# AMD CPU's MAX TEMPS!



## krabs

I only know my athlonII x4 have 1 single temp probe which appear as same temperature on Coretemp, Speedfan, HWmonitor, bios
most other forum threads and webpages say 62celcius and I set my bios to shutdown @ 60c


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *krabs;15198269*
> I only know my athlonII x4 have 1 single temp probe which appear as same temperature on Coretemp, Speedfan, HWmonitor, bios
> most other forum threads and webpages say 62celcius and I set my bios to shutdown @ 60c


do not believe to them ... check this out


----------



## macca_dj

I would think most Amd users are comfortable with the knowledge of keeping there Cpu's below 60c > 65c Max,

Nice thread though could help out others with Ocing knowing they have a little more headroom with heat,

But the short stroke is if you get to hot you risk the longevity of your CPU through thermal degradation,


----------



## ikcti

I think there is confusion because some sources say 62C is the limit but others say 71C. To be safe, I keep mine under 60.


----------



## yuksel911

every cpu is made with another design... x6's overclocks well but their max temp is 62'C ... but non black edition cpu's of amd are 71'C because of fsb overclocking ^^
BE -> unlocked multiplier for more OC / non BE -> more durablity against temps! and with this temp limits you can reach high with non BE too


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikcti;15199715*
> I think there is confusion because some sources say 62C is the limit but others say 71C. To be safe, I keep mine under 60.


why you guys check other sources !? i think you must check official site not the other some fake forums ... which makes you feel bad when you think about the lower temp limit...
i have correctly writed all temps for all amd 45nm cpu's...


----------



## macca_dj

Does it really matter most people try to keep there CPU's under 60c @ full load,

A cold CPU's a happy CPU,

And then there's the point that you could take your CPU in to the 60+ and then you start to fail because of the silicon / transistor heat,


----------



## supra_rz

good to know


----------



## Skripka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikcti;15199715*
> I think there is confusion because some sources say 62C is the limit but others say 71C. To be safe, I keep mine under 60.


Depends on the TDP rating.

Easy rule of thumb with Phenom 2s, and Athlon 1 and 2s:
1) If TDP is 95W, you're probably safe until 70C...at which point you should start worrying a bit

2) If TDP is 125W, you're safe until 60C...at which point you should start worrying.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911;15199718*
> every cpu is made with another design... x6's overclocks well but their max temp is 62'C ... but non black edition cpu's of amd are 71'C because of fsb overclocking ^^
> BE -> unlocked multiplier for more OC / non BE -> more durablity against temps! and with this temp limits you can reach high with non BE too


Say WHAT? BE and non-BE have nothing to do with thermal ceiling. It is about TDP. See above.


----------



## CryWin

There really is no reason to go past 62C on an overclocked system, it is safe but in my experience it causes the overclock to become unstable.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Below 55'C would be my threshold for the AMD chips. I remember My old 965 C2 140w chip was stable @ 4GHZ @ 55'C or lower. If it hit 56'C, prime95 would fail.

1.55v and 55'C max is what I go by.


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;15199987*
> Depends on the TDP rating.
> 
> Easy rule of thumb with Phenom 2s, and Athlon 1 and 2s:
> 1) If TDP is 95W, you're probably safe until 70C...at which point you should start worrying a bit
> 
> 2) If TDP is 125W, you're safe until 60C...at which point you should start worrying.
> 
> Say WHAT? BE and non-BE have nothing to do with thermal ceiling. It is about TDP. See above.


check it on start i have writed it with TDP's ^^


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT;15200032*
> Below 55'C would be my threshold for the AMD chips. I remember My old 965 C2 140w chip was stable @ 4GHZ @ 55'C or lower. If it hit 56'C, prime95 would fail.
> 
> 1.55v and 55'C max is what I go by.


you will fail with 965 c2 as you can see i have writed that the cpu with TDP of 125 / 140 W has 62'C max temp!... that's why you are failing..


----------



## ALUCARDVPR

Just a note about TDP

Actual power consumption (ACP: Average CPU power) is always much less than TDP (Thermal Design Power). TDP rating merely relates to maximum amount of power the cooling system is required to dissipate, it's designed by Intel so they can bundle the correct heatsink with a CPU. Whereas ACP was designed by AMD for servers to monitor actual power consumption.

TDP is NOT the actual maximum power of the processor either.


----------



## yuksel911

Bump


----------



## yuksel911

Bump


----------



## Badness

Coretemp says my tjunction max is 70 Celcius. X4 955 C3.


----------



## amdcpu4life

I ran mine @ 65C for 2 months fine @ 4.2Ghz @ 1.425 with stock cooler (The one with copper pipes)


----------



## yuksel911

your 955's max temp is 62'C because they are Black Editions and Higher TDP...
that means you have MAX 62'C ON CORE (NOT ON CPU) CPU temp shows 7-10'C more...


----------



## IzninjaFTW

I always ALWAYS keep mine under 40c I don't even feel comfortable with it being at 38c. Temps usually are around 24 idle and 30 while gaming


----------



## yuksel911

That's your choice. No one can tell you RUN YOUR CPU on 60'C+.
When you overclock it well and run 12h Prime you are done. Only while testing with Prime95 or OCCT, AIDA etc etc, can hit to higher than 50'C. After testing is done you are done running your cpu too hot ^^. While gaming, surfing in web, listening music etc etc you cannot hit more than 45'C. Also your max CPU temp is 73-74'C.


----------



## yuksel911

Daily Bump.


----------



## unimatrixzero

I once got mine mine to 103 C because my heat sink was not mounted right.. I was in the bios working on an overclock and I went to the Info and there it was 101.. 102... 103... I unplugged the computer from the wall right then.
I was sure I killed my new 9950 BE.. IT was brand new and just installed. I was sure it was dead.. It is still kicking to this day..


----------



## turtleslikejohn

Question, why do you feel the need to bump this periodically.


----------



## macca_dj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *turtleslikejohn;15254633*
> Question, why do you feel the need to bump this periodically.


Because no one else seems partially interested,

As I stated before near on everyone with a PC will try to keep there temps as low as possible and as a rule of thumb 60 > 65c seems to be our threshold as a maximum temperature,


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911;15253296*
> That's your choice. No one can tell you RUN YOUR CPU on 60'C+.
> When you overclock it well and run 12h Prime you are done. Only while testing with Prime95 or OCCT, AIDA etc etc, can hit to higher than 50'C. After testing is done you are done running your cpu too hot ^^. While gaming, surfing in web, listening music etc etc you cannot hit more than 45'C. Also your max CPU temp is 73-74'C.


Didn't some chap around here email amd tech. support about this and engineer guy he eventually got to told him the opposite of the OP(unless I read the OP wrong)? That the listed max temps are CPU temp and not the core temp.


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dave12;15254850*
> didn't some chap around here email amd tech. Support about this and engineer guy he eventually got to told him the opposite of the op(unless i read the op wrong)? That the listed max temps are cpu temp and not the core temp.


you're wrong fella. That's for core...


----------



## dave12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911;15267570*
> you're wrong fella. That's for core...


Thanks for the comprehensive approach taken in your response. Although, I don't think all relevant information has been addressed. I am wrong in my reading of the OP, believing that it (OP) states that AMD listed maximum temperature specs are for core temperatures? Or I am wrong that there is a post in the AMD section somewhere containing an email from an AMD engineer explaining temperature specs and their given relevance?


----------



## ALUCARDVPR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dave12;15278708*
> Thanks for the comprehensive approach taken in your response. Although, I don't think all relevant information has been addressed. I am wrong in my reading of the OP, believing that it (OP) states that AMD listed maximum temperature specs are for core temperatures? Or I am wrong that there is a post in the AMD section somewhere containing an email from an AMD engineer explaining temperature specs and their given relevance?


See my guide and the sources from AMD at the bottom of the first post.

The recommended limit is on "Core Temp".


----------



## yuksel911

Daily Bump


----------



## Darksoul844

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911;15283211*
> Daily Bump


Whats the point of a daily bump? when most info is wrong?

Last time i check AMD's "core temp" is wrong.

AND

Heres a BE with max temps of 70


----------



## ALUCARDVPR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darksoul844;15294166*
> Last time i check AMD's "core temp" is wrong


I've explained this in detail a number of times, even wrote a guide for it. "Core Temp" was designed for peak (45C+) and load temps where is is very accurate. It is not accurate at idle, however "CPU Temp" is not accurate at idle or load - off typically by 7-10C loaded. I suggest reading my guide and also looking at the sources near the bottom that contain information directly from AMD. Hope that helps.

AMD Temp Information and Guide


----------



## deadremix

i always thought that amd cpu were always 55c and below


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darksoul844;15294166*
> Whats the point of a daily bump? when most info is wrong?
> 
> Last time i check AMD's "core temp" is wrong.
> 
> AND
> 
> Heres a BE with max temps of 70


Phenom II x2 5XX -> 70'C (read before write).
I think i gave you the right INFO.


----------



## yuksel911

daily bump.


----------



## yuksel911

Bump.


----------



## yuksel911

daily bump


----------



## Knika

There is NO WAY that I am going to let my cpu get over 60c.


----------



## famous1994

Interesting stuff here, thanks for sharing! Hopefully my 1090T never hits its max temp!


----------



## Rick Arter

Thanks for posting cleared up a lot of wondering I have been doing.


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Knika*


There is NO WAY that I am going to let my cpu get over 60c.


Yes, because your maximum temperature is *62'C*. Stay on *55'C* to be sure and safe.


----------



## yuksel911

Daily bump.


----------



## Schmuckley

Quote:



Originally Posted by *amdcpu4life*


I ran mine @ 65C for 2 months fine @ 4.2Ghz @ 1.425 with stock cooler (The one with copper pipes)










eh..my 965 black didn't like over 57c..it was bought when they first came out..probably like i'll do with the NEXT amd chips..AFTER i read some reviews..like i did with phenom 1-2..this go 'round..i got too antsy :







:


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Schmuckley*









eh..my 965 black didn't like over 57c..it was bought when they first came out..probably like i'll do with the NEXT amd chips..AFTER i read some reviews..like i did with phenom 1-2..this go 'round..i got too antsy :







:


When 965 hits 60'C starts to drop a lot of performance...


----------



## Rand Al'Thor

I keep mine 955 BE around 55C max on full load - WCG Boinc on 100%. Usually it's 52-53C.
But I use my cpu cooler fans max 68% ~1600RPM because of the noise.


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Rand Al'Thor*


I keep mine 955 BE around 55C max on full load - WCG Boinc on 100%. Usually it's 52-53C.
But I use my cpu cooler fans max 68% ~1600RPM because of the noise.










It's cool.


----------



## yuksel911

Daily Bump.


----------



## jprovido

my 1090t goes as high as 67 degrees. I'm not to complain because it was table at 4.1ghz, 20 hours prime.


----------



## yuksel911

Daily bump.


----------



## yuksel911

Daily Bump.


----------



## dixson01974

OK. Why ppl say different temp is this if the higher the temp the more unstable AMD cpu are and the is a fact.
EXAMPLE
Trying to hit 4.0ghz or higher.
Most Athlon II/Phenom II x2/x3 are unstable when ocing if the temp is higher then 65c.
Most Phenom II x4/x6 are unstable when ocing if the temp is higher then 55c.
REMEMBER
This is not in all case.


----------



## LesPaulLover

Quote:



Originally Posted by *krabs*


I only know my athlonII x4 have 1 single temp probe which appear as same temperature on Coretemp, Speedfan, HWmonitor, bios
most other forum threads and webpages say 62celcius and I set my bios to shutdown @ 60c


Yup same here with my 1100T.

I set my BIOS CPU Temp. Warning for the lowest possible setting: 60c. It's only ever gone off once while I was running Prime95 @4.6ghz 1.525v.


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:



Originally Posted by *dixson01974*


OK. Why ppl say different temp is this if the higher the temp the more unstable AMD cpu are and the is a fact.
EXAMPLE
Trying to hit 4.0ghz or higher.
Most Athlon II/Phenom II x2/x3 are unstable when ocing if the temp is higher then 65c.
Most Phenom II x4/x6 are unstable when ocing if the temp is higher then 55c.
REMEMBER
This is not in all case.


Yes. 125W ones with the 62'C of max temp goes unstable when they hit 55'C and more (max 58'C) and the 95W ones start to drop performance on 67'C (mine is one of them with 71'C max temp). I never hitted that 67'C because my cpu max overclock is 3.8GHz (C2 revision of my cpu limits my OC ;( C3 925's can hit 4GHz with 1.4825v/1.5v ) and my max temps was 54'C on core. But in gaming usage i don't need higher OC.


----------



## yuksel911

Daily Bump.


----------



## Vesku

I can affirm that my x6 doesn't like being stressed once it hits the 55-56C mark. So I'm stuck at 3.8GHz 2600NB unless I decide to get a beefier cooler.


----------



## z3r0_k00l75

Come on, seriously how many of us into system mods, upgrades and overclocks really keep our cpu's more than a year or maybe two? I have been through an 8550, a 555be, and a 955be in the past 2 years. Overclocked them all within their limits and have moved on. I have been running a 955 for about a year now, and am getting ready to move on to the 1100T. Then when rev.2 of bulldozer gets here I'm gonna move on to that. What I'm saying is, we as computer enthusiasts don't really worry about degradation, cause we are constantly upgrading, changing, and modding our hardware. Do I care if my 955be lasts 10 years? Hell no.


----------



## stephenk

Well said

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk


----------



## Vesku

I like to pass on my old hardware, call me a green eco freak if you want.


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *z3r0_k00l75;15605391*
> Come on, seriously how many of us into system mods, upgrades and overclocks really keep our cpu's more than a year or maybe two? I have been through an 8550, a 555be, and a 955be in the past 2 years. Overclocked them all within their limits and have moved on. I have been running a 955 for about a year now, and am getting ready to move on to the 1100T. Then when rev.2 of bulldozer gets here I'm gonna move on to that. What I'm saying is, we as computer enthusiasts don't really worry about degradation, cause we are constantly upgrading, changing, and modding our hardware. Do I care if my 955be lasts 10 years? Hell no.


^^^ That's. The best answer for CPU problems.


----------



## dstoler

That's why I lap my chips, if puttin it in the microwave for 5 minutes and cooling it down rapidly with hersheys choclate made it faster i'd do that too. Whatever it takes I guess. AMD FTW!

***/-\ |) |) |© + e |) ~+0~ G |-| z. . .***


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dstoler;15606225*
> That's why I lap my chips, if puttin it in the microwave for 5 minutes and cooling it down rapidly with hersheys choclate made it faster i'd do that too. Whatever it takes I guess. AMD FTW!
> 
> ***/-\ |) |) |© + e |) ~+0~ G |-| z. . .***


Your motherboard is the one of the best for AMD. Because this mobo had 12+2 Phase power. That means you can overclock your cpu with low voltages without frying VRM's and you can overclock better comparing against other motherboards and your chips can handle higher CPU temps and his limit is 71'C. It will run fine till 65'C (stay under 68'C).


----------



## mayford5

I don't think I have ever fried a CPU from OC. When I bought my 720BE I gave my X2 4000 to my dad that was 2 years ago. It is still working and I had it for about 2 years. Now he is ready to upgrade and I put my 720 into my server. If I hadn't done that I would have given him the 720 and he could have used it for another year or two without issues. Either way I don't think I would really care one way or the other.


----------



## dstoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911;15606326*
> Your motherboard is the one of the best for AMD.


Well than everyone should get an ASRock. Its kick arse if u ask me. I had a cheaper asus am3+ and I did not like it. Couldn't get past 3.7ghz and now I'm over 4ghz with 52 max temp after hour of blend. The fatal1ty thing is kinda cheezy but who cares the performance is there.. rock on thanks for the temp charts on amd. Seems pretty accurate

***/-\ |) |) |© + e |) ~+0~ G |-| z. . .***


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dstoler;15608069*
> Well than everyone should get an ASRock. Its kick arse if u ask me. I had a cheaper asus am3+ and I did not like it. Couldn't get past 3.7ghz and now I'm over 4ghz with 52 max temp after hour of blend. The fatal1ty thing is kinda cheezy but who cares the performance is there.. rock on thanks for the temp charts on amd. Seems pretty accurate
> 
> ***/-\ |) |) |© + e |) ~+0~ G |-| z. . .***


I know i'm ASRock user from 6-7 years and i'm happy with them and another feature of ASRock mobos is VRM shutdown. When VRM's hit some high temps they auto shutdowns and protect from fry. It's just awesome.


----------



## raisethe3

I didn't know the Phenom II x4 9 Series 95W limit was 71c. Looks like I got some headroom then. Thanks!


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raisethe3;15611120*
> I didn't know the Phenom II x4 9 Series 95W limit was 71c. Looks like I got some headroom then. Thanks!


Exactly... Low TDP AMD CPU's can handle higher temps. They are designed to handle higher temps.
Like Athlons (they can handle 75'C).


----------



## fh12volvo

Bulldozer very low temperature and high energy consumption, i not believe !


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fh12volvo;15616041*
> Bulldozer very low temperature and high energy consumption, i not believe !


That's your opinion, this temps are 100% correct.


----------



## yuksel911

Bump.


----------



## jphipps69

Thank you! This and ALUCARDVPR's thread helped me a lot.


----------



## yuksel911

Daily Bump.


----------



## pengs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911*
> 
> your 955's max temp is 62'C because they are Black Editions and Higher TDP...
> that means you have MAX 62'C ON CORE (NOT ON CPU) CPU temp shows 7-10'C more...


Thats very debatable. AMD themselves say that 62c is tcase, not core.

Last post on the amd.com thread
http://forums.amd.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=319&threadid=133144&STARTPAGE=2&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

Long debate about core vs tcase
http://www.overclock.net/t/930423/phenom-ii-x4-955-cpu-temp-v-core-temp

You may just have that mixed up because tcase temps are usually 7-10c less than core.


----------



## B NEGATIVE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Below 55'C would be my threshold for the AMD chips. I remember My old 965 C2 140w chip was stable @ 4GHZ @ 55'C or lower. If it hit 56'C, prime95 would fail.
> 
> 1.55v and 55'C max is what I go by.


This^^
Standard knowledge for AMD clocking,PhenomII's do sometime become unstable after 55c....this has been proven and threads/guides on this forum back this up.

55c. 1.55v.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pengs*
> 
> Thats very debatable. AMD themselves say that 62c is tcase, not core.
> Last post on the amd.com thread
> http://forums.amd.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=319&threadid=133144&STARTPAGE=2&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
> Long debate about core vs tcase
> http://www.overclock.net/t/930423/phenom-ii-x4-955-cpu-temp-v-core-temp
> You may just have that mixed up because tcase temps are usually 7-10c less than core.


This also^^


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B NEGATIVE*
> 
> This also^^


They aren't correct at all, i have Phenom II x4 925 c2 95W TDP cpu and my max temp is 71'C, my cpu becomes unstable on 68'C, i overclocked it when i've got it (with stock cooler) and i had this issue. But you guys talking about 955/965 they are high TDP cpu's 125/140W and that means they had 62'C and becomes unstable on 56-57'C. I have sended you ALL CORRECT AMD MAX CPU temps also i can prove that "IF YOU WANT". Because of you guys peoples get wrong informations. Next time please don't make spam on my thread. I see you don't know anything about temps. Read my max temp guide read ALLUCARD's Core temp guide and try to get better clock speeds with correct information and stay safe.


----------



## yuksel911

Daily bump.


----------



## Catscratch

Btw, whatever happened to geniune AMD website www.amdcompare.com :/ It was really convinient to look for chip details there.


----------



## yuksel911

http://products.amd.com/en-us/DesktopCPUResult.aspx


----------



## pengs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911*
> 
> They aren't correct at all, i have Phenom II x4 925 c2 95W TDP cpu and my max temp is 71'C, my cpu becomes unstable on 68'C, i overclocked it when i've got it (with stock cooler) and i had this issue. But you guys talking about 955/965 they are high TDP cpu's 125/140W and that means they had 62'C and becomes unstable on 56-57'C. I have sended you ALL CORRECT AMD MAX CPU temps also i can prove that "IF YOU WANT". Because of you guys peoples get wrong informations. Next time please don't make spam on my thread. I see you don't know anything about temps. Read my max temp guide read ALLUCARD's Core temp guide and try to get better clock speeds with correct information and stay safe.


Yeah, that is true that the CPU can become unstable before it hits the max temp, but, the temperatures (max) are based on tcase/CPU - _not_ core.
You claimed that the max temps set by AMD are based on core temperature, which they are not. As far as spam, your conveying the wrong information to begin with


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pengs*
> 
> Yeah, that is true that the CPU can become unstable before it hits the max temp, but, the temperatures (max) are based on tcase/CPU - _not_ core.
> You claimed that the max temps set by AMD are based on core temperature, which they are not. As far as spam, your conveying the wrong information to begin with


You are wrong, check this http://www.overclock.net/t/1128821/amd-temp-information-and-guide.


----------



## pengs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911*
> 
> You are wrong, check this http://www.overclock.net/t/1128821/amd-temp-information-and-guide.


Huh, yeah. I guess it could be. I stand corrected.
You should put this on your first post.


----------



## yuksel911

Now you can overclock further, cos' you now everything about AMD Chips at least temperature readings... ^^


----------



## xxela

Amd cpu temp is an endless discussion filled with confusion. My opinion is that the confusion comes from the Amd staff.
@yuksel91 - I can give you information from other Amd "experts" complete reversed from those which are presented as the basis for this guide http://www.overclock.net/t/1128821/amd-temp-information-and-guide (one exemple is this - http://www.overclock.net/t/663718/maximum-safe-phenom-ii-955-965-etc-temps-tcase-or-core-temps - and i found many others just as I found examples to sustain your theory).
So I decided to stick to official

amd phenom temps.pdf 813k .pdf file
 where maximum temperatures is presented as T Case ("Tcase Max is the maximum case temperature specification which is a *physical value* in degrees Celsius.") - page 88.


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxela*
> 
> Amd cpu temp is an endless discussion filled with confusion. My opinion is that the confusion comes from the Amd staff.
> @yuksel91 - I can give you information from other Amd "experts" complete reversed from those which are presented as the basis for this guide http://www.overclock.net/t/1128821/amd-temp-information-and-guide (one exemple is this - http://www.overclock.net/t/663718/maximum-safe-phenom-ii-955-965-etc-temps-tcase-or-core-temps - and i found many others just as I found examples to sustain your theory).
> So I decided to stick to official
> 
> amd phenom temps.pdf 813k .pdf file
> where maximum temperatures is presented as T Case ("Tcase Max is the maximum case temperature specification which is a *physical value* in degrees Celsius.") - page 88.


Next time read before write


----------



## pc-illiterate

hey yuksel, next time you read before you write.
he said amd experts say both, for you and against you.

and tcase isnt core temps.......


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pc-illiterate*
> 
> hey yuksel, next time you read before you write.
> he said amd experts say both, for you and against you.
> and tcase isnt core temps.......


i haven't said anything about tcase for core temp. i also sended you alucardvpr's thread and explained you max temps of all amd cpu's. what you want more?

just show me 125W amd cpu that has more than 62'C of max temp







?
or 95W less than 71'C


----------



## pc-illiterate

amd says use tcase temps not core temps. do you need a better translator ?


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pc-illiterate*
> 
> amd says use tcase temps not core temps. do you need a better translator ?


Maybe you need to learn english aaa !? http://www.overclock.net/t/1128821/amd-temp-information-and-guide check this out !


----------



## B NEGATIVE

tCase,not core temps......
This debate has gone on for a while,i too emailed AMD and got socket or tCase as an answer....over a year ago.
Physical sensor over algorithm all day long.
Also AMD pdf>some guy on OCN.


----------



## yuksel911

Check ALUCARDVRP's thread about core temp then talk.


----------



## yuksel911

http://www.overclock.net/t/1128821/amd-temp-information-and-guide


----------



## B NEGATIVE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ALUCARDVPR*
> 
> *AMD Temp Information and Guide*
> 
> *What is "Core Temp" ?*
> 
> "Core Temp" is what AMD refers to as "TCTL" and is a non-physical temperature on an arbitrary scale measured in degrees. *It does not represent an actual physical temperature like die or case temperature.*


Quoted from this link you seem to post every 4 posts.....


----------



## xxela

Quoted affirmation is correct, and that says the data sheet "Tctl Max (maximum control temperature) is a non-physical temperature on an arbitrary scale that can be used for system thermal management policies." - pg 60.
But for this parameter the max is 70 for Phenom II x4 125 W - pg 58-59. I think Tctl Max is the same parameter with Tj Max that it shown on Core Temp because i have AMD Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition and Tj Max is 70.
And yuksel911 I respect the work that you did it looking for information but don`t be so aggressive and closed to other facts, is not constructive; I think we all agree that the cooler it is the better it is.


----------



## yuksel911

What programs read "Core Temp" ?

AMD recommends the Core Temp program and AMD Overdrive for this reason.

The core section of HWMonitor also reads this value, but be careful as it also shows CPU Temp


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## Darksoul844

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911*
> 
> Keep your information for yourself, many people succeed with our guide. ^^


So your telling everyone here that where all wrong that your guide is 100% correct?

Why is that when I'm Overclocked 4.5Ghz @1.6v and when ever i hit around 48c i crash anything below that I don't. when your guild clearly says AMD 5xx should be okay till 70c?


----------



## yuksel911

But i also said that unlocked cpu's max temp is 62'C! Try to hit this without unlocking and get much temperature it will get unstable at 67'C. But Unlocked cpu's isn't guarantee because the hiden cores are disabled for some reason.


----------



## theamdman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911*
> 
> But i also said that unlocked cpu's max temp is 62'C! Try to hit this without unlocking and get much temperature it will get unstable at 67'C. But Unlocked cpu's isn't guarantee because the hiden cores are disabled for some reason.


still all phenom II for safety should stay under 55c


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theamdman*
> 
> still all phenom II for safety should stay under 55c


Not all. I gaved you list with their max temps. Maybe you guys want to check this -> i can prove you with everything...


----------



## B NEGATIVE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theamdman*
> 
> still all phenom II for safety should stay under 55c


The OP doesn't realize that stability is compromised after 55c and wont listen even if you do tell him.........

loss of stability after 55c is well documented and is the accepted max for OCing Phenom II CPU's.

Also,OP stop bumping this 'guide'.


----------



## theamdman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B NEGATIVE*
> 
> The OP doesn't realize that stability is compromised after 55c and wont listen even if you do tell him.........
> loss of stability after 55c is well documented and is the accepted max for OCing Phenom II CPU's.
> Also,OP stop bumping this 'guide'.


Guide- More like list, 60c is ok on liquid as it doesn't reach equilibrium as fast as air does.


----------



## yuksel911

What i am telling to you !? Can you realize !? Every CPU had their limit. Example : CPU's who limited to 62'C had their final stable 56'C over him is UNSTABLE and CPU's like mine with 71'C had their final stable temp is 68'C over 68'C it gets UNSTABLE. 100 TIMES I WROTE that and explained to you but as i can see you cannot realize what i'm trying saying to you.


----------



## pengs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911*
> 
> Now you can overclock further, cos' you now everything about AMD Chips at least temperature readings... ^^


Well, no. For me at least the tcase temps are 7-10c less than core temps.


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pengs*
> 
> Well, no. For me at least the tcase temps are 7-10c less than core temps.


But 90% of AMD users had 7-10'C more TCase than Core. When i'm running my cpu on 3.7GHz with 1.45v i have 47'C on core and 54-55'C on CPU. You can check core temps on FULL LOAD not on IDLE.


----------



## pengs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911*
> 
> But 90% of AMD users had 7-10'C more TCase than Core. When i'm running my cpu on 3.7GHz with 1.45v i have 47'C on core and 54-55'C on CPU. You can check core temps on FULL LOAD not on IDLE.


----------



## theamdman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911*
> 
> It's not stable at all... He need atleast 1.45v to reach 4GHz without any voltage issues, bsod's and etc etc.


*Chuckle*


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theamdman*
> 
> *Chuckle*


You'll see if it fails immediately. I can hit 3.8GHz with 1.35v too i can pass stability tests too but it doesn't runs that much good. When i put voltage to 1.45/1.475v it runs 5% faster (both 1.35v and 1.45v are stable).


----------



## The Protocol

My 1090T has been to 66*c @1.5v under Prime95 and still works flawlessly. Currently @4.19Ghz @1.5v with a [email protected] temp of anywhere between 56*c and 61*c


----------



## ironmaiden

On my X3 445 I have reached a max of 70c (was testing with p95 and linx) after unlocking the fourth core, but with only 3 cores and @3.7 Ghz under Hyper TX3 I get idle temps of 30c and max around 49-51c, I will replace my Thermal Paste with an Artic Silver MX-4 in a few days and report new temps.


----------



## theamdman

I dont see what you mean.


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theamdman*
> 
> 
> 
> I dont see what you mean.


It's on standart. Set loop to 20 and memory to highest possible one and you should test it on Prime95 Small FFT's for 12 Hours ~ 24 Hours.


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## Darksoul844

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911*
> 
> What i am telling to you !? Can you realize !? Every CPU had their limit. Example : CPU's who limited to 62'C had their final stable 56'C over him is UNSTABLE and CPU's like mine with 71'C had their final stable temp is 68'C over 68'C it gets UNSTABLE. 100 TIMES I WROTE that and explained to you but as i can see you cannot realize what i'm trying saying to you.


SO, let me get this straight you're admitting here that your list is wrong? And that this list will not help at all because on your OP you says
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911*
> 
> Stay Focused with this temps....


And then here you say that ever cpu have there own limit? So whats the point of this when ever cpu have there own different limit?


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darksoul844*
> 
> SO, let me get this straight you're admitting here that your list is wrong? And that this list will not help at all because on your OP you says
> And then here you say that ever cpu have there own limit? So whats the point of this when ever cpu have there own different limit?


WHAT !?


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## Heavy MG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darksoul844*
> 
> SO, let me get this straight you're admitting here that your list is wrong? And that this list will not help at all because on your OP you says
> And then here you say that ever cpu have there own limit? So whats the point of this when ever cpu have there own different limit?


You're right,every CPU is slightly different and has its own limit,however there is an approximate limit for most AMD CPU's. Keep in mind temp sensors can be inaccurate at times too.


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Heavy MG*
> 
> You're right,every CPU is slightly different and has its own limit,however there is an approximate limit for most AMD CPU's. Keep in mind temp sensors can be inaccurate at times too.


Exactly.


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## Nubzor

Hey so as long as my Hw monitor says that my Temperatures: Core #0-5 are below 62c im fine? It says CPU temp is 62-64c when playing Battlefield 3 tho.


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nubzor*
> 
> Hey so as long as my Hw monitor says that my Temperatures: Core #0-5 are below 62c im fine? It says CPU temp is 62-64c when playing Battlefield 3 tho.


Yes, you are fine. Everytime check Core Temp like you said core#0-#5


----------



## The Protocol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ironmaiden*
> 
> On my X3 445 I have reached a max of 70c (was testing with p95 and linx) after unlocking the fourth core, but with only 3 cores and @3.7 Ghz under Hyper TX3 I get idle temps of 30c and max around 49-51c, I will replace my Thermal Paste with an Artic Silver MX-4 in a few days and report new temps.


Yeah I don't know about Intel chips but AMD chips certainly run far cooler with less cores enabled/ active/ under load


----------



## Skripka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Protocol*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ironmaiden*
> 
> On my X3 445 I have reached a max of 70c (was testing with p95 and linx) after unlocking the fourth core, but with only 3 cores and @3.7 Ghz under Hyper TX3 I get idle temps of 30c and max around 49-51c, I will replace my Thermal Paste with an Artic Silver MX-4 in a few days and report new temps.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I don't know about Intel chips but AMD chips certainly run far cooler with less cores enabled/ active/ under load
Click to expand...

All else being equal, Amd chips have a lower heat tolerance than Intels.


----------



## B NEGATIVE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nubzor*
> 
> Hey so as long as my Hw monitor says that my Temperatures: Core #0-5 are below 62c im fine? It says CPU temp is 62-64c when playing Battlefield 3 tho.


You want to keep it below 55c,instability sets in after this temp.


----------



## yuksel911

Bump


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## adam54321

My Phenom 955 BE reaches 65c on max load and is fine as far as I'm concerned... I think they just put those temps to cover them selves tbh

Oh but I also game so temps probe don't go over like 60c anyway


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *adam54321*
> 
> My Phenom 955 BE reaches 65c on max load and is fine as far as I'm concerned... I think they just put those temps to cover them selves tbh
> Oh but I also game so temps probe don't go over like 60c anyway


Maybe you are checking CPU temp not Core Temp? Am i correct?


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## KarathKasun

I think what were missing here is that tcase max and core temps in relation to TDP mean nothing in overclocking. A chip can run hotter at lower speeds and less volts due to less stress on the transistors. This is why laptop CPU's are good to 90c. Physical damage should not manifest until you hit temps that soften the back-fill compound (~100c). Even then, damage is unlikely to occur unless it stays that hot for more than 30-60 seconds.

As for stability when overclocking...

Stability is achieved by balancing the stress factors on the transistors, the main factors of stress are...

Switching speed
Voltage
Heat

More switching speed and voltage means that you need less heat (lower stable temps).
Less switching speed and voltage means you have a higher allowance for heat (higher stable temps)

And since higher clocks usually require higher volts, you only have cooling and temps to balance the extra stress.


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## Kokin

I actually haven't been able to get my chip to thermally shut down. My old 955 C2 would shut down around 60-61°C(core temps). However with my unlocked B55, the highest I could get it to run with all my fans turned off was 70°C (core temps _would be_ around 67°C). I may try slowing down my H50's pump or just completely stopping it to get higher temps.

Edit: This is with my x4 @ 4ghz 1.46v & NB @ 2.8ghz 1.33v.

I tried to stress test my chip running as a single core @ 4.6ghz 1.6v, but it wasn't stable at all. Temps never went past 40°C and I don't want to kill anything by using higher voltage.


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kokin*
> 
> I actually haven't been able to get my chip to thermally shut down. My old 955 C2 would shut down around 60-61°C(core temps). However with my unlocked B55, the highest I could get it to run with all my fans turned off was 70°C (core temps _would be_ around 67°C). I may try slowing down my H50's pump or just completely stopping it to get higher temps.
> Edit: This is with my x4 @ 4ghz 1.46v & NB @ 2.8ghz 1.33v.
> I tried to stress test my chip running as a single core @ 4.6ghz 1.6v, but it wasn't stable at all. Temps never went past 40°C and I don't want to kill anything by using higher voltage.


4.6GHz is way too high. 4GHz~4.5GHz is enough i think going over him on Phenom II chips is overkill.


----------



## KarathKasun

There is a hard shutdown @ 90c. At least there should be according to AMD documents, though this may be down to MB manufacturers properly implementing it.









If you want to test thermal shutdown, drop back to stock speed/volts or slightly less. If under water, shut down your pump and watch the temps climb. The chips will only be stable at ~80c with lower clocks and voltage.


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## Schmuckley

eh..deneb chips don't like over 55c....it's a fact...


----------



## B NEGATIVE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Schmuckley*
> 
> eh..deneb chips don't like over 55c....it's a fact...


Not according to this guy and why he keeps bumping this necro thread is anyones guess....


----------



## KarathKasun

This is true. My core temps are constant, but my socket temps go down 10c when i put a fan on my VRM's. Lesson learned, use core temps.


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> This is true. My core temps are constant, but my socket temps go down 10c when i put a fan on my VRM's. Lesson learned, use core temps.


Always Core Temp... ^^


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## TPE-331

So say for instance my core temps on my 1090T are @ 15°C across the board, does that mean I'm good to go?







My chip is under water







but not overclocked.


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPE-331*
> 
> So say for instance my core temps on my 1090T are @ 15°C across the board, does that mean I'm good to go?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My chip is under water
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but not overclocked.


Are you kidding with us? You must overclock your CPU if you aren't going to overclock why you've got Water Cooler ? For Chip longevity?)


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPE-331*
> 
> So say for instance my core temps on my 1090T are @ 15°C across the board, does that mean I'm good to go?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My chip is under water
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but not overclocked.


Yeah, but why WC with no OC? Is it to run fewer/slower fans?

Core temp should never be above the Tj. Max value in Core Temp. Lower than 60 is preferred.

Also, you have to be running OCCT, Intel burn in test, W Prime, Hyper Pi, or something else that can max your cpu usage for awhile to determine your cooling systems effectiveness. Idle at the desktop will almost always be really cold.


----------



## pc-illiterate

i read core temp readings on thubans are totally off. you can only use core temps underload above a certain temp. all i remember and im too lazy to go look it up.
for instance, my thuban cored 960t reads cpu temp of 31* idle. core temps are reading 16*. no that isnt possible. thubans are a horse of another color.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pc-illiterate*
> 
> i read core temp readings on thubans are totally off. you can only use core temps underload above a certain temp. all i remember and im too lazy to go look it up.
> for instance, my thuban cored 960t reads cpu temp of 31* idle. core temps are reading 16*. no that isnt possible. thubans are a horse of another color.


BD is the same way. At idle the core temps are way off, but with 100% load they are more accurate than the socket diode.


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

*BUMP*


----------



## Dt_Freak1

so i was trying to make sure that I should be monitoring core temps under hwmonitor and not the overall cpu temp for my overclock and it appears i have plenty of room to play with my overclock yet on my new board. the highest coretemps ive seen on my system is 46 degrees celcius at 3.7ghz.


----------



## RussianHak

Hmmm my AMD got to 78 I think MAX. Then Im like FK it and ripped out the plug.


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## rrohbeck

Y'all should read http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/43170.pdf, chapter 2.10.
The core temperature is a "non-physical" value. It is not any real temperature, that's why the readings are lower than for Intel CPUs.
The maximum temperature can be read form a register too. It's 70C for my 8150.


----------



## Bravo2010

Im golden my cpu never hits over 35 on load


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rrohbeck*
> 
> Y'all should read http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/43170.pdf, chapter 2.10.
> The core temperature is a "non-physical" value. It is not any real temperature, that's why the readings are lower than for Intel CPUs.
> The maximum temperature can be read form a register too. It's 70C for my 8150.


It's 61'C for core on your 8150!


----------



## rrohbeck

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911*
> 
> It's 61'C for core on your 8150!


From http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/41256.pdf: "2.10.1 The Tctl Temperature Scale
Tctl is the processor temperature control value, used by the platform to control its cooling systems. Tctl is
accessible through SB-TSI and F3xA4[CurTmp]. Tctl is a non-physical temperature on an arbitrary scale measured in degrees. It does not represent an actual physical temperature like die or case temperature. Instead, it
specifies the processor temperature relative to the point at which the system must supply the maximum cooling
for the processor's specified maximum case temperature and maximum thermal power dissipation. It is defined
as follows for all parts:"
...
"The default value of the HTC temperature threshold (Tctl_max) is specified in the Power and Thermal
Datasheet."

From the datasheet (http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/43375.pdf):
"2. Tctl Max (maximum control temperature) is a non-physical temperature on an arbitrary scale that can be
used for system thermal management policies. Refer to the BIOS and Kernel Developer's Guide (BKDG)
for AMD Family 10h Processors, order# 31116."
and then it says "Tctl Max 70 oC" for every CPU.


----------



## yuksel911

Bump...


----------



## yuksel911

Bump....


----------



## 1337

just curious has anyone actually ever killed a processor from heat? My phenom II [email protected] runs 65 Celsius under linepack load . I know its not the same but I have ran my [email protected] 74 Celsius under line pack load. Its has ran that way for 4 years with no noticeable effects.


----------



## rrohbeck

I don't think you can -- at least not acutely. Maybe long term through electromigration or diffusion changes.


----------



## KarathKasun

I killed a northwood P4 with temps. The hsf fan died while I was out and it ran at 90-100c for awhile. The chip still posts, but locks up after the memory tests at any speed.


----------



## 1337

Northwood p4s were known for electromigration i think. But, i have really never seen any stories regaurding modern processors having that problem. I am not understanding what all the fuss is about with people setting these tempurature ultimatums "has to be under xx degrees or else". So what if the processor dies in 5 years instead of 10. Wouldn't you just run it as fast and as hot as it will run stable?


----------



## KarathKasun

P4 northwood only had an issue over 1.7v, Mine was at 1.55-1.6. It definitely the heat that killed it, sustaining anything over 80c is dangerous as the backfill material under the die will soften causing the solder joints to fail. This is what got Nvidia in trouble with their laptop chips a few years back.

Their backfill material was only rated for ~90c and the chips were running at ~80c. Now the backfill is rated for 100-110c which is good up to 90c for continuous use without too much reduction in lifespan (3-4 years). But seeing as people upgrade GPU's often, this is seen as acceptable. CPU's are designed to last much longer due to server hardware using them, thus the 20-30c gap in rated backfill temp and recommended temp (as opposed to GPU's which run 15-20c from rated temp).

Electromigration is the phenomenon that causes the circuits to literally erode due to current moving through them. Think of a river moving dirt and mud downstream, it gets worse with more current moving through a smaller space. (regardless of temps)


----------



## furyn9

My CPU (4ghz) hit 56C after 2 hours of prime 95,


----------



## Atomfix

My 1055T now 1 years old and 3 months....

It's been over 62C under load, even overheated at the point where it hit the thermal shutoff "W/C pump power cables were unplugged :/"

Been under (1.55V Max Safe Voltage) 1.6V - 1.8V and even 2.0V

And it still rocks at 4.0GHz fine, I tend to keep it at 3.8GHz though.

People sometimes underestimate the life expectancy of there CPU's *Smacks head*


----------



## yuksel911

Bump...


----------



## OwnedINC

Even though 71 is supposedly the thermal limit on the Ph2 x4s I've noticed artifacting when they start breaking 60.


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OwnedINC*
> 
> Even though 71 is supposedly the thermal limit on the Ph2 x4s I've noticed artifacting when they start breaking 60.


Your limit is 62'C when your CPU get over 58'C on core will make instability...


----------



## yuksel911

Bump


----------



## B NEGATIVE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911*
> 
> Your limit is 62'C when your CPU get over 58'C on core will make instability...


Incorrect,55c is the accepted limit of stability.
Please read the multitude of threads on OCN regarding this.


----------



## gerickjohn

Am I screwed that my CPU temp hits 75c on gaming load or sometimes 80c? (Not core temp)


----------



## Kokin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B NEGATIVE*
> 
> Incorrect,55c is the accepted limit of stability.
> Please read the multitude of threads on OCN regarding this.


I've had my old 955 C2 run stable during 8-12hr Prime95 runs even though it was hovering around 57-59°C. I would definitely agree that 55°C is a better temp to have, but I've had higher temps run stable.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gerickjohn*
> 
> Am I screwed that my CPU temp hits 75c on gaming load or sometimes 80c? (Not core temp)


Are you sure it's the CPU temp? It normally shuts down due to thermal safe limits on the cpu.


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kokin*
> 
> I've had my old 955 C2 run stable during 8-12hr Prime95 runs even though it was hovering around 57-59°C. I would definitely agree that 55°C is a better temp to have, but I've had higher temps run stable.
> Are you sure it's the CPU temp? It normally shuts down due to thermal safe limits on the cpu.


AMD CPU's shutdown temperature is 90'C!


----------



## gerickjohn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kokin*
> 
> I've had my old 955 C2 run stable during 8-12hr Prime95 runs even though it was hovering around 57-59°C. I would definitely agree that 55°C is a better temp to have, but I've had higher temps run stable.
> Are you sure it's the CPU temp? It normally shuts down due to thermal safe limits on the cpu.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911*
> 
> AMD CPU's shutdown temperature is 90'C!


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## ikem

what about e-350 max temps?


----------



## yuksel911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikem*
> 
> what about e-350 max temps?


Here is your E 350 Max temp for core ->


----------



## Heidi

Now, I obviously have a problem idetifying what is the acceptable temperature for my FX 8120...just in case, I took the screenshot of openhardware monitor and in yellow box is marked temp which correspond to BIOS temp...which means CPU temp..while in red, marked as core temp is something which coresponds to, I've no idea what...
Question, does core temp represent that core temp you guys are talking about or the CPU temp in yellow is the one to keep under 60?


----------



## yuksel911

Dude just download "CORE TEMP" to check your temperatures.


----------



## Tillion

Nice to know thanks for the info


----------



## Catscratch

Keep in mind, if Bulldozer sensors are the same with Thuban sensors, they are off under 45c. They are accurate after 45c.

Heidi: It's usually the first Temp1 reading is the CPU socket temp. Load Prime95 and see which one goes up along with core temps. Core temps are the ones to keep below max limit.


----------



## rrohbeck

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Catscratch*
> 
> Keep in mind, if Bulldozer sensors are the same with Thuban sensors, they are off under 45c. They are accurate after 45c.
> Heidi: It's usually the first Temp1 reading is the CPU socket temp. Load Prime95 and see which one goes up along with core temps. Core temps are the ones to keep below max limit.


AMD clearly says that Tctl=Tchip-offset, where offset is a trade secret. So they are never accurate. Current processes allow reliable operation at 90-100C so the offset is probably 20-some degrees C.


----------



## Catscratch

I always wondered it thou how CPU knows where to throttle down or shut off when there's an offset ? So cpu circuit has this offset correct then ? Why would amd not disclose this and keep saying "use core temp" to watch temps.


----------



## rrohbeck

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Catscratch*
> 
> I always wondered it thou how CPU knows where to throttle down or shut off when there's an offset ? So cpu circuit has this offset correct then ? Why would amd not disclose this and keep saying "use core temp" to watch temps.


The CPU defines the offset. The internal temperature sensor is easily accurate to better than a degree C. The offset depends on the process (maybe even batch or bin???) and is programmed into the CPU unless they do it on an analog basis which they probably don't. So there's probably a simple 8-bit adder that subtracts 20-odd degrees from the A-D converted thermal diode reading. In their testing they probably have a way to read the real temperature.
Throttling starts on my 8150 at Tctl=73 AFAICT - that's when AOD starts to show smaller clock values than nominal (4500 on my box.) Note that the CPU has no direct access to the thermal monitoring that the motherboard does - the chip temperature is all it knows.
The offset is kept secret because a) Intel does it too and b) because back in the days when silicon manufacturing processes were black magic you didn't want to disclose anything.
It doesn't make sense anyway - if someone wants to know what real temperature a CPU runs at all they have to do is decap a die and put a thermocouple on it. Run the chip at various temperatures and you get an accurate mapping between core temp readout and physical temperature.
In AMD's case there might be a legacy reason too - not sure: They could have had a 70C maximum die temperature at some point in the past and decided to adjust the reading so that software doesn't have to change. That makes a lot of sense to me - I only have to look at my core temp readings and know that "70" (*not* C) is the limit - who cares what physical temperature the chip runs at? I don't. For heat flow and cooling purposes you use the maximum CPU case temperature which is in the data sheets too - typically slightly above 60C - that's your motherboard reading. If you know the case and the die temperature you can calculate the thermal resistance between case and chip - maybe that's a manufacturing parameter they want to keep secret.


----------



## Stinger5150

Good info,glad you posted it,thanks.


----------



## KarathKasun

100c normal running temps do not apply to most desktop processors due to the backfill glassification being somewhere in that range. They are rated at 70c because AMD can guarantee the lifetime of the processor to be acceptable at that temp. Above that and life expectancy drops considerably (mainly due to mechanical failure of the packaging materials.)

GPU's are not expected to last more than 3-5 years so the risk of failure from running hot is acceptable.


----------



## rrohbeck

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> 100c normal running temps do not apply to most desktop processors due to the backfill glassification being somewhere in that range. They are rated at 70c because AMD can guarantee the lifetime of the processor to be acceptable at that temp. Above that and life expectancy drops considerably (mainly due to mechanical failure of the packaging materials.)
> GPU's are not expected to last more than 3-5 years so the risk of failure from running hot is acceptable.


There's no reason to assume that there's only 8C temperature drop from the case to the die with a 100+ W CPU. That would mean an Rth of well under 0.1K/W from the case to the heat spreader to the die.
And the 70 max is not C, it's non-physical units on an arbitrary scale.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rrohbeck*
> 
> There's no reason to assume that there's only 8C temperature drop from the case to the die with a 100+ W CPU. That would mean an Rth of well under 0.1K/W from the case to the heat spreader to the die.
> And the 70 max is not C, it's non-physical units on an arbitrary scale.


I know this... but average running temps and IR measurable temps on the heatsink base completely line up with 70c Tctl being somewhere in the 70c-85c range when you factor in losses from thermal compound and other factors. There is no way that you get 50c on the piece of copper directly coupled to the IHS (or on the IHS itself for that matter) and have temps of over 80c lurking behind that, unless you have a massive void in the thermal compound.

Id say that the 70c Tctl is within 10-20% of real temps.

Fun fact about AS5 compound "Its thermal resistance is rated as less than 0.0045°C-in²/Watt" I assume the compound in the CPU package is at least of this quality.


----------



## Catscratch

Another fun fact about AS5 and probably for any other product requiring "break-in period" :

"Due to the unique shape and sizes of the particles in Arctic Silver 5's conductive matrix, it will take a up to 200 hours and several thermal cycles to achieve maximum particle to particle thermal conduction and for the heatsink to CPU interface to reach maximum conductivity. (This period will be longer in a system without a fan on the heatsink or with a low speed fan on the heatsink.) On systems measuring actual internal core temperatures via the CPU's internal diode, *the measured temperature will often drop 2C to 5C over this "break-in" period. This break-in will occur during the normal use of the computer as long as the computer is turned off from time to time and the interface is allowed to cool to room temperature.* Once the break-in is complete, the computer can be left on if desired."

So true, i didn't do this for my 1090t but tried it for i5 2500k and it really dropped 5c off load temps.


----------



## rrohbeck

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> I know this... but average running temps and IR measurable temps on the heatsink base completely line up with 70c Tctl being somewhere in the 70c-85c range when you factor in losses from thermal compound and other factors.


I agree basically though I think the real temperature is a little higher, in the 90s. AMD says the delta between Tctl and real chip temp is constant, ie the "scaling" is just an offset. If you look at idle temps (where the Rth_die_case causes maybe 1/20th of the drop because it's proportional to power) you generally see a 20-ish delta between socket and core temp.


----------



## KarathKasun

Socket temps are influenced by VRM heat. With a cooling fan on VRM's the core to socket delta in my old system was less than 10c.


----------



## Catscratch

That's funny. My K9A2 Platinum + 1090t had almost no Delta between socket and core temp. Actually delta was more when idle, and like 1c tops on load, then again it was copper heatpipe cooling on vrms etc. Also my idle temps were inline with in-case temp. My current P8P67 Evo(clearly not copper) has 10c difference on load.


----------



## rrohbeck

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Socket temps are influenced by VRM heat. With a cooling fan on VRM's the core to socket delta in my old system was less than 10c.


That's true. I once read (can't remember where) that somebody even put a fan on the back of the mobo and it helped. That makes perfect sense - there's hundreds of pins conducting heat from the package into the motherboard so I'm sure it's a significant heatsink too. The lower its temperature is the more heatflow through the socket.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Catscratch*
> 
> That's funny. My K9A2 Platinum + 1090t had almost no Delta between socket and core temp. Actually delta was more when idle, and like 1c tops on load, then again it was copper heatpipe cooling on vrms etc. Also my idle temps were inline with in-case temp. My current P8P67 Evo(clearly not copper) has 10c difference on load.


That makes perfect sense if the temperature drop from chip to socket is about the same as the (fixed) chip-to-Tctl offset. 20-ish C for both makes sense for a 100W+ CPU.


----------



## KarathKasun

90c is pushing it, 90c is supposedly the thermal shutdown on AMD chips. Not mention that temps on IHS and Heatsink were within 5c of eachother at full load (50-60c) I have no reason to believe that the delta between IHS and silicon is any bigger. This would put the actual core temp in the ballpark of 10c hotter than the HS base (~80 core for ~70 IHS heatsink). I personally have never physically recorded a CPU temp in excess of 65c (with an IR thermometer) with normal operating conditions since Prescott.

The socket temp should be fairly indicative of core temps as well, but it is influenced by many more outside factors like VRM and PCB heating from current passing through the traces.


----------



## yuksel911

Exactly 90'C is thermal shutdown, every CPU had his own limit...


----------



## rrohbeck

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> 90c is pushing it, 90c is supposedly the thermal shutdown on AMD chips.


90 (*not* C) core temp is.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> This would put the actual core temp in the ballpark of 10c hotter than the HS base


Tctl is well over 10 degrees lower than ambient at idle and AMD clearly says that the offset between die temperature and Tctl is constant. Hence the offset must be significantly higher than 10.

Socket temp has little to do with core or die temps. It is somewhere between case temp and motherboard temp because it's thermally between the two.


----------



## KarathKasun

While the offset is constant the scale is not the same as the Celsius scale. The Tctl scale is offset so that it crosses over the Celsius scale at 40-45c, I believe that this was actually explained by an AMD engineer somewhere. Which would mean that over ~42c the Tctl is actually higher than the real temp and under ~42c it is actually lower. Therefore you get lower than ambient idle temps at idle, and hotter than actual temps at extreme load.

I can correlate this data with graphs from OC's with extreme voltages. In a graph of temp readings core temps rise faster than socket temps (normal), but they remain higher even after normalization. This only happens on the very high end of the acceptable temperature range. So not only is Tctl not the same as Celsius, it has a different slope as well. making use of it as a temp reference beyond ~42c is pointless as the scale makes it more and more inaccurate.


----------



## rrohbeck

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> While the offset is constant the scale is not the same as the Celsius scale. The Tctl scale is offset so that it crosses over the Celsius scale at 40-45c, I believe that this was actually explained by an AMD engineer somewhere. Which would mean that over ~42c the Tctl is actually higher than the real temp and under ~42c it is actually lower. Therefore you get lower than ambient idle temps at idle, and hotter than actual temps at extreme load.
> I can correlate this data with graphs from OC's with extreme voltages. In a graph of temp readings core temps rise faster than socket temps (normal), but they remain higher even after normalization. This only happens on the very high end of the acceptable temperature range. So not only is Tctl not the same as Celsius, it has a different slope as well. making use of it as a temp reference beyond ~42c is pointless as the scale makes it more and more inaccurate.


RTFM:
From http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/41256.pdf:
=============
2.10.1 The Tctl Temperature Scale
Tctl is the processor temperature control value, used by the platform to control its cooling systems. Tctl is
accessible through SB-TSI and F3xA4[CurTmp]. Tctl is a non-physical temperature on an arbitrary scale measured in degrees. It does not represent an actual physical temperature like die or case temperature. Instead, it
specifies the processor temperature relative to the point at which the system must supply the maximum cooling
for the processor's specified maximum case temperature and maximum thermal power dissipation. It is defined
as follows for all parts:

• For Tctl = 0 to Tctl_max - 0.125: the temperature of the part is [Tctl_max - Tctl] degrees under the temperature for which maximum cooling is required.
• For Tctl = Tctl_max to 255.875: the temperature of the part is [Tctl - Tctl_max] degrees over the worst-case
expected temperature under normal conditions. The processor may take corrective actions that affects performance or operation as a result, such as invoking HTC or THERMTRIP_L.
=============
The first bullet clearly states that Tctl=Tchip-offset, where offset is a constant.


----------



## KarathKasun

The offset doesnt matter if the total slope is different from 0-100 in this arbitrary measurement system than it is in a real temperature scale. While it has been described that Tctl is calibrated to equal celsius at ~42.5 degrees on its arbitrary scale, It has also been mentioned by AMD engineers that the further from this temp it gets the less accurate it is.

Not to mention that the first bullet simply describes that if Tctl is less than Tctl_max by at least 0.125 then it is within spec.
Second bullet describes that if Tctl is greater than Tctl_max (up to 255.875) it is x number of degrees out of spec.

There is nothing about an offset in that text.

As far as we will ever know without experimentation 255 could be equivalent to 150c. All we know for certain is that each chip is calibrated to be close to real temps at around 40-45 Tctl.


----------



## Catscratch

I wonder if they were omiting cost this way or their design actually doesn't support a real temp sensor


----------



## rrohbeck

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Catscratch*
> 
> I wonder if they were omiting cost this way or their design actually doesn't support a real temp sensor


I'm sure they have a real temperature sensor - it's takes two transistors and a diode (plus an ADC to read the voltage.)
They just want to keep their absolute temperatures secret, just like Intel (who do the same but their max core temp as it is read by the CPU is 0: negative values are below max temp, so it's obvious that those are no real temperatures.)


----------



## Catscratch

Hah, so a rival engineer can get beneficial information from real temperatures of a chip ? Interesting.


----------



## KarathKasun

The calibration data is propriety, not the temps. I dont know why they think it is that important but they do.


----------



## Tslm

Ive seen my socket temp get 20c higher than my core temps. My NB/VRM heatsink gets so insanely hot. If I open my case and stick my hand in I can feel heat radiate from it without even touching it.

At 45 core temp I am often looking at 65-70c socket temp. I use a closed loop water cooler so theres not much air moving around there.


----------



## Catscratch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tslm*
> 
> Ive seen my socket temp get 20c higher than my core temps. My NB/VRM heatsink gets so insanely hot. If I open my case and stick my hand in I can feel heat radiate from it without even touching it.
> At 45 core temp I am often looking at 65-70c socket temp. I use a closed loop water cooler so theres not much air moving around there.


if your radiator on top and taking air from inside blowing outside (which is the most used orientation) then using rear exhaust fan as intake makes sense (or a big side case fan), it should help vrm temps too. However for socket temp, there are backplate coolers or you need a fan directly blowing air to the cpu block 90 degrees (angle)


----------



## dstoler

My 8120 is at 4.2ghz for daily use as of right now and the vcore is 1.35v LLC is disabled so under load vcore goes to 1.408v but I easily get 55c after 20mins prime95. I have h100 and 2 fans in push and 4 fans in pull so their is a massive amount of air going through my radiator and I just can't keep temps down.

Sent from my SPH-M910 using Tapatalk


----------



## Catscratch

Even if it's not exactly a conventional 8 core chip, i think it still has units more than a 6 core so cooling would be challenging.


----------



## rrohbeck

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Catscratch*
> 
> if your radiator on top and taking air from inside blowing outside (which is the most used orientation) then using rear exhaust fan as intake makes sense (or a big side case fan), it should help vrm temps too. However for socket temp, there are backplate coolers or you need a fan directly blowing air to the cpu block 90 degrees (angle)


I want to do that last one. Have you seen mounting HW for that? I'd hate to rig up something ugly. Mounting a 120mm fan at the top PCI slot would be nice, angled towards the board 30 degrees or so. That would blow across the RAMs, the socket and the VRMs.


----------



## Tslm

I just mounted a 140mm noctua fan at the top of my case as intake and left the rad as exhaust. My NB temp dropped from 78c full load to 59c, dunno about VRMs but the heatsink isn't to hot to touch anymore haha


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## Catscratch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tslm*
> 
> I just mounted a 140mm noctua fan at the top of my case as intake and left the rad as exhaust. My NB temp dropped from 78c full load to 59c, dunno about VRMs but the heatsink isn't to hot to touch anymore haha


Top fan mount as intake can speed up Fan wear a lot. Watch for it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rrohbeck*
> 
> I want to do that last one. Have you seen mounting HW for that? I'd hate to rig up something ugly. Mounting a 120mm fan at the top PCI slot would be nice, angled towards the board 30 degrees or so. That would blow across the RAMs, the socket and the VRMs.


There are some equipment to hold fans but they are usually for 8 or 9cm fans. Never seen an "arm" for a 12cm.


----------



## Catscratch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tslm*
> 
> I just mounted a 140mm noctua fan at the top of my case as intake and left the rad as exhaust. My NB temp dropped from 78c full load to 59c, dunno about VRMs but the heatsink isn't to hot to touch anymore haha


Top fan mount as intake can speed up Fan wear a lot. Watch for it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rrohbeck*
> 
> I want to do that last one. Have you seen mounting HW for that? I'd hate to rig up something ugly. Mounting a 120mm fan at the top PCI slot would be nice, angled towards the board 30 degrees or so. That would blow across the RAMs, the socket and the VRMs.


There are some equipment to hold fans but they are usually for 8 or 9cm fans. Never seen an "arm" for a 12cm. That's why I love cases with big side fans, my TT Kandalf had a 25cm, after it died, I could only find 20cm and just attached it with some wires to the grill









There's something form Zalman thou, i wonder if you can put it to use.
Zalman universal fan bracket


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## Schmuckley

What's the point? It's very simple:*Keep your AMD chip under 55c*
..annnnd ..That's about it*.*


----------



## phillyd

one of my friends ran a test, cpu temps were at 79C, left it there for a while, for his phenom II 925.
no problems at all.
he has it running at 3.4 now and temps are 55 max.
the thing runs perfectly stable


----------



## Schmuckley

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phillyd*
> 
> one of my friends ran a test, cpu temps were at 79C, left it there for a while, for his phenom II 925.
> no problems at all.
> he has it running at 3.4 now and *temps are 55 max.*
> the thing runs perfectly stable


----------



## phillyd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Schmuckley*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *phillyd*
> 
> one of my friends ran a test, cpu temps were at 79C, left it there for a while, for his phenom II 925.
> no problems at all.
> he has it running at 3.4 now and *temps are 55 max.*
> the thing runs perfectly stable
Click to expand...

what??
just saying he downclocked it, and that the 79C exposure for 12 hours did no harm


----------



## ikem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Heidi*
> 
> Now, I obviously have a problem idetifying what is the acceptable temperature for my FX 8120...just in case, I took the screenshot of openhardware monitor and in yellow box is marked temp which correspond to BIOS temp...which means CPU temp..while in red, marked as core temp is something which coresponds to, I've no idea what...
> Question, does core temp represent that core temp you guys are talking about or the CPU temp in yellow is the one to keep under 60?


maybe include them in the op, thats what i was getting at.


----------



## yuksel911

Bump


----------



## doom3d

Asus k53ta laptop: sys fan switches to max. speed at 85°C core temperature. So 85°C is safe for Llano. I guess it is safe for all the others as well.
link


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## wingclip

Wow! back before I installed my Corsair H100, people would tell me that My 965 C3 needed to stay BELOW 52C! Even though I now never see temps higher than 51C it's nice to know that I am apparently pretty far from the max.

But I know that when I use to get over 58 or 59C, (Pre H100), I would start losing frame rates.

I'm seriously looking at the Crosshair V Formula 990 coupled with the FX 8120 or 8150. My goal is to get to, and stay at 4.9 -5.0 GHz. But those CPU's seem to have less tolerance for heat than the others, or at least that's what I see in your chart anyway.


----------



## AMD4ME

There is a difference between "safe" as in the CPU won't melt or shut-down and proper Max operating temp 24/7. The highest FX CPU temp that I have seen on AMD's website is 70C for the 6100. The 8xxx series is lower at 61C. For best performance/reliability you should keep your PC max load temp at or below the appropriate temp as dictated in AMD's specs.

http://products.amd.com/en-us/DesktopCPUDetail.aspx?id=772&f1=&f2=&f3=&f4=&f5=&f6=&f7=&f8=&f9=&f10=&f11=&f12=

http://products.amd.com/en-us/DesktopCPUDetail.aspx?id=770&f1=&f2=&f3=&f4=&f5=&f6=&f7=&f8=&f9=&f10=&f11=&f12=


----------



## yuksel911

Bump


----------



## ruarcs30

What happend to the max temp whit an athlon x3 witch unlocks to phenom II x4 b50? Is it still operation under up to 72 or is it then under the phenom max temp? I mean, it is still an athlon,hehe


----------



## Cannon19932006

i would guess since it's a phenom and you unlocked the cores, and your giving it (presumably) more volts it's max temp should be on par with other phenom II or even reduced. A good thing to do with amd cpu's (not hard to achieve) just keep the cores under 55...


----------



## ruarcs30

But it is an Athlon, not a phenom, doesn't have l3 cache. So why do it unlock to phenom? It can't be bouth??

My temp is far below max, so that is not an consern, Im just wondering


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## ruarcs30

Bump?


----------



## docmccoy8604

So since I have the FX-6100, should I be more concerned with the CPU temps or the core temps when I am trying not to hit 70c?


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *docmccoy8604*
> 
> So since I have the FX-6100, should I be more concerned with the CPU temps or the core temps when I am trying not to hit 70c?


Its the temp on the cores that matters. Keep in mind that the core temp isnt monitored, it is calculated, so if locking/unlocking cores you may get wrong readings


----------



## KarathKasun

They are both physically the same die, AMD simply disables cache to make it an Athlon x3/x4.


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> They are both physically the same die, AMD simply disables cache to make it an Athlon x3/x4.


I see. You wouldnt know what temps the core is at when cpu is at 53? My software claims they are at 36,but that is wrong due to the core unlocking.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911*
> 
> BUMP


?


----------



## yuksel911

Unlocked CPU's got 62'C of max temp for "core". Always use "CORE TEMP" to check your temperature.


----------



## ruarcs30

Core temp? And that works when unlocked? I think i get faulty readings, or else this cooler rocks,hehe! Temp is just to low it seems.


----------



## Cannon19932006

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ruarcs30*
> 
> Core temp? And that works when unlocked? I think i get faulty readings, or else this cooler rocks,hehe! Temp is just to low it seems.


usually only reads accurate above 45c


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cannon19932006*
> 
> usually only reads accurate above 45c


Hehe. Well, it doesn't read, but calculate it







And when unlocking a core it will mess up the matematics and give you wrong numbers. At least that how i understand it,hehe.
But if it were acurate,that would have been great. 1.6v cpu/ 1.3v cpu-nb and doesnt go over 38 on the cores... My cpu temp (the one actually monitored) is then peaking at 58.


----------



## KarathKasun

Socket temps are usually 10c or so above core temp at 45-50c. IE 60c on the socket is usually ~50c on the core sensors. You should probably disable your unlock to determine what the correlation is between the two and use that as a guide.


----------



## ruarcs30

So if I get the same diffrens on 3 cores as on 4, then you think im reading right? But as my socket temp is under max core limit im ok anyway, but it would have been nice to know tough


----------



## yuksel911

Core Temp will show your real temperatures, it starts to reading when your core temps are 45+


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911*
> 
> Core Temp will show your real temperatures, it starts to reading when your core temps are 45+


This is bs. You cant get the right core temp when unlocking cores, you mess up the matematics! Is it as simple as that. 20 or 40 degrees, if you unlock you get wrong readings.

As a 3 core my core temp is 11celcius over what it says at 4 cores..


----------



## R1VER5

Anyone know how accurate HWMonitor is? Apparently, the max core temp listed on this thread for my CPU (Phenom II x4 945 Series 125W) is 62' C. However, during BF3 the core temp according to HWMonitor was showing 70' C. I immediately stopped playing and bought a new cooler. It has since not gone above 50' C. Of course, I never got a chance to check the BIOS screen to see what the temps were before I moved on to the new cooler. I will point out that I have had no issues since switching to a new cooler. I honestly thought there was permanent damage to the CPU and think I dodged a bullet.


----------



## B NEGATIVE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *R1VER5*
> 
> Anyone know how accurate HWMonitor is? Apparently, the max core temp listed on this thread for my CPU (Phenom II x4 945 Series 125W) is 62' C. However, during BF3 the core temp according to HWMonitor was showing 70' C. I immediately stopped playing and bought a new cooler. It has since not gone above 50' C. Of course, I never got a chance to check the BIOS screen to see what the temps were before I moved on to the new cooler. I will point out that I have had no issues since switching to a new cooler. I honestly thought there was permanent damage to the CPU and think I dodged a bullet.


Takes extended running at 70-75c to damage the chip. 55c is the recognized ceiling for 100% stability tho,that should be your aim.
The OP is useless and just regurgitates the same line over and over without understanding.


----------



## B NEGATIVE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911*
> 
> Core Temp will show your real temperatures, it starts to reading when your core temps are 45+


How can it show the real temps when it doesnt show real temp till 45c? It goes out of sync after 45c also so you can only say that it read 45c correctly....therefore is worthless.

and stop bumping this spectacular display of fail.


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *R1VER5*
> 
> Anyone know how accurate HWMonitor is? Apparently, the max core temp listed on this thread for my CPU (Phenom II x4 945 Series 125W) is 62' C. However, during BF3 the core temp according to HWMonitor was showing 70' C. I immediately stopped playing and bought a new cooler. It has since not gone above 50' C. Of course, I never got a chance to check the BIOS screen to see what the temps were before I moved on to the new cooler. I will point out that I have had no issues since switching to a new cooler. I honestly thought there was permanent damage to the CPU and think I dodged a bullet.


Its very accurate! and you could run at 70-80 celcius for quite a long time before doing any damage, if you was stable at thouse temps!
So no need to worry!

The only time you should not truste monitor software is when unlocking cache and cores. Then it is better to take the socket temp to be sure, the core "readings" is way off..
But as you running the cpu "as you should" you can trust mwmonitor! Perhaps install a second program to see if you get diffrent readings,but i doubt it...


----------



## R1VER5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ruarcs30*
> 
> Its very accurate! and you could run at 70-80 celcius for quite a long time before doing any damage, if you was stable at thouse temps!
> So no need to worry!
> The only time you should not truste monitor software is when unlocking cache and cores. Then it is better to take the socket temp to be sure, the core "readings" is way off..
> But as you running the cpu "as you should" you can trust mwmonitor! Perhaps install a second program to see if you get diffrent readings,but i doubt it...


Awesome, thanks. I may install different software to see if it gives different temps. Runs rock solid though and have had no issue since adding a Corsair H60. I appreciate your input.

P.S. Digging your avatar. That cat seems to exude a cool confidence that most people can't match.


----------



## KarathKasun

What I was suggesting was to get a good temp reading from your socket temp probe and core temp when locked and under stress(IE 50c core temp, 60c socket temp). Then just try and keep it at sane levels knowing that socket temp is about 10c higher (n this example) at load than core temps (which you cant see when unlocked).


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *R1VER5*
> 
> Awesome, thanks. I may install different software to see if it gives different temps. Runs rock solid though and have had no issue since adding a Corsair H60. I appreciate your input.
> P.S. Digging your avatar. That cat seems to exude a cool confidence that most people can't match.


Lol! He is an awsome cat!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> What I was suggesting was to get a good temp reading from your socket temp probe and core temp when locked and under stress(IE 50c core temp, 60c socket temp). Then just try and keep it at sane levels knowing that socket temp is about 10c higher (n this example) at load than core temps (which you cant see when unlocked).


Yes, I have done that now. But will the diffrence be the same when unlocking, thats the big question. I have read that when unlocking you can get mutch higher core temps, and then the 10 degreec diffrence will not be acurate.
But how high can i take my socket temps?


----------



## KarathKasun

Your observed temperature delta will be "good enough" for temp calculations. Damage wont occur until you start running 75-80c+ on a 24/7 basis.


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## RepublicOfSam

Haha, Mine never goes above like high 20's... Idles at like 11c..


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## madengineer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RepublicOfSam*
> 
> Haha, Mine never goes above like high 20's... Idles at like 11c..


Liar. Even under custom water. You wont get an idle temp lower then 20. Unless you live in an igloo. That goes for all Phenoms. And most athlons, unless you've severely underclocked it.


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madengineer*
> 
> Liar. Even under custom water. You wont get an idle temp lower then 20. Unless you live in an igloo. That goes for all Phenoms. And most athlons, unless you've severely underclocked it.


Hum.... You know that he doesn't do that on purpose? Lie i mean, so calling him a liar is totaly wrong i belive.

What im thinking is that he has an unlocked cpu witch gives wrong readings.
When unlocked mine core temp "doesn't go over 30 at max heat in prime, my socket temp is going to 55. And im running 1.5v/1.3v cpu nb 3.62/2.5GHz.

So my actually core temp is more likely to be at 40-45., but I can never know for certain.



tmpin 0 is system temp and tmpin 1 is cpu socket temp. tmpin2 is sb people claim, but that stays at 78-82 depending of the heat inside the cabinet.

This is ofcourse wrong,hehe, my ambient temp is 19 degrees celcius.
But as I sayed, instead of calling him a liar, perhaps you should educate him alittle?

Edit: 1 question. When raising the voltage to 1.56 the socket temp is only going up 3-4 degrees. How does it effect the core temp?
2 question. Is it possible to get higher coretemp than socket temp?


----------



## madengineer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ruarcs30*
> 
> Hum.... You know that he doesn't do that on purpose? Lie i mean, so calling him a liar is totaly wrong i belive.
> What im thinking is that he has an unlocked cpu witch gives wrong readings.
> When unlocked mine core temp "doesn't go over 30 at max heat in prime, my socket temp is going to 55. And im running 1.5v/1.3v cpu nb 3.62/2.5GHz.
> So my actually core temp is more likely to be at 40-45., but I can never know for certain.
> 
> tmpin 0 is system temp and tmpin 1 is cpu socket temp. tmpin2 is sb people claim, but that stays at 78-82 depending of the heat inside the cabinet.
> This is ofcourse wrong,hehe, my ambient temp is 19 degrees celcius.
> But as I sayed, instead of calling him a liar, perhaps you should educate him alittle?


No. He should know by now what is and isnt a reasonable CPU temp.

If he's got Coretemp or something similar installed, he obviously knows what he's doing in regards to his CPU< and if he doesnt, he really has no business in looking at the CPU temp.


----------



## ruarcs30

LOL! I ques you are right. Early in the morning here. And i tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.

What about the questions?1 question. When raising the voltage to 1.56 the socket temp is only going up 3-4 degrees. How does it effect the core temp?
2 question. Is it possible to get higher coretemp than socket temp?


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RepublicOfSam*
> 
> Haha, Mine never goes above like high 20's... Idles at like 11c..


Do you mind putting on a picture? Start temp monitoring prog. and then start stresstesting on large FFTs for 1 hour. Then take a picture and put up for us to see









Edit: For taking picture of your desctop, hit prt scr/sys rq button, then open paint and hit ctrl+v.
Then save and load up here.

Dont get offended, but some actually doesnt know how to do it, if you do, ignore it


----------



## madengineer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ruarcs30*
> 
> LOL! I ques you are right. Early in the morning here. And i tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.
> What about the questions?1 question. When raising the voltage to 1.56 the socket temp is only going up 3-4 degrees. How does it effect the core temp?
> 2 question. Is it possible to get higher coretemp than socket temp?


Not sure if serious..........

And no, cant put a pic up. For one, i've used all my data allowance for the internet this month, which means i'm stuck on dial up speeds


----------



## Demondrumer

wow!! those are low temps... i thought they where like 100C or something... :O


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Demondrumer*
> 
> wow!! those are low temps... i thought they where like 100C or something... :O


Pardon, what temps are you talking about? To whom?


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madengineer*
> 
> Not sure if serious..........
> And no, cant put a pic up. For one, i've used all my data allowance for the internet this month, which means i'm stuck on dial up speeds


Hehe, if im serious about the questions? Actually I am. I find it strange that rasing the cpu voltage so mutch doesnt effect the socket temp more.
And i cant monitor my core temps accurate. So what im wondering about is if rasing cpu voltage causes the core temps to raise more than the cpu socket temp


----------



## madengineer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ruarcs30*
> 
> Hehe, if im serious about the questions? Actually I am. I find it strange that rasing the cpu voltage so mutch doesnt effect the socket temp more.
> And i cant monitor my core temps accurate. So what im wondering about is if rasing cpu voltage causes the core temps to raise more than the cpu socket temp


Its temp will raise with the CPUs temp.....


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madengineer*
> 
> Its temp will raise with the CPUs temp.....


Yes, but will it raise whit the same or will it raise for.ex 1.5 times socket?
Pardon the apperently dumb question, but im a noob so bear whit me


----------



## madengineer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ruarcs30*
> 
> Yes, but will it raise whit the same or will it raise for.ex 1.5 times socket?
> Pardon the apperently dumb question, but im a noob so bear whit me


Usually it'll be 5-15 degrees warmer then the CPU. It varies.

But as a comparison, currently on my motherboard, my 955 is idling on 33degrees, while the CPU socket is 34


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madengineer*
> 
> Usually it'll be 5-15 degrees warmer then the CPU. It varies.
> But as a comparison, currently on my motherboard, my 955 is idling on 33degrees, while the CPU socket is 34


Warmer than the cpu? I thought core was cooler than the cpu socket?


----------



## thomaske360

mine fx8120 runs at 4024.99 mhz (230*17.5) at 61degree max under load is this safe??


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thomaske360*
> 
> mine fx8120 runs at 4024.99 mhz (230*17.5) at 61degree max under load is this safe??


Yes. 61 is listed as max safe temp.


----------



## KarathKasun

I love when people go "lol my cooling is teh awsum, Im running below ambient!"

Know that cpu die temp sensors (for AMD) are inaccurate until you get into the 40-50c range.

If you read 11c-25c its more than likely actually 25c-35c (which is still very cold by CPU standards).


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## docmccoy8604

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> I love when people go "lol my cooling is teh awsum, Im running below ambient!"
> Know that cpu die temp sensors (for AMD) are inaccurate until you get into the 40-50c range.
> If you read 11c-25c its more than likely actually 25c-35c (which is still very cold by CPU standards).


I am pretty sure you are right on that one lol. Look at what my pc was idling at this morning when I woke up. seems kinda cold to me


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *docmccoy8604*
> 
> I am pretty sure you are right on that one lol. Look at what my pc was idling at this morning when I woke up. seems kinda cold to me


Lol! well, what contry do you live in? Ambient temp of under 0 degreecs celcius? hehe


----------



## docmccoy8604

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ruarcs30*
> 
> Lol! well, what contry do you live in? Ambient temp of under 0 degreecs celcius? hehe


The United States lol, and Louisiana to be specific.


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *docmccoy8604*
> 
> The United States lol, and Louisiana to be specific.


Thats an pritty warm state, isn't it?

My ques is that you have an unlocked core?


----------



## yuksel911

Bump


----------



## docmccoy8604

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ruarcs30*
> 
> Thats an pritty warm state, isn't it?
> My ques is that you have an unlocked core?


I am using the FX-6100 is come with all cores unlocked, AND I hit an all time new idle low lol. Yes Louisiana is also a very warm state.


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *docmccoy8604*
> 
> I am using the FX-6100 is come with all cores unlocked, AND I hit an all time new idle low lol. Yes Louisiana is also a very warm state.


Lol! Thats strange then! Yet it doesn't matter,hehe


----------



## yuksel911

Bump


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

There has been confusion and varying opinions on whether the max temps listed by AMD are core temps or the cpu temp (Tcase) so I emailed AMD tech support for clarification and received this in response:

From: [email protected]

Sent: Mon 5/07/12 1:24 PM

To: [email protected]

Dear Stephen,

Your service request : SR #{ticketno:[8200488157]} has been reviewed and updated.

Response and Service Request History:

I understand that you are looking for clarity about the 70c maximum operating temperature of the FX-6100 and which specific temperature it references at that point. If this is incorrect, please let me know as the information provided may change.

The maximum operating temperatures for any AMD CPU is measured as TCase, as we find that the actual temperature measured by a thermistor inside the processor is a much more accurate measurement of the processor's temperature. While TJunction is helpful in determining the temperature of the actual pins that are transmitting the data, the fact that every pin doesn't fire at exactly the same time, the results can be somewhat skewed. While we don't have the tech docs up for the FX series yet in terms of max temperatures, you can see that we post TCase maximum temperatures on our Athlon/Sempron/Phenom processor Tech Docs at http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/43375.pdf , instead of using TJunction/TJ/TCore/etc.

As for Tctl, there is a technical definition at http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/41256.pdf on page 73 that (tries to) explain it. As a very crude Cole's Notes version, it doesn't measure temperature as much as it is a sliding scale that refers to the processor's current temperature as it relates to the temperature at which the cooling fan has to get to 100% to hit the maximum case temperature (TCaseMax). Confusing I know, but it allows the system to see how close it is to hitting 100% and subsequently it has to start slowing things down to get the temperature down. It is usually close to Tcase Max, but is more a point of reference for how close it is getting to Tcase Max, or if it is past that point and by how much. Things run normally at Tctl < TCaseMax - 0.125, and when it hits TCaseMax or higher, then things start getting shut down/slowed down/etc to get the temperature down. I hope that makes some semblance of sense, as it took a bit to wrap my head around it.

We appreciate your loyalty to AMD as we continue to strive for the best products in terms of graphics and processors for our customers. I am glad to hear that you are enjoying your FX 6100, and hope that the joy will continue for years to come. If you have any other questions or comments, please don't hesitate to reply directly to this email and I will try to provide any additional information that you may require.

In order to update this service request, please respond, leaving the service request reference intact.

Best regards,

AMD Global Customer Care

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

This email is a direct result of your contact with AMD Global Customer Care and not part of a campaign. There is no need to unsubscribe to this email as you will only be contacted again if you directly request another service from AMD Global Customer Care.

The contents of this message are provided for informational purposes only. AMD makes no representation or warranties with respect to the accuracy of the contents of the information provided, and reserves the right to change such information at any time, with or without notice.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


----------



## xxela

Hy
I`m glad that you post this but as you will see some people can`t be convinced. For me things has been cleared when I read the Power and Thermal Data Sheet some time ago. People tend to say that the right temperature is the one witch is lower on their software readings. So as some have the core temp lower than cpu temp and others have backwards readings - cpu temp lower than core temp- they start to contradict, everybody bringing their own "evidence". Hence the confusion created.


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Silly me, I would have thought that direction from the company who *made* the chip would be the one to follow. Especially since it makes sense. I was operating under the assumption when I got my 6100 that it was core temp too after reading posts on the forum but it didn't make sense that core temps would be max when I was seeing the core temps with 1 - 3C difference.

By the way if anyone wants to verify the email I'll be more than happy to forward it. (a bit silly if you ask me since the links provide data sheets with the exact information they wrote in the email but oh well).

*edit - xxela if anyone still argues that it's not Tcase after reading the data sheets from AMD and reading what AMD's tech support had to say on the matter then just let them do what they want. It's kind of like those fringe nuts who argue against scientific evidence (in physics, evolution etc. etc.). No matter how much evidence you give them they will always refuse to admit they're wrong even if it makes them sound like an escaped mental patient.


----------



## B NEGATIVE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bubba Hotepp*
> 
> Silly me, I would have thought that direction from the company who *made* the chip would be the one to follow. Especially since it makes sense. I was operating under the assumption when I got my 6100 that it was core temp too after reading posts on the forum but it didn't make sense that core temps would be max when I was seeing the core temps with 1 - 3C difference.
> By the way if anyone wants to verify the email I'll be more than happy to forward it. (a bit silly if you ask me since the links provide data sheets with the exact information they wrote in the email but oh well).
> *edit - xxela if anyone still argues that it's not Tcase after reading the data sheets from AMD and reading what AMD's tech support had to say on the matter then just let them do what they want. It's kind of like those fringe nuts who argue against scientific evidence (in physics, evolution etc. etc.). No matter how much evidence you give them they will always refuse to admit they're wrong even if it makes them sound like an escaped mental patient.


Been say this for forever,The OP got all my posts removed in this thread.....


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bubba Hotepp*
> 
> Silly me, I would have thought that direction from the company who *made* the chip would be the one to follow. Especially since it makes sense. I was operating under the assumption when I got my 6100 that it was core temp too after reading posts on the forum but it didn't make sense that core temps would be max when I was seeing the core temps with 1 - 3C difference.
> By the way if anyone wants to verify the email I'll be more than happy to forward it. (a bit silly if you ask me since the links provide data sheets with the exact information they wrote in the email but oh well).
> *edit - xxela if anyone still argues that it's not Tcase after reading the data sheets from AMD and reading what AMD's tech support had to say on the matter then just let them do what they want. It's kind of like those fringe nuts who argue against scientific evidence (in physics, evolution etc. etc.). No matter how much evidence you give them they will always refuse to admit they're wrong even if it makes them sound like an escaped mental patient.


LOL!

Do you care to explain in short words what amd says about the temps? When reading english like that i have to use my dictonary anoying often, as english isn't my strongest language.


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ruarcs30*
> 
> LOL!
> Do you care to explain in short words what amd says about the temps? When reading english like that i have to use my dictonary anoying often, as english isn't my strongest language.


Direct quote from the tech support email

quote "The maximum operating temperatures for any AMD CPU is measured as TCase".

And then he sent a couple links for data sheets on the phenom's etc. that show max temp listed as 'tcase'

You should used google translate. It's quicker


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bubba Hotepp*
> 
> Direct quote from the tech support email
> quote "The maximum operating temperatures for any AMD CPU is measured as TCase".
> And then he sent a couple links for data sheets on the phenom's etc. that show max temp listed as 'tcase'
> You should used google translate. It's quicker


What is TCase then?hehe


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## xxela

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ruarcs30*
> 
> What is TCase then?hehe


Tcase ( "Cpu Temp" on software monitoring programs) is the case temperature specification which is a physical value in degrees celsius.


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Quote

"*Tcase is the temperature of the processor's metal case or heatspreader (that is in contact with base of cooler)*.

Tjunction or core temp is the temperature of the processor core. And for multi-cores, each core usually has an individual sensor so that when you run monitoring softwares like Speedfan, Core Temp or Real Temp, you will get multiple readings. Core temperature limit is typically 105°C. Processor and motherboard will usually initiate auto-shutdown if Tjunction limit is ever approached.

Maximum Tcase limit is much lower than the Tjunction limit"


----------



## KinguBah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bubba Hotepp*
> 
> Silly me, I would have thought that direction from the company who *made* the chip would be the one to follow.


Problem is, sources within AMD are saying conflicting things about the max temps. Here Alex Cromwell, Senior Technology Director, AMD claims Core temp is correct to monitor.

Right now I put my trust in the most accepted overclock.net guide on this issue. Of course, I can't say that this is definitively right, there is good evidence for both TCase and TCTL being right.


----------



## idonthavefleas

i dont understand its all silicon why dont they all have the max safe temp .back in the day we used to say if its stable its at safe temps


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KinguBah*
> 
> Problem is, sources within AMD are saying conflicting things about the max temps. Here Alex Cromwell, Senior Technology Director, AMD claims Core temp is correct to monitor.
> Right now I put my trust in the most accepted overclock.net guide on this issue. Of course, I can't say that this is definitively right, there is good evidence for both TCase and TCTL being right.


I'm starting to see where the confusion lies. I see people say "CPU Temp" and then refer to it as the sensor on the CPU socket. TCase however is the sensor on the die itself that gives the temperature at the heat spreader (as all information available states) which is why all of AMD technical documents list Tcase as the max temperature. From everything that I've been able to dig up CPUTIN = Tcase and "core temps" (as in the individual core temp readings on HWmontor etc) = Tjunction.

Edit - I just emailed CPUID and asked what they are using to read the values "CPUTIN" and individual core temps just to make sure. I'll post the reply here if/when I get it.


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Still waiting for a response from cpuid. If I don't hear anything I'll add it to the next email response to AMD tech support.


----------



## Schmuckley

Y U Bring back Zombie thread?? It's very simple..keep the cores below 55c and it should be OK
YMMV ..but yeah..55c..This isn't rocket science.


----------



## sumitlian

Hello Everyone ! I've been searching in many AMD datasheets and found very precious information about AMD CPU's temperature.

*PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY*

1. This information has been taken from 'Revision Guide for AMD Family 10h Processors' datasheet.

Note:- _Errata = A mistake in printed matter resulting from mechanical failures of some kind (from general english dictionary







)_

2. Continue with 'Revision Guide for AMD Family 10h Processors' datasheet mentioning Revision Numbers of different different AMD family 10h CPUs.


3. This contains 'Cross-Reference of Product Revision to Errata' in 'Revision Guide for AMD Family 10h Processors'.


People _who have been thinking/believing that temperature sensor in Thuban and some Quad Core Phenom CPU are faulty_ are now absolutely wrong.

*As you can clearly see that faulty temperature sensor had already been fixed in CPUs which have revision no ''PH-E0' (All Thuban CPUs, Zosma Phenom II X4 E0 CPUs and One Zosma Athlon II X4 640 revision E0 CPU)*









If you have any objection believing on me, please download this datasheet and see by yourself:
http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/41322_10h_Rev_Gd.pdf


----------



## xxela

Bubba Hotepp what have I told you? Its hopeless man. This post will never stop.


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Just got this today from AMD Tech Support. Note what he says about Tcase (it is *NOT* the temperature taken from a diode on the socket).

From: [email protected]
Sent: Wed 5/16/12 8:09 AM
To: [email protected]

Dear Stephen,

Your service request : SR #{ticketno:[8200488157]} has been reviewed and updated.

Response and Service Request History:

It's quite alright, this is a question that I can't really find a specific answer to as well. Obviously software can tweak the numbers a bit (Catalyst vs HWMonitor vs CoreTemp), since they're just interpreting the BIOS info, which is the most accurate, but I can't seem to find any documentation or source code or manuals or ANYTHING from HWMonitor that shows where they determine CPUTIN. All I've seen are people noting errors in HWMonitor specifically, but obviously I can't confirm these issues. The HWMonitor forums seem to imply that it is based on TCase, but all I can confirm is that it's taking a value from the board and reporting it, but the introduction of a 3rd party really does temper the values a little bit, and they don't seem to actually say which one they are using (TJ, TCase, etc).

From what I can figure out, each software really does their own thing (like CoreTemp uses TJ for Intel processors and TCase for AMDs). I know that this didn't really help, all I can say for sure is that HWMonitor doesn't have available documentation on where they get their info, but the majority of software will just rely on the board to give them info, as they won't have access to those numbers directly, but interpretation and rounding errors and such can yield slightly skewed results.

Either way, TCase is supposed to be the physical temperature of the inside-top of the CPU, while core temperatures most often refer to CPU-NB temperatures (for AMD processors at least), or Tjunction (for either brand of processor), depending on the software. But obviously each software developer can do what they want with their information, and define/interpret it in different ways. That's part of the joy of open-sourced software, 10 versions that do the same thing to sometimes-contradictory results. I know that this really didn't answer the question, but it's all that I am able to get out of HWMonitor, and what info we have on processors in general over here.

Feel free to ask more questions, having people informed like you, who are willing to pass this information on (after interpreting and translating it into something that resembles a coherent thought) makes life easier for all of us, and helps to show people that we're more than just a manufacturer of processors and GPUs, but a company that wants to help, no matter the question or problem. .

In order to update this service request, please respond, leaving the service request reference intact.

Best regards,

AMD Global Customer Care

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

This email is a direct result of your contact with AMD Global Customer Care and not part of a campaign. There is no need to unsubscribe to this email as you will only be contacted again if you directly request another service from AMD Global Customer Care.

The contents of this message are provided for informational purposes only. AMD makes no representation or warranties with respect to the accuracy of the contents of the information provided, and reserves the right to change such information at any time, with or without notice.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Original Text

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Sent: 05/15/12 16:32:02

Subject: RE: AMD Service Notice:{ticketno:[8200488157]}

I apologize for going back to the temperature question again but now a new issue has popped up. Now that you've clarified that the maximum safe operating temp listed is the Tcase temperature, the confusion lies in what reading shows Tcase. I was under the impression that in a program like HWmonitor, CPUTIN = Tcase however more and more people are referring to Tcase as the "core temps" that are listed in programs like HWmonitor.

This is what I just sent as a reply so I'll post the response when I get it:

Stephen ([email protected])

Sent: Wed 5/16/12 10:44 AM

To: [email protected]

I'll sum up what I've learned and deduced and tell me if it's makes sense and/or is correct. As you've stated the Tcase is a singular temperature taken at the top of the CPU (I'm assuming from a diode at the top of the die where it makes contact with the IHS?). What seems to me as a dead giveaway that Tcase is not being used by programs like HWmonitor is that they list seperate values for each of the cores that can be the same but usually differ from each other (usually by 1-3C). Are individual "core" temperatures taken from a diode within each core? Or is it mathmatically based off of something like Tjunction to give a "guesstimate" for each core? But clearly the standard assumption I see that says quote: "CPU Temp = Tjunction or true Junction Temperature (This reading is taken from the sensor fixed in CPU socket on Motherboard.)" is clearly wrong. I was also under the assumption that motherboards didn't use a "socket" diode anymore as well. Does all of that make sense?


----------



## xxela

If Tcase =core temps CPUTIN is what?
For me CPUTIN ( HWMonitor) = CPU temp (Open Hardware Monitor) = CPU temp (ASUS PC Probe) = CPU temp (BIOS) = TCASE


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxela*
> 
> If Tcase =core temps CPUTIN is what?
> For me CPUTIN ( HWMonitor) = CPU temp (Open Hardware Monitor) = CPU temp (ASUS PC Probe) = CPU temp (BIOS) = TCASE


Which agrees with what he said in the email - "TCase is supposed to be the physical temperature of the inside-top of the CPU".


----------



## sumitlian

Mann! I am so tired







Please don't make so much confusions to this subject !
What errors happens during manufacturing is not necessary that everyone in whole AMD department knows about. That is why even a person from AMD's help and support center doesn't know the truth exactly.

We can only believe on the datasheet which is obviously made under the core engineers.

Just download and read following datasheets and you'll know the truth about AMD CPU's temp. These PDFs are really freeware and downloading these doesn't violate the law against piracy or any illegal term









1) Power and Thermal Data Sheet for AMD family 10h CPUs
2) Bios and Kernal developer guide for AMD family 11h CPU (to know about what is Tctl and Hardware Thermal Control)
3) Revision Guide for AMD Family 10h Processors (to know the list of error during manufacturing of CPUs )


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Mann! I am so tired
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't make so much confusions to this subject !
> What errors happens during manufacturing is not necessary that everyone in whole AMD department knows about. That is why even a person from AMD's help and support center doesn't know the truth exactly.
> 
> We can only believe on the datasheet which is obviously made under the core engineers.
> Just download and read following datasheets and you'll know the truth about AMD CPU's temp. These PDFs are really freeware and downloading these doesn't violate the law against piracy or any illegal term
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Power and Thermal Data Sheet for AMD family 10h CPUs
> 2) Bios and Kernal developer guide for AMD family 11h CPU (to know about what is Tctl and Hardware Thermal Control)
> 3) Revision Guide for AMD Family 10h Processors (to know the list of error during manufacturing of CPUs )


Oh really? Show me where in the data sheet it says "the individual core temeratures are Tcase" and "CPU Temp is taken from a diode in the socket of the motherboard" which is exactly what you claim they are. In fact if you can show me those exact phrases (or even anything that states that at all) I will buy your next dinner.


----------



## xxela

Bubba Hotepp although its for intel this link will clarify some things like T Case is often referred as CPU temp in software readings, why CPU temp cant be higher than Core temp and others
Hope it helps








http://www.techreaction.net/2009/10/14/guide-to-understanding-intel-temperatures/


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bubba Hotepp*
> 
> Oh really? Show me where in the data sheet it says "the individual core temperature are Tcase" and "CPU Temp is taken from a diode in the socket of the motherboard" which is exactly what you claim they are. In fact if you can show me those exact phrases (or even anything that states that at all) I will buy your next dinner.


Either you did not read it whole or You misread my post because I never said Tcase relates to individual core temp. I am agree Tcase is exactly what you have been saying and what I have been saying too. Even datasheet is telling exactly about Tcase what you have been saying. The only problem starts from here that AMD did not tell us whether there is really a temp sensor for tcase or not. Absence of the information relating to Tcase temp sensor proves that they must have observed Tcase of CPU in the testing Laboratory by any sort of external temperature sensor and they found if CPU's case temp reaches to 62c then the internal CPU temp (core temp or junction temp) is at critical temp where hardware thermal policy's task is started. That is why they listed 62c as max in the term of case temp for general users. But they did wrong because not everyone is able to measure the Tcase by external temp probe/diode, or IR temp sensor.

As you already know many AMD CPUs are still suffering from wrong readings because there was a mechanical fault during the manufacturing of CPU. But as I have proved in my previous comment that Thuban is not suffered from these type of faults. Thuban have a true/repaired temp sensor in their CPUs.

For example we take SpeedFan as a temp monitoring utility:


As you can read SpeedFan can find almost any hardware monitor chip connected to the 2-wire SMBus.

Now see this image:

^here you are seeing that readings in speedfan is always taken from 'Super input/output chip (System bus or SMBus controller)' which name is *IT8720F*. This chip can be found on almost all AMD motherboards.

Now this is the IT8720F specification:


As you can clearly see that *IT8720F features the enhanced hardware monitor providing three thermal inputs from remote thermal resistors or thermal diode or diode connected transistor*

Now you will have to believe that CPU thermal sensor is in the CPU and working fine. This sensor is directly connected to SMBus (IT8720F chip).

Sorry for I've stated that there is a thermal diode in the socket. I mean by saying this is to refer that something is taken through the socket (IT8720F terminals on the socket).


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Either you did not read it whole or You misread my post because I never said Tcase relates to individual core temp. I am agree Tcase is exactly what you have been saying and what I have been saying too. Even datasheet is telling exactly about Tcase what you have been saying. The only problem starts from here that AMD did not tell us whether there is really a temp sensor for tcase or not. Absence of the information relating to Tcase temp sensor proves that they must have observed Tcase of CPU in the testing Laboratory by any sort of external temperature sensor and they found if CPU's case temp reaches to 62c then the internal CPU temp (core temp or junction temp) is at critical temp where hardware thermal policy's task is started. That is why they listed 62c as max in the term of case temp for general users. But they did wrong because not everyone is able to measure the Tcase by external temp probe/diode, or IR temp sensor.
> As you already know many AMD CPUs are still suffering from wrong readings because there was a mechanical fault during the manufacturing of CPU. But as I have proved in my previous comment that Thuban is not suffered from these type of faults. Thuban have a true/repaired temp sensor in their CPUs.
> For example we take SpeedFan as a temp monitoring utility:
> 
> As you can read SpeedFan can find almost any hardware monitor chip connected to the 2-wire SMBus.
> Now see this image:
> 
> ^here you are seeing that readings in speedfan is always taken from 'Super input/output chip (System bus or SMBus controller)' which name is *IT8720F*. This chip can be found on almost all AMD motherboards.
> Now this is the IT8720F specification:
> 
> As you can clearly see that *IT8720F features the enhanced hardware monitor providing three thermal inputs from remote thermal resistors or thermal diode or diode connected transistor*
> Now you will have to believe that CPU thermal sensor is in the CPU and working fine. This sensor is directly connected to SMBus (IT8720F chip).
> Sorry for I've stated that there is a thermal diode in the socket. I mean by saying this is to refer that something is taken through the socket (IT8720F terminals on the socket).


I'm not disputing any of that. What I'm saying is the max temperature that is listed in the data sheets are stated a Tcase as was confirmed by the AMD tech support email. Too many people keep referring to the "core temp" readings (as found in programs like HWmonitor) as the maximum temperature that's listed in the data sheets which is a very misleading statement. That is only true IF the software being used (as Tech support pointed out) is using the Tcase reading for their "core" temp reading. When you look at HWmonitor and it shows separate readings for each core that can differ from each other it's obvious to me that it's using the Tjunction reading for the "core temps" as listed in the software which of course will not be an accurate way of seeing if you're exceeding the max safe temperature limit. You must rely on the Tcase reading which is going to be a singular reading. My best guess from everything available and comparing bios temps to HWmonitor is that CPUTIN (or CPU TEMP) = Tcase and is the temp you should be paying attention to so as not to exceed the limit and the "core temps" as listed are really not something to be "worried" about for that purpose. I'll fire up my system in a little while (still putting it back together after painting the case) and compare that to speed fan and core temp to see how those readings compare.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bubba Hotepp*
> 
> I'm not disputing any of that. What I'm saying is the max temperature that is listed in the data sheets are stated a Tcase as was confirmed by the AMD tech support email. Too many people keep referring to the "core temp" readings (as found in programs like HWmonitor) as the maximum temperature that's listed in the data sheets which is a very misleading statement. That is only true IF the software being used (as Tech support pointed out) is using the Tcase reading for their "core" temp reading. When you look at HWmonitor and it shows separate readings for each core that can differ from each other it's obvious to me that it's using the Tjunction reading for the "core temps" as listed in the software which of course will not be an accurate way of seeing if you're exceeding the max safe temperature limit. You must rely on the Tcase reading which is going to be a singular reading. My best guess from everything available and comparing bios temps to HWmonitor is that CPUTIN (or CPU TEMP) = Tcase and is the temp you should be paying attention to so as not to exceed the limit and the "core temps" as listed are really not something to be "worried" about for that purpose. I'll fire up my system in a little while (still putting it back together after painting the case) and compare that to speed fan and core temp to see how those readings compare.


Agree with you. I believe on BIOS readings too. And hence I did an experiment with my system. There is a setting in BIOS where I can set alarm at some certain CPU temp values. Available options are 60c, 70c, 80c and 90c. To test I set it to 60c. Then I increased vcore to 1.60v at 4.0Ghz and put my CPU in load in Prime95. I saw there was a buzzer sound coming from motherboard's MIC at exactly when Hardware Monitor's TMPIN1 reaches to 60c. This proves that the reading of Hardware Monitor's TMPIN1 = SpeedFan's Temp2 = BIOS readings = other utility's equivalent readings.

And as you should know BIOS developers follow the AMD's Bios and Kernal Developer's method. And in 'Bios and Kernal Developer's Guide', there is only one thing that is called as Tctl (Critical temp). And 70c is the max Tctl temp where BIOS has been configured to force the CPU to throttle down to lower frequency and lower voltage.

And hence I believe 70c can be considered as max temp for AMD CPU. Obviously semiconductors in the CPU will not burn at these temps as 97c+ is known for decaying silicon material. But AMD really don't want anyone going ever near that extreme temp. That is why they stated as 70c max critical.

However if you disable the Hardware Thermal Control (for Gigabyte), Over current/Over voltage protections (for Asus and Asrock) in the BIOS. Then I think we can take our CPU to 70c+. And yeah this will be foolish.


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Agree with you. I believe on BIOS readings too. And hence I did an experiment with my system. There is a setting in BIOS where I can set alarm at some certain CPU temp values. Available options are 60c, 70c, 80c and 90c. To test I set it to 60c. Then I increased vcore to 1.60v at 4.0Ghz and put my CPU in load in Prime95. I saw there was a buzzer sound coming from motherboard's MIC at exactly when Hardware Monitor's TMPIN1 reaches to 60c. This proves that the reading of Hardware Monitor's TMPIN1 = SpeedFan's Temp2 = BIOS readings = other utility's equivalent readings.
> And as you should know BIOS developers follow the AMD's Bios and Kernal Developer's method. And in 'Bios and Kernal Developer's Guide', there is only one thing that is called as Tctl (Critical temp). And 70c is the max Tctl temp where BIOS has been configured to force the CPU to throttle down to lower frequency and lower voltage.
> And hence I believe 70c can be considered as max temp for AMD CPU. Obviously semiconductors in the CPU will not burn at these temps as 97c+ is known for decaying silicon material. But AMD really don't want anyone going ever near that extreme temp. That is why they stated as 70c max critical.
> However if you disable the Hardware Thermal Control (for Gigabyte), Over current/Over voltage protections (for Asus and Asrock) in the BIOS. Then I think we can take our CPU to 70c+. And yeah this will be foolish.


As the tech rep pointed out when they set the max safe operating temp to Tcas=70C on the 6100 or Tcase whatever on other chips they're being conservative and allowing a margin over that. Which means it can be pushed past but probably not advisable









As for Tctl, it's not an actual reading from a temperature probe/diode. Here's how AMD explains it:

"As for Tctl, there is a technical definition at http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/41256.pdf on page 73 that (tries to) explain it. As a very crude Cole's Notes version, it doesn't measure temperature as much as it is a sliding scale that refers to the processor's current temperature as it relates to the temperature at which the cooling fan has to get to 100% to hit the maximum case temperature (TCaseMax). Confusing I know, but it allows the system to see how close it is to hitting 100% and subsequently it has to start slowing things down to get the temperature down. It is usually close to Tcase Max, but is more a point of reference for how close it is getting to Tcase Max, or if it is past that point and by how much. Things run normally at Tctl < TCaseMax - 0.125, and when it hits TCaseMax or higher, then things start getting shut down/slowed down/etc to get the temperature down. I hope that makes some semblance of sense, as it took a bit to wrap my head around it." (From the first tech support response I received)

As they explain it Tctl max is more like a point set before reaching Tcase max where the CPU starts to get throttled down.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bubba Hotepp*
> 
> As the tech rep pointed out when they set the max safe operating temp to Tcas=70C on the 6100 or Tcase whatever on other chips they're being conservative and allowing a margin over that. Which means it can be pushed past but probably not advisable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for Tctl, it's not an actual reading from a temperature probe/diode. Here's how AMD explains it:
> "As for Tctl, there is a technical definition at http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/41256.pdf on page 73 that (tries to) explain it. As a very crude Cole's Notes version, it doesn't measure temperature as much as it is a sliding scale that refers to the processor's current temperature as it relates to the temperature at which the cooling fan has to get to 100% to hit the maximum case temperature (TCaseMax). Confusing I know, but it allows the system to see how close it is to hitting 100% and subsequently it has to start slowing things down to get the temperature down. It is usually close to Tcase Max, but is more a point of reference for how close it is getting to Tcase Max, or if it is past that point and by how much. Things run normally at Tctl < TCaseMax - 0.125, and when it hits TCaseMax or higher, then things start getting shut down/slowed down/etc to get the temperature down. I hope that makes some semblance of sense, as it took a bit to wrap my head around it." (From the first tech support response I received)
> As they explain it Tctl max is more like a point set before reaching Tcase max where the CPU starts to get throttled down.


I knew this already, Tctl is a fixed value. And when CPU temp reaches to Tctl, Hardware Thermal Control mechanism is started.
Well..finally we came to the conclusion that max is 70c for thuban and 70c+ should be for your FX








Haaahaha.............Happy Ending


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

It's never been so much what the value is that has been in question, it's what the value relates to that seems to have been the source of confusion and I hope that by me emailing AMD tech support and posting the responses that it clears that up a bit. Now I'm sure the debate will rage on with what reading Tcase is in the various programs but I've done my part







.


----------



## B NEGATIVE

The Thuban core temp algorithm is skewed.
My reads 18c right now....WHICH IS BELOW AMBIENT!
So,yeah,its broke.
AMD have already said that core temp is an arbitrary scale linked to the CPU temp.


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bubba Hotepp*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been so much what the value is that has been in question, it's what the value relates to that seems to have been the source of confusion and I hope that by me emailing AMD tech support and posting the responses that it clears that up a bit. Now I'm sure the debate will rage on with what reading Tcase is in the various programs but I've done my part
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Good jobb Cartman, next worlddomination


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B NEGATIVE*
> 
> The Thuban core temp algorithm is skewed.
> My reads 18c right now....WHICH IS BELOW AMBIENT!
> So,yeah,its broke.
> AMD have already said that core temp is an arbitrary scale linked to the CPU temp.


yes you are right ! I was wrong about core temp. We only need to see for 70c (Tctl for Thuban) in core temp. But difference between core temp and CPU Temp becomes less with increased CPU Temp. Please Just tell me can I believe on CPU Temp.


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> yes you are right ! I was wrong about core temp. We only need to see for 70c (Tctl for Thuban) in core temp. But difference between core temp and CPU Temp becomes less with increased CPU Temp. Please Just tell me can I believe on CPU Temp.


Actually YES, because "CPU Temp" is the one that is taking an actual reading from a physical temp probe (Tcase diode) whereas individual "core temp" readings are a mathmatical algorithm based on that actual reading.

edit - Just found out as you can see in the following email that Tcase is a reading from more than one temp diode on the CPU.


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

I don't mean to double post but I want to separate this from the other post so everyone can read it coherently. This is the response I just received from AMD Tech Support for my last email (which can be found at the end of his response).

From: [email protected]

Sent: Thu 5/17/12 8:14 AM

To: [email protected]

Dear Stephen,

Your service request : SR #{ticketno:[8200488157]} has been reviewed and updated.

Response and Service Request History:

You pretty much nailed it. I was able to get a little more info from the embedded team into borderline-proprietary information, so I'll try to elaborate on what you understood. TCase for AMD processors comes from a few thermistors (not one, apparently, just found that out) inside the processor case (at the bottom, where the pins are), connecting down to the CPU via the Junction. There are always more than 1 (at least 2, up to 6-8 potentially, but no elaboration given on how many per model), but the TCase temperature is determined by averaging those values out, done by the processor. TJunction is the temperature where the pins hit the board, and is usually a couple degrees cooler as all 940/941 pins aren't all firing at the same exact time, and not always evenly distributed when only 400 are on at one time.
TCore is actually mathematically guessed based on the varying TCase values, as there is no way to get a diode on top of the cores inside the processor, and putting it underneath the cores (between the bottom of the case and the bottom of the cores, which hover on a little silicon platform) would yield an inaccurate reading. As such, optimizing the core space on the wafers by keeping thermistors off, they just mathematically extrapolate the core temperature from the TCase values, based on core location on the processor and the values retrieved in that general area, plus some mathematical calculations.
TJunction is still a diode on the board, under the processor, which most boards still have, just in case the TCase values (or TJunction value given by Intel processors) are wrong for whatever reason. Though in some cases, TJunction can be off by as much as 20F, so it's obviously not an ideal value. Still, there are a lot of board manufacturers who will still include it, regardless of how necessary, because it's how they've always done things, and if there are problems with new processors or broken thermistors, they can still report a temperature, even if it's not the most accurate.

Sorry for the misinformation about the cores, I really had to get the embedded guys to give a little to get some information confirmation, including the number of thermistors in the case and where this coretemp comes from. A coworker summarized it well by saying that it's so tough trying to get confirmed information, because you get different reports from 3rd parties, and the actual designers/manufacturers want to keep as much information secret as possible. Sorry that this still isn't 100% concrete, but they finally gave in a bit and gave me a bit more information to work with this time, so now you (and I) have a clearer definition at least of what's going on temperature-wise.

In order to update this service request, please respond, leaving the service request reference intact.

Best regards,

AMD Global Customer Care

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

This email is a direct result of your contact with AMD Global Customer Care and not part of a campaign. There is no need to unsubscribe to this email as you will only be contacted again if you directly request another service from AMD Global Customer Care.

The contents of this message are provided for informational purposes only. AMD makes no representation or warranties with respect to the accuracy of the contents of the information provided, and reserves the right to change such information at any time, with or without notice.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Original Text

From: [email protected]

To: [email protected]

Sent: 05/16/12 12:44:16

Subject: RE: AMD Service Notice:{ticketno:[8200488157]}

I'll sum up what I've learned and deduced and tell me if it's makes sense and/or is correct. As you've stated the Tcase is a singular temperature taken at the top of the CPU (I'm assuming from a diode at the top of the die where it makes contact with the IHS?). What seems to me as a dead giveaway that Tcase is not being used by programs like HWmonitor is that they list seperate values for each of the cores that can be the same but usually differ from each other (usually by 1-3C). Are individual "core" temperatures taken from a diode within each core? Or is it mathmatically based off of something like Tjunction to give a "guesstimate" for each core? But clearly the standard assumption I see that says quote: "CPU Temp = Tjunction or true Junction Temperature (This reading is taken from the sensor fixed in CPU socket on Motherboard.)" is clearly wrong. I was also under the assumption that motherboards didn't use a "socket" diode anymore as well. Does all of that make sense?

Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:07:20 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: AMD Service Notice:{ticketno:[8200488157]}
To: [email protected]


----------



## B NEGATIVE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bubba Hotepp*
> 
> Actually YES, because "CPU Temp" is the one that is taking an actual reading from a physical temp probe (Tcase diode) whereas individual "core temp" readings are a mathmatical algorithm based on that actual reading.


Exactly.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bubba Hotepp*
> 
> Actually YES, because "CPU Temp" is the one that is taking an actual reading from a physical temp probe (Tcase diode) whereas individual "core temp" readings are a mathmatical algorithm based on that actual reading.


Well....it feels good we can at least believe on CPU Temp. This means CPU Temp (Tcase) 62c is max for my thuban. Then what about Critical Temp (Tctl) which is also listed in Datasheet ? Which temp should be monitored for Tctl ?


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Tctl is not an actual reading either. Basically Tctl is this (quote from first email) "As for Tctl, there is a technical definition at http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/41256.pdf on page 73 that (tries to) explain it. As a very crude Cole's Notes version, it doesn't measure temperature as much as it is a sliding scale that refers to the processor's current temperature as it relates to the temperature at which the cooling fan has to get to 100% to hit the maximum case temperature (TCaseMax). Confusing I know, but it allows the system to see how close it is to hitting 100% and subsequently it has to start slowing things down to get the temperature down. It is usually close to Tcase Max, but is more a point of reference for how close it is getting to Tcase Max, or if it is past that point and by how much. Things run normally at Tctl < TCaseMax - 0.125, and when it hits TCaseMax or higher, then things start getting shut down/slowed down/etc to get the temperature down."

Tctl is not something you need to keep an eye on. In other words as long as TCase is less than TcaseMax - 0.125 then the Tctl code won't take over and start shutting down parts of the CPU or reducing the speed to keep from hitting that threshold. Tcase is the ONLY temp you need to watch.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bubba Hotepp*
> 
> Tctl is not an actual reading either. Basically Tctl is this (quote from first email) "As for Tctl, there is a technical definition at http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/41256.pdf on page 73 that (tries to) explain it. As a very crude Cole's Notes version, it doesn't measure temperature as much as it is a sliding scale that refers to the processor's current temperature as it relates to the temperature at which the cooling fan has to get to 100% to hit the maximum case temperature (TCaseMax). Confusing I know, but it allows the system to see how close it is to hitting 100% and subsequently it has to start slowing things down to get the temperature down. It is usually close to Tcase Max, but is more a point of reference for how close it is getting to Tcase Max, or if it is past that point and by how much. Things run normally at Tctl < TCaseMax - 0.125, and when it hits TCaseMax or higher, then things start getting shut down/slowed down/etc to get the temperature down."
> Tctl is not something you need to keep an eye on. In other words as long as TCase is less than TcaseMax - 0.125 then the Tctl code won't take over and start shutting down parts of the CPU or reducing the speed to keep from hitting that threshold. Tcase is the ONLY temp you need to watch.


I knew that Tctl was a fixed value. I was only under the impression if it depend on core temp or not. Thanks for confirming !


----------



## JRWAssassin

so for us dumb people: the cpu temp that is reported by the Asus utility, is that safe to go to 70degC (in the case of my 4100) or should I be keeping at least a few degrees away from it because its not the reading I should be looking at?


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Does the Asus utility agree with the "CPU temp" located in your bios? If so than it is reading the TCase temps.


----------



## JRWAssassin

I would say that it does (without being able to directly compare them). At load core temp reports the same temp accross all 4 cores also, but at idle coretemp is obviously wrong (below ambient)

Edit: at 4.73ghz coretemp is reporting 61-62 under load, whereas asus is reporting 59 atm.


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

The program "Core Temp" uses TJunction which is somewhat irrelevant for AMD chips while at the same time is giving the correct reading to watch for Intel chips (their max temp goes by TJunction).


----------



## Krusher33

I was under the assumption that Temp0 was the temp to go by and Temp1 was not in the HWMonitor. But I wasn't confident and so I did a test. While under load, I saw my temp get up to a certain amount. I then blew a fan at the socket area under the board and saw my Temp0 temperature drop some. This was awhile back.

Temp1 is ridiculously low under load.

But right now I'm seeing throttling action on my CPU while under load. It happens when in HWMonitor, Temp0 hits 62, Temp1 is in the low 50's, and CoreTemp CPU Temp in the higher 50's.


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Your chip should be HDT55TFBK6DGR (or FBGRBOX for boxed version). If we look here -
http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/43375.pdf

That means:

Brand = HD
Model = T55T
Roadmap = FB (Max TDP 125W/140W, Socket AM3, Max IDD VDD-110 A & NB-20A, HS class 78)
Package = K (K = AM3)
Number of Cores = 6
Cache size = D (D = 512KB L2, 6144KB L3)
Part Definition = GR (GR = Revision E0, cpuid 00100FA0h)

Now we look in the thermal table to get -

Thermal Profile AE, Heatsink Class 78 table:

125W TDP = TCase Max 62C.

If you're getting throttling in the 50's more than likely you have the "thermal profile" setting on your MB enabled which is designed to start throttling your CPU *before* you get to TCase Max which in your case is 62C. But which temperature matches the "CPU temp" in your bios? That will be your TCase temp.

Edit - also if you blow air on the socket and get a drop in a temp reading that tells me that it's probably the TJunction reading which is located on the motherboard under the socket.


----------



## Krusher33

That certainly sucks. Because I tried looking for a setting that would adjust something like that in my BIOS to no avail.


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Is there an Asus utility that displays the CPU temp reading?


----------



## Krusher33

Yeah thought about downloading that as I was reading through this thread. Will probably do that and compare when I get home tonight.


----------



## Schmuckley

I learned 1 thing out of 17 pages:My temp readings are correct :







:


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Schmuckley*
> 
> I learned 1 thing out of 17 pages:My temp readings are correct :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :












I think the main problem is that people download and run "core temp" which is really designed for Intel CPU's and they freak out when their core temps hit the max temp listed for their processor. If I go full burn my core temps sometimes exceed that but it doesn't matter as long as my "CPUTIN" (TCase for my MB) is below the max temp (I've even exceeded that once or twice he he he).


----------



## Krusher33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bubba Hotepp*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the main problem is that people download and run "core temp" which is really designed for Intel CPU's and they freak out when their core temps hit the max temp listed for their processor. If I go full burn my core temps sometimes exceed that but it doesn't matter as long as my "CPUTIN" (TCase for my MB) is below the max temp (I've even exceeded that once or twice he he he).


Why do I not have CPUTIN on my HWMonitor?


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Because programs like HWMonitor are reporting the reading it gets from the MB bios. For my last MB which was a Gigabyte it was giving "temp0" "temp1" etc readings.


----------



## Krusher33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bubba Hotepp*
> 
> Edit - also if you blow air on the socket and get a drop in a temp reading that tells me that it's probably the TJunction reading which is located on the motherboard under the socket.


That's my thought too.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bubba Hotepp*
> 
> Is there an Asus utility that displays the CPU temp reading?


I'm only seen a Cool-n-quiet utility or TurboV utility as well as the AMD OverDrive one.


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

What does the AMD Overdrive utility report as CPU temp and which number does that equal to in HWMonitor for you?


----------



## Krusher33

Must be warm in my house right now because this is within 2 minutes.


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Can you post a screenshot of CPU-Z?

Here's what my temp readings look like,



As you can see everything agrees except TMPIN3 in HWMonitor and TMPIN1 which don't match any other readings (including those in bios) and fluctuate wildly (I ignore them).


----------



## Krusher33

I noticed you had speedfan in your screenie so I added it as well...



And I wanted to catch it throttling but for some reason it never did this time?! (I was freaking out...)


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Holy crap!! That's why you're throttling. You're TCase is at 69C in the second shot (Speedfan CPU Temp and TMPIN0 in HWMonitor are the same reading for you, both are your TCase Temp). You're Max TCase for your CPU is 62C. No wonder you're throttling. What kind of cooling are you using?


----------



## Krusher33

H60... but why did it not throttle that time?


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Don't know but you're exceeding your max temps by 7C and probably getting close to the end of the "conservative buffer" they use. They typically are conservative in their max temp listings, meaning that if they (hypothetical example) know that the cpu might suffer damage at say 70C they will list a max safe temp of 62C to create a sort of "buffer" zone.


----------



## Krusher33

It used to throttle at 62 though. Something must have gone broken.


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

What do you have it set at and why is it so high?


----------



## Krusher33

I have not set anything. I could never find it in BIOS. That is what my concern is now.


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

I mean your OC settings.

Edit - IMHO you're pushing your overclock too far with the cooling you have so let's take a look at all your settings.


----------



## Krusher33

Reference: 286

Multi: x13.5
vCore: 1.4875 (already tried lowering but it BSOD'd with 124 code during folding)
LLC: 32%

NB: x10
NB v: 1.35

HT: x6 (1716mhz)
HT v: Auto

Let me know if I missed something.

Edit: It just now occurred to me that the temps are climbing fast under load because the fans are turned down right now.


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

What's a typical Overclock for the 1055T? I'm thinking your base clock is too high causing instability that you have to "throw" voltage at to get it to run.


----------



## Krusher33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bubba Hotepp*
> 
> What's a typical Overclock for the 1055T? I'm thinking your base clock is too high causing instability that you have to "throw" voltage at to get it to run.


http://www.overclock.net/t/720502/the-1055t-owners-club/0_50

I had to raise base clock in order to get NB up higher and get RAM closer to 1600.


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Hmm....I'm not all that familiar with the hex cores and how far to push them. But I'm thinking you're temps are a way to high. Especially folding which is brutal on CPU's. But that's just my opinion. You should check with other 1055T OC'ers to see where they are at.


----------



## Krusher33

Yeah, working on the cooling atm. I'm planning to add a res mod soon... I hope.

It was folding in the 50's at 3.7 ghz and 1.47v during the Chimp Challenge. After it was over I started trying to push it. Situation is though... it was MUCH cooler weather during CC.


----------



## ruarcs30

Bubba, a question. Im running an unlocked athlon - phenom b50, and unlocking it screw up the core monitoring. But that wasn't the important thing in this case,was it? its my tmpin witch matters? On gigabyte 870a-ud3 tmpin 1 is the cpu. At least that is the one that jumps if the cpu gets something to do.

Im trying to follow this "discusion" but it is alot of "strange" words. Im actually decent at reading english, but this isn't "normal" english







Speak Norwegian, will you!


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ruarcs30*
> 
> Bubba, a question. Im running an unlocked athlon - phenom b50, and unlocking it screw up the core monitoring. But that wasn't the important thing in this case,was it? its my tmpin witch matters? On gigabyte 870a-ud3 tmpin 1 is the cpu. At least that is the one that jumps if the cpu gets something to do.


Yep, I had the same CPU (Phenom II x2 550 that unlocked to a "B50"). Whenever ACC is enabled it messes up the TCore algorithm for some reason. If on your MB TMPIN1 is the same as "CPU Temp" in bios (or speedfan, I've noticed on mine that it reads TCase correctly but I can't verify that for all MB's), then that is the reading you need to be "worried" about when overclocking.


----------



## ruarcs30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bubba Hotepp*
> 
> Yep, I had the same CPU (Phenom II x2 550 that unlocked to a "B50"). Whenever ACC is enabled it messes up the TCore algorithm for some reason. If on your MB TMPIN1 is the same as "CPU Temp" in bios (or speedfan, I've noticed on mine that it reads TCase correctly but I can't verify that for all MB's), then that is the reading you need to be "worried" about when overclocking.


Tmpin1 is the same as cpu in bios. Tmpin 0 is the same as system temp in bios, not sure what that covers though.
Thanks for clarifying about the cpu. And because I have unlocked it, I now have to stay below 62 degrees,right? Due to the higer tdp?
Not that it matters, my max cpu temp is not climed over 50,even when ambient of 26degrees, the summer has finaly arrived to norway


----------



## Bubba Hotepp

TMPIN0 is probably your NB temp reading. You *should* stay below the max TCase for your CPU. For you that's a little tricky because you're changing it from the original 95W TDP to now 125W TDP. But basically in my experience the B50 is equivalent the the Phenom II x4 955. So those are the specs you should go by with your CPU. The max TCase listed for the 955 is yes 62C.


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## cre8ive65

My core temps on my 8150 at stock are around 12 degrees C on just desktop, is that right for a core temp? seems off...


----------



## truckerguy

no it dosent sound right what temp is your room? if its higher then your core temp you diffently know its wrong


----------



## cre8ive65

Room temp is around 16-18C
AT STOCK:
CoreTemp reads my core temps to be 12-17C. My socket temp is 27C.

Cooled by an H100 in push pull with high RPM fans, Static pressure fans on push, airflow fans on pull.


----------



## truckerguy

well what do you read under load idle temps are not all that reliable


----------



## cre8ive65

Core temps peak at 27C and socket temp peaks at 41C at stock


----------



## truckerguy

then your golden


----------



## cre8ive65

Phew, ok thank you!


----------



## truckerguy

the 8150 is good to 72c is what Ive read but that is way too hot for my liking I say 62c and I perfer less then 55c underload


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP...


----------



## yuksel911

Bump


----------



## theamdman

The Semprons are good till 71c







TBH, i use this a little moar that i thought i would.


----------



## Jagged_Steel

I have a couple of questions about "Core Temp".

A:


From what I have read, those are the "Core Temp" readings, but I would like to be sure.

and B:


Is the AMD overdrive system monitor hidden here in the AMD Vision software, or do I need to d/l the "AMD Overdrive" software linked in the Temp information thread?


----------



## cre8ive65

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jagged_Steel*
> 
> I have a couple of questions about "Core Temp".
> A:
> 
> From what I have read, those are the "Core Temp" readings, but I would like to be sure.
> and B:
> 
> Is the AMD overdrive system monitor hidden here in the AMD Vision software, or do I need to d/l the "AMD Overdrive" software linked in the Temp information thread?


Yes those are core temps but they are only accurate under load as mentioned above, so that 19C isn't right, but when you put your system under load the reading will be accurate. The socket temp (completely different reading) is also in AMD overdrive under "fans" or something like that. From my experience it is usually 15-20C above core temps. I would just worry about core temps.


----------



## itomic

Why do you think core temps exist if its just rubbish ?? I think there is a reason.


----------



## cre8ive65

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *itomic*
> 
> Why do you think core temps exist if its just rubbish ?? I think there is a reason.


It's rubbish when you're on the desktop, but when you are playing a game/ running prime95 they are very accurate. The CPU doesn't actually have temperature probes, but rather it gets these reading by calculating resistance, current, voltage, etc, and dumping it into a formula. Its simple physics. My guess is that desktop core temps would be accurate if room temperature was 0C but for most people it is around 20C and as a result desktop core temps are usually 10-20C cooler than they are listed. When you are gaming/prime95ing the core temps become accurate from what I understand.


----------



## itomic

Something like that. I was referring on Buba Hottep. Core temps r accurate on load, during idle they r uselles. CPU temps witch Buba calls TCase, ar socket temps, and the r allways higher then core temps. I dont think AMD would give us core temps info, if they does not represent valid info. B uba claims that core temps r useless on load too. Whay then every site refers to core temps and not to CPU temp if they r not important ? But, what i was found from my testing, CPU socket temps on my board corresponds to CPU temp in BIOS. So that is confusing for overclocking, what temps to pay attention !!


----------



## cre8ive65

Pay attention to core temps. When they say "8150 should operate no higher than 62C" that's the core temp. at 4.0GHz I can hit a socket temp up to 55C with my corsair H100, but the core temps are MUCH cooler. It's a good practice to watch BOTH temps, but core temps are the ones you must be VERY careful about.


----------



## ruarcs30

And here we go again. Didnt HubbaBubba give you enough evidence? I give up


----------



## itomic

Hm, what voltage u have for those 4.0Gh to get so high temps ?? I have mine on 4.0Ghz load voltage is 1.280V, idle @ 1.31V. My ambiente is 30C, case isnt ventilated properly and i hit under P95 with CM Hyper 612S, 60C socket temp and my cores temps r allways 12C cooler then socket under full load. Bubba didnt solved the case ! Tell me why would AMD even show us cores temps if the r useless !! Also, through many reviews, they also relay on cores temps. I dont know the answer, but for sure its complicated. I have also maild AMD customer support, and they told me that CPU temperature must be watched as a CPU, not in two parts like we do ( cores temps, and CPU temp, or Tcase ). They told me for FX 6100, everything up to 75C for CPU ( as a complete unit ) is fine, but not for constant use. I dont know for sure for my new chip FX 8120 what is the mark of "good" temps do. On Intel CPU-s, its preaty straigt forward, and its much easier to pay attention to temps.


----------



## cre8ive65

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *itomic*
> 
> Hm, what voltage u have for those 4.0Gh to get so high temps ?? I have mine on 4.0Ghz load voltage is 1.280V, idle @ 1.31V. My ambiente is 30C, case isnt ventilated properly and i hit under P95 with CM Hyper 612S, 60C socket temp and my cores temps r allways 12C cooler then socket under full load. Bubba didnt solved the case ! Tell me why would AMD even show us cores temps if the r useless !! Also, through many reviews, they also relay on cores temps. I dont know the answer, but for sure its complicated. I have also maild AMD customer support, and they told me that CPU temperature must be watched as a CPU, not in two parts like we do ( cores temps, and CPU temp, or Tcase ). They told me for FX 6100, everything up to 75C for CPU ( as a complete unit ) is fine, but not for constant use. I dont know for sure for my new chip FX 8120 what is the mark of "good" temps do. On Intel CPU-s, its preaty straigt forward, and its much easier to pay attention to temps.


Are you ignoring what I just said? Core temps are NOT USELESS UNDER LOAD but USELESS ON THE DESKTOP.

So don't read your temps when your on the desktop doing nothing, that's stupid. Read core temps when under load. Thats it.


----------



## itomic

Yea, i know that "Read core temps when under load". That wasnt the thing i was talking about !!


----------



## ruarcs30

Whit posibility that I troll, L O L. Realy, take time to read, if you feal hit, then read.

By the way, you are the first i have seen that has 1.280Vcore under load, but 1.31vcore idle. I assume that you mixed them, if you didnt.....well

Itomic, a tips, start reading up on diffrent cpus and you will get your answer. And Amd has NOTHING to do whit hwmonitor etc....If you read what people actually has written in this thread you would also have got it


----------



## truckerguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ruarcs30*
> 
> Whit posibility that I troll, L O L. Realy, take time to read, if you feal hit, then read.
> By the way, you are the first i have seen that has 1.280Vcore under load, but 1.31vcore idle. I assume that you mixed them, if you didnt.....well
> Itomic, a tips, start reading up on diffrent cpus and you will get your answer. If you read what people actually has written in this thread you would also have got it


I can run 1.24 Vcore at stock speed with a 600Mhz OC Im at 1.27 Vcore that under load gose to 1.32


----------



## ruarcs30

I was talking about this: Hm, what voltage u have for those 4.0Gh to get so high temps ?? I have mine on 4.0Ghz load voltage is 1.280V, idle @ 1.31V. My ambiente is 30C, case isnt ventilated properly and i hit under P95 with CM Hyper 612S, 60C socket temp and my cores temps r allways 12C cooler then socket under full load. Bubba didnt solved the case !

But you got a decent chip it seems 

Sorry about the bad attitute, pritty mad, Civ 5 whit dlc crashes and crashes when we trying to play multiplayer, they had finaly fixed the mutli player, and now the expansion was realesed, the SAME problems as when civ 5 was orriginal realesed.


----------



## truckerguy

yes the gigabythe are bad for Vdrops


----------



## MrPerforations

hello,
iam on bubba's side,i notest the stock cooler temperature,its a 55c/45c split,..if the max core temp was 61c that would have clocked the cpu higher (mines 3100-3400,why not 3400?),but at a guess the stock cooler could not handle more?,and then theres thermal throttling which also happens when your cpu temperature is likely to hit 61c.
this might only apply to fx chips as they are very good at cremating corpes,its saved the church.

my mobo is terrible for v droop without the cpu llc enabled,i can drop from 1.4 to 1.26 without cpu llc.


----------



## itomic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ruarcs30*
> 
> I was talking about this: Hm, what voltage u have for those 4.0Gh to get so high temps ?? I have mine on 4.0Ghz load voltage is 1.280V, idle @ 1.31V. My ambiente is 30C, case isnt ventilated properly and i hit under P95 with CM Hyper 612S, 60C socket temp and my cores temps r allways 12C cooler then socket under full load. Bubba didnt solved the case !
> But you got a decent chip it seems
> Sorry about the bad attitute, pritty mad, Civ 5 whit dlc crashes and crashes when we trying to play multiplayer, they had finaly fixed the mutli player, and now the expansion was realesed, the SAME problems as when civ 5 was orriginal realesed.


I realy do not understand about what r u talking about man !!


----------



## ruarcs30

Dont mind me, im in a bad temper,thats all. Going to bed. Cheers.


----------



## TheRic89

nvm


----------



## Edgemeal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ruarcs30*
> 
> And here we go again. Didnt HubbaBubba give you enough evidence? I give up










Really, Just shoot me (we/us) already! I gave up (like 6 years ago) trying to tell people how to correctly read AMD CPU temps. I'm not sure what exactly these people are going to compare these core temps to since AMD doesn't even use "core temp" to rate the max temps for their CPUs. The last time AMD used a core/die temp rating was on the lidless K7s, which was like 10 yeas ago!

IMO CPU temps are really nothing to worry about anymore, its not like the old days when chips didn't have any protection in them , now its really hard to fry a CPU, we can now go back to, if it runs stable under full load don't worry about it!


----------



## ruarcs30

Haha









Temps sure are not so important as before. ( my first oc attemt in 1998 ended whit a fried cpu in a matter of seconds, i put a jumper wrong sending way more voltage than I intended to. Now a days cpu are quite hardy and as amd states on numerous ocasions, if you run a chip thats is listed max temp as 62, dont worry about it if you have run it on 72 degrees as the chip will not have taken mutch dammage. High voltages togheter whit high temps is alittle harder on the chip, but still its "almost impossible" to kill a chip these days,acording to amd workmenn.


----------



## yuksel911

Bump


----------



## yuksel911

Always check "CORE TEMPS" but not for idle temperatures.... Core Temps works during load after you reach 45'C or higher....


----------



## Krusher33

Yeah... getting a lot of "my temps is x degrees on idle, is this ok?" type questions in the cooling threads when the temps are like 35 or under.









Over and over and over again... annoying as heck.


----------



## yuksel911

BUMP


----------



## bayourebel

Need some help please. My friend has a ( dont laugh ) AMD Athlon 64 x2 Brisbane 4000+ cpu in a HP slimline PC with fresh install of windows 7.
I am getting temps around 65c at idle 78c to 80c under 50% load with core temp. The stock cooler is barely warm to the touch and I measured the temp with a laser thermometer pointed at the copper base of the cooler and it shows 35c. Room temp was 27c and I have cleaned the cpu and applied thermal paste 3 times and near same results. I put a uncooked grain of rice size on it and it was a little lower in temps than when I used less thinking I put too much on. Every time I pulled off the cooler it was only covering about the size of a quarter or less with paste.
Could it be temp sensor reading wrong in core temp and is there another program to use besides Speedfan. Speedfans readings were around 35c at idle so I dont know which program is right.
I have read that they tend to run hotter but max temp at idle or 50% load is not right. It does not have cool & quiet in bios so cant enable that.
It does lock up but my guess is because its using 85% memory on 1GB. I have him 4GB of ram ordered to fix that problem.
Thanks for any help you can provide


----------



## bayourebel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bayourebel*
> 
> Need some help please. My friend has a ( dont laugh ) AMD Athlon 64 x2 Brisbane 4000+ cpu in a HP slimline PC with fresh install of windows 7.
> I am getting temps around 65c at idle 78c to 80c under 50% load with core temp. The stock cooler is barely warm to the touch and I measured the temp with a laser thermometer pointed at the copper base of the cooler and it shows 35c. Room temp was 27c and I have cleaned the cpu and applied thermal paste 3 times and near same results. I put a uncooked grain of rice size on it and it was a little lower in temps than when I used less thinking I put too much on. Every time I pulled off the cooler it was only covering about the size of a quarter or less with paste.
> Could it be temp sensor reading wrong in core temp and is there another program to use besides Speedfan. Speedfans readings were around 35c at idle so I dont know which program is right.
> I have read that they tend to run hotter but max temp at idle or 50% load is not right. It does not have cool & quiet in bios so cant enable that.
> It does lock up but my guess is because its using 85% memory on 1GB. I have him 4GB of ram ordered to fix that problem.
> Thanks for any help you can provide


sorry


----------



## WizardontheJob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bayourebel*
> 
> Why have this thread if no one will help ?
> I guess its cause I have a Intel cpu in my sig, oh well guess I will have to find another forum where everyone is welcome.


Well, this really isnt the place for your post. I would put it in a new thread under this same forum section. No one is discriminating because you have an Intel in your sig...

As for your temps, get a couple of other apps (hardwaremonitor, aida, coretemp, speedfan.) to check the temps and see if you can come up with more accurate readings. If two or more of those apps have the same or similar numbers, it is safe to say that is the correct number. Using a thermal gun to try to guage the CPU temp wont really work. The core temp is what you need to see and you cant get that with a thermal gun.

If you are still uncertain about temps, check the temperature in BIOS. This should be at the chips idle temp or slightly above. Ive seen some BIOS's heat things up, like VRM's and chipsets while sitting idle, but not much..

Also, keep in mind that you dont want to be at max temp under load. Idealy you want to be 5-10 deg below max temp. Running close to or at max temp will severly shorten the life of your CPU/Motherboard.


----------



## ronnin426850

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bayourebel*
> 
> Why have this thread if no one will help ?
> I guess its cause I have a Intel cpu in my sig, oh well guess I will have to find another forum where everyone is welcome.


You're posting in a one year old thread, man. And it's not even about your topic, OP is about Athlon II's, nothing in common with Brisbane! That being said, If the laser thermometer said 35C, you have no temperature issues. Bad sensor. Turn off Cool n Quiet in BIOS, it could be throttling the CPU thinking it's gotten too hot. Also there is the slime chance that you didn't mount the cooler correctly. Try pointing that laser thermometer at the back of the mobo, or even the CPU itself from the side, if you can reach, see what it shows then.

And next time don't bring back the dead threads and wonder why no one responds! People are probably dead or married by now







Just make your own thread


----------



## bayourebel

Thank you ! I was afraid to make a new thread without braking the rules.Had no idea this was in the wrong spot. HWMonitor is reading same as core temp so I will try and remount the cooler and see if that helps. Sorry for the previous comment, just felt like I was being ignored but seriously the admins need to delete this thread or keep anyone from posting on it.


----------



## kaaleth

Hello.

I am using FX-8320 BOX. While I'm browsing Internet, I have got 39-45 C but when playing ~72C. I think it's too much. What do you think? I am going to buy cooler.

Edit: I found the answer. Hope, this 2C isn't big difference.


----------



## yuksel911

You need new cooler...


----------



## ronnin426850

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuksel911*
> 
> You need new cooler...


God, with the necromancers around here....


----------



## overbreaker

What is max package temp for Athlon x4 750K??


----------



## ronnin426850

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *overbreaker*
> 
> What is max package temp for Athlon x4 750K??


The CPU starts to throttle around 75-80C, however your mobo may throttle earlier, depending on MOSFET temperatures and overload protection.


----------



## overbreaker

My processor under stress reaches a core temperature of 46C but the stress is 86 C. It is overclocked to 4.300 GHz. It is stable even during long gaming sessions. But I'm worried about the core temperature in HW monitor or OCCT. Is the temperature of the package is not fatal for him ??


----------



## WizardontheJob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *overbreaker*
> 
> My processor under stress reaches a core temperature of 46C but the stress is 86 C. It is overclocked to 4.300 GHz. It is stable even during long gaming sessions. But I'm worried about the core temperature in HW monitor or OCCT. Is the temperature of the package is not fatal for him ??


You have big problems and are a MHz away from frying something. Please complete Rigbuilder at the top right of this page. Don't forget to include which CPU cooler you are using.


----------



## ronnin426850

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wizardonthejob*
> 
> You have big problems and are a MHz away from frying something. Please complete Rigbuilder at the top right of this page. Don't forget to include which CPU cooler you are using.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *overbreaker*
> 
> My processor under stress reaches a core temperature of 46C but the stress is 86 C. It is overclocked to 4.300 GHz. It is stable even during long gaming sessions. But I'm worried about the core temperature in HW monitor or OCCT. Is the temperature of the package is not fatal for him ??


No, it's fine, you're not taking the platform into account







FM2 is not AM3, FM2 is notorious for false core temp readings.

Look at CPUTIN, it is the socket sensor reading and is about the only correct reading on FM2.


----------



## overbreaker

OK.Thanks guys.


----------



## Solohuman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ronnin426850*
> 
> No, it's fine, you're not taking the platform into account
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FM2 is not AM3, FM2 is notorious for false core temp readings.
> 
> Look at CPUTIN, it is the socket sensor reading and is about the only correct reading on FM2.


Would this apply to FM2+ platform as well?


----------



## ronnin426850

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Solohuman*
> 
> Would this apply to FM2+ platform as well?


I still haven't tried the new 8xx series Athlons, but it has been so since FM1, I doubt they fixed it.


----------



## The Stilt

The basic temperature measuring logic in AMD processors is pretty straight forward.
The tCTL control value (often dubbed as package temperature) is the a digital control value measured and calculated by the TCEN.
It is only intended to be used by the CPU power management itself. It is not a temperature in any scale (Celcius, Kelvin or Fahrenheit).

After 10h CPUs there is no longer a analog temperature sensor present in the die. Instead there is one or more digital sensors, which communicate through the two wire (I2C) interface. The digital signal from the CPU is connected to a environment controller (typically LPC/IO IC). The controller reads and decodes the output and writes it to it´s own registers, where hardware monitoring software can read it out. The controller may also adjust the fan header PWM output or voltage (i.e. fan or pump speed) depending on the temperature, if such function is desired.

Typically the environment controller is made either by ITE or Nuvoton (LPC/IO), depending on ODM and model of the motherboard.
The basic pricipal is always the same, however motherboard manufacturer may configure the controllers differently. The decoded temperature value from the CPU may usually be placed in any of the "Temperature Inputs / TMPIN" registers of the controller, so the location (TMPIN1-x) can vary between the motherboards.

This temperature is officially called as SB-TSI temperature, however many users call it as "socket temperature".
In reality socket temperature sensors seized to exist after the Socket 462 / A ERA. In modern PGA / BGA sockets it is technically impossible to include a NTC thermistor in the socket and the socket certainly doesn´t come with one by default. The motherboard manufacturers are free to implement an external NTC resistor to be placed adjacent to the socket, however it´s readout cannot replace the default values. In most modern motherboards the only external NTC sensor close to the socket is found in the VRM area (for OTP).

tCTL ("package ["temperature"]) == Internal control value
SB-TSI ("socket" [temperature]) == Digital output from the digital diode in the die

Figure 1. shows the configuration used on 10h and older CPUs, Figure 2. shows the configuration on newer CPUs.
SDA / SCL are the standard signals for I2C, SMBUS / PMBUS protocols.


----------



## Undervolter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Stilt*
> 
> The basic temperature measuring logic in AMD processors is pretty straight forward.
> 
> tCTL ("package ["temperature"]) == Internal control value
> SB-TSI ("socket" [temperature]) == Digital output from the digital diode in the die


This is a very interesting post, which actually shatters my beliefs, based exactly on socket A era. But i have one question. If the "socket temp" is coming from the die, how is it that different motherboards give wildly different temps for the same conditions? I mean, for example, all Asrocks seem to skyrocket in socket temp. I 've seen plain 10C difference between Gigabyte and Asrock, all other same, same voltage, same clock. It can't be that there is such a big configuration error that gives 10C difference, from the DIGITAL output no less!


----------



## ronnin426850

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Undervolter*
> 
> This is a very interesting post, which actually shatters my beliefs, based exactly on socket A era. But i have one question. If the "socket temp" is coming from the die, how is it that different motherboards give wildly different temps for the same conditions? I mean, for example, all Asrocks seem to skyrocket in socket temp. I 've seen plain 10C difference between Gigabyte and Asrock, all other same, same voltage, same clock. It can't be that there is such a big configuration error that gives 10C difference, from the DIGITAL output no less!


From what I've heard, the temp is not reported as an actual temp, but as a delta from Tmax. It is up to the mobo's BIOS to interpret what Tmax is, and calculate the actual temperature. Some mobos suck at it. I had a Gigabyte that reported 110C


----------



## Undervolter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ronnin426850*
> 
> From what I've heard, the temp is not reported as an actual temp, but as a delta from Tmax. It is up to the mobo's BIOS to interpret what Tmax is, and calculate the actual temperature. Some mobos suck at it. I had a Gigabyte that reported 110C


110C CPU temp? And your motherboard didn't shut down? Did you see that temp inside the BIOS or was it with 3rd party software? Because if it's 3rd party software, it's likely a glitch/incompatibility of the program. AFAIK no motherboard will remain operating with CPU at 110C.


----------



## The Stilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Undervolter*
> 
> This is a very interesting post, which actually shatters my beliefs, based exactly on socket A era. But i have one question. If the "socket temp" is coming from the die, how is it that different motherboards give wildly different temps for the same conditions? I mean, for example, all Asrocks seem to skyrocket in socket temp. I 've seen plain 10C difference between Gigabyte and Asrock, all other same, same voltage, same clock. It can't be that there is such a big configuration error that gives 10C difference, from the DIGITAL output no less!


The ODMs can configure the CPU or the EC LPC/IO to have -127.875 - +127.875°C offset added to the actual output, if they wish to


----------



## Undervolter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Stilt*
> 
> The ODMs can configure the CPU or the EC LPC/IO to have -127.875 - +127.875°C offset added to the actual output, if they wish to


So either Asrock is overshooting by 10C or Gigabyte is undershooting by 10C. Great. But, another question comes to my mind. If there is an on die sensor, why do we even bother with core temp (which isn't a real temp, but comes out of an algorithm)? And i also guess that overclockers should start worrying more about their socket temp then. Because something that's on die can't be ignored just saying "oh, i will go with core temp and never mind".


----------



## The Stilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Undervolter*
> 
> So either Asrock is overshooting by 10C or Gigabyte is undershooting by 10C. Great. But, another question comes to my mind. If there is an on die sensor, why do we even bother with core temp (which isn't a real temp, but comes out of an algorithm)? And i also guess that overclockers should start worrying more about their socket temp then. Because something that's on die can't be ignored just saying "oh, i will go with core temp and never mind".


I´ve been telling this past few years.

_"Tctl is a processor temperature control value used for processor thermal management. Tctl is accessible through D18F3xA4[CurTmp]. Tctl is a temperature on its own scale aligned to the processors cooling requirements. Therefore Tctl does not represent a temperature which could be measured on the die or the case of the processor. Instead, it specifies the processor temperature relative to the maximum operating temperature, Tctl,max. Tctl,max is specified in the xxx thermal datasheet."_

For example:

FX-8370E
tCTLMax = 70
tCaseMax = 70.5°C
THERMTRIP on tCTL scale = 85

FX-8370
tCTLMax = 70
tCaseMax = 61.1°C
THERMTRIP on tCTL scale = 85

FX-9590
tCTLMax = 70
tCaseMax = 57.0°C
THERMTRIP on tCTL scale = 85

The tCTL output algorithm (scalars) vary between different models


----------



## Undervolter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Stilt*
> 
> I´ve been telling this past few years.
> 
> _"Tctl is a processor temperature control value used for processor thermal management. Tctl is accessible through D18F3xA4[CurTmp]. Tctl is a temperature on its own scale aligned to the processors cooling requirements. Therefore Tctl does not represent a temperature which could be measured on the die or the case of the processor. Instead, it specifies the processor temperature relative to the maximum operating temperature, Tctl,max. Tctl,max is specified in the xxx thermal datasheet."_
> 
> For example:
> 
> FX-8370E
> tCTLMax = 70
> tCaseMax = 70.5°C
> THERMTRIP on tCTL scale = 85
> 
> FX-8370
> tCTLMax = 70
> tCaseMax = 61.1°C
> THERMTRIP on tCTL scale = 85
> 
> FX-9590
> tCTLMax = 70
> tCaseMax = 57.0°C
> THERMTRIP on tCTL scale = 85
> 
> The tCTL output algorithm (scalars) vary between different models


Yes, my concern isn't so much about Tctl, as this has been pretty much clear ever since AMD put thermal margin on Overdrive. It left little room for doubt. The extremely interesting is this about CPU Temp, because if you go to any guide online back to Phenom era, all the "expert forum guides" , say "CPU socket is a motherboard temperature, so you can simply ignore it" and so on. Even the author of Core Temp said so!

http://www.alcpu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=2467

And instead it turns out an on die temperature? This is one of the biggest AMD internet mythbustings i 've ever seen. Call me paranoid, but i can't simply dismiss from now on an on die reading as "just ignore it". I 've seen people go over 80C on "CPU socket", based on the assumption that this is just a motherboard socket sensor. I don't think having >80C reading from on die sensor is healthy, independently from the core temp.

Even Overclock.net 's "AMD information and guide" of 2011, was saying:
Quote:


> What is "CPU Temp" ?
> 
> "CPU Temp" is read by a sensor in the socket of the motherboard.
> It is a physical temperature and therefore will be effected by ambient temps inside the case.


http://www.overclock.net/t/1128821/amd-temp-information-and-guide


----------



## The Stilt

I think one of the reasons why people think it is a motherboard related temperature, is because cooling the motherboard back side or the VRM directly will reduce the temperature. They don´t understand that if you connect two components with that much of copper (VDD and GND planes), you will have a huge heat carrying capacity between the two locations.

Depending on used settings and cooling it can be the VRM which heats up the CPU or vice versa.
VRM can run over 100°C and dissipate 40W+ even at relatively mild clocks on 8-core CPUs. When they are poorly cooled it will always raise the CPU temperature (which is lower) due thermal conduction through the power and ground planes.

tCaseMax defines SB-TSI max on lidded parts








The Fmax peaks when it stays < 62°C.


----------



## md500

I have a K9A2 CF (MS-7388) Motheboard and i want to know the max temperature of my Phenom x3 8400. There are my temps: 

Any advance? I want to OC this processor to 2.3ghz

PD: New User.Sorry for my bad english.


----------

