It does look after some googling this is well within normal for the system.

Sitting here now with Core Temp, Firefox and, BBird open it runs smoothly at about 90F.  If I open and close something, it might jump up to 115F for a brief second and goes back down quickly.  I like to keep this computer running during the day because it sorts out my spam emails nicely and I don't have to go through them on my phone if I'm out.  This gets me to my question, finally.

I do have time as a screen saver, though I often just turn off the power to the monitor.  If I get back to this machine and it has the screen saver on, the temperature will be something like 108F.  Once I start using it again, it works its way back down.  It's still at 90F now.  So what is running in the background to cause it to run 18F hotter when not in use, than when I'm actually using it?  Can it be something as simple as the screen saver?  Or do other processes notice the idle system and start doing something?

I'm gonna turn the screen saver off, turn off the monitor, and check later to see if it is any different.

So I just got back to this machine and I'll be damned it appears the screen saver might be the culprit.  Turning on the monitor just now it was down at 93F.  That's 15F just to run the darn screen saver?  I'll check a few more times, but if this is the case I think I'll just leave the screen saver off and turn the monitor off, or just leave it run.

I was on the other win 11 machine, and to be specific it runs a Intel Core i5 10400 (Comet Lake) processor.  Doing the same things on that one it plods along at on about 73F.  Both work well, but the core ultra processors do run a little hotter.

Are those temperatures F or C ?

They're Fahrenheit.

These sound like C numbers.

i5-10400 PL1=65W PL2=134W for T=28 seconds 6C 12T 6 core Ultra 5 225 PL1=65W PL2=121W 10C 10T (6) PCore (4) ECore

There are some air coolers at 250W capability. There are
ones better than the Noctua. You can also use a water block
with pump and reservoir, to smooth out the temps. But at
those power levels, a lot of things will work for you.

---snip---

I gotta take the cover off and see if it would benefit from another fan
and probably a bigger power supply. I had it off when I first got it,
and can't recall exactly but the additional power cords sure have
changed on the hardware now. I thought I could easily throw in another
new SSD I had, but that turned out to be not easily done. I don't think
it had any additional cords, but had slots in the board for them.
--
Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 3/13/2026 3:07 AM, Andy Burns wrote:

sticks wrote:

So what is running in the background to cause it to run 18F hotter
when not in use, than when I'm actually using it?

Assuming you've got a decent amount of RAM (16GB or more?) there's no
harm to try turning off memory compression, if it doesn't help, you can re-enable it.

run powershell "as administrator"
disable-mmagent -mc

I read your post on this somewhere else. It is an interesting idea and
I'm going to look into it when I get a chance. I also saw Paul said it probably wasn't necessary, but it sure seemed to help your system.
--
Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 3/13/2026 10:50 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
[...]

So I just got back to this machine and I'll be damned it appears the
screen saver might be the culprit. Turning on the monitor just now it
was down at 93F. That's 15F just to run the darn screen saver? I'll
check a few more times, but if this is the case I think I'll just leave
the screen saver off and turn the monitor off, or just leave it run.

Why do you use a screen saver in the first place?

Just habit I guess. Have always used this. Years ago because of pixel
burn in.

Yes, you said it shows the time, but that's probably because you use a screen saver, so it might as well show something.

It's the windows 3D text screensaver they've always had. I use time.
This machine is out in my garage and I like not having my open system up
for view to the likes of my nosy wife, and just a glance gives me the
time.

As Char also mentioned, screen savers are a thing of the very distant past, when monitors had CRTs which were susceptible to burn-in and
could not be programmatically put into stand-by mode. But for decades already, Windows can just turn the screen off after a set not-in-use
time [1]. 'Problem' solved.

[1] 'Turn my screen off after ...' in Settings.

I'm aware, but I'll just hit the power button in front if I want it blank.
--
Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Fri, 3/13/2026 3:44 PM, sticks wrote:

On 3/13/2026 12:50 AM, Paul wrote:

On Thu, 3/12/2026 6:52 PM, sticks wrote:

On 3/12/2026 4:37 PM, sticks wrote:

I've got two systems running windows 11.  A little over a year older is an i5 that seems to run about 10-15 degrees cooler than this new one. The latest one has an Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (Arrow Lake) processor.  As said, this one always seems to run hotter than the i5.  It does look after some googling this is well within normal for the system.

Sitting here now with Core Temp, Firefox and, BBird open it runs smoothly at about 90F.  If I open and close something, it might jump up to 115F for a brief second and goes back down quickly.  I like to keep this computer running during the day because it sorts out my spam emails nicely and I don't have to go through them on my phone if I'm out.  This gets me to my question, finally.

I do have time as a screen saver, though I often just turn off the power to the monitor.  If I get back to this machine and it has the screen saver on, the temperature will be something like 108F.  Once I start using it again, it works its way back down.  It's still at 90F now.  So what is running in the background to cause it to run 18F hotter when not in use, than when I'm actually using it?  Can it be something as simple as the screen saver?  Or do other processes notice the idle system and start doing something?

I'm gonna turn the screen saver off, turn off the monitor, and check later to see if it is any different.

So I just got back to this machine and I'll be damned it appears the screen saver might be the culprit.  Turning on the monitor just now it was down at 93F.  That's 15F just to run the darn screen saver?  I'll check a few more times, but if this is the case I think I'll just leave the screen saver off and turn the monitor off, or just leave it run.

I was on the other win 11 machine, and to be specific it runs a Intel Core i5 10400 (Comet Lake) processor.  Doing the same things on that one it plods along at on about 73F.  Both work well, but the core ultra processors do run a little hotter.

Are those temperatures F or C ?

They're Fahrenheit.

These sound like C numbers.

i5-10400                PL1=65W  PL2=134W for T=28 seconds    6C 12T   6 core
Ultra 5 225             PL1=65W  PL2=121W                    10C 10T  (6) PCore (4) ECore

There are some air coolers at 250W capability. There are
ones better than the Noctua. You can also use a water block
with pump and reservoir, to smooth out the temps. But at
those power levels, a lot of things will work for you.

---snip---

I gotta take the cover off and see if it would benefit from another fan and probably a bigger power supply.  I had it off when I first got it, and can't recall exactly but the additional power cords sure have changed on the hardware now.  I thought I could easily throw in another new SSD I had, but that turned out to be not easily done.  I don't think it had any additional cords, but had slots in the board for them.

Modular supplies have a "connector field" on one face, and the peripheral connector
field has similar connectors for Molex chains and SATA 15p chains (you can plug a
Molex or a SATA into the same style connector).

Note, that for Helium drives (or Enterprise drives), if the 15p has 5 wires, the
3.3V wire causes the "spin down" wire to become activated, and the drive won't spin
until you use an adapter that has only four wires leading up to the 15p. For most
regular rubbish drives (my collection of 1TB and 2TB air breathers), those controller boards don't have the spin control in the 3.3V power area and no special
feeding rules exist there.

The wiring on modular cables did not follow any sort of standards. At first there were incidents of the wrong things getting plugged into some of
the connector field holes, and hardware being blown.

When you buy a "retail modular" ATX, it comes with a set of cables
for all the holes. But if a Dell or an HP makes a product that has
modular cabling, they would be inclined to only provide a minimal
cable set.

In any case, for HDD, you cannot daisy chain too many cable assemblies,
before the voltage drop adds up and at 11V, the HDD spins down (then up,
and does it over and over), and that's how you can tell the structure is
not going to be good enough. When I got a Helium drive here a couple years
ago, that's what it did for me at the very beginning, is it got into
a spin-down-loop. And I had to rearrange my looms so that there would
be less drop for that particular drive.

The modulars can be "semi-modular", which is where the 24 pin is
permanently attached. If the ATX is "fully modular", the 24 pin connects
via two connectors that have a total of more than 24 pins, so there is
some trick for providing more ampacity going on there.

My Dell refurb has the same problem as yours, zero extra cables, cannot
use the expansion slots to fullest usage due to no cables. When I found
a video card batch at the store (GT1030), I got one of those as it didn't
need a PCIe for power. It's a relatively gutless card, but it has
a "net acceleration" for video operations, and is an improvement over
the 13 watt card I used to have in the box. (For that card, it took
more work for the CPU to load the registers, than the card delivered
in an "acceleration", and the card would have been better off as a
raw frame buffer.)

So yes, computers are lots of fun, but some combinations are more
trouble than others, and the cables have shaped/square shrouds and even
cable assemblies for sale that "have the same number of holes on each end", they may not plug into your connector field because of the shape-keying
being used. Accidentally finding the correct cable, is a chore for sure.

They could have had standards for this, but you know what humans are
like when you mention the word "organization" to them :-)

If you have a four-Molex-cable on the modular, you can use Molex to SATA
for several bucks a pop, to convert to SATA. And as a Molex to SATA only
has the four wires, it works with <cough> "all drives".

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2