Cooling Pad Analysis — Cinebench Benchmark

CPU Effective Clocks (avg)

3,283 MHz

3,068 MHz

+7.0%_{with pad}

CPU Package Power (avg)

74.9 W

65.4 W

+14.5%_{with pad}

Max CPU Boost Power

135.4 W

120.8 W

+12.1%_{with pad}

CPU Core Temp (avg)

77.2 °C

75.4 °C

+2.5%_{runs harder}

CPU Peak Temp (max)

89 °C

= same_{thermal ceiling}

GPU Temperature (avg)

53.8 °C

54.8 °C

−1.8%_{cooler GPU}

CPU Effective Clock Speed

Core Effective Clocks (avg) [MHz]

+7% with pad

CPU Package Power

Total CPU Power Draw [W]

+14.5% with pad

CPU Core Temperature

Average Core Temp [°C] · TjMAX = 100 °C

runs hotter w/pad

GPU Temperature

GPU Junction Temperature [°C]

−1.8°C with pad

⚡

+7% faster clock speeds sustained. With the pad, the CPU averaged 3,283 MHz vs 3,068 MHz without. The boost phases also start higher and last longer before settling.
🔋

+14.5% higher average power draw. The CPU pulled up to 135.4W peak (vs 120.8W) and sustained higher wattage throughout, indicating power/thermal limits were relaxed by better cooling.
🌡️

Counter-intuitive: avg temp is slightly higher with pad. This is expected — the CPU is working harder (more power, higher clocks), so it generates more heat. The pad doesn't cool it below the old level; it prevents throttling instead.
📈

Boost cycles are more sustained. Without the pad, the CPU frequently dips back toward the ~2,850 MHz floor. With the pad, recovery from those dips is faster and the sustained plateau is ~100–200 MHz higher.
🎮

GPU runs ~1°C cooler. The improved airflow from the pad also benefits the GPU slightly, keeping it about 1–2°C lower on average throughout the benchmark.
🏁

Same thermal ceiling (89°C peak). Both sessions hit 89°C maximum — the TjMAX limit of 100°C is never reached. The pad doesn't change the ceiling, it just delays throttling and unlocks more sustained performance.

Laptop Cooling Pad Analysis