# 90c+ CPUs



## Upgrayedd (Sep 27, 2022)

So now that Intel i9 is 100c and now even amd 7600X is 90c.
What's the overall sentiment about running r5 class cpus at 90+c or any of these new cpus so hot? 
For the longest or was always run it cooler or you will degrade your chip.
 All of a sudden we're accepting 90C+? No one is worried about the 7900x dying in 3 years right out warranty?


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 27, 2022)

You run the part in the range that it's rated for.  Go outside that range there'll be problems.  The engineers know what they are doing.


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 27, 2022)

Underclock/undervolt & try to optimize for efficiency? No way I'm boiling my water on these not so tasty *chips*


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 27, 2022)

R0H1T said:


> Underclock/undervolt & try to optimize for efficiency? No way I'm boiling my water on these not so tasty *chips*


But my body, the room temp...  it burns sir.

Thankfully winter is coming...


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 27, 2022)

I'm ok with it as long as the CPU makers allow me to tweak the cpu to run at lower temp/wattage if I choose to.

The 7950X is a good example of a cpu that performs good at 65w/105w and at stock and I'm sure with further tweaking enthusiasts will figure out a sweet spot just like 12900k owners have and I'm sure 13900k owners will as well.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 27, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> So now that Intel i9 is 100c and now even amd 7600X is 90c.
> What's the overall sentiment about running r5 class cpus at 90+c or any of these new cpus so hot?
> For the longest or was always run it cooler or you will degrade your chip.



To be fair, it's been true for a while now even on Vermeer/Alder Lake that the CPU temp has no necessary relationship with the heat you actually feel being dissipated - it's just a product of processes being so dense and difficult to cool nowadays.

I'm much more suspicious of AMD allegedly saying 115C is "in spec" for manual overclocking (especially since ensuring QC and consistent silicon quality is not AMD's strong suit), but 90-95C seems fine to me - Zen 3 has the same limits depending on core count, it's just that the stock boost algo doesn't push itself to make full use of that envelope. Raphael is just pushing harder to max out that space it's been given. Depending on board, AGESA and silicon quality, you can already manipulate PBO on a 5900X/5950X to behave similarly at 200W+. It's only the aggressively conservative throttling (aka power virus recognition) of the stock Zen 3 algorithm that keeps it cool (compare less aggressive throttling on Zen2 to produce 90C+ in stock Prime95, vs. 60-70ish on Zen3).

And mobile CPUs have been running at 90-100C round the clock for close to a decade. In the end you still use the same tricks - limit PPT/EDC, set a static Vcore negative offset, etc. - to influence how your CPU boosts.

My problem is that AMD insanely cranking up the clocks/power to stay competitive has meant that at stock limits there is no sane CPU in the current Raphael lineup. The 12900K is a bit of a challenge for air and the 12900KS is an inferno, but still everything 12600K and lower is easy to cool (probably same for 13600K). Definitely not true for the 7600X.

Gaming temps look fine, however. Similar to Zen3

Maybe I'm a little partial to Intel. If they run their CPUs hot it's because they give generous Vcore to ensure all of their CPUs behave as expected regardless of silicon quality, which gives them hefty undervolt headroom. AMD likes to live on the edge - the result is CPUs that clock far worse than other samples of the same SKU, Cache Hierarchy WHEA at stock, etc. But from how the CPUs seem to clock in reviews, AMD might be adopting a similar approach to be safe, which is a good thing for QA. e.g. see the results for Eco mode 7950X.



Upgrayedd said:


> No one is worried about the 7900x dying in 3 years right out warranty?



I mean, it's a 3 year warranty.......they're not promising 10 years. For all the bitching about Intel 4C/8T, we got generations of hella long-lasting CPUs......but none of that was promised.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 27, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> I'm much more suspicious of AMD allegedly saying 115C is "in spec" for manual overclocking (especially since ensuring QC and consistent silicon quality is not AMD's strong suit), but 90-95C seems fine to me - Zen 3 has the same limits depending on core count, it's just that the stock boost algo doesn't push itself to make full use of that envelope. Raphael is just pushing harder to max out that space it's been given. Depending on board, AGESA and silicon quality, you can already manipulate PBO on a 5900X/5950X to produce 200W+ and similar heat. It's only the aggressively conservative throttling (aka power virus recognition) of the stock Zen 3 algorithm that keeps it cool (compare less aggressive throttling on Zen2 to produce 90C+ in stock Prime95, vs. 60-70ish on Zen3).



Slightly off topic but you being an SFF builder what do you think of how well the 7950X performs at 65w it seems to beat or match a stock 12900k. I want to see more in depth testing of it personally but I still find that impressive and would think people going SFF would be excited about it. A 4090/7950X tweaked to consume less than 450W with open loop cooling could be very impressive in a tiny case like your Cerberus. Obviously throwing Price to performance out the window.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 27, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> To be fair, it's been true for a while now even on Vermeer/Alder Lake that the CPU temp has no necessary relationship with the heat you actually feel being dissipated - it's just a product of processes being so dense and difficult to cool nowadays.
> 
> I'm much more suspicious of AMD allegedly saying 115C is "in spec" for manual overclocking (especially since ensuring QC and consistent silicon quality is not AMD's strong suit), but 90-95C seems fine to me - Zen 3 has the same limits depending on core count, it's just that the stock boost algo doesn't push itself to make full use of that envelope. Raphael is just pushing harder to max out that space it's been given. Depending on board, AGESA and silicon quality, you can already manipulate PBO on a 5900X/5950X to behave similarly at 200W+. It's only the aggressively conservative throttling (aka power virus recognition) of the stock Zen 3 algorithm that keeps it cool (compare less aggressive throttling on Zen2 to produce 90C+ in stock Prime95, vs. 60-70ish on Zen3).
> 
> ...


You can request from Intel the MTBF of their hardware because it's not listed on their site.

As a rule of thumb, most electronics are MTBF of 100,000 hours of constant use at load. Motherboards and hardware without solid caps will have a shorter expected life span.

But, no. They don't out right provide this information though it is available.


----------



## Frick (Sep 27, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> The engineers know what they are doing.



They're all on the take from Big Tech. These chips are designed to fail within two years. You read it here first. Mark the date. Sheeple. And so on.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 27, 2022)

Frick said:


> They're all on the take from Big Tech. These chips are designed to fail within two years. You read it here first. Mark the date. Sheeple. And so on.



So they are meant to fail within warranty costing AMD and Intel millions in replacements?


----------



## GerKNG (Sep 27, 2022)

we ran CPUs and GPus in the 90s and even 100°C for at least 10 years without problems.
there were these "akimbo style" 8800GT cards that ran at over 100°C non stop (and that's not the hotspot temp)
they still run in these days after over 10 years.

i don't see a problem running CPUs and GPUs in the high 90s.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 27, 2022)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Slightly off topic but you being an SFF builder what do you think of how well the 7950X performs at 65w it seems to beat or match a stock 12900k. I want to see more in depth testing of it personally but I still find that impressive and would think people going SFF would be excited about it. A 4090/7950X tweaked to consume less than 450W with open loop cooling could be very impressive in a tiny case like your Cerberus. Obviously throwing Price to performance out the window.



So far consensus seems to be that it runs just fine at 88W. But in what workloads that is, no idea.

All-core workloads no surprise there, strong performance in Eco mode. The 5GHz+ performance is not impressing me - it's disgustingly inefficient and clearly way way past where the N5 process currently wants to be (as is tradition of AMD asking more clock from the process than TSMC can give). 

But because N5 is so comfortable (cool, low power, low Vcore) in the 4-5GHz range, Zen4 keeps so much of its performance at even 65W - which is very impressive and good for SFF who do a lot of creator stuff. Haven't seen any details yet on Fabric power optimization for 7000, but the 4GHz range performance is promising so severely underclocked SFF Raphael might be a better proposition than severely underclocked SFF Vermeer.

In gaming loads I still wouldn't be confident in the 2CCD parts anyways. Already the GN review had at least one instance of poor lows from the 7950X. Only people severely underclocking 5900X/5950X for SFF were the people who can't live without the cores, and those who just want to, so 7000 is probably no different. 2CCD not a great choice for games, throwing money away.

Base clock is high for Raphael as well, might be viable for once to just disable CPB entirely if you can't cool. Lose 600MHz for like 20C drop. Ryzen has never been a clock monster anyway, it only really makes a difference in Cinebench.


----------



## Vayra86 (Sep 27, 2022)

I'm actually more worried about the parts surrounding the CPU more so than the CPU itself.

CPUs are tough motherf... and to be honest, the worst that usually happens is degradation over a long time. That's usually *voltage *related though, and not heat related.

But heat must move away from the CPU and with these CPUs the increased heat is coming in tandem with higher TDPs. You need to move that heat and that price tag is on yourself. So these CPUs are in fact a lot more pricy than they seem, if you run them at stock.


----------



## Sithaer (Sep 27, 2022)

GerKNG said:


> we ran CPUs and GPus in the 90s and even 100°C for at least 10 years without problems.
> there were these "akimbo style" 8800GT cards that ran at over 100°C non stop (and that's not the hotspot temp)
> they still run in these days after over 10 years.
> 
> i don't see a problem running CPUs and GPUs in the high 90s.



Funny enough out of the 2 cards that died on me since 2008 was a MSI 8800 GT after 2 and half years, my bro's 8800 GTX died the same and so did 2 of my friend's 9800 GT in the coming years.
Ofc I can't tell what killed them but they all went down one after the other in a few years.


----------



## Frick (Sep 27, 2022)

oxrufiioxo said:


> So they are meant to fail within warranty costing AMD and Intel millions in replacements?



Yes. Illuminati man. Them globalists and lizards are sucking the life and tech out of us man.


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 27, 2022)

Meh my brand new 5800X3D runs to me alarmingly toasty sometimes touching very close to 90 under stress tests, what's another 5C? Ever measured a GPU Hostspot? now THAT'S alarming I wish that sensor never existed...


----------



## P4-630 (Sep 27, 2022)

INSTG8R said:


> GPU Hostspot? now THAT'S alarming I wish that sensor never existed...



I was saying that about GPU's sometime ago, in the past there never was a "hotspot" sensor in GPU-Z.
When there was , suddenly alot of people on the net creating threads about it, worried.

The less sensors we know about the better you can sleep haha.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 27, 2022)

Vayra86 said:


> I'm actually more worried about the parts surrounding the CPU more so than the CPU itself.
> 
> CPUs are tough motherf... and to be honest, the worst that usually happens is degradation over a long time. That's usually *voltage *related though, and not heat related.
> 
> But heat must move away from the CPU and with these CPUs the increased heat is coming in tandem with higher TDPs. You need to move that heat and that price tag is on yourself. So these CPUs are in fact a lot more pricy than they seem, if you run them at stock.



The majority of these boards are 8 layer and somewhat overbuilt in the VRM/Heatsink department I doubt they will have any issues at least when it comes to X670E/X670/B650E..... I guess we will see how many corners are cut on the vanilla B650 boards to get to 120 usd though.


----------



## Toss (Sep 27, 2022)

I run Ryzen 5950x at perfect cool 80C tops, undervolted underclocked to 4 ghz. It's silent, fast, I don't need extra 20%, I am not in a hurry.
Also fans doesn't spin - TDP doesn't exceed 130W TDP even in harderst tasks


----------



## freeagent (Sep 27, 2022)

I have a 7950X in my cart, have been trying to pull the trigger for a few hours now lol.

Will this be the CPU to drive me away from air cooling?

Thousand bucks man 

1023 actually.

Just keep telling myself that is what I paid for my X5690 lol..


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 27, 2022)

freeagent said:


> I have a 7950X in my cart, have been trying to pull the trigger for a few hours now lol.
> 
> Will this be the CPU to drive me away from air cooling?
> 
> ...



You can do it!!!! although a 7700X is probably better for gaming..... Seems to be already backordered here in the states with multiple expensive motherboards selling out.


----------



## freeagent (Sep 27, 2022)

oxrufiioxo said:


> You can do it!!!! although a 7700X is probably better for gaming.....


I know 

Dammit. I wanna bench too, winter is coming


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 27, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> So now that Intel i9 is 100c and now even amd 7600X is 90c.
> What's the overall sentiment about running r5 class cpus at 90+c or any of these new cpus so hot?
> For the longest or was always run it cooler or you will degrade your chip.
> All of a sudden we're accepting 90C+? No one is worried about the 7900x dying in 3 years right out warranty?



for Der8aur zen 4 is only running at 70 celsius after a delid


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 27, 2022)

freeagent said:


> I know
> 
> Dammit. I wanna bench too, winter is coming



Wait 1000 Cad that's just for tbe cpu right? What is it with a board and ram like 16-1700 cad lol.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 27, 2022)

freeagent said:


> I have a 7950X in my cart, have been trying to pull the trigger for a few hours now lol.



Same price as 5950X..........but the temps on the 5950X and the performance it offered in 2020 made that a better deal



freeagent said:


> Will this be the CPU to drive me away from air cooling?



For you? nah, open the window






But the way you bench, you're not going anywhere past stock 230W with air.........maybe get a good block like TechN and see how far the 7950X can clock. Maybe some LM to help it out



CallandorWoT said:


> for Der8aur zen 4 is only running at 70 celsius after a delid



That's direct die, kinda a lot more complicated than a "delid", needs a frame

I'm not sure if Intel brought back the die-thinning tricks for Alder Lake, seems like AMD completely missed that memo after Comet Lake showcased how much thermal improvement that simple trick could accomplish


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 27, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> Same price as 5950X..........but the temps on the 5950X and the performance it offered in 2020 made that a better deal
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From what I understand they are making kits so you can delid on your own time, but we will see in due time. Need to see Raptor Lake first anyway.


----------



## Super Firm Tofu (Sep 27, 2022)

freeagent said:


> I have a 7950X in my cart, have been trying to pull the trigger for a few hours now lol.
> 
> Will this be the CPU to drive me away from air cooling?
> 
> ...



All the cool kids are doing it. That's why I don't have one


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 27, 2022)

@freeagent I think it depends what cooling you plan to use and if you will use it for work/creating.  if just gaming I think its a mistake.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 27, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> From what I understand they are making kits so you can delid on your own time, but we will see in due time. Need to see Raptor Lake first anyway.



Honestly the delid shouldn't be the problem with a kit, although AM5 package has a lot of SMD caps now they are quite big compared to the microscopic annoying SMDs on RKL and ADL.
oof he destroyed a 7700X lol

You need a good frame for direct die. Risk of cracking the die (I don't think I have seen anyone daring enough to use air coolers with direct die), and 3 dies raises questions of contact consistency. derbauer didn't seem to have problems in his test (CCD1 and 2 pretty even) but from Zen3 we know that the 2CCD parts have WILD temp inconsistencies between dies

For 11900K the problem seemed small enough to keep delidding over direct die, but here it seems like keeping the AM5 IHS will still be part of the thermal problem


----------



## freeagent (Sep 27, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> Same price as 5950X..........but the temps on the 5950X and the performance it offered in 2020 made that a better deal
> 
> 
> 
> ...


235w is about all I can do, maybe a touch more with my 5900X..


oxrufiioxo said:


> Wait 1000 Cad that's just for tbe cpu right?


Yup!




oxrufiioxo said:


> What is it with a board and ram like 16-1700 cad lol.


Not sure I haven’t got that far yet 

Maybe I will sit tight and see what RL will do.

I need another computer for my youngest boy now, and my oldest will get my rig minus GPU.


----------



## Tomgang (Sep 27, 2022)

Oof what ever it is Intel or amd now. Cool running CPU's is a thing of the past.






As things goes now with cpu power consumption and heat. I am hornestly glad I chose zen 3 and not 4. With a energy crisis in Europe where I live and high electricity prices. I don't need a Power Hungry heatspreader either from Intel or amd. Zen 4 is less efficient than Zen 3. 7950X consummes just about twice as much power that 5950X.

Zen 3 is easy to cool in my opinion.

I have a 5600X with a low profile air cooler and it settled in at 75c.

5950X Also aircooled by a Noctua NH-D15 Chromax black. Stock single core load is about 73c and multi core loads is 56c. While with pbo single core is the same, but multi core goes to around 76c. Still around 15c less than zen 4.
To get near 90c on 5950X I need a manual all core oc to 4.65 ghz where cpu hits 86c.

Zen 3 was the right choice for me. Also because I am not that much in to water cooling


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 27, 2022)

freeagent said:


> Maybe I will sit tight and see what RL will do.



Should be easy enough, judging from the stock counters the response is very lukewarm except for 7600X which is out of stock. 7900X and 7950X launch price seems identical to Vermeer (I paid $769 for 5900X)

I am literally considering picking up a 5800X3D. It's just the price that is not appealing for me. Hella gains in lows in DCS alone. But part of me is enticed by 13th gen so idk


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 27, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> So now that Intel i9 is 100c and now even amd 7600X is 90c.
> What's the overall sentiment about running r5 class cpus at 90+c or any of these new cpus so hot?
> For the longest or was always run it cooler or you will degrade your chip.
> All of a sudden we're accepting 90C+? No one is worried about the 7900x dying in 3 years right out warranty?


For AMD 7000, reviewers keep saying that AMD has notify them about it and that 95C is the maximum safe 24/7 everyday temperature and not the absolute max operating temperature.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 27, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> Should be easy enough, judging from the stock counters the response is very lukewarm except for 7600X which is out of stock. 7900X and 7950X launch price seems identical to Vermeer (I paid $769 for 5900X)
> 
> I am literally considering picking up a 5800X3D. It's just the price that is not appealing for me. Hella gains in lows in DCS alone. But part of me is enticed by 13th gen so idk



I'm in the same boat. Just going to wait for a proper W1zz review of raptor lake before I make my choice, but if the 5800XD hits like $299 or $329, I'm going to just yolo it.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 27, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> But my body, the room temp...  it burns sir.
> 
> Thankfully winter is coming...


man up ya NANCY


----------



## freeagent (Sep 27, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> It's just the price that is not appealing for me.


I know its brutal. About a month ago it was like 70 bucks off on Amazon, I was tempted but thought it might go lower in time for Zen 4.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 27, 2022)

I really want to try converting that massive IHS into an integrated waterblock but don't have the money to play around like that. 

Maybe @freeagent wants to do a custom loop?


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 27, 2022)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Slightly off topic but you being an SFF builder what do you think of how well the 7950X performs at 65w it seems to beat or match a stock 12900k. I want to see more in depth testing of it personally but I still find that impressive and would think people going SFF would be excited about it. A 4090/7950X tweaked to consume less than 450W with open loop cooling could be very impressive in a tiny case like your Cerberus. Obviously throwing Price to performance out the window.


As an SFF builder, I struggled to run a R5 3600, but had absolutely no issues with the i7 11700. Chiplets are bad for SFF. Heat isn't a big issue with monolithic dies.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 27, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> As an SFF builder, I struggled to run a R5 3600, but had absolutely no issues with the i7 11700. Chiplets are bad for SFF. Heat isn't a big issue with monolithic dies.



I really wouldn't consider a 280X SFF to me its a big case with poor motherboard support. My buddy has a 5800X running in an 011 mini with 0 issues with heat paired with a much more power hungry gpu than you. The 280x must just suck at airflow because the 011 mini isn't that great as it is.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 27, 2022)

oxrufiioxo said:


> I really wouldn't consider a 280X SFF to me its a big case with poor motherboard support. My buddy has a 5800X running in an 011 mini with 0 issues with heat paired with a much more power hungry gpu than you. The 280x must just suck at airflow because the 011 mini isn't that great as it is.


I forgot to add that the system was in an Aerocool CS-101 back then.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 27, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> I forgot to add that the system was in an Aerocool CS-101 back then.



Still a 5800X-5950X is easily coolable with very little noise in a corsair one..... You either had messed up motherboard settings bad contact or a high ambient if you had issues cooling a 3600 that can easily be cooled with a 20 usd cooler.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 27, 2022)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Still a 5800X-5950X is easily coolable with very little noise in a corsair one..... You either had messed up motherboard settings bad contact or a high ambient if you had issues cooling a 3600 that can easily be cooled with a 20 usd cooler.


It wasn't Corsair. This housed my PC back then. I only bought the Corsair when the 3600 was long gone (a friend of mine bought it from me). I've gone through much smaller form factor phases than I'm in now.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 28, 2022)

freeagent said:


> I have a 7950X in my cart, have been trying to pull the trigger for a few hours now lol.
> 
> Will this be the CPU to drive me away from air cooling?
> 
> ...


----------



## Iain Saturn (Sep 28, 2022)

*It’s only hot if you want it to be*.



=====


----------



## Upgrayedd (Sep 28, 2022)

Looks like the IHS might just really suck, just like alder lake needs the frame. Hopefully some tool  comes out to help, like an ez lapping tool if a frame won't do it.


----------



## lordmogul (Sep 28, 2022)

I'm not really worried about the temps. Yes they're higher than what most people have gotten comfortable with, but even my 9 year old IvyBridge had a TJmax of 100°C (some laptops even higher than that), the 8800 GT from ancient times a "critical" temp of 100°C and the 7300 GT that I keep as testing card 115°C

People just got used to <70°C over the years, but the hardware can survive more.
Are the chips running past their optimal efficiency? Pretty much yes. (and not just CPUs, GPUs as well) But the good thing is we can run them as demand requires.
And yes, also not a fan of the IHS, looks like a pain to clean.


----------



## Night (Sep 28, 2022)

I was surprised while reading the review that even Arctic Freezer II wasn't able to get it under 90 °C when loaded, though it wasn't mentioned which size of the radiator was used. I wonder how the "next gen" AIOs will have to be designed to get those temperatures lower, even though that's a new safe temperature.


----------



## openbox1980 (Sep 28, 2022)

I run my laptops i9 12900h at 94C for hrs and hrs when I do movie editing. Laptop processors have been running over 90s for over a decade. This laptop runs little over 95w.



CallandorWoT said:


> From what I understand they are making kits so you can delid on your own time, but we will see in due time. Need to see Raptor Lake first anyway.


Raptor lake will be worse than AL, with the doubling of the e-cores and higher clocks. Its gonna use more power.


----------



## AlwaysHope (Sep 28, 2022)

oxrufiioxo said:


> You can do it!!!! although a 7700X is probably better for gaming..... Seems to be already backordered here in the states with multiple expensive motherboards selling out.


Really? I though inflation over there was chewing into everyone's purchasing power already... must be a select few with high disposable incomes.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 28, 2022)

Frick said:


> They're all on the take from Big Tech. These chips are designed to fail within two years. You read it here first. Mark the date. Sheeple. And so on.


Big chip is my friend.



OneMoar said:


> man up ya NANCY


#FamousLastwords



AlwaysHope said:


> Really? I though inflation over there was chewing into everyone's purchasing power already... must be a select few with high disposable incomes.


Inflation is present in the states, but if you managed to retain employment through the pandemic, it's not cutting in as much as many would have you believe.

Of course, if you are homeless/jobless, a cpu may not be your primary worry.


----------



## BSim500 (Sep 28, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> For AMD 7000, reviewers keep saying that AMD has notify them about it and that 95C is the maximum safe 24/7 everyday temperature and not the absolute max operating temperature.


Personally I wouldn't say they're designed / going to fail, but aggressive thermal cycling / electro-migration is still bad for electronics regardless of "100c CPU's are normal" marketing used to wallpaper over the fact Intel vs AMD are engaged in some dumb pre-overclock Pentium-4 style p*ssing content pushing chips way past their sweet spot on the efficiency curve. I can't say I like this 'direction' here at all vs simply leaving overclocking to overclockers. What's the point of K/X branded unlocked chips if there's no headroom for those who want to overclock, whilst those who don't end up with sh*tty thermals they never asked for anyway. I'd definitely second adding a page to the reviews testing performance / thermals at 65w, and test with a 65w rated stock cooler / Noctua L9i. That will "separate the wheat from the chaff" as far as _"we made our chip faster (IPC)" _vs_ "it's only faster because we turned it into a furnace..."_


----------



## Vayra86 (Sep 28, 2022)

BSim500 said:


> Personally I wouldn't say they're designed / going to fail, but aggressive thermal cycling / electro-migration is still bad for electronics regardless of "100c CPU's are normal" marketing used to wallpaper over the fact Intel vs AMD are engaged in some dumb pre-overclock Pentium-4 style p*ssing content pushing chips way past their sweet spot on the efficiency curve. I can't say I like this 'direction' here at all vs simply leaving overclocking to overclockers. What's the point of K/X branded unlocked chips if there's no headroom for those who want to overclock, whilst those who don't end up with sh*tty thermals they never asked for anyway. I'd definitely second adding a page to the reviews testing performance / thermals at 65w, and test with a 65w rated stock cooler / Noctua L9i. That will "separate the wheat from the chaff" as far as _"we made our chip faster (IPC)" _vs_ "it's only faster because we turned it into a furnace..."_



There isn't a point in K-chips since Coffee Lake.

Kaby Lake was the last good overclocker and even then ran hot, and ironically also the last quad core top end consumer CPU. Intel didn't progress, they just took our OC headroom. AMD took 4 iterations of Zen to get to the point Intel got to over 9 generations of Core. GPU is similarly pointless since Pascal. The only real CPU progress we got since Skylake is new DDR and elevated core counts, let's face it. The rest is... margin of error nonsense at best. It shows because you can still run most stuff on ancient CPUs. The elevated core counts now go along with better multithreading than we had in the quadcore era, that's where the real movement in perf is at. Big Little is also all about more multithreading while not sacrificing ST. As are these new temp targets. The simple fact is, only IPC advances are not enough to warrant new CPU generations, but money must roll, and we support this, every time.

The new OC is the undervolt. Its a perspective thing mostly, but to me a good OC has always been about an efficiency/perf sweet spot, not just yanking the voltage up for maximum clock.


----------



## mb194dc (Sep 28, 2022)

Only a tiny amount of use cases really needs 250 to 300w cpu at 90c+. Mainly for servers and some workstation.

E.g from tpu review, at 4k all core 5.1ghz 7950x consumes 55w and 1% difference with max power config.

Almost all users won't see any productivity or FPS difference if they're using a processor from the last few generations and game at a modern resolution like 4K. 1080p was the high end 10 years ago... shouldn't even be in reviews now?

Only a tiny portion of users do so much encoding, rendering or low res gaming it'd make sense to pay the premium for the latest chips.

I can't agree with the review conclusions for those reasons. Almost everyone better off on AM4 for years more.


----------



## AlwaysHope (Sep 28, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> ....
> 
> Inflation is present in the states, but if you managed to retain employment through the pandemic, it's not cutting in as much as many would have you believe.
> 
> Of course, if you are homeless/jobless, a cpu may not be your primary worry.


Getting a little off topic here, however security of employment is threatened by rising inflation in the private sector. This dynamic never changes throughout economic history.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

Frick said:


> They're all on the take from Big Tech.


Shit. You're right - they're literally paying them! Like, salaries, even! Check mate, man. 



As has been said by several people above here, I'm not worried about these thermals. Laptops and a lot of other hardware operates at these temperatures entirely safely. Yes, laptops fail more often than desktops, but when that is caused by thermals it is mostly VRMs failing, not CPUs. And you obviously still need VRM cooling on your desktop. There also won't be excessive heat dissipated into the board from these chips despite their high thermals - the high thermals are caused by an inability to efficiently dissipate heat into the cooler, after all. The additional heat through the socket will be negligible over what is caused by the increased CPU power.

AMD is saying these chips can run 24/7 at 95°C, and I trust them when saying that. The Zen3 boost and voltage control and chip protection system has already proven itself to be very capable, and this is improved over that. Us enthusiasts need to change our thinking though. Our already rather irrational preference for more or less arbitrarily low temperatures will no longer work - we need to start trusting the chips to govern themselves. They can do so far better than we can, after all. No human can keep track of core voltages thousands of times a second, or temperatures, or clock speeds. That's just reality. PCs are for using, not monitoring.

That increased CPU power worries me more, especially as a long-time SFF builder. Luckily it seems that these chips have tons of potential for power limit tuning while sacrificing minimal performance, especially in ST but also MT. I'd be very interested to see what a 7600X could do in my Densium 4+ with a Noctua L9, but I won't be upgrading that system any time soon.

A more significant issue IMO is that this change necessitates a paradigm shift in how we think of fan control - a linear relation between fan speeds and core temperature is insufficient now that CPUs are doing this degree of fine-grained boost and power control at high temperatures. Controlling fans by CPU power, but somehow also weighted by temperature, would likely be better. This is what laptops do after all, and it allows them to run relatively quietly (for their size).


----------



## BSim500 (Sep 28, 2022)

mb194dc said:


> 1080p was the high end 10 years ago... shouldn't even be in reviews now?


80% of the market use 1080p or less (vs 10.9% 1440p, 2.5% 4k & 2.4% Ultrawide). It's as mainstream relevant as you can get and simply an example of "good enough = here to stay" (just like we went from 3-8TB HDD's back to 0.5-2TB SSD's). If the average person doesn't feel they need more, then that is what mainstream becomes.



mb194dc said:


> Only a tiny portion of users do so much encoding, rendering or low res gaming it'd make sense to pay the premium for the latest chips.


Agreed, but even then a lot of consumers over-estimate it. Eg, a lot of 'content creators' have figured out there's zero point buying a 16-core CPU for CPU-based archival quality x264 encoding to upload to Youtube when the first thing Youtube does it recompress it at their end using hardware-encoding anyway, ie, might as well use NVEnc, etc, in the first place at which point even 2 vs 16 cores becomes moot for Youtubers. Same goes for streamers using external HDMI capture / broadcast devices, video captured on phones, all GPU fixed-function encoder based. Not to mention editing software has gotten smarter, ie, add 5mins worth of overlays / fade-outs / on-screen displays to 2hrs of footage, and it will intelligently recompress only that 5mins rather than brute-force the whole 2hrs. It's ironic that the era that produced mega-cored CPU's is the same one that needs them less for consumer video vs batch ripping DVD to Divx overnight all those years ago.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 28, 2022)

Night said:


> I was surprised while reading the review that even Arctic Freezer II wasn't able to get it under 90 °C when loaded, though it wasn't mentioned which size of the radiator was used. I wonder how the "next gen" AIOs will have to be designed to get those temperatures lower, even though that's a new safe temperature.


That's because of how the CPU boosts. If you have a better cooler, it'll push itself higher, and you'll still reach 95 °C. Only when you reach the chip's architectural limitations with thermal headroom will you see temps below 90, but you'll probably need liquid nitrogen, or at least a massive custom loop with multiple radiators for that.

If you think about it, Zen 4 is designed to give you everything that your cooling allows without any limitation on performance whatsoever.

OK, guys... I made a little sketch about the way I understand Zen 4's boosting behaviour so that we're all on the same page. I don't want to confuse anyone, so if someone knows better, please correct me.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> That's because of how the CPU boosts. If you have a better cooler, it'll push itself higher, and you'll still reach 95 °C. Only when you reach the chip's architectural limitations with thermal headroom will you see temps below 90, but you'll probably need liquid nitrogen, or at least a massive custom loop with multiple radiators for that.
> 
> If you think about it, Zen 4 is designed to give you everything that your cooling allows without any limitation on performance whatsoever.
> 
> ...


I think it's a bit more complex than that. Rather, we could say pre-Zen4 had "temperature limit" and "temperature limit before reducing boost clocks", and the boosting algorithm targeted the latter in long-term scenarios but the former in short-term ones. With Zen4 these are made one and the same, meaning that you don't get the same drop-off in boost clocks as the chip steps back from "oh shit I'm too hot" territory into "nice and toasty", as it no longer reaches anything it considers too hot, even while boosting.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> I think it's a bit more complex than that. Rather, we could say pre-Zen4 had "temperature limit" and "temperature limit before reducing boost clocks", and the boosting algorithm targeted the latter in long-term scenarios but the former in short-term ones. With Zen4 these are made one and the same, meaning that you don't get the same drop-off in boost clocks as the chip steps back from "oh shit I'm too hot" territory into "nice and toasty", as it no longer reaches anything it considers too hot, even while boosting.


...unless you reach 95 °C, which you definitely will. I guess it's more like a target temperature for Zen 4 rather than what we used to consider a "limit".

Pre-Zen 4 said: "If you reach X temperature, it's too hot and I'll decrease boost."
Zen 4 says: "If you don't reach 95 °C, you're not getting the most out of me."


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> ...unless you reach 95 °C, which you definitely will. I guess it's more like a target temperature for Zen 4 rather than what we used to consider a "limit".
> 
> Pre-Zen 4 said: "If you reach X temperature, it's too hot and I'll decrease boost."
> Zen 4 says: "If you don't reach 95 °C, you're not getting the most out of me."


Pretty much. For Zen3 (and before) 95 was "nope, not going there, slowing down now" territory, and boost clocks started dropping around 75. For Zen4, it instead treats 95 as _fine_, and tries to get as high clocks as possible while staying at or slightly below that threshold.

In a way this is a simplification of thermal management: instead of having a dynamic relationship between the three variables of temperature, power draw and clocks, it tries to peg one of them to a stable point and adjust the other two to keep it that way (though not completely - it's not like it stops fans at idle and allows the CPU to sit at 95 then too).


----------



## Vario (Sep 28, 2022)

My experience so far is stock, on air, the i9 12900KS will boost and hold 5.2 GHz at 1.4V, sit at 100C and consume 350 watt package during Cinebench R23.  Undervolted to 1.18V and restricted to 5GHz, i9 12900KS consumes 240 watt package and sit at 83C during Cinebench R23.  In gaming loads, it merely consumes 65 watts and sits at 55C game load.  The extra 100-400 MHz is nearly worthless unless you like wasting electricity.  I am sure the Zen 4 stuff is similar, one could probably dial the voltage and core clock back slightly and reduce power consumption by 50 to 100 watts, and probably get to 70C instead of 95C.


----------



## Toothless (Sep 28, 2022)

Toss said:


> I run Ryzen 5950x at perfect cool 80C tops, undervolted underclocked to 4 ghz. It's silent, fast, I don't need extra 20%, I am not in a hurry.
> Also fans doesn't spin - TDP doesn't exceed 130W TDP even in harderst tasks


Mate my 5950x hits 80c tops with PBO/curve tweaked, 4.4 all core with a 4.95 single, as the chip is intended. Your cooler is just not enough for that chip if it can't cool 130w.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

Toothless said:


> Mate my 5950x hits 80c tops with PBO/curve tweaked, 4.4 all core with a 4.95 single, as the chip is intended. Your cooler is just not enough for that chip if it can't cool 130w.


Hey now, don't crap on people's insistence on holding on to outdated and poorly suited ways of clock and power tuning. Not everyone can adjust to new developments


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 28, 2022)

Vario said:


> My experience so far is stock, on air, the i9 12900KS will boost and hold 5.2 GHz at 1.4V, sit at 100C and consume 350 watt package during Cinebench R23.  Undervolted to 1.18V and restricted to 5GHz, i9 12900KS consumes 240 watt package and sit at 83C during Cinebench R23.  In gaming loads, it merely consumes 65 watts and sits at 55C game load.  The extra 100-400 MHz is nearly worthless unless you like wasting electricity.  I am sure the Zen 4 stuff is similar, one could probably dial the voltage and core clock back slightly and reduce power consumption by 50 to 100 watts, and probably get to 70C instead of 95C.


I watched JayzTwoCents experimenting with a 7950X overclock/undervolt in this video. If I remember right (I was pretty tired), he didn't have much success. It might be better to leave clocks and voltages alone and enable Eco mode, or decrease PPT and call it a day.


----------



## Vario (Sep 28, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> I watched JayzTwoCents experimenting with a 7950X overclock/undervolt in this video. If I remember right (I was pretty tired), he didn't have much success. It might be better to leave clocks and voltages alone and enable Eco mode, or decrease PPT and call it a day.


Might also be in need of a future bios update or motherboard revision before overclock/undervolting is worthwhile.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> I watched JayzTwoCents experimenting with a 7950X overclock/undervolt in this video. If I remember right (I was pretty tired), he didn't have much success. It might be better to leave clocks and voltages alone and enable Eco mode, or decrease PPT and call it a day.


Tbh, at these power levels I see any attempt at overclocking as utterly pointless. Your CPU is already consuming _massive_ amounts of power, and performing _very_ well. Is it really worth increasing that power draw even further for a 1% performance increase? No. Just no. The only even marginally interesting form of tuning for these chips is power limiting and undervolting. OCing is just _boring _at this point, at least outside of LN2 and other exotic cooling.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> Tbh, at these power levels I see any attempt at overclocking as utterly pointless. Your CPU is already consuming _massive_ amounts of power, and performing _very_ well. Is it really worth increasing that power draw even further for a 1% performance increase? No. Just no. The only even marginally interesting form of tuning for these chips is power limiting and undervolting. OCing is just _boring _at this point, at least outside of LN2 and other exotic cooling.


He only tried to overclock with the logic "if it overclocks by X, then it also undervolts by X". This logic might be flawed for Zen 4 which works at its peak pretty much straight out of the box.


----------



## Denver (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> So now that Intel i9 is 100c and now even amd 7600X is 90c.
> What's the overall sentiment about running r5 class cpus at 90+c or any of these new cpus so hot?
> For the longest or was always run it cooler or you will degrade your chip.
> All of a sudden we're accepting 90C+? No one is worried about the 7900x dying in 3 years right out warranty?


The overclock era is over, welcome to the undervolt era.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> He only tried to overclock with the logic "if it overclocks by X, then it also undervolts by X". This logic might be flawed for Zen 4 which works at its peak pretty much straight out of the box.


Yeah, they've probably tuned it so that it goes _really_ close to some combination of architectural/node limits at its nominal power budget. There's definitely more to be had with exotic cooling, but you might not get much more without it, as that might simply require unsafe core voltages.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 28, 2022)

Night said:


> I was surprised while reading the review that even Arctic Freezer II wasn't able to get it under 90 °C when loaded, though it wasn't mentioned which size of the radiator was used. I wonder how the "next gen" AIOs will have to be designed to get those temperatures lower, even though that's a new safe temperature.


Because the more cooling you're adding the more the CPU boosts so its 95C all over. This continues until power limit reached. Its as "simple" as that

If any one wants decreased temp can either set lower temp limit or power limit.
Again simple as that...

I watched a test of the 7950X on stock settings with extreme cooling (LN2).
The CPU has reached a max of 5.7+GHz all core boost within stock power setting (200+W PPT) at Tdie: -60~70C

EDIT: typo


----------



## pavle (Sep 28, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> ...The engineers know what they are doing.


Of course they do. No. They do what they are told by the (mis)management.
Just run the parts at next lower setting (105W or 65W or somewhere in between) and they'll be fine.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

pavle said:


> Of course they do. No. They do what they are told by the (mis)management.
> Just run the parts at next lower setting (105W or 65W or somewhere in between) and they'll be fine.


They'll still be fine at 170W. Just hotter.


----------



## Bones (Sep 28, 2022)

My take on it:
Heat is always an enemy of electronics, even if they are "Supposed" to tolerate it.

I've always had the mindset of "Cooler is better" for electronics since we all know they always fail in terms of overheating/burning up, not from being too cool/freezing.... That would only apply if on Ln2 and even in that case they could still burn up - It's happened before on Ln2 cooling.

When they do fail to work by being too cool or frozen (CB/CBB), you simply let them warm back up and they start working again.
Note that doesn't mean being frozen itself is exactly "Good" for them either, esp the extreme cooling kind of cold - That can make a chip fail over time too if it's frozen one too many times.

If you let one get too hot and it stops working, cooling it probrably won't work - That's the real difference between those terms and conditions.

If I ever get one I will be making all efforts to keep it as cool (Not frozen) as possible but at the same time that's just me - you guys can run them as you see fit to.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 28, 2022)

I don't get it personally, so much drama.

ALL my CPUs have been run 24/7 365 at their top thermal limit.

And that's from a q6600, fx8350, 2600X 3800X and many more.

Wtaf do some of you do with your pc, nothing?!.

This shits only new because this generation chips are MADE to run hot, but but if you actually used your shit they already did.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 28, 2022)

Its not confirmed yet, and I don't know if it ever will/can but Tjmax of these CPUs is said to be 110~115C.
So 95C is not that bad considering this. Its just us, most of us, that do not accept this kind of temperature in our minds for electronics.

And do not confuse heat with temperature. Its very different things. And most rules of yesterday will be broken by the tomorrow's.
(most)Humans like and feel comfortable when nothing changes.



Bones said:


> If I ever get one I will be making all efforts to keep it as cool (Not frozen) as possible but at the same time that's just me - you guys can run them as you see fit to.


No real effort needed really. I mean dont make it sound like it will take a load of money and/or personal work (to set a loop for example).

You can slap the best ever water cooler loop on the AM5 system. It will still hit the 95C. What you are gaining out of better cooling is more boost.

You want lower temp?
Limit the temperature or the power and loose the whatever boost.

1+1=2


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 28, 2022)

And another thing.

ALL the temperature value's you see are offsets.

Yes all.  No really.

The Actual TJ temp inside the core will be even higher than 95.

Same on ALL prior gens from both X86 maker's.

The value you see was/is always horse shit, relatively.


----------



## mb194dc (Sep 28, 2022)

BSim500 said:


> 80% of the market use 1080p or less (vs 10.9% 1440p, 2.5% 4k & 2.4% Ultrawide). It's as mainstream relevant as you can get and simply an example of "good enough = here to stay" (just like we went from 3-8TB HDD's back to 0.5-2TB SSD's). If the average person doesn't feel they need more, then that is what mainstream becomes.
> 
> 
> Agreed, but even then a lot of consumers over-estimate it. Eg, a lot of 'content creators' have figured out there's zero point buying a 16-core CPU for CPU-based archival quality x264 encoding to upload to Youtube when the first thing Youtube does it recompress it at their end using hardware-encoding anyway, ie, might as well use NVEnc, etc, in the first place at which point even 2 vs 16 cores becomes moot for Youtubers. Same goes for streamers using external HDMI capture / broadcast devices, video captured on phones, all GPU fixed-function encoder based. Not to mention editing software has gotten smarter, ie, add 5mins worth of overlays / fade-outs / on-screen displays to 2hrs of footage, and it will intelligently recompress only that 5mins rather than brute-force the whole 2hrs. It's ironic that the era that produced mega-cored CPU's is the same one that needs them less for consumer video vs batch ripping DVD to Divx overnight all those years ago.



Surely people aren't changing to AM5, or latest Intel spending thousands and then using 1080p ? Madness. 

I don't think it's a relevant resolution for top end hardware.

There's a tiny portion who might want to game at 200 FPS+.


----------



## Bones (Sep 28, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> No real effort needed really. I mean* dont make it sound like it will take a load of money and/or personal work *(to set a loop for example).
> 
> You can slap the best ever water cooler loop on the AM5 system. It will still hit the 95C. What you are gaining out of better cooling is more boost.
> 
> ...


Not what I was trying to do, all I'm saying is I'll do whatever I have to for achieving the result I want.
I'll say it again, you guys do as you want.
You are right though, clock it down, undervolt it... There are things you can do.


----------



## freeagent (Sep 28, 2022)

I used to let my 3770K roast in the 90s with Linpack.. it loved it 

Still alive..


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 28, 2022)

TheoneandonlyMrK said:


> And another thing.
> 
> ALL the temperature value's you see are offsets.
> 
> ...


Most likely there will be a few spots on the die close to Tjmax (110C), but I assume that why the 95C has been chosen.
So everything(every spot) can run within specs without compromising health.



Bones said:


> You are right though, clock it down, undervolt it... There are things you can do.


Limiting is the best term I can think of.
People will have to get used to use limits.

Limit on Temp or Power and let it do dynamically what it can within those limits

Limits will be different for every different cooler, ambient temp and so on...


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 28, 2022)

Sounds like core offset will be a very useful tool for Ryzen 7k.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> Its not confirmed yet, and I don't know if it ever will/can but Tjmax of these CPUs is said to be 110~115C.
> So 95C is not that bad considering this. Its just us, most of us, that do not accept this kind of temperature in our minds for electronics.


It is confirmed - they allow 115 degrees as the max temp with a manual OC. Of course that's at the user's own risk, but it says something still - no previous Ryzen CPU has allowed this.



TheoneandonlyMrK said:


> And another thing.
> 
> ALL the temperature value's you see are offsets.
> 
> ...


To some degree. Unless the entire chip was literally made of temperature sensors, there's always a high likelihood that the hottest point will be somewhere else than where you have a sensor. But - and this is notable - we're long past the days where chips only had thermal sensors around the edges. The deltas aren't going to be _huge_. We already see this on GPUs, which are more tricky to monitor as their heat is spread out more. As long as each core has a sensor reasonably close to the actual execution part of the core, it's going to be within 10C or so.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 28, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> Most likely there will be a few spots on the die close to Tjmax (110C), but I assume that why the 95C has been chosen.
> So everything(every spot) can run within specs without compromising health.
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think your getting me, that 110 wouldn't be 110, it's offset( out of view from the user to bring temperature in a range accepted by consumers) so In reality the Actual temp would be 125 or more.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 28, 2022)

Bones said:


> My take on it:
> Heat is always an enemy of electronics, even if they are "Supposed" to tolerate it.
> 
> I've always had the mindset of "Cooler is better" for electronics since we all know they always fail in terms of overheating/burning up, not from being too cool/freezing.... That would only apply if on Ln2 and even in that case they could still burn up - It's happened before on Ln2 cooling.
> ...


That's the thing. No one is letting it run too hot. That's what the 95 °C temperature limit is for. You're free to use the best cooler available, and I think you should, but you'll still reach 95 °C because that's how the chip works.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 28, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> Sounds like core offset will be a very useful tool for Ryzen 7k.


Voltage offset you mean?
Another tool from ancient history
Today you have Curve Optimizer and Temp, Power, Current(A) limits.



TheoneandonlyMrK said:


> I don't think your getting me, that 110 wouldn't be 110, it's offset( out of view from the user to bring temperature in a range accepted by consumers) so In reality the Actual temp would be 125 or more.


I find it hard to believe this


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 28, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> Voltage offset you mean?
> Another tool from ancient history
> Today you have Curve Optimizer and Temp, Power, Current(A) limits.


Curve optimizer or whatever, a tool to offset the V/F curve. 

I need my caffeine this morning.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

TheoneandonlyMrK said:


> I don't think your getting me, that 110 wouldn't be 110, it's offset( out of view from the user to bring temperature in a range accepted by consumers) so In reality the Actual temp would be 125 or more.


No, this isn't true. Early Ryzen CPUs had temperature offsets, these have been removed since Zen2. The only thermal delta is the one caused by distance between the hot spot and the thermal sensor.


----------



## freeagent (Sep 28, 2022)

My 5900X will still run at 4500ish at 90.. they secretly love the heat


----------



## Upgrayedd (Sep 28, 2022)

TheoneandonlyMrK said:


> I don't get it personally, so much drama.
> 
> ALL my CPUs have been run 24/7 365 at their top thermal limit.
> 
> ...


Uhhh what?  You run thermal throttled 24/7???

They aren't made to run hot either.  The IHS is bad. Alder lake IHS gets concave so they made the contact frame. 
They're made to hit a performance target, not 95c. It's new because of two new IHS designs. They didn't just change the thermal rules overnight.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> Uhhh what?  You run thermal throttled 24/7???
> 
> They aren't made to run hot either.  The IHS is bad. Alder lake IHS gets concave so they made the contact frame.
> They're made to hit a performance target, not 95c. It's new because of two new IHS designs. They didn't just change the thermal rules overnight.


So Ryzen7000 has been made with a 115C Tjmax (thermal throttle point) and AMD set it to hit 95C constant so the user can take all the performance possible within this temp limit if power allows it. Performance is only different through different cooling capacity.

What's so hard to understand/accept?

A whole other world...
Ryzen 5000 has a Tjmax (thermal throttle point) at 90C
Ryzen 3000 has a Tjmax (thermal throttle point) at 95C.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> Uhhh what?  You run thermal throttled 24/7???
> 
> They aren't made to run hot either.  The IHS is bad. Alder lake IHS gets concave so they made the contact frame.
> They're made to hit a performance target, not 95c. It's new because of two new IHS designs. They didn't just change the thermal rules overnight.


Well, to think that mobile CPUs have been running at their thermal limits for a decade, or even more... there's a reason why temperature limits exist. Your CPU isn't going to fry like it did in the Athlon XP era.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> Well, to think that mobile CPUs have been running at their thermal limits for a decade, or even more... there's a reason why temperature limits exist. Your CPU isn't going to fry like it did in the Athlon XP era.


No, it won't. But adjusting PC enthusiasts' expectations of how CPU temperatures work and what is safe and fine operating conditions might fry some brains


----------



## Upgrayedd (Sep 28, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> So Ryzen7000 has been made with a 115C Tjmax (thermal throttle point) and AMD set it to hit 95C constant so the user can take all the performance possible within this temp limit if power allows it. Performance is only different through different cooling capacity.
> 
> What's so hard to understand/accept?
> 
> ...


They aren't set to hit 95c constant.  They just happen to get to 95c because the ihs is bad. 95C is where they're told to stop


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> They aren't set to hit 95c constant.  They just happen to get to 95c because the ihs is bad. 95C is where they're told to stop


Then why do they still maintain boost at 95 °C? If it was really that bad, don't you think that we would see some kind of throttling?


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> They aren't set to hit 95c constant.  They just happen to get to 95c because the ihs is bad. 95C is where they're told to stop


You're contradicting yourself. If 95 is where they're told to stop, and they're told to boost until they stop, then they _are_ set to hit 95 constantly. If not, they would throttle to cool down below that. And yes, this is in large part to a mega-thick IHS, but that's kind of neither here nor there - it's just facts. The temperature still isn't harmful.


----------



## Upgrayedd (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> You're contradicting yourself. If 95 is where they're told to stop, and they're told to boost until they stop, then they _are_ set to hit 95 constantly. If not, they would throttle to cool down below that. And yes, this is in large part to a mega-thick IHS, but that's kind of neither here nor there - it's just facts. The temperature still isn't harmful.


95c isn't what it's supposed to do.  It's a by product of reaching for the clocks they're supposed to hit. They aren't meant to just keep getting hotter even if they've met their performance targets. 
It's boost for x clock but if y temp is hit first then stay at x until y comes down. 
Not if x clock is met with y temp under its limit them push y to its limit. 
This shows throughout the stack of zen4 cpus, so the ihs is at fault.  AMD didn't suddenly start making 95c stock clock cpus. They started making a trash IHS.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> The temperature still isn't harmful.


Designed to run full tilt 2/4/7. Still within manufacturer specs, should be fine for a long time.

CPU isn't going to reflow solder even at 115c thermtrip. 

Non issue.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> They aren't set to hit 95c constant.  They just happen to get to 95c because the ihs is bad. 95C is where they're told to stop


No thermal (boost) throttling is happening at 95C on a Ryzen7000. The boosts is too consistent and sustained when the 7950X is reaching 95C.


7950X
95C and 5.1~5.2GHz all core boost. Not a single spike downwards as a sign of throttle.



7900X
CPU cant reach 95C with same cooling solution, around the same boost clock if not more, because it hits power limit first that is lower than 7950X.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> . They started making a trash IHS.


Opinion only? 

Or is this statement because someone did a delid, made a comment without testing the idea and then we come to the conclusion "trash IHS plate". 

Billions of transistors in a small package, I have a feeling any IHS plate the design might be trash because of this aspect.

I'd be interested to see how cool and efficient the processors are at base clocks. Then maybe make some assumptions..... the cpu is overclocking its self to the max its thermally allowed other wise.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> They aren't set to hit 95c constant.  They just happen to get to 95c because the ihs is bad. 95C is where they're told to stop


And your qualified opinion is better than AMD'S because?!.


----------



## freeagent (Sep 28, 2022)

Honestly I think it just comes down to size. As an air cooled overclocker 32nm was the last time I found it easy to cool a cpu close to the limits. 22nm was exponentially harder to cool at the same clock speed as 32nm. Then I went to 7nm.. I thought 22nm was a bear to cool.. nope. Now we are 5nm and clock speed is higher than ever. I mean look at Intel.. their next cpu is going to boost to 6ghz.. those speeds were reserved for sub ambient clocks at one time.. now here we are and these are now out of the box boosts. Crazy days.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 28, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Opinion only?
> 
> Or is this statement because someone did a delid, made a comment without testing the idea and then we come to the conclusion "trash IHS plate".
> 
> ...


Did he use LM on IHS first to help dissipate heat faster from this very high heat density CPU?
No...

Maybe delidding tool has better profit margins from LM or maybe thinking... why not selling both.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 28, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> Did he use LM on IHS first to help dissipate heat faster from this very high heat density CPU?
> No...
> 
> Maybe delidding tool has better profit margins from LM or maybe thinking... why not selling both.


That's a good point. LM vs TIM, the interface material makes a difference.

Paste 8w/mk on average??? (guessing)
LM close to 75w/mk



freeagent said:


> Honestly I think it just comes down to size.


That's what she said, and why you have babies!! XD


----------



## freeagent (Sep 28, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> and why you have babies!! XD


She trapped me I couldn’t get out lol.. second one was my fault hahah..


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> 95c isn't what it's supposed to do.  It's a by product of reaching for the clocks they're supposed to hit. They aren't meant to just keep getting hotter even if they've met their performance targets.
> It's boost for x clock but if y temp is hit first then stay at x until y comes down.
> Not if x clock is met with y temp under its limit them push y to its limit.
> This shows throughout the stack of zen4 cpus, so the ihs is at fault.  AMD didn't suddenly start making 95c stock clock cpus. They started making a trash IHS.


Again: they designed a product that behaves this way. This was not out of desperation, but a conscious series of choices made over the 4-5 year design cycle of a CPU. No, they didn't "suddenly start making 95c stock CPUs" - they did so over a long period of R&D. They consciously chose to maintain cooler compatibility rather than optimize the IHS for low temperatures - as this was an either/or choice with the change to an LGA socket. And, at the same time, they made sure that the CPU could handle those temperatures just fine. So no, 95c is indeed exactly what it is supposed to do. It's how it's designed to behave. They boost until they hit a thermal limit, unless power and/or clock limits are reached first - and all of these are pushed equally far.



ShrimpBrime said:


> Designed to run full tilt 2/4/7. Still within manufacturer specs, should be fine for a long time.
> 
> CPU isn't going to reflow solder even at 115c thermtrip.
> 
> Non issue.


Pretty much what I said, no?


ShrimpBrime said:


> Opinion only?
> 
> Or is this statement because someone did a delid, made a comment without testing the idea and then we come to the conclusion "trash IHS plate".
> 
> ...


Der8auer did a delid and got a ~21C temperature drop with direct die cooling and liquid metal. He also commented on the IHS being _very_ thick, which inherently makes it less efficient at thermal transfer - the less material between the core and the cooler, the better, as you want heat into the water/heatpipes as quickly as possible if you want low core temperatures. Doubling IHS thickness is quite significant in this context. Still, it clearly works just fine. Does this mean the IHS is "trash"? No, but it's thicker than would be ideal. It's still fine.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> It's a by product of reaching for the clocks they're supposed to hit


I think that AMD no longer has a max boost clock in the traditional sense - more of a "Let's boost until we hit 95C!" sort of product. It's more of a "Minimum boost clock if your cooler can handle the official TDP". 

The thick IHS does contribute to the ease of hitting the thermal wall though.


----------



## Upgrayedd (Sep 28, 2022)

If 90+is cool then why don't we all just go back to stock heatsinks?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> Uhhh what?  You run thermal throttled 24/7???
> 
> They aren't made to run hot either.  The IHS is bad. Alder lake IHS gets concave so they made the contact frame.
> They're made to hit a performance target, not 95c. It's new because of two new IHS designs. They didn't just change the thermal rules overnight.


No they didn't, that's the point.

All prior processor's could run hot if used.

And yes thermal throttle  24/7 or your use case is a week asss shit.

2xsimulation running continuously Will heat up anything.

And that's on a q6600, with modern high core count (4xthe core's) made to clock as high as possible within power and within 95°c.

I have a name for anyone expecting that to run cool but I'll keep it to myself.

All der8uar proved is that they're specifications are spot on even with too much cooling he couldn't get much more out of the chip, it had hit it's efficiency curve wall already.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> Pretty much what I said, no?
> 
> Der8auer did a delid and got a ~21C temperature drop with direct die cooling and liquid metal. He also commented on the IHS being _very_ thick, which inherently makes it less efficient at thermal transfer - the less material between the core and the cooler, the better, as you want heat into the water/heatpipes as quickly as possible if you want low core temperatures. Doubling IHS thickness is quite significant in this context. Still, it clearly works just fine. Does this mean the IHS is "trash"? No, but it's thicker than would be ideal. It's still fine.


I was de-lidding before Der8auer came up with the idea to be profitable from it. Inn fact he uses the thin shaving razor trick that of which I used in a tutorial back in 2009. 

Can't make the comment that it's too thick without trying a plate that's either smaller or larger used in the same fashion as the original. Which is near impossible to do because the plate is soldered.

Understanding what the thickness does, and why is a different story. From any experience I have personally, larger (including thicker) plates hold or store thermal energy. This gives you some time to dissipate the heat. 

Would you like to see some of my cold plates that I've used after de-lidding soldered processors??


----------



## freeagent (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> If 90+is cool then why don't we all just go back to stock heatsinks?


Big difference between 90 at 3.7 vs 90 at 5.7


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> I think that AMD no longer has a max boost clock in the traditional sense - more of a "Let's boost until we hit 95C!" sort of product. It's more of a "Minimum boost clock if your cooler can handle the official TDP".
> 
> The thick IHS does contribute to the ease of hitting the thermal wall though.


Someone mentioned somewhere (here? Another thread? No idea) that someone tested these "at stock" under LN2 and they topped out at ~5.7GHz, so there does seem to be a max boost clock, but one that's set sufficiently high that you won't actually reach it under normal operating conditions (save for 1t short term boost).


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> If 90+is cool then why don't we all just go back to stock heatsinks?


It's not cool, neither is 90c 


R-T-B said:


> Thankfully *winter is coming*...


It came & then it went, trashing one of the best buildups to a series ever!


Spoiler


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> 95c isn't what it's supposed to do.  It's a by product of reaching for the clocks they're supposed to hit. They aren't meant to just keep getting hotter even if they've met their performance targets.
> It's boost for x clock but if y temp is hit first then stay at x until y comes down.
> Not if x clock is met with y temp under its limit them push y to its limit.
> This shows throughout the stack of zen4 cpus, so the ihs is at fault.  AMD didn't suddenly start making 95c stock clock cpus. They started making a trash IHS.


No. You have 3 limits. Boost (in GHz), power (in W) and temperature (in °C). Whenever the CPU reaches one, that's its equilibrium state.

CPUs of the past reached their max boost limit first and called it a day. Then manufacturers started applying more juice and things got out of hand. That's why Intel's PL values and Tau, and AMD's PPT were invented. So the most recent CPUs hit power limits before anything. My i7 11700 is a great example. It has a power limit of 65 W. It runs at 2.8 GHz all-core in Cinebench when it's enforced. I can override it to use its max boost of 4.4 GHz with liquid cooling. Then it uses 160-170 W. This happens far before temperature limits are reached.

AMD's 5 nm chiplets are a different story. It's so small and efficient that you easily run into thermal limits before you even talk about any kind of insane power consumption. It's plain physics. If something is small, it can transfer less of its heat to the environment. That's why Zen 4 reaches its thermal limit before exhausting its power and boost headroom. You can apply some insane watercooling loop, and get up to power limits, but you're still at a limit. Or disable all limits and get up to max boost. That's still a limit. You're always limited by something, no matter what you do.

Whether a CPU is restricted to a certain core clock, or power, or a temperature level does very little to the end user experience.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> I was de-lidding before Der8auer came up with the idea to be profitable from it. Inn fact he uses the thin shaving razor trick that of which I used in a tutorial back in 2009.
> 
> Can't make the comment that it's too thick without trying a plate that's either smaller or larger used in the same fashion as the original. Which is near impossible to do because the plate is soldered.
> 
> Understanding what the thickness does, and why is a different story. From any experience I have personally, larger (including thicker) plates hold or store thermal energy. This gives you some time to dissipate the heat.


The last thing you want your IHS to do is to store thermal energy - you want it to _transfer_ it. Heatpipes have massively higher thermal transfer than copper, and the heatpipes are what meaningfully take heat away from your CPU. Thus, you want whatever is between your heatpipes (or water, I guess) to be as thin as possible, to have as little thermal resistance as possible between your heat source and what does the work in dissipating that heat.

I mean, if your IHS is _storing_ heat, then it's not _dissipating_ it, meaning that relative to the CPU, it's getting hotter - which in turn drives up CPU temperatures as the delta between CPU and IHS shrinks, as thermal delta is directly linked to the efficacy of thermal transfer. This is exactly what you don't want to happen.

As for when and how you and Der8auer started delidding ... who cares? Having done something for a long time does not necessarily equate to being better at it, or knowing more about it. Nor am I saying that Der8auer is the ultimate authority on anything - thick IHSes being a problem for dissipating heat is quite well established knowledge, and certainly not something I'm relying on him to understand. He just measured this to confirm what many have been suspecting.



Upgrayedd said:


> If 90+is cool then why don't we all just go back to stock heatsinks?


Because those are noisy and can't dissipate more than ~65W before hitting those temperatures?


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> If 90+is cool then why don't we all just go back to stock heatsinks?


Because you can reach higher boost with less noise using a better cooler.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> If 90+is cool then why don't we all just go back to stock heatsinks?


This comment is at least absurd

What are you trying to say?
That suddenly all CPUs can operate like 7000?
...or that users shouldnt/won't do their best to get more performance from 7000 by adding cooling?


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> This is absurd comment.
> 
> What are you trying to say?
> That suddenly all CPUs can operate like 7000?
> ...or that users shouldnt/won't do their best to get more performance from 7000 by adding cooling?


No, what they're trying to say is "waaaaa high temperature bad" by tossing out "arguments" that just demonstrate the fundamental lack of understanding behind what they're saying.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> No, what they're trying to say is "waaaaa high temperature bad" by tossing out "arguments" that just demonstrate the fundamental lack of understanding behind what they're saying.


Seems so...


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> The last thing you want your IHS to do is to store thermal energy - you want it to _transfer_ it. Heatpipes have massively higher thermal transfer than copper, and the heatpipes are what meaningfully take heat away from your CPU. Thus, you want whatever is between your heatpipes (or water, I guess) to be as thin as possible, to have as little thermal resistance as possible between your heat source and what does the work in dissipating that heat.
> 
> I mean, if your IHS is _storing_ heat, then it's not _dissipating_ it, meaning that relative to the CPU, it's getting hotter - which in turn drives up CPU temperatures as the delta between CPU and IHS shrinks, as thermal delta is directly linked to the efficacy of thermal transfer. This is exactly what you don't want to happen.
> 
> As for when and how you and Der8auer started delidding ... who cares? Having done something for a long time does not necessarily equate to being better at it, or knowing more about it. Nor am I saying that Der8auer is the ultimate authority on anything - thick IHSes being a problem for dissipating heat is quite well established knowledge, and certainly not something I'm relying on him to understand.


WTF? lol

Practice makes perfect. Of course I'm better at it and know more about it. Cause I've done it many many several times. 

In some cases, storing energy before dissipation works. What you don't get is, why.

It's based on time to move BTU. Understanding how to move 1200 btu/h is a different story. 

Yes the de-lid is effective. Always has been. Be it 5c or 20c drop, or increase, there's a reaction for the action. 

Most of the time, I use a larger plate, not smaller or none at all. 

BUT

The cold plate on the waterblock matters as well. That's why Bauer mentioned getting 250$ waterblocks instead of a little AIO with tiny cold plate, not much more impressive than the IHS plate. 

Ideally, move the thermals quickly. But AMD is not counting on everyone running naked die, so IHS plate is what your going to get.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> No, what they're trying to say is "waaaaa high temperature bad" by tossing out "arguments" that just demonstrate the fundamental lack of understanding behind what they're saying.



Part of me thinks they should have just ditched AM4 cooler compatibility and gone with a thinner ihs but I'm probably wrong.

They likely looked at platform cost and decided to at least let us keep our coolers....

I have no issues in general with the cpu boosting to 95C immediately because I know why it does it but it still going to make a lot of users uncomfortable running them I guess like with everything eventually people will get over it. I've also seen people ditch perfectly good Ryzen setups sometimes for lesser chips because they couldn't come to grips with how Zen2/3 boost but humans will be humans I guess.


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 28, 2022)

Well you have to factor in x3d chips as well, they'll be physically "higher" or taller however you look at it. There' also a good chance they'll add more meat on the some of the chiplets like that Xilinx IP.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> Someone mentioned somewhere (here? Another thread? No idea) that someone tested these "at stock" under LN2 and they topped out at ~5.7GHz, so there does seem to be a max boost clock, but one that's set sufficiently high that you won't actually reach it under normal operating conditions (save for 1t short term boost).


Exactly the boost clock or around it?


----------



## Night (Sep 28, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> Because the more cooling you're adding the more the CPU boosts so its 95C all over. This continues until power limit reached. Its as "simple" as that
> 
> If any one wants decreased temp can either set lower temp limit or power limit.
> Again simple as that...
> ...


Seeing the Precision Boost graph for the 7900X with a very capable Artcic Freezer II AIO dropping from 5.6 GHz with 1 thread in use down to 5.2-5.3 GHz with 24 threads in use is what I would call thermal throttling. Now imagine if someone would use a less capable AIO with a thinner radiator, they would most likely be clocking at < 5 GHz under full load. What I mean to say is that the increased work temperature should be addressed correctly by cooling manufacturers and the relevance of it. It doesn't matter that you'll reach 95 °C which is safe, but it matters at what frequency (at least to some)...


----------



## kapone32 (Sep 28, 2022)

freeagent said:


> I have a 7950X in my cart, have been trying to pull the trigger for a few hours now lol.
> 
> Will this be the CPU to drive me away from air cooling?
> 
> ...


I want you to do a week at 105w settings vs normal and see if there is a real difference. That seems to be my most interesting want for the 7950X.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> WTF? lol
> 
> Practice makes perfect. Of course I'm better at it and know more about it. Cause I've done it many many several times.


Practice makes perfect if you're working on the same thing constantly. If conditions and the tools involved change - like CPUs and technology have done in massive ways over the past decade and a half - then the thinking behind said practice also needs to change, otherwise you risk getting stuck in habits and modes of thinking and doing that applied to older tools but not newer ones. Experience _can_ make you an expert - or it can make you highly resistant to change through entrenching old habits and outmoded knowledge.

From how you're actively appealing to your experience as some form of unquestionable authority here, I'm tempted to place you firmly in the latter category. So far you've done nothing to dissuade me from that impression.


ShrimpBrime said:


> In some cases, storing energy before dissipation works. What you don't get is, why.
> 
> It's based on time to move BTU. Understanding how to move 1200 btu/h is a different story.


... and? Were you going somewhere with this?

If your IHS is _storing_ energy, then its temperature is rising. If its temperature is rising, then the delta between the CPU core and the IHS is shrinking (because CPU core thermal rise under load is essentially instantaneous). If the deltaT between core and IHS shrinks, the rate of thermal transfer between the two slows. If the thermal transfer between the two slows, the CPU temperature will again rise until it reaches a new equilibrium point between CPU and IHS temperatures and thermal transfer between them.


ShrimpBrime said:


> Most of the time, I use a larger plate, not smaller or none at all.


... and? Is this an argument? How?



If a thicker cold plate is better, why not just use a thick copper block between your cooler and IHS?


ShrimpBrime said:


> The cold plate on the waterblock matters as well.


... has anyone said otherwise? AFAIK we've been talking 'all else being equal' - if your cooling sucks, then your cooling sucks. We're not comparing coolers here, we're talking about the effects of an IHS in a thermal transfer chain.


ShrimpBrime said:


> Ideally, move the thermals quickly. But AMD is not counting on everyone running naked die, so IHS plate is what your going to get.


Yes, and they made a conscious choice to make that IHS very thick to keep cooler compatibility with AM4 coolers rather than slim it down to improve temperatures - a consumer-friendly choice, but also one that makes their temperatures look worse. They know that the CPUs can handle it, and can reach and maintain very high clock speeds under these conditions, so it's clearly not a problem. Which is what I've been saying all along. Two things can be true at once: that this is a perfectly fine design, _and_ that this IHS is thicker than what is ideal.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 28, 2022)

kapone32 said:


> I want you to do a week at 105w settings vs normal and see if there is a real difference. That seems to be my most interesting want for the 7950X.



There will be a difference but I doubt in normal usage scenarios unless he starts rendering for a living he would actually notice.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Part of me thinks they should have just ditched AM4 cooler compatibility and gone with a thinner ihs but I'm probably wrong.
> 
> They likely looked at platform cost and decided to at least let us keep our coolers....
> 
> I have no issues in general with the cpu boosting to 95C immediately because I know why it does it but it still going to make a lot of users uncomfortable running them I guess like with everything eventually people will get over it. I've also seen people ditch perfectly good Ryzen setups sometimes for lesser chips because they couldn't come to grips with how Zen2/3 boost but humans will be humans I guess.


I've thought the same thing, but think I've landed on keeping cooler compatibility being better - for this generation, at least. We'll see if it hurts them in the long run - that depends entirely on the design of upcoming generations though.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 28, 2022)

As for the IHS thickness:

All starts from AMD wanting to keep compatibility with some of existing coolers.
Lets breaking it down for better understanding because I see some people having problems getting their brains around it...

1. In order to do the cooler compatibility they had to keep the CPU package/socket small while increase pinout
2. Small socket with increased pinout does not allow any room for SMDs/Capacitors on the bottom of the CPU substrate
3. You put SMDs/Caps on the front side and try to come up with an IHS design that keeps 1/2 checked
4 You end up with a thicker IHS than what it could have been if you had gone with larger socket because it has all that gaps around while it must maintain durability.
5. The more heat produced from beneath the IHS, the harder you dissipate it through thicker materials. Even those with the best heat transfer rate.
6. Thats why the higher power SKUs hit ~95C and the lower ones don't.

So IHS is not poorly made. It had to cope with AMDs decisions-


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 28, 2022)

Is the thicker IHS thing even confirmed? I keep hearing this but did someone take it from a sample size of more than one on 7xxx series & 5xxx before that


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

R0H1T said:


> Well you have to factor in x3d chips as well, they'll be physically "higher" or taller however you look at it. There' also a good chance they'll add more meat on the some of the chiplets like that Xilinx IP.


This thickness difference is on the scale of fractions of a mm, and is easily compensated for by thinning out the IHS ever so slightly. They fit 3D stacked memory in AM4 with its thinner IHS, so it clearly wouldn't have been a problem on AM5. (And no, the added cache does not make the entire CPU thicker.)


Zach_01 said:


> You end up with a thicker IHS than what it could have been if you had gone with larger socket because it has all that gaps around while it must maintain durability.


That's a good point, and one I haven't considered all that much. Would be interesting to see someone clamp something to a stock AM5 IHS and one that's been shaved down by ~1.5mm and see if there's a difference in deflection from cooler mounting pressure.



R0H1T said:


> Is the thicker IHS thing even confirmed? I keep hearing this but did someone take it from a sample size of more than one on 7xxx series & 5xxx before that


Uh ... it's a cast metal piece. How much variance in thickness do you think there is between these within the same design? CPU Z-height is specified to within a fraction of a mm, and the CPU obviously adheres to the spec set by AMD.



Count von Schwalbe said:


> Exactly the boost clock or around it?


Can't remember, and can't find the post unfortunately. Too many active threads on the same subjects with too many pages right now.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 28, 2022)

I said that about LN2 cooling on stock PB settings (PBO=auto/disabled)


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 28, 2022)

Night said:


> Seeing the Precision Boost graph for the 7900X with a very capable Artcic Freezer II AIO dropping from 5.6 GHz with 1 thread in use down to 5.2-5.3 GHz with 24 threads in use is what I would call thermal throttling. Now imagine if someone would use a less capable AIO with a thinner radiator, they would most likely be clocking at < 5 GHz under full load. What I mean to say is that the increased work temperature should be addressed correctly by cooling manufacturers and the relevance of it. It doesn't matter that you'll reach 95 °C which is safe, but it matters at what frequency (at least to some)...


Going below base clock speed to maintain safe temperatures is thermal throttling. Decreasing boost to stay within a set thermal, power, etc limit is not.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 28, 2022)

AlwaysHope said:


> Getting a little off topic here, however security of employment is threatened by rising inflation in the private sector. This dynamic never changes throughout economic history.


true but also agree it's offtopic.  I'll drop it.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> Can't remember, and can't find the post unfortunately. Too many active threads on the same subjects with too many pages right now.





Zach_01 said:


> I said that about LN2 cooling on stock PB settings (PBO=auto/disabled)


The GamersNexus video I saw was about OC the 7950X at 6+GHz.
Before that he did a little test on stock to demonstrate boost behavior of 7000 and that its very different from what we know so far (hint).

He cooled (Tdie) it below -50C and run R23 MT (single runs). He run it first time and all core boost was above 5.7GHz
He run it a few times more while letting it warm up. By the time CPU reaches close to positive 90C the boost was down to 5.1~5.2GHz all core.
Score of R23 MT was (if I remeber correctly) from 42000+(maybe more) down to 38000+.

He has using HWiNFO64 but I dont know if Snapshot CPU Polling was enabled (I doubt it) and we couldnt see the effective clocks. I remember seeing the CPU Power Package at around 200W even on 5.7GHz all core boost, but at -50~60C. I didnt notice a core voltage tho at those speeds. I dont expect it to be too high because extreme cooling (low temperature in fact) decreases leakage so the need for voltage decreases.

I cant say that 5.7+GHz is the upper limit in frequency if there is still room in temperature and power. He didnt want to cool it too low (below -80~90C) because he didnt have the LN2 mode enabled in BIOS.
BIOS settings was all stock.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 28, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> The GamersNexus video I saw was about OC the 7950X at 6+GHz.
> Before that he did a little test on stock to demonstrate boost behavior of 7000 and that its very different from what we know so far (hint).
> 
> He cooled (Tdie) it below -50C and run R23 MT (single runs). He run it first time and all core boost was above 5.7GHz
> ...


I think it was mentioned in an article before that you can only maintain max boost clocks on the 7950X if it's operating below 50 °C, and it starts to gradually decrease clock speeds above it.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> but also one that makes their temperatures look worse.


Again, you don't know that. There was no other plate testing involved at all.
This is only an assumption and the reason I quoted you in the first place.

The rest of the semantics, I'm not interested in going back and forth on the subject, my last reply here....

In short, my point is = 

It takes time to get a plate to warm up (to whatever temp, that doesn't matter)
Thus
It takes time to dissipate the heat.

The point of that about thermal storage = 

Having stored energy gives you additional time to remove that heat. 

The heat increase is NOT exponential because you are removing it as it's created. 

How fast can you move it determines the productivity of your cooling solution be it removed the IHS plate or running a stock air cooler with a plate. Lots of variables, I don't have the time to cover all of them unfortunately. But any cooling solution not exotic relies on the end medium, ambient temps.

Lastly, it is obvious and true that larger plates or full copper water blocks work better. Because they have thermal storage through the mass. Also in addition to having also larger surface area inside and outside. If you touch a waterblock, it's warm, that means it's dissipating heat externally as well as internally. Put a fan on it, temps lower.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Again, you don't know that. There was no other plate testing involved at all.
> This is only an assumption and the reason I quoted you in the first place.


It's not an assumption. A thicker thermal interface being less efficient at dissipating heat is well established fact.


ShrimpBrime said:


> The rest of the semantics, I'm not interested in going back and forth on the subject, my last reply here....


Well, you seeing arguments about how thermal transfer works as 'semantics' might be part of the problem here...  


ShrimpBrime said:


> In short, my point is =
> 
> It takes time to get a plate to warm up (to whatever temp, that doesn't matter)
> Thus
> ...


But you're contradicting yourself here. If you're removing heat as it's being created, then you aren't storing it, you're transferring it. And if what you mean is that you're removing it from the die and transferring it into the IHS, then you're still not addressing the fact - yes, fact - that as the IHS temperature rises, thermal transfer between the die and IHS decreases, which causes cpu core temperatures to rise. This isn't up for discussion, this is how thermal transfer works. The smaller the deltaT, the slower the thermal transfer. Always.


ShrimpBrime said:


> How fast can you move it determines the productivity of your cooling solution be it removed the IHS plate or running a stock air cooler with a plate. Lots of variables, I don't have the time to cover all of them unfortunately. But any cooling solution not exotic relies on the end medium, ambient temps.


Again: yes, and? We are - once again - discussing the effect of IHS thickness on cooling, _all else being equal._ Changing other variables does not change this effect, only the basis for comparison. There are tons of variables in a cooling setup. We are discussing one of them.


ShrimpBrime said:


> Lastly, it is obvious and true that larger plates or full copper water blocks work better. Because they have thermal storage through the mass. Also in addition to having also larger surface area inside and outside. If you touch a waterblock, it's warm, that means it's dissipating heat externally as well as internally. Put a fan on it, temps lower.


No. Their larger surface area (mostly through larger microfin arrays) is why they're better, not through them being thicker or larger overall (mainly their larger size allows ro for larger microfin arrays simply because there's more room further out for structural/mechanical parts of the design). The outer parts of cold plate have minimal effects on cooling. The ideal cold plate has tons of surface area directly above the heat source (without restricting flow) while being as thin as possible while maintaining structural integrity.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> It's not an assumption. A thicker thermal interface being less efficient at dissipating heat is well established fact.
> 
> Well, you seeing arguments about how thermal transfer works as 'semantics' might be part of the problem here...
> 
> ...


ok

Oh don't hit the like button just yet.

I dissipate thermals on processors quite often.
And I have done a fair share of testing.

Both of our points are actually valid, but only to a certain extent.

So here's how I will portray plate differences.

Which water block do you think works best of the 2?

Which cold plate works best, I have 4 shown here.

The deal is, I'm probably the only one here that knows which cold plate would work best for high thermally challenged situations, I'll give a hint, it's not the Xbox 360 IHS plate, that's for sure.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 28, 2022)

Heat storing into a system made for cooling is not good.
Thick cold plate, thick TIM layer, thick IHS are sub-optimal for removing heat.

Why a lot of air cooler manufacturers chose the direct heatpipe contact? Because they wanted to lower cost from the cooler by ditching a chunk of metal?
No, because it was in the way to heat pipes.

If a water block has a thick-er cold plate from a another water block its because it needs it to sustain form under mount pressure. Even 0.001mm deformation on the cold plate surface under pressure can hurt its performance. Which one can you bend easier? A bigger or a smaller surface having same thickness? So bigger coldplate surfaced blocks need to be thicker.
When it comes to heat transfer the thinner the better.
Thickness works as insulation even on materials with high heat transfer ability.
If a bigger, thicker coldplated block has better performance is due to effective surface on the inside and the amount of water that can let through it. Those two (inside factors) can compensate the thickness of the coldplate by preserving the inside fins colder than the small block. So heat transfer is grater, as long as there is a big radiator to keep water colder and closer to ambient (than the small block).

The only thing better on a cooling system that stores energy is the time factor that its needed to reach its heat soaked condition, nothing else is better.

I know that what I'm saying on this post seems like in opposition with what I said about the 7000 IHS. But its not. The reason of thickness of 7000 IHS is the gaps that has around it and not its surface size.


----------



## Night (Sep 28, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> ok
> 
> Oh don't hit the like button just yet.
> 
> ...


Copper - better heat conductivity than aluminium, also bigger surface area = better heat dissipation


----------



## A Computer Guy (Sep 28, 2022)

freeagent said:


> I have a 7950X in my cart, have been trying to pull the trigger for a few hours now lol.


I've already spent my wad on 5950x this year and pretty happy with it but I have to admit 7950x is looking so good right now.  
Gonna wait for them to shake the bugs out with the new platform then consider replacing my 2700 in the next year or so.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 28, 2022)

A Computer Guy said:


> I've already spent my wad on 5950x this year and pretty happy with it but I have to admit 7950x is looking so good right now.
> Gonna wait for them to shake the bugs out with the new platform then consider replacing my 2700 in the next year or so.


I spent my wad on a 5950X as well. Then I downgraded to an 11700. Now I'm thinking about spending my wad on another AMD system.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> I dissipate thermals on processors quite often.


Lol, that is possibly the best line I've heard in a while. Though .. do you? I mean, _you_? Not your heatsinks?


ShrimpBrime said:


> And I have done a fair share of testing.


Cool.


ShrimpBrime said:


> Both of our points are actually valid, but only to a certain extent.
> 
> So here's how I will portray plate differences.
> 
> Which water block do you think works best of the 2?


Absolutely no idea, as I'm looking at them from the outside, and can't see pretty much anything about them. Utterly and completely impossible to tell.


ShrimpBrime said:


> Which cold plate works best, I have 4 shown here.


Depends on the chip they're covering as well as the cooler being placed on them (to some extent - as long as the cooler has sufficient contact and covers the entire reasonable IHS area, it's not very relevant).


ShrimpBrime said:


> The deal is, I'm probably the only one here that knows which cold plate would work best for high thermally challenged situations, I'll give a hint, it's not the Xbox 360 IHS plate, that's for sure.


... but a cold plate isn't an IHS. As for which is best, _obviously _you know that - they're yours, and you have tested them. And obviously nobody else does, as it's a random assortment of metal bits that you've taken a photo of, that the rest of us can barely make a guess at from the photo. Is this supposed to prove anything beyond you having experience with these specific pieces of metal and the rest of us not having that?

If it's a small, dense chip like a Ryzen 5000/7000? Then they're most likely roughly equal, including the Xbox 360 one - assuming they're all flat, they all make perfect contact with both the chip and the cooler, etc. Of course, unless you're machining your own cold plates with high precision metalworking tools, you're not actually controlling that, meaning you're introducing all kinds of variability just from differences in flatness, stiffness, etc. Whichever ones are thicker would impede thermal transfer more; whichever ones are smaller would have a marginal detrimental effect on cooling from lower area (assuming whatever you have cooling them can actually cool the entire area of the plate), but as the _vast_ majority of heat from a small heat source is transferred as straight through the IHS as is possible, the difference from this will be minimal. On the other hand, if you're doing something extreme that can make use of the massive surface area of one of those giant metal plates, then they are given an inherent advantage because they're being cooled below ambient, making their heat soaking ability into an actual cooling ability due to the inherently high thermal deltas from that.


Zach_01 said:


> Heat storing into a system made for cooling is not good.
> Thick cold plate, thick TIM layer, thick IHS are sub-optimal for removing heat.
> 
> Why a lot of air cooler manufacturers chose the direct heatpipe contact? Because they wanted to lower cost from the cooler by ditching a chunk of metal?
> ...


Exactly this. All materials are thermal insulators - some are just (much) worse than others. Copper is a very bad insulator. Heatpipes are _horrible_ insulators. You want as little of said insulation as possible between your heat source and whatever is dissipating your heat into ambient air.


There is one relatively minor exception to this: with direct contact heatpipe coolers, you need a sufficiently thick IHS to spread the heat out to the sides so that it reaches as many heatpipes as possible. The reason this is a minor exception is that "sufficiently thick" in this case really isn't a lot at all, and any structurally sound IHS able to handle cooler mounting pressure will be sufficiently thick for this.


Zach_01 said:


> I know that what I'm saying on this post seems like in opposition with what I said about the 7000 IHS. But its not. The reason of thickness of 7000 IHS is the gaps that has around it and not its surface size.


I don't think you're right about this though. I'm quite convinced that the only reason for the Ryzen 7000 IHS is maintaining cooler compatibility with AM4 coolers. There's nothing else they could have made thicker - making the socket taller would have been hell with all those pins and their spring force; making the substrate thicker would be expensive and wasteful. There isn't anything else to change to make up the height difference between AM5 with a thinner IHS and the bottom of an in-spec AM4 cooler - so they thickened the IHS to fill the gap, to maintain the same Z-height between the two.



Night said:


> Copper - better heat conductivity than aluminium, also bigger surface area = better heat dissipation


None of those are aluminium - silvery colored IHSes are nickel plated copper.


----------



## A Computer Guy (Sep 28, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> The deal is, I'm probably the only one here that knows which cold plate would work best for high thermally challenged situations, I'll give a hint, it's not the Xbox 360 IHS plate, that's for sure.


You don't have me fooled.  It's the water block on the upper right of course because of RGB which everyone knows makes everything cooler.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 28, 2022)

I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere a thicker base to a ln2 pot actually reduced temperatures, but I can't seem to find it. Maybe it was talking about a slow vs fast pot, which wouldn't really hold true for ambient cooling methods.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 28, 2022)

@oxrufiioxo Optimumtech has a video out on UV and power limiting the 7700X. Seems like an exact do-over of the 5800X - way too much power out of the box. Shaved off 50W for basically the same clocks/scores and temps all the way down from like 85 to 60C. 61C on an AIO should mean 70C or less on most air coolers.

The temp reduction comes from PPT/EDC and should be achievable by all. My mistake, PPT is not the only problem, the pure Eco Mode setup is still trash. Just pushing way too much stock Vcore. Still need to drop the volts, maybe CO combined with a static offset.

For his 7950X he only does -15 but still drops 20C. 75C at 180W is pretty close to Zen 3 2CCD behaviour - a bit much for slightly lower end air coolers but much more reasonable.

@freeagent 's purchase has me thinking unhealthy thoughts about the 5800X3D


----------



## Upgrayedd (Sep 28, 2022)

Love you guys.  6 pages about cpu thermals.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> Love you guys.  6 pages about cpu thermals.


In 24 hours.


----------



## Upgrayedd (Sep 28, 2022)

To expand my knowledge I'd like to ask about LN2
Why do such extreme temps need to be met to get the ln2 clocks.  Why can't those clocks be met at 0C or even above that. Why do they have to be brought to -90c with ln2? Why can't they achieve that on chilled water or something.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 28, 2022)

A Computer Guy said:


> You don't have me fooled.  It's the water block on the upper right of course because of RGB which everyone knows makes everything cooler.


That's a myth. RGB doesn't make a PC run cooler. Just faster.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 28, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere a thicker base to a ln2 pot actually reduced temperatures, but I can't seem to find it. Maybe it was talking about a slow vs fast pot, which wouldn't really hold true for ambient cooling methods.


This guy gets it. 

Yes some pots have a higher temp gradient than others. Temp swing on processors you're trying to heat up with LN2 can be difficult with processors or mainboards that have a cold bug. So bigger heavier pot takes longer to heat up. It also takes additional LN2 to bring the larger pots down to temp. The theory works in the opposite direction as well. However a CPU cannot heat an LN2 pot that quickly because of the surface area of the die it's self. Which is why they install a plate. 

IHS = Integrated Heat Spreader. It's a must. 

If they released only lidless chips, you wouldn't see processors much over 100w because a clipped on air cooler doesn't have the mass to store some BTU before dissipation. Anyone that's done extensive overclocking with socket A would understand this idea if they had tested with a plate vs naked. Almost always the plate helps. Even with an air cooler.

So plates you guys get. But don't nit pick the thickness. That was to accommodate for not having as much surface area they could have made with a different chip design, larger than 40mm.



Upgrayedd said:


> To expand my knowledge I'd like to ask about LN2
> Why do such extreme temps need to be met to get the ln2 clocks.  Why can't those clocks be met at 0C or even above that. Why do they have to be brought to -90c with ln2? Why can't they achieve that on chilled water or something.


I'd love to comment at this time, but gotta blast off to work. 

But in short, leakage. The cold reduces electrical leakage. @Zach_01 mentioned it earlier, but I didn't get a chance to reflect off his comments yet. 

Some chips/boards will run super cold -190c. Many more do not. Those getting into Liquid Nitrogen should practice on chips capable of running a full pot like Phenom II or FX AMD processors. Then you don't have to sit there and try and maintain a -30c to keep the system from hanging up (CB CBB). 

@Bones could probably fill in tons of information about LN2 as well. 

Talk to you all later!


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere a thicker base to a ln2 pot actually reduced temperatures, but I can't seem to find it. Maybe it was talking about a slow vs fast pot, which wouldn't really hold true for ambient cooling methods.


That's entirely possible - when you're working wiht a cooling medium that's that cold, you probably want a buffer in between it and the cores in order to have _some_ control over thermals. Also, the boiling of the LN2 if done directly on the die would be a _serious_ problem for cooling, as you'd have wildly fluctuating temperatures.

Of course, an LN2 pot isn't an IHS, nor is it a thermal interface as much as it is _a cooler_. It does the same job that your heatpipes and fins on your heatsink do - dissipate heat into another medium - just through boiling LN2 instead of heating air. And since the medium is sub-ambient and the main problem with it is _too much cooling_, you don't have the problem of heat soaking IHSes and coolers that you get wiht ambient coolers - turning the slow heat transfer of thicker pieces of metal into a useful buffer slowing down fluctuations rather than a hindrance for effective cooling. But this is due to the specific nature of LN2 cooling, and not anything even remotely transferable to other types of above-ambient cooling.



ShrimpBrime said:


> This guy gets it.
> 
> Yes some pots have a higher temp gradient than others. Temp swing on processors you're trying to heat up with LN2 can be difficult with processors or mainboards that have a cold bug. So bigger heavier pot takes longer to heat up. It also takes additional LN2 to bring the larger pots down to temp. The theory works in the opposite direction as well. However a CPU cannot heat an LN2 pot that quickly because of the surface area of the die it's self. Which is why they install a plate.


Yes, if we're talking LN2, which fundamentally changes how cooling operates in the first place - where the main problem is no longer dissipating heat, but rather _not cooling too much_. That makes it fundamentally incomparable.


ShrimpBrime said:


> IHS = Integrated Heat Spreader. It's a must.
> 
> If they released only lidless chips, you wouldn't see processors much over 100w because a clipped on air cooler doesn't have the mass to store some BTU before dissipation. Anyone that's done extensive overclocking with socket A would understand this idea if they had tested with a plate vs naked. Almost always the plate helps. Even with an air cooler.


That depends - delidded cooling can absolutely be good, but getting perfect contact with a tiny bare die is essentially impossible, especially given how fragile they are, so an IHS helps immensely with clamping a beefy cooler to the chip. Your LN2 pot, assuming it's pure copper, would still technically transfer thermal energy between the die and LN2 more efficiently without an IHS - but clamping a giant, >1kg copper pot to a 10x20mm die and expecting good contact? When good contact means microns of height difference across the die? That's not going to happen.


ShrimpBrime said:


> So plates you guys get. But don't nit pick the thickness. That was to accommodate for not having as much surface area they could have made with a different chip design, larger than 40mm.


No, the thickness is to make up for the lower Z-height of the LGA socket while maintaining AM4 cooler compatibility, as without it the vast majority of AM4 coolers would no longer have been compatible with AM5. Nor is it nit-picking - the chips _would_ run cooler with a thinner IHS. But as I've been saying all along: as long as performance is there (which it is), then it doesn't matter. The chip doesn't care if it's 95°C or 75°C, and boosts happily until that limits. People would be more comfortable with lower temperatures, but whatever. The IHS isn't ideal, but it does what it needs to do.


----------



## Upgrayedd (Sep 28, 2022)

Soo if the IHS was designed to be back compatible with AM4 coolers but if AM4 coolers can barely contain them then what's the point

Why not make it proper and shoot for a higher perf target

And about ln2 again.  How exactly does being extremely cold prevent leakage? Leakage where?  Are the gates being shrunk?


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> Soo if the IHS was designed to be back compatible with AM4 coolers but if AM4 coolers can barely contain them then what's the point
> 
> Why not make it proper and shoot for a higher perf target


Because they're already hitting what is essentially the ambient cooling performance ceiling for these chips with this cooling. You need to go sub-ambient for meaningful differences over what this delivers with a decent AIO even if that is hitting 95°C. So the only things they would gain from ditching AM4 cooler support would be lower temperatures at the same performance and thousands of annoyed customers. And that's a pretty easy choice, IMO.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> That's entirely possible - when you're working wiht a cooling medium that's that cold, you probably want a buffer in between it and the cores in order to have _some_ control over thermals. Also, the boiling of the LN2 if done directly on the die would be a _serious_ problem for cooling, as you'd have wildly fluctuating temperatures.
> 
> Of course, an LN2 pot isn't an IHS, nor is it a thermal interface as much as it is _a cooler_. It does the same job that your heatpipes and fins on your heatsink do - dissipate heat into another medium - just through boiling LN2 instead of heating air. And since the medium is sub-ambient and the main problem with it is _too much cooling_, you don't have the problem of heat soaking IHSes and coolers that you get wiht ambient coolers - turning the slow heat transfer of thicker pieces of metal into a useful buffer slowing down fluctuations rather than a hindrance for effective cooling. But this is due to the specific nature of LN2 cooling, and not anything even remotely transferable to other types of above-ambient cooling.
> 
> ...


I think you're basing your comment on the assumption that the IHS is an insulating layer between the CPU and the cooler when it isn't. You need material in your heat spreader, otherwise the tiny CPU cores only come in contact with a small fraction of the cooler coldplate - which I guess, can work when the cooler coldplate spreads the heat itself, but would be a terrible idea with a cooler with direct contact heatpipes (one or two pipes would touch the cores, the others would stay cold). If more material was a bad thing, then smaller coolers and radiators would be more effective than big ones.

I've got a 35 W Core i7 4th gen cooled by a passive block of aluminium which essentially works as a gigantic heat spreader. And indeed it works as the CPU warms up very slowly and never exceeds 60-62 °C.


----------



## Upgrayedd (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> Because they're already hitting what is essentially the ambient cooling performance ceiling for these chips with this cooling. You need to go sub-ambient for meaningful differences over what this delivers with a decent AIO even if that is hitting 95°C. So the only things they would gain from ditching AM4 cooler support would be lower temperatures at the same performance and thousands of annoyed customers. And that's a pretty easy choice, IMO.


So they've released an unlocked cpu than pretty much can't be OCd unless you're on ln2?


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> Soo if the IHS was designed to be back compatible with AM4 coolers but if AM4 coolers can barely contain them then what's the point
> 
> Why not make it proper and shoot for a higher perf target
> 
> And about ln2 again.  How exactly does being extremely cold prevent leakage? Leakage where?  Are the gates being shrunk?


Most AM4 coolers can handle the increased power draw of an AM5 processor. (excluding the cheapest ones ofc.)

Mostly the thick IHS is capable of transferring the heat, but due to its high thermal capacity, it requires a higher delta to move the heat across at the same speed. 

At lower boost clocks (AKA not benchmarking) it should show improvement on smaller coolers, as the IHS will absorb the sudden boost of heat. 


The incredibly low temperatures reduce the leakage due to weird physics stuff. Quantum tunneling becomes a thing when transistors go that small. The simple explanation is that the less spare thermal energy there is, the less the electrons tend to drift around. This increases stability by not corrupting differential charges across transistors, reduces the voltage required as less is wandering off, and reduces power draw.



AusWolf said:


> I think you're basing your comment on the assumption that the IHS is an insulating layer between the CPU and the cooler when it isn't. You need material in your heat spreader, otherwise the tiny CPU cores would only come in contact with a small fraction of the cooler coldplate. If more material was a bad thing, then smaller coolers and radiators would be more effective than big ones.
> 
> I've got a 35 W Core i7 4th gen cooled by a passive block of aluminium which essentially works as a gigantic heat spreader. And indeed it works as the CPU warms up very slowly and never exceeds 60-62 °C.


Heat spreaders are very necessary for air coolers, as heatpipes do not share the heat with each other very well. Only the pipes directly contacting the CPU will remove heat. However, every material has a thermal conductivity, so every material insulates. A thicker IHS will tend to reduce the speed of heat removal once you get thick enough to spread it across the full surface relatively evenly. Your Aluminum block is capable of dissipating the 35W across its entire surface area sufficiently and has enough surface area to dissipate 35W into the air, therefore your temperatures are stable. If this is not under sustained load, then what is happening is the block is absorbing heat spikes and is capable of dissipating your average power draw with the ~30-40 degree delta between CPU and ambient.


----------



## HD64G (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> So they've released an unlocked cpu than pretty much can't be OCd unless you're on ln2?


It simply auto-oc once thermals are lower than the limits. That happened during all Zen arch cpus.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> So they've released an unlocked cpu than pretty much can't be OCd unless you're on ln2?


I'll give you that, yes they did.

But that same CPU release like the one before had circuits to make it auto overclock, to it's reasonable max, that anyone could get with reasonable hardware, FOR EVERYONE.

Automatically.

Anyone who has tried to Oc the earlier Ryzen found out the gains were small without THE same exotic cooling, AMd had pretty much maxed them.

So some of us already have 2X 360 rads, that were not bought years ago for nothing.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> So they've released an unlocked cpu than pretty much can't be OCd unless you're on ln2?


The unlocked CPU concept is fading more and more like the static OC with every new generation.

For the avg user that is...


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 28, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> So they've released an unlocked cpu than pretty much can't be OCd unless you're on ln2?


Locked or unlocked only matters of you're hitting max boost limits. If your limit is power or heat, you can't OC anyway.

You can consider it as being limited way under max boost clocks. Or you can consider it as being auto OCd up until the CPU runs into any limit. I prefer the latter.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> I think you're basing your comment on the assumption that the IHS is an insulating layer between the CPU and the cooler when it isn't. You need material in your heat spreader, otherwise the tiny CPU cores only come in contact with a small fraction of the cooler coldplate - which I guess, can work when the cooler coldplate spreads the heat itself, but would be a terrible idea with a cooler with direct contact heatpipes (one or two pipes would touch the cores, the others would stay cold). If more material was a bad thing, then smaller coolers and radiators would be more effective than big ones.


Lol, I said pretty much exactly the same thing a few pages back - that direct touch heatpipes is the one case where you absolutely need an IHS (though I guess we can add LN2 to that list as well). Non-direct touch coolers have that spreading layer built in. But it _is_ an insulating layer - everything that isn't a heatpipe or water is. It slows thermal dissipation - but it also spreads heat out. The question is whether it does too much of the former vs. too little of the latter. Which is the case if the IHS is too thick, and thus why a thicker IHS leads to higher core temperatures, as the thermal equilibrium of the setup rises in tune to the higher thermal resistance of the IHS.


AusWolf said:


> I've got a 35 W Core i7 4th gen cooled by a passive block of aluminium which essentially works as a gigantic heat spreader. And indeed it works as the CPU warms up very slowly and never exceeds 60-62 °C.


That's quite impressive, but you're just demonstrating that you can hit thermal equilibrium with all kinds of setups, and that this one has such a low heat load that even a large thermal mass with very little surface area relative to its mass can still do the job in this case. That doesn't mean it's any more efficient than if that same mass consisted of heatpipes and fins, after all, nor that it wouldn't likely work the better without an IHS (given good flatness and contact). And, of course, the discussion is considering the effect of IHS thickness assuming all else is equal (otherwise it's literally impossible to discuss).


Upgrayedd said:


> So they've released an unlocked cpu than pretty much can't be OCd unless you're on ln2?


Yes, as has been the case for pretty much every generation of Ryzen. You can achieve minor OCs (especially in multicore, but also some boost clock) with PBO offsets and CO tuning, but you're not getting a stable static OC above boost clock without exotic cooling.


----------



## RJARRRPCGP (Sep 28, 2022)

What about my Ryzen chips? I have been suspecting that they possibly can't handle 90C (Windows suddenly rebooting during the same tasks, where it's known to be stable, with "WHEA_UNCORRECTABLE_ERROR" reported in the event log, with the reason being "Cache Hierarchy Error" every time with my Ryzens, both the Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 5 5600X)

I only saw this happening with a warm room, 95 percent or roughly 95 percent of the time!


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 28, 2022)

RJARRRPCGP said:


> What about my Ryzen chips? I have been suspecting that they possibly can't handle 90C (Windows suddenly rebooting during the same tasks, where it's known to be stable, with "WHEA_UNCORRECTABLE_ERROR" reported in the event log, with the reason being "Cache Hierarchy Error" every time with my Ryzens, both the Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 5 5600X)
> 
> I only saw this happening with a warm room, 95 percent or roughly 95 percent of the time!


Sounds like the Vcore is a little low at stock and the increased leakage at 90C is causing low voltage instability. The 7K series apparently has an aggressive Vcore at stock, which is one of the reasons for the high temps and power draw.


----------



## freeagent (Sep 28, 2022)

My reboots usually come after 100c sometime


----------



## ARF (Sep 28, 2022)

Conclusion:



> Overall, this shows that AMD Ryzen 7000 CPUs are definitely the hottest chips on the market right now and you will need to invest lots of money in high-end coolers just to keep them under a normal operating temp.



AMD Ryzen 7000 CPU Direct-Die Cooling Can Offer Up To 20C Lower Temps, IHS Hot Spots & Temps Analyzed (wccftech.com)

AMD just produced the most terrible shitshow in its history.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 29, 2022)

ARF said:


> Conclusion:
> 
> AMD Ryzen 7000 CPU Direct-Die Cooling Can Offer Up To 20C Lower Temps, IHS Hot Spots & Temps Analyzed (wccftech.com)
> 
> AMD just produced the most terrible shitshow in its history.


I don't get it.

Running a CPU pegged at its max boost clock is fine. Running a CPU pegged at its max power limit is also fine. But running one pegged at its temperature limit while still maintaining boost is suddenly not fine?

Or did you want AMD to release Zen 4 with base clocks of 3.5-4 GHz and max boost clocks of 4.5 GHz at 75-80 °C? What difference would it have made?

The only thing AMD did with Zen 4 is they've set it to auto overclock up to whatever your cooling can handle so you won't have to do it yourself.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 29, 2022)

Valantar said:


> Lol, I said pretty much exactly the same thing a few pages back - that direct touch heatpipes is the one case where you absolutely need an IHS (though I guess we can add LN2 to that list as well). Non-direct touch coolers have that spreading layer built in. But it _is_ an insulating layer - everything that isn't a heatpipe or water is. It slows thermal dissipation - but it also spreads heat out. The question is whether it does too much of the former vs. too little of the latter. Which is the case if the IHS is too thick, and thus why a thicker IHS leads to higher core temperatures, as the thermal equilibrium of the setup rises in tune to the higher thermal resistance of the IHS.
> 
> That's quite impressive, but you're just demonstrating that you can hit thermal equilibrium with all kinds of setups, and that this one has such a low heat load that even a large thermal mass with very little surface area relative to its mass can still do the job in this case. That doesn't mean it's any more efficient than if that same mass consisted of heatpipes and fins, after all, nor that it wouldn't likely work the better without an IHS (given good flatness and contact). And, of course, the discussion is considering the effect of IHS thickness assuming all else is equal (otherwise it's literally impossible to discuss).
> 
> Yes, as has been the case for pretty much every generation of Ryzen. You can achieve minor OCs (especially in multicore, but also some boost clock) with PBO offsets and CO tuning, but you're not getting a stable static OC above boost clock without exotic cooling.


Exactly. You need the heat spreader to spread the heat to larger surface, but not too thick to act as a storage. You need only a passthough to wider area.


Valantar said:


> I don't think you're right about this though. I'm quite convinced that the only reason for the Ryzen 7000 IHS is maintaining cooler compatibility with AM4 coolers. There's nothing else they could have made thicker - making the socket taller would have been hell with all those pins and their spring force; making the substrate thicker would be expensive and wasteful. There isn't anything else to change to make up the height difference between AM5 with a thinner IHS and the bottom of an in-spec AM4 cooler - so they thickened the IHS to fill the gap, to maintain the same Z-height between the two.


Could be this too yes, or just this...


----------



## ARF (Sep 29, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> I don't get it.
> 
> Running a CPU pegged at its max boost clock is fine. Running a CPU pegged at its max power limit is also fine. But running one pegged at its temperature limit while still maintaining boost is suddenly not fine?
> 
> ...



Neither of the things that you've just mentioned is fine. If someone wants you to believe it, then they simply want to sell you something bad.

Hot air is not fine - keep it mind that your case exhaust will put that air in your room.

It's an engineering fail:



> *Igor's cooler testing shows that none of the air coolers can maintain CPU temperatures below 90C under load with the AMD Ryzen 7000 CPUs while liquid coolers can allow around 75-80C temps if you are running a really good setup with lots of airflows.*


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 29, 2022)

ARF said:


> Neither of the things that you've just mentioned is fine. If someone wants you to believe it, then they simply want to sell you something bad.
> 
> Hot air is not fine - keep it mind that your case exhaust will put that air in your room.


CPU temperature and case temperature are not the same thing. I learned this with my R5 3600 experience. The CPU was running hot, but the be quiet! Shadow Rock LP sitting on it was cold to the touch no matter what PPT setting I used. The CPU just wasn't transferring its heat to the cooler efficiently enough. I had to decrease PPT all the way to 65 W for CPU temps to be tolerable in an airflow-restricted Aerocool CS-101 case. I didn't have this problem with the i7 11700 that I could crank up to 125-130 W before I got bad temperatures. The cooler got warm together with the CPU, unlike with the 3600.

Link is in my signature, if you want to read about it in detail.

Edit: If I knew what I know now about temperature limits back then, I probably would have kept the 3600. Oh well.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 29, 2022)

ARF said:


> Conclusion:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





ARF said:


> Neither of the things that you've just mentioned is fine. If someone wants you to believe it, then they simply want to sell you something bad.
> 
> Hot air is not fine - keep it mind that your case exhaust will put that air in your room.
> 
> It's an engineering fail:


I think you've missed about 5~6 pages of analyzing this

You're not supposed to cool this CPU under 95C only to dissipate more heat and let it boost high, if max performance is the goal. Der8aur likes tool/LM sales...
Nothing has failed except from some old (in thought)people that cant wrap their brains around it.

Let me ask you this:

Which CPU from those 2 below will heat up the room faster?

Constant long term values:
1. 220W at 95C
2. 220W at 80C

How about these 2?

Constant long term values:
1. 215W at 95C
2. 220W at 80C


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 29, 2022)

ARF said:


> Neither of the things that you've just mentioned is fine. If someone wants you to believe it, then they simply want to sell you something bad.
> 
> Hot air is not fine - keep it mind that your case exhaust will put that air in your room.
> 
> It's an engineering fail:


Have you missed Intel's last few releases, not many of those top end chips were known for they're low testosterone(mwahhhhaha I meant temperature, dick of a phone)

Funny you better slate Intel's new KS when it's arse by your ideology.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 29, 2022)

TheoneandonlyMrK said:


> Have you missed Intel's last few releases, not many of those top end chips were known for they're low testosterone(mwahhhhaha I meant temperature, dick of a phone)
> 
> Funny you better slate Intel's new KS when it's arse by your ideology.


If that was unintentional, you have entered the DYAC hall of fame. 

If you have hot air pouring into your room from this CPU, I would encourage you to observe the TBP of recent generation GPU's, and the TDP and whatever they call PTT of Intel CPU's. 

Also, you need to boost your case fans because the delta T of air through your computer case should not be high, or you are starving your components of air. 

Ryzen is now doing the same thing as Radeon, Core, and GeForce to remain competitive. 

If we don't like it, maybe we shouldn't have bought the products that did it.


----------



## DemonicRyzen666 (Sep 29, 2022)

My only though to this is do you think case design will change again for CPU's like it did with larger GPU's & the removal of the disc drives for better airflow?

What's next for case desgin? Baffles to keep hot GPU air from Flowing up the CPU's because the increase in wattage?
Or do w need to go back to Blower Cards?

I'm not a fan of these new heatsinks on cards that blow hot air all around the case. I prefer when the air flows out the back of the case.
I was recently looking at two AMD graphics cards from the same board partner that were only 20 watts away from each other. I noticed the main difference wasn't size of the heat sink it was weight the higher wattage one weighed more by 1/4 of the less wattage. The fin orinitation was different too one Horizonital the other veritcal, but they both had the same fans.


----------



## mplayerMuPDF (Sep 29, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> I mean, it's a 3 year warranty.......they're not promising 10 years. For all the bitching about Intel 4C/8T, we got generations of hella long-lasting CPUs......but none of that was promised.


But isn't that exactly why we should distrust AMD's and Intel's statements that "its' fine" to run at these high temps? After all, they would rather just sell you a new CPU after 3 or whatever years... Personally, I have no interest in squeezing out the last drop of performance out of my hardware (at least through hardware measures) and so I have a very conservative setup that I hope can last 10 years or more if necessary.


----------



## sepheronx (Sep 29, 2022)

Hopefully not a repost:


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 29, 2022)

DemonicRyzen666 said:


> My only though to this is do you think case design will change again for CPU's like it did with larger GPU's & the removal of the disc drives for better airflow?
> 
> What's next for case desgin? Baffles to keep hot GPU air from Flowing up the CPU's because the increase in wattage?
> Or do w need to go back to Blower Cards?
> ...


Desktop CPUs with this kind of wattage (200+W up to 250+W) exist for many many years now. How is Ryzen7000 any different?
On the other hand GPUs gone wild lately (last couple of years at 350+W) and they will continue further... see the 450W of the all new RTX4090 with the 3-4slots coolers


----------



## A Computer Guy (Sep 29, 2022)

ARF said:


> Neither of the things that you've just mentioned is fine. If someone wants you to believe it, then they simply want to sell you something bad.
> 
> Hot air is not fine - keep it mind that your case exhaust will put that air in your room.
> 
> It's an engineering fail:


If you tweak the PPT and apply curves you can reduce temps by 30 degrees with minimal performance loss.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 29, 2022)

mplayerMuPDF said:


> But isn't that exactly why we should distrust AMD's and Intel's statements that "its' fine" to run at these high temps? After all, they would rather just sell you a new CPU after 3 or whatever years... Personally, I have no interest in squeezing out the last drop of performance out of my hardware (at least through hardware measures) and so I have a very conservative setup that I hope can last 10 years or more if necessary.



Pretty much. I have a bit more faith in Intel since their 10ESF/7 process seems still pretty durable at 5GHz despite being a N7 class product. After my experience with 3700X and 4650G degrading I've pretty much accepted that if AMD says it's safe, it's safe......for 3 years  

But that's the price of staying competitive. No sense in leaving extra headroom on the table. Raphael is certainly driving that point home, much, much more so than Zen3. Ryzen in games doesn't scale with clock, but in Cinebench it certainly does, and that's precisely the results AMD is trumpeting.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 29, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> After my experience with 3700X and 4650G degrading I've pretty much accepted that if AMD says it's safe, it's safe......for 3 years
> 
> But that's the price of staying competitive. No sense in leaving extra headroom on the table. Raphael is certainly driving that point home, much, much more so than Zen3.


Was those 2 run at stock settings?


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 29, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> Was those 2 run at stock settings?



The 4650G wasn't, and lasted about a week without that much load. The 3700X always was and lasted less than a year before it started fall apart. Of course, Ryzen is susceptible to different things than Core.

But like I said, bulletproof CPUs are a thing of the past.


----------



## mplayerMuPDF (Sep 29, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> Pretty much. I have a bit more faith in Intel since their 10ESF/7 process seems still pretty durable at 5GHz despite being a N7 class product. After my experience with 3700X and 4650G degrading I've pretty much accepted that if AMD says it's safe, it's safe......for 3 years
> 
> But that's the price of staying competitive. No sense in leaving extra headroom on the table. Raphael is certainly driving that point home, much, much more so than Zen3.


And that is exactly why I paid $150 for a 1600 AF (2600 had become ridiculously expensive) in 2020 instead of getting a 3600 for $10 more. I trusted Zen+ with its more conservative boost algorithm and 12 nm node more than Zen 2 with its hyper aggressive boost and (then new) 7 nm node. Because I don't know when I will have the money to upgrade my CPU (and motherboard). And if I do eventually have money to spend on PC parts, then there are multiple things that are a much higher priority (such replacing my 8 year old UltraStar and 8 year old monitor and getting a different case). People need to understand that these corporations are only looking out for themselves and that *they* also need to look out for *themselves*, no one else is going to do that for you, certainly not with the current state of the world.


----------



## Night (Sep 29, 2022)

Valantar said:


> None of those are aluminium - silvery colored IHSes are nickel plated copper.


Are you sure? Look at the Athlon's IHS, it's fairly scratched and yet it's still "silvery", no sign of copper there.


----------



## ARF (Sep 29, 2022)

A Computer Guy said:


> If you tweak the PPT and apply curves you can reduce temps by 30 degrees with minimal performance loss.



I have another idea. How about you don't buy the said CPU and don't tweak the PPT?


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 29, 2022)

Valantar said:


> That's entirely possible - when you're working wiht a cooling medium that's that cold, you probably want a buffer in between it and the cores in order to have _some_ control over thermals. Also, the boiling of the LN2 if done directly on the die would be a _serious_ problem for cooling, as you'd have wildly fluctuating temperatures.
> 
> Of course, an LN2 pot isn't an IHS, nor is it a thermal interface as much as it is _a cooler_. It does the same job that your heatpipes and fins on your heatsink do - dissipate heat into another medium - just through boiling LN2 instead of heating air. And since the medium is sub-ambient and the main problem with it is _too much cooling_, you don't have the problem of heat soaking IHSes and coolers that you get wiht ambient coolers - turning the slow heat transfer of thicker pieces of metal into a useful buffer slowing down fluctuations rather than a hindrance for effective cooling. But this is due to the specific nature of LN2 cooling, and not anything even remotely transferable to other types of above-ambient cooling.
> 
> ...


See how you broke all that up into different quotes and stuff?? It really makes 6 conversations instead of 1.

Yes LN2 Pot is EXACTLY like an air cooler or waterblock.
BUT (the part about thermal storage comes in here....)
It's massive size and mass is where you STORE a temperature, which all temps above 0 kelvin are considered a heat.

But you couldn't explain why that Big ass plate works better with TEC cooling than the IHS plate that's soldered to a chip.

It's impossible to TEC cool a 2700X. I only know one person that's accomplished it though.

And it wasn't believing a smaller cold plate is better. Not at all. The opposite in fact. A small cold plate doesn't store enough thermal energy in either direction.

Be it you consider it being "cooled" off, or in my perspective heating it up with a little dash in front of the number, say like -25c idle or so.

Sure this blows my mind thinking about it. I've removed a lot of Top plates man. Probably just about every single chip I've ever owned or touched.... some 125 chips maybe.... I dunno, would have to look.

But proof comes in pudding, and I have some of that.

2700X 4ghz vs TEC -

Just before the run ended with load temp - and the score/idle temps... well near idle. w/e time it took to take the screen shot. This set up hit -30 with a water delta of about 50f **Tap to drain **Geothermal liquid cooling on the TEC)

The last picture was to "raise up" so I could contact the chip with my Dice Pot. And it's fun to show off an Xbox chip in a s939 board. And it did get frozen, -26c at load 3800+X2 Toledo.

Look at that nice big plate on lidless 2700x. Doing a fine job storing thermals. Decent temp gradient.

The leakage reduction was really decent too. On average this chip is 4000mhz 1.40v -

Here depicted at only 1.19v but under 20c load.
At idle on defaults, the CPU sits all core at it's maximum frequency 4350mhz. But even at load, because the algorithm isn't told it's frozen, runs 3.9ghz all core. So this below is done with a statically given overclock and v-core reduction. Obviously for testing, I'd rather do it myself. AI doesn't know what I'm trying to do here haha.

SO NO, I cannot agree that a smaller plate would be better even with an ambient water cooling because I've used the smaller plate in the pic from my previous post for that. It works better than the IHS plate and I can prove that with a 5.7ghz FX-9590 (hottest damn chip of all times, which I did de-lid also...) a larger plate stores thermal energy. Just enough to make a difference like you see below.

Hats off to the Nay sayers. It's all good, I ain't mad atcha.

EDIT: I'll include a short thread. It was moved quickly over from a forum that has closed, so it's not really as complete as it once was. 
There is a smaller plate in this thread that I didn't get a picture of because it's in another box somewhere. Any how it's a little larger than the IHS plate.
The results, are not quite as good as the larger plate. Really had a difficult time with it actually, it would heat up pretty fast. 




__





						2700X De-lid + TEC cooling experiments. | Warp9-systems
					

Well, it was a pretty smooth de-lid. The glue is cheaper and easier to cut. I noticed the adhesive on the cpu covering the PCB is much cheaper also. You can pick and peel it off with your finger




					warp9-systems.proboards.com
				























Air coolers are meant to be operated at a higher temperature when they are most efficient. 

Water blocks with larger cold plates or full copper work better. Not cheap, but additional surface area and thermal storage. Usually better at keeping temp spikes low as well. Because it takes longer to warm the block and coolant and then the radiators. When warm, the radiators are most efficient. So a water loop as a LOT MORE thermal storage than an air cooler and pretty much WHY they work better and AIOs sell like hot cakes. Most people just think water cooling is better, but don't understand why. 

The you upgrade to a LN2 pot and it's got almost as much mass as the entire water loop in a giant chunk on top of the CPU. Thermally storing energy from LN2. Holes for additional surface area and depending on those two variables mass and surface area, is how your temp gradient will act. 

So as you see, as you step up your cooling solution, you step up your available thermal storage. Be it a plate, or some coolant in a reservoir. 

I think AMD should have gone with a much larger chip size than 40mm so they could not only increase the surface area of the chip, but it would have additional thermal storage as well. 

HOWEVER!!! 

I will agree at some point TOO MUCH or too large of a plate has it's down sides. I'm speaking about in comparison to the current AMD IHS plates released, they should have gone bigger. Probably should have, but hey, engineers design it and technicians repair it or make it better with some tweaks.  

Enjoy


----------



## Valantar (Sep 29, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> See how you broke all that up into different quotes and stuff?? It really makes 6 conversations instead of 1.


No, it makes it possible to respond to individual statements so that things are at least moderately readable, unlike this wall of spaced-out sentences you've posted here.


ShrimpBrime said:


> [massive wall of random statements with dubious relations to the topic]


Okay, I had a long answer here, but reading to the end of your post has made it abundantly clear to me that _we're not discussing the same thing_. You've been working off of radically different assumptions for what is being discussed here, and arguing against my statements _about a given platform_ with statements that assume every single variable is up for discussion. It isn't. Yes, there is a relation between die size, IHS size, and IHS thickness. For a given platform, IHS size is fixed, as it's determined by the socket and package dimensions (with maybe a mm or two of leeway for tweaking the design in X and Y directions. So: the area of the IHS for any given platform is fixed, and not up for discussion - at least unless it's brought up at the beginning of the damn discussion. Which you didn't. You responded to me saying the IHS was too thick by arguing that no, a thicker IHS would be better. Which ... no. Just no.

*The question I've been trying to discuss with you this whole time has been this: given the size of AM5 heatsinks, assuming a cooler designed for the platform, would it be better with a thinner IHS?* This is what I have argued for. Neither more nor less. You've come here dragging in all kinds of absurd examples, which are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. If you have been trying to argue this whole time that the fundamental characteristics of the platform are wrong, _then why didn't you say so? _It is so utterly and completely frustrating to try have a discussion with someone who doesn't even try to clarify the parameters of what they're discussing. This is also why you've been constantly contradicting yourself in all kinds of ways: because you've been responding to my arguments that presuppose that all other factors are pre-given with statements that assume that everything is in flux, making your logic fundamentally inapplicable to the question at hand.

To sum up: for any given surface area, a thinner IHS is better, assuming it has sufficient thickness to be mechanically stable and isn't so thin as to entirely hinder spreading heat outwards (which generally overlaps with mechanical stability - an IHS so thin as to stop heat spreading outwards sufficiently would also bend under pressure). Which I have come to believe that you agree with.

Whether the AM5 socket should have had a _larger _IHS is an _entirely_ different discussion.



ARF said:


> Conclusion:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why on earth are you linking garbage rumor mill site WCCFtech instead of Der8auer's video for this? You prefer to use a secondary source notorious for _terrible_ analysis rather than the original source? Cool.


ARF said:


> Neither of the things that you've just mentioned is fine. If someone wants you to believe it, then they simply want to sell you something bad.
> 
> Hot air is not fine - keep it mind that your case exhaust will put that air in your room.


Jesus, have you read _anything_ that has been posted in all the various 7000-series threads? _CPU core temperature does not equal heat exhausted into your room_. _Power draw_ _equals heat exhausted into your room_. The absolute temperature of your CPU is _not_ directly tied to the amount of heat energy put out by the system - if it was, then you wouldn't be able to lower temperatures with better cooling on any CPU ever.

The absolute temperature of the CPU is a function of power consumption and how quickly the cooling setup (TIM, IHS, TIM, cooler, ambient air temp) is able to move heat away from the core.

The heat output into ambient air is a function of the power consumption of the core. Period. If your CPU is consuming 230W consistently, then 230W of heat energy is being dumped into your room, regardless if the CPU cores are 30°C or 95°C.



mplayerMuPDF said:


> But isn't that exactly why we should distrust AMD's and Intel's statements that "its' fine" to run at these high temps? After all, they would rather just sell you a new CPU after 3 or whatever years... Personally, I have no interest in squeezing out the last drop of performance out of my hardware (at least through hardware measures) and so I have a very conservative setup that I hope can last 10 years or more if necessary.


That's what Eco mode is for. IMO, that should have been the default setting for these CPUs, but sadly the competitive situation makes things different right now.


Night said:


> Are you sure? Look at the Athlon's IHS, it's fairly scratched and yet it's still "silvery", no sign of copper there.


It takes quite a lot of effort to scratch through a nickel plating. It's not tin foil.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 29, 2022)

Valantar said:


> That's what Eco mode is for. IMO, that should have been the default setting for these CPUs, but sadly the competitive situation makes things different right now.



At least on 1CCD Eco Mode doesn't solve anything on its own, it's still way too much Vcore. Same with only CO, too much power. Gotta combine them to make a difference to temps, and that's where the problem lies - Intel generally has pretty hefty undervolt headroom across the board but AMD has pretty wild variance in achievable CO from sample to sample. Haven't really ever seen great CO headroom from 2CCD parts in general


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 29, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> Pretty much. I have a bit more faith in Intel since their 10ESF/7 process seems still pretty durable at 5GHz despite being a N7 class product. After my experience with 3700X and 4650G degrading I've pretty much accepted that if AMD says it's safe, it's safe......for 3 years
> 
> But that's the price of staying competitive. No sense in leaving extra headroom on the table. Raphael is certainly driving that point home, much, much more so than Zen3. Ryzen in games doesn't scale with clock, but in Cinebench it certainly does, and that's precisely the results AMD is trumpeting.





tabascosauz said:


> The 4650G wasn't, and lasted about a week without that much load. The 3700X always was and lasted less than a year before it started fall apart. Of course, Ryzen is susceptible to different things than Core.
> 
> But like I said, bulletproof CPUs are a thing of the past.


The 3700X degraded at stock?  What were the symptoms if you don't mind me asking? I'm getting less tempted to invest in an AMD system again when I hear about things like this.

Edit: How did you cool it? How hot did it run? Sorry for the million questions.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 29, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> The 3700X degraded at stock?  What were the symptoms if you don't mind me asking? I'm getting less tempted to invest in an AMD system again when I hear about things like this.
> 
> Edit: How did you cool it? How hot did it run? Sorry for the million questions.



Just air. Some combination of U9S, Dark Rock Pro 4 and C14S. The 3700X doesn't really boost so doesn't really get hot, 70s ish max maybe. Most of the time the VRM on that shitty board ran hotter (B450I Aorus Pro Wifi). Both Fabric and cores degraded, about a year in started seeing both 18s (Cache Hierarchy) and 19s (Bus/Interconnect). 

Been through the wringer with AMD but I wouldn't be so pessimistic. Just Zen 2 sus - N7FF yields and SP problem, CPPC, WHEA, etc. all new concepts. AMD started dialing it back on current when B550 released (AGESA 1006??), then Zen 3 got much more conservative, and now 5800X3D feels like a locked Intel CPU lol (Robert said 1.35V tops, more like 1.28V and 1.15V after CO)

that said, N5 is a new process and you know how I feel about AMD when they get their hands on brand new toys


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 29, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> Just air. Some combination of U9S, Dark Rock Pro 4 and C14S. The 3700X doesn't really boost so doesn't really get hot, 70s ish max maybe. Most of the time the VRM on that shitty board ran hotter (B450I Aorus Pro Wifi). Both Fabric and cores degraded, about a year in started seeing both 18s (Cache Hierarchy) and 19s (Bus/Interconnect).
> 
> Been through the wringer with AMD but I wouldn't be so pessimistic. Just Zen 2 sus - N7FF yields and SP problem, CPPC, WHEA, etc. all new concepts. AMD started dialing it back on current when B550 released (AGESA 1006??), then Zen 3 got much more conservative, and now 5800X3D feels like a locked Intel CPU lol (Robert said 1.35V tops, more like 1.28V and 1.15V after CO)
> 
> that said, N5 is a new process and you know how I feel about AMD when they get their hands on brand new toys


Maybe that was AMD still trying to figure out how a chiplet-based CPU works. You scared me by saying that it degraded at stock nonetheless. That should never happen with any CPU. 

Maybe I'll just buy an A770 GPU for sh*ts and giggles now, and save up for a platform upgrade for my birthday in March. Early adopter problems will have surfaced by then, and prices might come down a bit as well.


----------



## Vario (Sep 29, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> Just air. Some combination of U9S, Dark Rock Pro 4 and C14S. The 3700X doesn't really boost so doesn't really get hot, 70s ish max maybe. Most of the time the VRM on that shitty board ran hotter (B450I Aorus Pro Wifi). Both Fabric and cores degraded, about a year in started seeing both 18s (Cache Hierarchy) and 19s (Bus/Interconnect).
> 
> Been through the wringer with AMD but I wouldn't be so pessimistic. Just Zen 2 sus - N7FF yields and SP problem, CPPC, WHEA, etc. all new concepts. AMD started dialing it back on current when B550 released (AGESA 1006??), then Zen 3 got much more conservative, and now 5800X3D feels like a locked Intel CPU lol (Robert said 1.35V tops, more like 1.28V and 1.15V after CO)
> 
> that said, N5 is a new process and you know how I feel about AMD when they get their hands on brand new toys


Could it have been your motherboard's power delivery degrading?


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 29, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> Maybe that was AMD still trying to figure out how a chiplet-based CPU works. You scared me by saying that it degraded at stock nonetheless. That should never happen with any CPU.
> 
> Maybe I'll just buy an A770 GPU for sh*ts and giggles now, and save up for a platform upgrade for my birthday in March. Early adopter problems will have surfaced by then, and prices might come down a bit as well.



Just follow the rule - if you want less problems, wait 6 months after AMD launch  

I'm not even kidding. Whenever I follow the rule I'm happy, whenever I don't I get burned



Vario said:


> Could it have been your motherboard's power delivery degrading?



Had that CPU in 4 separate boards. Last one also hosted my 5900X for months

though......now that you mention it, the B450 Aorus had something like 76% power reporting deviation..............but the Fabric side of things would still be inexcusable

@Vario on that note, I'd like to share what AMD said about HWInfo's power reporting deviation:



> "We want to be clear with our customers: AMD Ryzen processors contain a diverse array of internal safeguards that operate independently of external data sources. These safeguards enforce the safety and reliability of the processor during stock operation. Based on our initial assessment, we do not believe that altering external telemetry in the manner described by those public reports would have a material impact on the longevity or safety of a user's processor."



So, even if it was Gigabyte that shafted me (not the first time), AMD still wouldn't be off the hook   I can also guarantee that there is zero way a C14S or Dark Rock Pro 4 can keep a supposedly 115W 1CCD below 75C


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 29, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> Just follow the rule - if you want less problems, wait 6 months after AMD launch
> 
> I'm not even kidding. Whenever I follow the rule I'm happy, whenever I don't I get burned


Sounds like a plan.  A770 it is (for now)! 



tabascosauz said:


> Had that CPU in 4 separate boards. Last one also hosted my 5900X for months
> 
> though......now that you mention it, the B450 Aorus had something like 76% power reporting deviation..............but the Fabric side of things would still be inexcusable
> 
> @Vario on that note, I'd like to share what AMD said about HWInfo's power reporting deviation:


Is it possible that because of the power reporting deviation, the CPU actually got more power than it should have and that's why it deteriorated?


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 29, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> Sounds like a plan.  A770 it is (for now)!
> 
> Is it possible that because of the power reporting deviation, the CPU actually got more power than it should have and that's why it deteriorated?



It is possible but again, the CPU didn't get nearly as much power as 76% suggests, because it would be straight uncoolable. AMD is probably right that it's not enough to bypass safeties. More likely a few watts extra - the other 3 boards have normal power deviation and the difference was only ever a few dozen points and maybe 2-3C.

You want to be Intel's early adopter (before they pull the good yields to make -KS CPUs), you do not want to be AMD's early adopter (before good yields even exist).


----------



## Vario (Sep 29, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> Just follow the rule - if you want less problems, wait 6 months after AMD launch


Generally a solid strategy with any Tech product launch.

edit: Also true about the Intel yields, as well.  Anecdotally, from my experience it often seems like early bins of K (even a few years ago before they even had KS as a SKU) were better overclockers, and then they start dumping garbage silicon near the end of the cycle.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 29, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> It is possible but again, the CPU didn't get nearly as much power as 76% suggests, because it would be straight uncoolable. AMD is probably right that it's not enough to bypass safeties. More likely a few watts extra - the other 3 boards have normal power deviation and the difference was only ever a few dozen points and maybe 2-3C.


Still, I think I'll stay with Asus. I've gone through a few B550 and A520 boards from them (I like tinkering), and not only is their quality excellent, but their power reporting deviation seems to be spot on as well.



tabascosauz said:


> You want to be Intel's early adopter (before they pull the good yields to make -KS CPUs), you do not want to be AMD's early adopter (before good yields even exist).


I've never thought about it this way, but it makes sense.

Actually, it's not even possible to not be an early adopter of Intel because they pull generations out of their hat faster than lightning. By the time you get used to your new system, the next platform is already out.  They played this with me with Kaby Lake - Coffee Lake came out only a couple months after I bought my 7700 (just when I thought they would stay on 4 cores forever). And then, they played the same trick with Alder Lake that came out about half a year after I bought the 11700. I can't even follow all their releases anymore. 

AMD on the other hand, keeps their platforms and CPU SKUs around for longer, so they have more time to mature and initial hiccups to be ironed out.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 29, 2022)

Power Reporting Deviation value under 100% while the CPU is on 100% load only means worse thermals due to increased power. Its a push-over to advertised stock PB/PBO limits. Nothing more.
This cannot bypass the internal silicon safeties of the CPU.


tabascosauz said:


> It is possible but again, the CPU didn't get nearly as much power as 76% suggests, because it would be straight uncoolable. AMD is probably right that it's not enough to bypass safeties. More likely a few watts extra - the other 3 boards have normal power deviation and the difference was only ever a few dozen points and maybe 2-3C.


Was it PRD 76% along with 88W PPT? Because you do know PRD value alone doesn't mean anything.
I've seen some CPUs on screenshots here at TPU that had a awfully low PRD but also their PPT value was too low at the same time during all core loads/tests.

I mean if you had 88W PPT, 76% PRD this is:
88 / 0.76 = 115~116W

But if PPT was also lower that 88W  (lets say 75) then true wattage is something else
75 / 0.76 = 98~99W


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 29, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> I mean if you had 88W PPT, 76% PRD this is:
> 88 / 0.76 = 115~116W


This is what I was thinking. Is it possible that this led to the degradation of the CPU? (Regardless of its temperature)


----------



## Vario (Sep 29, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> This is what I was thinking. Is it possible that this led to the degradation of the CPU? (Regardless of its temperature)


Probable.  My understanding was some board manufacturers were stealth overvolting in this manner.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 29, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> This is what I was thinking. Is it possible that this led to the degradation of the CPU? (Regardless of its temperature)


Unlikely

@tabascosauz talked about IF degradation which related to DRAM OC and IF v/f.
Has nothing to do with false CPU telemetry to force it exceed stock package power.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 29, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> Unlikely
> 
> @tabascosauz talked about IF degradation which related to DRAM OC and IF v/f.
> Has nothing to do with false CPU telemetry to force it exceed stock package power.


Fair enough. But what if it was using so much power because the board unnecessarily overvolted the CPU and IF as @Zach_01 mentioned? That overvoltage could have led to degradation maybe?

Just trying to learn how things work.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 29, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> Fair enough. But what if it was using so much power because of the board unnecessarily overvolting the CPU and IF as @Zach_01 mentioned?


Board cannot overvolt or overclock IF by it self. Its different from Core v/f.
Boards are using false current(A) telemetry data to tell the CPU that it draws less power than it does and the CPU asks VRMs for more. But that is on Core VRM rails only.
SoC VRMs are separate


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 29, 2022)

Is there a PRD for SoC power, affecting Vsoc?


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 29, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> Is there a PRD for SoC power, affecting Vsoc?


No there isn't.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Sep 29, 2022)

I remember my 3DFX Voodoo 3 2000 had a dinky passive heat sink on it, and if you touched it after a gaming session it would burn your finger. No clue what the temps were since GPUs back then didn’t report them, but it was scalding.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 29, 2022)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> I remember my 3DFX Voodoo 3 2000 had a dinky passive heat sink on it, and if you touched it after a gaming session it would burn your finger. No clue what the temps were since GPUs back then didn’t report them, but it was scalding.


Fingers are poor thermometers though - even 60°C can give serious burns on skin.


----------



## Night (Sep 29, 2022)

Valantar said:


> It takes quite a lot of effort to scratch through a nickel plating. It's not tin foil.


You're right, it's not like tin foil, it's way thinner than that.



> The maximum thickness of electroless nickel plating is limited to approximately 0.1 mm.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 29, 2022)

Night said:


> You're right, it's not like tin foil, it's way thinner than that.


But also _far_ more tightly bonded, and a much, much stronger metal than aluminium. So, scratching it off takes _effort_. Sure, a single gouge with a sharp piece of steel will do it - but that gouge must then have some force behind it. Light abrasion won't take it off. Heck, you can still see the laser etched markings on them - that really isn't a lot of wear. Nickel is also harder than copper, making it quite wear resistant even in thin coatings, especially when contacting cold plates made from either nickel plated copper, copper, or aluminium.

Also, according to this, standard duty aluminium foil in the US is between 0.0004-0.0007" thick, or ~0.01016-0.01778mm thick. That's an order of magnitude thinner than 0.1mm.


----------



## Night (Sep 29, 2022)

Valantar said:


> But also _far_ more tightly bonded, and a much, much stronger metal than aluminium. So, scratching it off takes _effort_. Sure, a single gouge with a sharp piece of steel will do it - but that gouge must then have some force behind it. Light abrasion won't take it off. Heck, you can still see the laser etched markings on them - that really isn't a lot of wear. Nickel is also harder than copper, making it quite wear resistant even in thin coatings, especially when contacting cold plates made from either nickel plated copper, copper, or aluminium.



I've circled a torn off piece of the Athlon's IHS, you can clearly see that there is no copper under there.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 29, 2022)

Night said:


> I've circled a torn off piece of the Athlon's IHS, you can clearly see that there is no copper under there.


Torn off? That's dented. How on earth would you tear a chunk out of an IHS like that?


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 29, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> Was it PRD 76% along with 88W PPT? Because you do know PRD value alone doesn't mean anything.
> I've seen some CPUs on screenshots here at TPU that had a awfully low PRD but also their PPT value was too low at the same time during all core loads/tests.
> 
> I mean if you had 88W PPT, 76% PRD this is:
> ...



This was Zen2, it consistently maxed out PPT in all-core benches, 87-88W usually

Usually 76.1-76.5%, other boards were around the 95% mark with the TUF at 101-103%


----------



## Valantar (Sep 29, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> This was Zen2, it consistently maxed out PPT in all-core benches, 87-88W usually
> 
> Usually 76.1-76.5%, other boards were around the 95% mark with the TUF at 101-103%


Wow, that's pretty bad. Was B450 worse than B550 for this? Both my ASRock B550 boards never leave 100% under load.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 29, 2022)

Valantar said:


> Wow, that's pretty bad. Was B450 worse than B550 for this? Both my ASRock B550 boards never leave 100% under load.



They definitely wisened up a bit after HWInfo had the feature. I can't recall any specific B550 or X570 boards that bad, but I can remember quite a few B450 and earlier boards being that bad.

I didn't have the opportunity to get past AGESA 1100D I think, to see whether Gigabyte eventually patched it. But I don't think any of my boards have changed their power reporting deviation over time


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 29, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> This was Zen2, it consistently maxed out PPT in all-core benches, 87-88W usually
> 
> Usually 76.1-76.5%, other boards were around the 95% mark with the TUF at 101-103%


True...
Same board I have now worked the R5 3600 at 87~88W PPT and PRD 91~92% And that was across all BIOSs even the latests (test it up to F35 v1.2.0.5)

Now the 5900X is what ever PPT I have set it and PRD is varying between 101~110% depending the load.
Usually around 102~104%.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 29, 2022)

Valantar said:


> Torn off? That's dented. How on earth would you tear a chunk out of an IHS like that?


Those dents are from the pair of vice grips used to rip the plate off the chip. Not literally, but a great handle for a delid. I heat the plate with a soldering torch for removal.



Valantar said:


> No, it makes it possible to respond to individual statements so that things are at least moderately readable, unlike this wall of spaced-out sentences you've posted here.
> 
> Okay, I had a long answer here, but reading to the end of your post has made it abundantly clear to me that _we're not discussing the same thing_. You've been working off of radically different assumptions for what is being discussed here, and arguing against my statements _about a given platform_ with statements that assume every single variable is up for discussion. It isn't. Yes, there is a relation between die size, IHS size, and IHS thickness. For a given platform, IHS size is fixed, as it's determined by the socket and package dimensions (with maybe a mm or two of leeway for tweaking the design in X and Y directions. So: the area of the IHS for any given platform is fixed, and not up for discussion - at least unless it's brought up at the beginning of the damn discussion. Which you didn't. You responded to me saying the IHS was too thick by arguing that no, a thicker IHS would be better. Which ... no. Just no.
> 
> ...


 Yessir, I am completely aware we are not talking about the same thing. lol. I knew that when I told you a second time my reason to quote you in the first place.

Simply can't take Der Bauers word on the plate being to thick, or too small or too large without testing with other plates, It's simply an opinion made statement and nothing more.

My point is that I've tested various sized plates and don't think thinner would suffice given the nature of current gen chips and the very heavily packed transistor area which the die sizes are getting smaller and smaller. This makes less surface area, a thicker or perhaps just larger in general might actually work better. 

No, you don't need to use an IHS plate to increase how tall a CPU sticks out from a board. They could force cooler manufacturers to accommodate this minor issue, which isn't AMD's issue, but the end users. I've not read any statement from AMD concerning the design. Again, these are mostly assumptions. 

Unless someone can slap a statement here (From AMD themselves) as to WHY the IHS plate is thicker, then it's all fake news. After a quick google search, there's just a bunch of guessing going on there.....

-----

To back up your statements to the other gentleman, (I underlined it)

CPU doesn't consume hardly any power a all. Super inefficient really. Most of the energy is dissipated as a heat, not being used. 

An engine for example on average is about 30% efficient. All that fuel used and the rest dissipated by heat and cooled 3 ways. Water, Air and Oil.


----------



## kapone32 (Sep 30, 2022)

Why has no one referenced the fact the the base clock on the 7950X is about the All core Boost clock of the 5950X and the single core is 600-800 MHZ higher depending on the board in both scenarios. It is obvious the 7700x is just like the 5800x in terms of thermals. As much as the cooler compatibility seems to be an issue we have to keep in mind that most AM4 coolers also supported 11th and 12th Gen CPUs so they are already designed with the intention of keeping 200+ Watt CPUs cool.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 30, 2022)

kapone32 said:


> Why has no one referenced the fact the the base clock on the 7950X is about the All core Boost clock of the 5950X and the single core is 600-800 MHZ higher depending on the board in both scenarios.


Advertised clock speeds are never to be taken seriously, imo. Base clock is just a number (f**k knows what it really means nowadays), and boost clock is the clock speed you see in light workloads if your temperature, power consumption, motherboard VRM capabilities and the alignment of the planets in the solar system are OK. The clocks you really see are somewhere in between the two.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Sep 30, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> Advertised clock speeds are never to be taken seriously, imo. Base clock is just a number (f**k knows what it really means nowadays), and boost clock is the clock speed you see in light workloads if your temperature, power consumption, motherboard VRM capabilities and the alignment of the planets in the solar system are OK. The clocks you really see are somewhere in between the two.


I thought base clock was the guaranteed clock that you get all-core at the rated TDP. You can get way more, but that’s what the manufacturer guarantees under their recommended minimum setup.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 30, 2022)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> I thought base clock was the guaranteed clock that you get all-core at the rated TDP. You can get way more, but that’s what the manufacturer guarantees under their recommended minimum setup.


That may be true for Intel, but AMD has to give a proper definition of "TDP" first (I know their stupid formula - I just don't believe that it has any connection with reality).


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 30, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> That may be true for Intel, but AMD has to give a proper definition of "TDP" first (I know their stupid formula - I just don't believe that it has any connection with reality).


And you say Intel has one? TDP is just a number now.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 30, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> And you say Intel has one? TDP is just a number now.



Intel TDP is always defined as the max load power at base clock. At boost this goes out the window, but that's what their Turbo power metric is for, to better approximate realistic max power. Intel also renamed TDP to "Base Power", so now you get a number for base clock and a number for boost all-core.

AMD's TDP is utterly meaningless to power consumption. PPT is more or less the equivalent to Turbo power (barring obvious big differences in how Turbo vs. PB works), but AMD still advertises mostly "TDP" as if it meant something useful, and ignores PPT in most of their advertising materials. For some CPUs they get a number close to TDP at base clock all-core, but it's not defined or intended in that way.

There are more references to it now in 7000 slides but I've only really seen it in reference to AM5's design power (230W), the weird power efficiency slide about the "Ryzen 7970X", and the EDC and TDC changes (from 88/60/90, 142/95/140 to 88/75/150, 142/110/170 and 230/160/225).

Could argue it either way I guess, blue didn't even have a measurement for actual power for years, and red keep advertising this absolutely pointless number.

the 7970X slide:


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 30, 2022)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> I thought base clock was the guaranteed clock that you get all-core at the rated TDP. You can get way more, but that’s what the manufacturer guarantees under their recommended minimum setup.


That is the Intel definition of TDP up to 11th. On 12 gen they specify a PL1 and PL2 TDP.

AMD’s is way more complicated than this and has no real value to the user as it’s formulated in a way to tell something to cooler manufacturers mostly …only?



AusWolf said:


> Advertised clock speeds are never to be taken seriously, imo. Base clock is just a number (f**k knows what it really means nowadays), and boost clock is the clock speed you see in light workloads if your temperature, power consumption, motherboard VRM capabilities and the alignment of the planets in the solar system are OK. The clocks you really see are somewhere in between the two.


At least for AMD if you disable PB, performance boost, the upper clock is the base clock on any situation (ST or MT).
Also with PB on and under minimum cooling conditions (TDP formula) you will get base clock at least on any given all core workload, even on the heaviest one.

So because 99.99% of users are not meting these situations the base clock is a speed that a CPU will not stop and has no meaning. But it’s not a random number.


----------



## A Computer Guy (Sep 30, 2022)

Toothless said:


> Mate my 5950x hits 80c tops with PBO/curve tweaked, 4.4 all core with a 4.95 single, as the chip is intended. Your cooler is just not enough for that chip if it can't cool 130w.


If you don't mind me asking what settings are you using for your PBO setup?  I'm playing around with PBO on my 5950x and looking for ideas that will likely work well. 
In limited limited testing I've had time for PPT=170, TDC=130, and EDC=136 will get me CB23=27814 (better than my stock CB23=25067) under 70c and that is without any curves applied.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 30, 2022)

A Computer Guy said:


> If you don't mind me asking what settings are you using for your PBO setup?  I'm playing around with PBO on my 5950x and looking for ideas that will likely work well.
> In limited limited testing I've had time for PPT=170, TDC=130, and EDC=136 will get me CB23=27814 (better than my stock CB23=25067) under 70c and that is without any curves applied.


The truth is that the higher the SKU the smaller the room for negative curve shifting. Almost all or most 5600X can do -30 steps on all 6 cores, depends on boost override too.
My CPU (5900X) on couple of cores can't do past -5 and I have the rest so far at -9 up to -19. Also currently the boost override is +75MHz, PPT 148, TDC 101, EDC 138.
Peak temp for all core boost is under 70C but on every other stuff wants to go to 80C or even more. I have a limit of 76C so cant pass that.

Avg clock on a couple of cores on games is 4.7~4.85GHz depending the type of game with a peak of 4.95~5.0+GHz


----------



## Toothless (Sep 30, 2022)

A Computer Guy said:


> If you don't mind me asking what settings are you using for your PBO setup?  I'm playing around with PBO on my 5950x and looking for ideas that will likely work well.
> In limited limited testing I've had time for PPT=170, TDC=130, and EDC=136 will get me CB23=27814 (better than my stock CB23=25067) under 70c and that is without any curves applied.


I just did -10 curve on all core and left everything else auto. I hit around 28.4k in R23

Oh and +200 on the uh, override? Thing. 4.4ghz all core and 4950mhz single.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 30, 2022)

In addition to my previous (#224)

All core avg boost during R23 is 4.45GHz, (effective 4.35~4.4GHz depending the core/CCD)


----------



## Valantar (Sep 30, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Those dents are from the pair of vice grips used to rip the plate off the chip. Not literally, but a great handle for a delid. I heat the plate with a soldering torch for removal.
> 
> 
> Yessir, I am completely aware we are not talking about the same thing. lol. I knew that when I told you a second time my reason to quote you in the first place.


... so why on earth did you continue discussing this, if you knew we weren't talking about the same thing? Is that how you generally discuss things with people, by inventing your own parameters for whatever is being discussed just so that you can invent a scenario in which you're right, rather than discuss the matter at hand?


ShrimpBrime said:


> Simply can't take Der Bauers word on the plate being to thick, or too small or too large without testing with other plates, It's simply an opinion made statement and nothing more.


But ... he never said that. He said _it's too thick_. _Given its other dimensions_. Not "assuming all variables are in play, this is universally too thick in all situations". He was talking about an actual AM5 CPU in an actual AM5 socket with an actual AM5 IHS. Within those parameters, a thinner IHS would be better. It's possible that a _larger_ IHS would _also_ be better, but _the socket can't fit a larger IHS_, so that is entirely irrelevant.


ShrimpBrime said:


> My point is that I've tested various sized plates and don't think thinner would suffice given the nature of current gen chips and the very heavily packed transistor area which the die sizes are getting smaller and smaller. This makes less surface area, a thicker or perhaps just larger in general might actually work better.


Not relevant to this discussion.


ShrimpBrime said:


> No, you don't need to use an IHS plate to increase how tall a CPU sticks out from a board. They could force cooler manufacturers to accommodate this minor issue, which isn't AMD's issue, but the end users. I've not read any statement from AMD concerning the design. Again, these are mostly assumptions.


I mean ... can you read at all? Are you trying to? _In order to maintain cooler compatibility, they needed to make the CPU taller, which was done through a thick IHS_. Yes, they could have forced cooler manufacturers to adjust their designs. That would have broken compatibility with AM4 coolers. _That is the whole damn point_.


ShrimpBrime said:


> Unless someone can slap a statement here (From AMD themselves) as to WHY the IHS plate is thicker, then it's all fake news. After a quick google search, there's just a bunch of guessing going on there.....


It's not guesswork. We know they kept Z-height the same despite moving to a lower profile LGA socket. We know they made an unusually thick IHS for the socket size. We know they kept Z-height the same specifically to maintain cooler compatibility. This is not guesswork, this is putting together a two-piece puzzle with an instruction manual and arrows indicating where the pieces fit together.



ShrimpBrime said:


> CPU doesn't consume hardly any power a all. Super inefficient really. Most of the energy is dissipated as a heat, not being used.
> 
> 
> An engine for example on average is about 30% efficient. All that fuel used and the rest dissipated by heat and cooled 3 ways. Water, Air and Oil.


This is utter and complete nonsense, and the comparison is fundamentally invalid. A CPU is not a combustion engine, nor does it produce kinetic energy. This is not comparable. A CPU is always close to 100% efficient, as its work output is not a meaningful physical change in anything else (save for signalling to RAM, storage and other I/O, which are all very low power compared to the power draw of a CPU (yes, RAM, SSDs and AICs consume their own power, but that power does not come from the CPU - the only power leaving the CPU as electricity is it's I/O signals)). For a CPU to be inefficient in this way, it would need to turn its electricity into something else than heat, as heat is a byproduct of the computation process. The specific ways we convert electric energy into thermal energy is how computation takes place.

A combustion engine is inefficient because we're unable to extract all the energy from the combustion process as kinetic energy, useful work - mainly because there are multiple forms of energy conversion going on, with fuel energy converted to both kinetic and thermal energy at the same time. As you say, that balance stops around 30% kinetic (though it could theoretically be increased through recapturing heat and turning it back into electricity and powering an ancillary electric engine or similar). The heat is waste, i.e. inefficiency, because the heat isn't useful, and isn't a result of the kinetic energy being converted further, but is explicitly _energy converted into a not useful form_. In a CPU, the only energy conversion happening is electric to thermal - but crucially, we don't care about the energy conversion - we're not looking to produce a useful form of energy. That's not the desired output. The desired output is computation. Thus, even when _all_ that energy turns into heat, it's still near 100% efficient - because the fact that the energy turns into heat _doesn't play into the question of efficiency_.  We're not looking to produce any other form of energy than thermal energy. Movement is what you want from a combustion engine, making any waste heat _not movement_, and thus inefficient. Computation is what you want from a computer, and as heat is a byproduct of computation, the two do not factor into an efficiency relation in the same way - it's not a question of _either_ getting computation _or_ heat, but both at the same time. Efficiency for a CPU is _purely_ about _how much_ power you need to do a given amount of computation - how much work you can get out of your energy, not how much of it is creating some waste byproduct.



tabascosauz said:


> AMD's TDP is utterly meaningless to power consumption


Yes, by design. It's not meant to describe power consumption at all. The problem is that it's used as a "power draw class" designation for marketing, despite this not being what the term actually means. I'd blame AMD's marketing, but, well, we all know just how baffling their decisions can be at times.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 30, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> At least for AMD if you disable PB, performance boost, the upper clock is the base clock on any situation (ST or MT).
> Also with PB on and under minimum cooling conditions (TDP formula) you will get base clock at least on any given all core workload, even on the heaviest one.
> 
> So because 99.99% of users are not meting these situations the base clock is a speed that a CPU will not stop and has no meaning. But it’s not a random number.


That's true for Intel, as well. If you disable boost, the CPU will run at base clock. But on Intel, that's roughly where your TDP is. For example, my 11700 has a base clock of 2.5 GHz. If I enforce its factory 65 W PL1 (which is indicated as TDP), it'll run at 2.8 GHz in Cinebench and around 2.6 in Prime95.

AMD's TDP on the other hand, is completely bonkers. Their equation is putting a "=" sign between power and temperature like they were the same thing, completely ignoring all science in the topic. Also, power is nowhere in the formula, which to me is completely absurd.


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 30, 2022)

That's because TDP has nothing to do with power & even back in the days of Haswell, IB, SB or Nehalem Intel's "TDP" were absurd. The slight difference back then was of course that Intel chips ran generally below their "TDP" while they almost completely ignore that number these days, even PL2 *IIRC*. AMD on the other hand will generally enforce PPT more strictly.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 30, 2022)

R0H1T said:


> That's because TDP has nothing to do with power & even back in the days of Haswell, IB, SB or Nehalem Intel's "TDP" were absurd. The slight difference back then was of course that Intel chips ran generally below their "TDP" while they almost completely ignore that number these days, even PL2 *IIRC*. AMD on the other hand will generally enforce PPT more strictly.


Running below TDP was fine. There's nothing wrong with planning your system (PSU, motherboard, cooling) around a CPU that eats less than you originally anticipated. I'm not sure about Alder Lake, but up to 11th gen, TDP was strictly enforced in PL1. Of course you can disable it if you know your system can handle the power and heat.

AMD's PPT is essentially a PL1 on Intel with no PL2 to accompany it. That should be advertised as TDP, not their lucky lottery numbers that they pulled from outer space.


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 30, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> I'm not sure about Alder Lake, but up to 11th gen, TDP was strictly enforced in PL1. If course you can disable it if you know your system can handle the power and heat.


Not really, they threw away "TDP" or ran away from this concept starting 8700k ~














						Intel Rocket Lake (14nm) Review: Core i9-11900K, Core i7-11700K, and Core i5-11600K
					






					www.anandtech.com
				



Basically TDP was never about power consumption but more about marketing!










						Intel Reveals PL1, PL2 and Tau Values For 10th-Gen Comet Lake-S Processors
					

Intel finally lets the cat out of the bag.




					www.tomshardware.com
				



Intel knew the only way to beat AMD was through absurd clocks but you couldn't sell chips with 250~270W "TDP" so this what you get.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 30, 2022)

R0H1T said:


> Not really, they threw away "TDP" or ran away from this concept starting 8700k ~
> 
> 
> View attachment 263725
> ...


The first diagram shows exactly what I'm talking about. You have a short period of PL2 followed by a constant enforcement of PL1 = TDP.


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 30, 2022)

i9 is doing 135W, i7 is 121W & i5 is 96W & you can see they're all exceeding the TDP even though it's just marginal for the i5 & around 8% for i9 chip.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 30, 2022)

R0H1T said:


> i9 is doing 135W, i7 is 121W & i5 is 96W & you can see they're all exceeding the TDP even though it's just marginal for the i5 & around 8% for i9 chip.


I don't understand the i5, as it has a 125 W TDP. There is something wrong with the i9 as well. Maybe the motherboard had some hidden feature that should have been disabled. Many Z590 and B560 boards were accused of this. My Asus TUF B560M Wifi on the other hand, strictly enforces a 65 W PL1 on my 11700 unless I turn on the "Asus Optimizer". Heck, it doesn't even let it use its PL2 for the full Tau. Instead of 28 s, it starts enforcing PL1 just after a couple of seconds. According to HWInfo, it is a constant 65 W as well.


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 30, 2022)

Ok, I missed the i5 default TDP. Just saw the cTDP option here ~








						Intel® Core™ i5-11600K Processor (12M Cache, up to 4.90 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel
					

Intel® Core™ i5-11600K Processor (12M Cache, up to 4.90 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.




					www.intel.com
				




But you can see with enough cores, like on the i7, the TDP is basically meaningless.


AusWolf said:


> My Asus TUF B560M Wifi on the other hand, strictly enforces a 65 W PL1 on my 11700 unless I turn on the "Asus Optimizer".


Because they're not looking to win benchmarks with the locked chips. They're going with the same TDP levels for what 10-15 years now? So with the number of SKU's Intel sells it's impossible to set every one of them at various "TDP" levels. Like I said TDP is just about marketing.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 30, 2022)

R0H1T said:


> Ok, I missed the i5 default TDP. Just saw the cTDP option here ~
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not impossible, and they're doing it with PL1. Nothing prevents them from inventing new levels. The reason why it's still 65 W and 125 W is better marketing, you're right about that. But the concept of TDP itself is not marketing. On Intel, it really is the amount of power the CPU uses in some circumstance. If AMD had PPT = TDP, with whatever number they come up with, I would have no issue. They could easily sell 88 W, 142 W and 230 W CPUs, but it would look bad compared to Intel, so they had to invent their bullshit formula. Their TDP still means Thermal Design Power, but you have to multiply it by x1.35 before you get any value that describes what power the CPU actually uses under any circumstance. This is not indicated on any product page, so you have to read reviews to know what you're dealing with. That's the issue.


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 30, 2022)

Ok, what's TDP for you? Only Power consumption? Tbf most enthusiasts also see it this way but no it's never been that. This from back in 2019 ~









						Talking TDP, Turbo and Overclocking: An Interview with Intel Fellow Guy Therien
					






					www.anandtech.com
				



It may have changed since then even internally at Intel. But the larger point is right now it's a moving target because while the TDP's have remained fairly stable around 100~150W on desktop chips at the higher end we now have 16 even 32 cores (definitely with AM5) & they can't possibly fit in that number.


AusWolf said:


> but it would look bad compared to Intel, so they had to invent their bullshit formula.


Intel would still be worse because they've gone PL1=PL2 on unlocked chips.


----------



## Arco (Sep 30, 2022)

Burn baby burn! We all need to work in Fusion or something so we can run our sand square things at a morbillion times per second or something. Also heat up Earth to Venus levels.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 30, 2022)

R0H1T said:


> Ok, what's TDP for you? Only Power consumption? Tbf most enthusiasts also see it this way but no it's never been that. This from back in 2019 ~
> View attachment 263732
> 
> 
> ...


TDP for me = average power consumption at base clock. I'm kind of oldschool, I know. 

I'm willing to accept other definitions. What I'm not willing to accept is a formula that has temperature on one side and power on the other side of the equation.



R0H1T said:


> Intel would still be worse because they've gone PL1=PL2 on unlocked chips.


That was a bad decision, imo.


----------



## freeagent (Sep 30, 2022)

I was under the impression that AMD got their tdp at full load, stock setting. So on my 5900x it would be 3700MHz. Which at stock setting it will drop down to those clocks with a heavy load. Even if that heavy load doesn’t bring the cpu to 60c.

Stock settings suck.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 30, 2022)

freeagent said:


> I was under the impression that AMD got their tdp at full load, stock setting. So on my 5900x it would be 3700MHz. Which at stock setting it will drop down to those clocks with a heavy load. Even if that heavy load doesn’t bring the cpu to 60c.
> 
> Stock settings suck.


I personally don't look at TDP with AMD. I just do the math: the 5900X has a "TDP" of 105 Watts. 105 x 1.35 = *142 W*. That's the PPT (max. power consumed by default). Every other number is meaningless to me.


----------



## A Computer Guy (Sep 30, 2022)

Toothless said:


> I just did -10 curve on all core and left everything else auto. I hit around 28.4k in R23
> 
> Oh and +200 on the uh, override? Thing. 4.4ghz all core and 4950mhz single.


Ok. interesting.  I found before overriding defaults for PPT, TDC, and EDC I can independently do an all core -20 so I have some headroom to play with.  4.4ghz all core and 4950mhz is pretty similar to what I was getting but I need to improve how I'm documenting and observing frequency to know for sure.  Depending on how I balance things can get 4.525ghz to 4.575ghz all core  or  5.025ghz on a few cores depending on how I balance PPT, TDC, and EDC before curve optimization.



Zach_01 said:


> The truth is that the higher the SKU the smaller the room for negative curve shifting. Almost all or most 5600X can do -30 steps on all 6 cores, depends on boost override too.
> My CPU (5900X) on couple of cores can't do past -5 and I have the rest so far at -9 up to -19. Also currently the boost override is +75MHz, PPT 148, TDC 101, EDC 138.
> Peak temp for all core boost is under 70C but on every other stuff wants to go to 80C or even more. I have a limit of 76C so cant pass that.
> 
> Avg clock on a couple of cores on games is 4.7~4.85GHz depending the type of game with a peak of 4.95~5.0+GHz


Yea it seems depending on the combination I try I either stay around 60c or spike above approaching 80c.  I have to admit I was getting impatient last night during testing various combinations but also it seems if I set PPT too high in relation to EDC it blows past my set EDC limit (ignoring it ) making testing more problematic.  I'm not on the latest BIOS/UEFI at the moment and maybe I need to be in order to do this properly.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 30, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> AMD's TDP on the other hand, is completely bonkers. Their equation is putting a "=" sign between power and temperature like they were the same thing, completely ignoring all science in the topic. Also, power is nowhere in the formula, which to me is completely absurd.


You are missing the point of what AMD is declaring with their TDP number


Zach_01 said:


> AMD’s is way more complicated than this and has no real value to the user as *it’s formulated in a way to tell something to cooler manufacturers mostly …only*


They are not telling that power is same thing with temperature.
Nowhere near that. This is applied physics (thermodynamics).

They are telling to the cooler manufacturers that under a specific tCase (CPU IHS surface -lid- temp), a specific tAmbient (ambient air temp on inlet of the cooler's fan) and a specific thermal resistance cooler (HSF θca) an X amount of heat will be transferred from the IHS to the ambient air.
So cooler manufacturers have to design coolers that comply (to a minimum) to those parameters.

In order to understand this you have to understand first how heat transfer works. Roughly It involves a temperature (t)Delta between 2 objects/surfaces and the thermal resistance of what is in between them.
The higher the tDelta as the temp difference between 2 objects and the lower the heat resistance between them the more heat will be transferred and vise versa.

As tDelta they are meaning the CPU IHS surface temp (tCase) and the air temp on the inlet of the cooler fan (tAmbient).
Thermal resistance of cooler is HSF (HeatSink-Fan) θca  (theta c a, measured in °C/W)


(tCase - tAmbient) / (HSF θca) = TDP
In their formula they are taking as granted the tAmbient will be 42C (as an inside of a case that has been wormed up by the system)



So cooler manufactures on minimum they have to come up with a HSF design that can maintain the CPU IHS surface at 61.8C under 42C ambient, when the CPU is on maximum power draw. In case of 3900X is the 142W (PPT).
So... if they slap on top of the 3900X a HSF with thermal resistance at least of 0.189 °C/W the transferred heat will be ~105W.

Reasonable question:
But the CPU is "producing" 142W of heat as all the electrical energy is transformed into thermal energy... Where is the heat between 105W and 142W?

This is not mentioned anywhere but you have to think that this system (CPU, HSF, ambient) is not a closed/sealed one from the rest of the world.
The CPU is in contact with the board through the socket and also some air is around the outer edges of the CPU.
So the rest of the heat 142-105= 37W will be dissipated by the board from the surrounding components and the back of it. Yes boards are hot around the socket of a 142W CPU on max power.
And this should be true on those parameters (tCase/tAmbient/θca) AMD specifies.

Here is AMDs claims of TDP:
_"TDP is about thermal watts, not electrical watts. These are not the same.
TDP is the final product in a formula that specifies to cooler vendors what thermal resistance is acceptable for a cooler to enable the manufacturer-specified performance of a CPU.
Thermal resistance for heatsinks is rated in a unit called θca ("Theta C A"), which represents degrees Celsius per watt.
Specifically, θca represents thermal resistance between the CPU heatspreader and the ambient environment.
The lower the θca, the better the cooler is.
The θca rating is an operand in an equation that also includes optimal CPU temp and optimal case ambient temp at the "inlet" to the heatsink. That formula establishes the TDP._






						Thermal design power
					






					linuxreviews.org
				




I cannot break it down better than this, I'm sorry.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 30, 2022)

Valantar said:


> ... so why on earth did you continue discussing this, if you knew we weren't talking about the same thing? Is that how you generally discuss things with people, by inventing your own parameters for whatever is being discussed just so that you can invent a scenario in which you're right, rather than discuss the matter at hand?
> 
> But ... he never said that. He said _it's too thick_. _Given its other dimensions_. Not "assuming all variables are in play, this is universally too thick in all situations". He was talking about an actual AM5 CPU in an actual AM5 socket with an actual AM5 IHS. Within those parameters, a thinner IHS would be better. It's possible that a _larger_ IHS would _also_ be better, but _the socket can't fit a larger IHS_, so that is entirely irrelevant.
> 
> ...


No way a cpu is 100% efficient. You wouldn't dissipate heat because the electrical energy ....

Is watts

Is converted

To BTU

Thus

TDP

THERMAL design point. 

Not power consumption because it uses very little of that power.

In the example, the energy used in ICE is converted as you said into kinetic energy. The rest dissipated as a heat. And why engines are also rated by the KW not by horse power. But only 30% of that energy is kinetic. The rest just wasted and dissipated as heat.



Zach_01 said:


> You are missing the point of what AMD is declaring with their TDP number
> 
> They are not telling that power is same thing with temperature.
> Nowhere near that. This is applied physics (thermodynamics).
> ...


Yes you can.

It's called electrical wattage converted to BTU.

Next time, at full load, observe the wattage of the cpu. Then use the table below to see how much thermals you need to dissipate.

It's really that simple.






						Watts to BTU conversion calculator
					

Watts (W) to BTU per hour, power conversion: calculator and how to convert formula.




					www.rapidtables.com
				




To further add....

So if a cpu ( or anything that uses an energy source) was 100% efficient, you would have NOT the need to dissipate heat.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 30, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Next time, at full load, observe the wattage of the cpu. Then use the table below to see how much thermals you need to dissipate.
> 
> It's really that simple.
> 
> ...


I can convert watts to horsepower too... and?
Complicating things even further is not the way to go IMHO.

Sorry but I do not see how this can contribute to the conversation here of *how AMD and Intel define TDP*.


----------



## freeagent (Sep 30, 2022)

TDP/PPT is whatever you want it to be, to a point. Funny my 105w TDP cpu is really doing 235w. Not sure why the argument.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 30, 2022)

freeagent said:


> TDP/PPT is whatever you want it to be, to a point. Funny my 105w TDP cpu is really doing 235w. Not sure why the argument.


If PPT is 235W the TDP(by AMD) is not 105W but it is way more than that, depending the on the CPU temp, ambient conditions and the cooler's capacity and thermal resistance.
And its certainly not what we want it to be. Its what physics defines it to be.


----------



## freeagent (Sep 30, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> If PPT is 235W the TDP(by AMD) is not 105W but it is way more than that,


That would be 215w for 235w PPT, 190 EDC.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 30, 2022)

freeagent said:


> That would be 215w for 235w PPT, 190 EDC.


In order to use AMD's formula you have to know all 3 parameters
1. tCase (IHS)
2. tAmbient (air temp on intake of HSF)
3. θca (thermal resistance of the cooler as a whole, HSF)


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 30, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> I can convert watts to horsepower too... and?
> Complicating things even further is not the way to go IMHO.
> 
> Sorry but I do not see how this can contribute to the conversation here of *how AMD and Intel define TDP*.


Yes exactly.









						Convert Kilowatts To Horsepower (kW to HP Calculator)
					

Kilowatt to horsepower conversion is one of the most common ones. Here’s how you can convert kW to HP: 1 kW = 1.341 HP The easiest way to remember the kW to HP conversion formula is to remember how many kilowatts is 1 horsepower of energy: 1 HP = 3/4 kW We’ll convert kW to ... Read more




					learnmetrics.com
				




Thermal Design Point?

I think wattage converted to BTU is directly on point.

I'm using the ICE as an energy usage, which is the argument that a cpu is 100% energy efficient. Which in fact is the complete opposite.

We waste a lot of energy to store data code.
Then to process it.

Perhaps the example does give a twist, but if YOU think a cpu is 100% efficient like the other gentleman, you're both just plain dead wrong.

I'm done here then. It's no problem Zach. Wasn't trying to draw out a debate, I'm being quoted, which means you guys want replies.

So there's my links to back my statements above.

Enjoy, peace.



freeagent said:


> That would be 215w for 235w PPT, 190 EDC.


Shawn, AMD measures TDP at the base clock frequency. 

The PBO enabled at default is only a perk to the boost algorithm.

So my 2700X for example is 105w at 3.7ghz.

To test the theory, turn off all the boosty stuff, leave your c-states on and default the memory frequency and take a full load measurement. Simple experiment. I found my 2700x to be just about dead on the advertised frequency.

Now try and sell a chip ACTUALLY rated 230w. That's tough to swallow. 

It's about processing more and consuming less energy (server market) in the long run. 
When a chip can dissipate exactly 0w, it would be then 100% efficient. There is no such thing, but humans will try. I say dissipate because TDP is a Thermal number which you or I, them, and we can convert to BTU.

Intel measures, or once did, not sure today honestly, the TDP of the cpu over an average frequency and power over the life time of the chip. In my opinion here, essentially at or near the base clocks as well considering Intel also "boosts" their chips. Lest we forget the idle time. Off time is not included here.

The Electrical Design Current is the capability of the VRMs on your board. My B450-I ROG will allow 224a and my B450M-A only allows 190a max. 

And the wattage is based on them amps. That's your power at a given voltage. Lower voltage and amps, that's the goal. Running a cpu cooler. Dissipating less energy... to simply process a 1 or 0.


----------



## freeagent (Sep 30, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Shawn, AMD measures TDP at the base clock frequency.
> 
> The PBO enabled at default is only a perk to the boost algorithm.


Yessir!




freeagent said:


> I was under the impression that AMD got their tdp at full load, stock setting. So on my 5900x it would be 3700MHz. Which at stock setting it will drop down to those clocks with a heavy load. Even if that heavy load doesn’t bring the cpu to 60c.
> 
> Stock settings suck.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 30, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> You are missing the point of what AMD is declaring with their TDP number
> 
> They are not telling that power is same thing with temperature.
> Nowhere near that. This is applied physics (thermodynamics).
> ...


I understand all of this. I watched every video and read every article when they came up with this. I still think that it's overcomplicated and misleading for customers.

In an ideal world, there should be a consensus of what TDP means, and no manufacturer should be allowed to come up with their bullshit formulae to manipulate public perception.


----------



## Zach_01 (Sep 30, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> I understand all of this. I watched every video and read every article when they came up with this. I still think that it's overcomplicated and misleading for customers.
> 
> In an ideal world, there should be a consensus of what TDP means, and no manufacturer should be allowed to come up with their bullshit formulae to manipulate public perception.


Cant argue with that



ShrimpBrime said:


> Yes exactly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is a different discussion really from what TDP is or it should be or what every company calls it to be to suit its marketing.

We measure VRM efficiency/inefficiency by how much heat they output from the input/output power at any given amount and we draw curve about it.
On the other hand CPU power and every chip in general that output heat is a little more complicated than this simple approach I think.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 30, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> Cant argue with that
> 
> 
> This is a different discussion really from what TDP is or it should be or what every company calls it to be to suit its marketing.
> ...


The TDP of a cpu is the cpu only from anything I've ever read. 

Typically for processors, I try to view the white sheets.


----------



## Toothless (Sep 30, 2022)

A Computer Guy said:


> Ok. interesting.  I found before overriding defaults for PPT, TDC, and EDC I can independently do an all core -20 so I have some headroom to play with.  4.4ghz all core and 4950mhz is pretty similar to what I was getting but I need to improve how I'm documenting and observing frequency to know for sure.  Depending on how I balance things can get 4.525ghz to 4.575ghz all core  or  5.025ghz on a few cores depending on how I balance PPT, TDC, and EDC before curve optimization.
> 
> 
> Yea it seems depending on the combination I try I either stay around 60c or spike above approaching 80c.  I have to admit I was getting impatient last night during testing various combinations but also it seems if I set PPT too high in relation to EDC it blows past my set EDC limit (ignoring it ) making testing more problematic.  I'm not on the latest BIOS/UEFI at the moment and maybe I need to be in order to do this properly.


I let it hit 80c. I've come to terms that minus a custom loop, it'll hit that. 

I followed a guide on Reddit for my overclock stuff, I can DM it if you'd like.


----------



## A Computer Guy (Sep 30, 2022)

Toothless said:


> I let it hit 80c. I've come to terms that minus a custom loop, it'll hit that.
> 
> I followed a guide on Reddit for my overclock stuff, I can DM it if you'd like.


I might have come across that before but sure send it to me.


----------



## RJARRRPCGP (Oct 1, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> 5800X3D feels like a locked Intel CPU lol


That's why I'm hesitant to get one of those, albeit it's not off the table yet, at least for a future AM4 build.


----------



## tabascosauz (Oct 1, 2022)

RJARRRPCGP said:


> That's why I'm hesitant to get one of those, albeit it's not off the table yet, at least for a future AM4 build.



I should clarify, it's only like a non-K Intel CPU in that multiplier and Fmax are locked (and Curve Optimizer/PBO are not accessible unless you use PBO2 Tuner). It doesn't run anywhere near as cool as a 12400 would   it takes a lot of work to tame, even more than 5800X for those above reasons.

If you haven't already gotten one, just wait for the real Vcache products on AM5 when they've worked all the refinements in. This one is just a technology demonstrator.


----------



## freeagent (Oct 1, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> This one is just a technology demonstrator.


Might be a collector's item someday


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 1, 2022)

freeagent said:


> Might be a collector's item someday


Might be the first to go off the market also next year



ShrimpBrime said:


> The TDP of a cpu is the cpu only from anything I've ever read.


I’m not saying it’s not.

We are on different page?

VRMs was en easier example of what efficiency is on the subject:
Is the CPU 0~100% efficient?

Same as:
Is an incandescent light bulb 0~100% efficient? What about LED light bulbs?


----------



## freeagent (Oct 1, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> Might be the first to go off the market also next year


That’s ok, I have one for my collection


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 1, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> No way a cpu is 100% efficient. You wouldn't dissipate heat because the electrical energy ....
> 
> Is watts
> 
> ...





Zach_01 said:


> On the other hand CPU power and every chip in general that output heat is a little more complicated than this simple approach I think.


You cant compare how a CPU uses power like a PSU efficiency or a light bulb and how much energy is convert to light and heat. You can’t put a percentage on a CPU in that way.
I couldn’t explain it my self but I found an answer that tells all I wanted to say.

And I quote:

_“When a power supply is rated as 85% efficient, what they mean is that 85% of the energy that goes into the power supply makes it to the components that it is powering, and ~15% is released as heat. 

*CPUs/GPUs/etc don't work by directing the energy elsewhere, so it's not clear how you would rate their efficiency. They use all of the energy they receive, and it is all turned into heat*. 

You could do something like number of operations per second per watt of power (and this is in fact an important factor, especially in mobile processors), but that's not a percentage. 

*It's a common misconception that CPUs receive energy, use some of it for computation, and release the rest as heat. This isn't true. It's the act of performing the computations that releases the heat. 100 watts into a CPU will produce 100 watts of heat.”*_

Source of quote:

_


		https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/35be48
_
So you can’t really say that a CPU has 0% efficiency because all the power received is transformed into heat.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Oct 1, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> You cant compare how a CPU uses power like a PSU efficiency or a light bulb and how much energy is convert to light and heat. You can’t put a percentage on a CPU in that way.
> I couldn’t explain it my self but I found an answer that tells all I wanted to say.
> 
> And I quote:
> ...


So from that, putting In 100w is dissipated as 100w of heat means ZERO efficiency, because it's just simply not really used, at least in a conventional sense of the way most would think of it.

I would say that perhaps 100w in closer to 95w out because some of the power is used in some sense to have the processor simply to turn on.

Processor efficiency is generally calculated by instructions per watt, and we would compare today's processor to yesterday's processor.

Obviously at the same 100w dissipation of an 8c16t cpu is much better than a single core..... 

But it can't be 100% efficient cause then a single core would be 100%, a dual core a 100% and an 8 core 100%..... how could all of these be as efficient as the other??


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 1, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> So from that, putting In 100w is dissipated as 100w of heat means ZERO efficiency, because it's just simply not really used, at least in a conventional sense of the way most would think of it.
> 
> I would say that perhaps 100w in closer to 95w out because some of the power is used in some sense to have the processor simply to turn on.
> 
> ...


What I'm saying is that you cant put a percentage of efficiency on a CPU/GPU or any other like wise chip like you do on other devices.
Its neither 0% nor 100%. Its not anything in middle either. There is not a possible way to measure this.

Like you said efficiency of a CPU is measured eventually in performance/watt and can only be used as metric to compare it to any another CPU, but this kind of efficiency is completely and utterly different of the one of a PSU or a light bulb.
CPU is no incandescent light bulb to to feed it 100W and take 2W as light and 98W as heat or even like the opposite if we are talking about LED lights.
Doesn't work like this.
*You can't say I feed the CPU with 100W and I take 2W or 98W as transistor operations and whats left is heat.*

Heat in a CPU is produced by its transistors operations and the whatever resistance opposed to current and maybe other stuff too that elude me right now.
So eventually all of the electric power is conversed to heat. If there was a number like the way you mean it, it would be known by now for every chip ever made.
Such a metric does not exist on a CPU, GPU etc...

I have nothing else to say about the subject and I will not make another circle which I'm feeling we are doing.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Oct 1, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> What I'm saying is that you cant put a percentage of efficiency on a CPU/GPU or any other like wise chip like you do on other devices.
> Its neither 0% nor 100%. Its not anything in middle either. There is not a possible way to measure this.
> 
> Like you said efficiency of a CPU is measured eventually in performance/watt and can only be used as metric to compare it to any another CPU, but this kind of efficiency is completely and utterly different of the one of a PSU or a light bulb.
> ...


I feel we are agreeing to disagree actually. Fully understand the point of view....

But the wattage is going somewhere. It's not going into a CPU and then nothing happens. The wattage is dissipated as heat. Or we wouldn't need heat sinks.

The efficiency measurement is just the difficult portion of it all. 

We can say today's chips are much more efficient.

So saying 5 billion transistors in operation dissipating 100w VS 500 thousand dissipating 100w. 
Obviously the one with more transistors would be more efficient with the heat dissipated.

The amount of wattage used, I think is the difficult part really. It's gotta be something becuase the CPU is on and transistors are in operation. 
So it would be valid to say the CPU actually consumes (uses) maybe 5% of that wattage. Because it's on and transistors are operational. 

What you have in bold there.... is exactly what I'm saying. What's left is heat. Same thing with that 30% effecient IC engine. What is not converted to kinetic energy is dissipated as heat. 

For technical purposes, the electrical current is really just "passed through" transistors. 

So I'll quote some information, I'd love to hear your take on it. Is the wattage USED or is the wattage DISSIPATED?????

Not sure how reputable. But it's a read of basics really. 








						Transistor - Basics, Working Principle, Definition, Applications
					

Transistors have revolutionised the electronic industries since they were first invented. It is a semiconductor device made of silicon, a chemical compound commonly found in sand. Visit to learn about its working and applications.




					byjus.com
				





> A transistor consists of two PN diodes connected back to back. It has three terminals namely emitter, base and collector. The basic idea behind a transistor is that *it lets you control the flow of current through one channel by varying the intensity of a much smaller current that's flowing through a second channel*.



Oh hey, check this out. Found it on google pictures. Thought to look for some visuals.


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 1, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> Might be the first to go off the market also next year


That would make sense considering that that CPU is the biggest enemy of Zen 4 in gaming (not the 12900K).


----------



## shadowvault (Oct 1, 2022)

I dunno, I have APU AMD 10-7850K and even with Cooler Master hyper gives me around 40-ish idle and around 70 full load. Is a metal, it gets warm, OP might wanna look into a better thermal paste or maybe the reading sensor got broken but  doesn't explain temperature by itself unless it has a temp barometer, they have a camera nowadays I saw, things. Been away for a while from PC's but I still got my dexterity bar raised up, I've been around them since I know


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 1, 2022)

shadowvault said:


> I dunno, I have APU AMD 10-7850K and even with Cooler Master hyper gives me around 40-ish idle and around 70 full load. Is a metal, it gets warm, OP might wanna look into a better thermal paste or maybe the reading sensor got broken but  doesn't explain temperature by itself unless it has a temp barometer, they have a camera nowadays I saw, things. Been away for a while from PC's but I still got my dexterity bar raised up, I've been around them since I know


Just read reviews of Ryzen 7000 series CPUs. They are nothing like the 7850K. Just because you know your 7850K, it doesn't mean you know all CPUs.


----------



## A Computer Guy (Oct 1, 2022)

Toothless said:


> I let it hit 80c. I've come to terms that minus a custom loop, it'll hit that.
> 
> I followed a guide on Reddit for my overclock stuff, I can DM it if you'd like.


Here is what I got if your interested.  I decided to give Ryzen Master a try to do the curve optimization automatically and did a quick run with CPU-z. 
I'm not entirely convinced the curves are stable yet but it's enough to get through some experimenting.

Managed to hit All Core 4.674GHz at about 70c with CPU-z. 





Cinebench 23 is a bit different and hits at a lower all core clock when it's running.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 1, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> I feel we are agreeing to disagree actually. Fully understand the point of view....
> 
> But the wattage is going somewhere. It's not going into a CPU and then nothing happens. The wattage is dissipated as heat. Or we wouldn't need heat sinks.
> 
> ...


The link you provide its inaccessible to EU.
And this picture only shows that a CPU has an input of electric power and outputs the power as a heat, most of it through IHS and some of it though the socket and mainboard which is what AMD is saying indirectly with their definition of TDP against PPT and with their formula. This picture does not saying anything about efficiency.

----------------------------------

For the last time...
According to conservation of energy:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only can change form or be transferred to a different location or object.


*In order to calculate the electric/power efficiency of a device you have to have 3 different values. 1 input and 2 output (1 input=2 output)*
Out of the 2 output 1 is useful the other is considered lost.

Incandescent light bulb:
1. Input electric power (100W)
2. Light (2W) = useful 
3. Heat (98W) = lost
This device has an efficiency of 2% since its used for light. The rest 98% is "lost" as heat from the conversion. Lost as not transformed into light, not really lost.

PSU:
1. Input electric power (100W)
2. Output electric power (90W) = useful
2. Heat (10W) = lost
This device has an efficiency of 90% since its used for supplying power of different voltage from the input. The rest 10% is "lost" as heat from the conversion to a different voltage. Lost as not transformed into the new voltage, not really lost.

Combustion engine with 35% efficiency:
1. Fuel+Air (Input mass)
2. Kinetic energy = useful 35%
3. Hot exhaust gasses (mass + heat) = lost 65%

Please fill the gaps below if you can 
I can't...

CPU:
1. Input electric power (100W)
2. ____________  = useful)
3. ____________  = lost
This device has an efficiency of __% since its used for __________________________________. The rest __% is "lost" as heat from the conversion to _____________. Lost as not transformed into ______________, not really lost.

What 2 forms of energy are you going to put in there on 2 and 3?



AusWolf said:


> That would make sense considering that that CPU is the biggest enemy of Zen 4 in gaming (not the 12900K).


I'm not convinced yet that it is really or not.



Though this is a very narrow, maybe cherry picked, selection of games.
I am waiting for a more wider game benchmarks. Same one I think its going to post a comparison of 50 games at some point.



shadowvault said:


> I dunno, I have APU AMD 10-7850K and even with Cooler Master hyper gives me around 40-ish idle and around 70 full load. Is a metal, it gets warm, OP might wanna look into a better thermal paste or maybe the reading sensor got broken but  doesn't explain temperature by itself unless it has a temp barometer, they have a camera nowadays I saw, things. Been away for a while from PC's but I still got my dexterity bar raised up, I've been around them since I know


OP does not have a problem with CPU thermals. Initially on this thread we were discussing the new Ryzen7000 series and its "new normal" standards of constant operation at 95C.
Please read out first 10 pages if you're interested.


----------



## shadowvault (Oct 1, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> Just read reviews of Ryzen 7000 series CPUs. They are nothing like the 7850K.



Is a powerful processor regardless, is not a athlon or intel core duo, is somewhere around a i5 mark in Intel terms. But I didn't mean you to compare anything, I just said CPU in general the cores are hot even if you watercool it, they gotta sit at 30ish and say if you got a 2008 setup, say 2008 because if you're young you might not know. People used to do iirc some freon system and even there it went from -0 to full load 20c.

@Zach_01 

I was just chit chating, I have all pleasure to talk about it as long as is logical! Thank you for joining our conversation.


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 1, 2022)

shadowvault said:


> Is a powerful processor regardless, is not a athlon or intel core duo, is somewhere around a i5 mark in Intel terms. But I didn't mean you to compare anything, I just said CPU in general the cores are hot even if you watercool it, they gotta sit at 30ish and say if you got a 2008 setup, say 2008 because if you're young you might not know. People used to do iirc some freon system and even there it went from -0 to full load 20c.


I've been building PCs since the early 2000s so I know what you're talking about. But trust me, modern, chiplet-based AMD CPUs are nothing like anything we've seen before in terms of thermal behaviour. Just read the reviews, OK?


----------



## shadowvault (Oct 1, 2022)

AMD always was the "ocultish" side of hardware culture. I don't need to read them, I don't as you might know "shadowvault", I think of self-love 24/7, hope as we all do.


----------



## Toothless (Oct 1, 2022)

A Computer Guy said:


> Here is what I got if your interested.  I decided to give Ryzen Master a try to do the curve optimization automatically and did a quick run with CPU-z.
> I'm not entirely convinced the curves are stable yet but it's enough to get through some experimenting.
> 
> Managed to hit All Core 4.674GHz at about 70c with CPU-z.
> ...


You have given me hope on overclocking again. I thank thee.


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 1, 2022)

shadowvault said:


> AMD always was the "ocultish" side of hardware culture. I don't need to read them, I don't as you might know "shadowvault", I think of self-love 24/7, hope as we all do.


If you can't be bothered to check out a single review to see what the discussion is actually about, then why join the discussion at all?

"Educating" people on the old A10-7950K without first educating yourself about the topic at hand serves no purpose. Just saying.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Oct 1, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> The link you provide its inaccessible to EU.
> And this picture only shows that a CPU has an input of electric power and outputs the power as a heat, most of it through IHS and some of it though the socket and mainboard which is what AMD is saying indirectly with their definition of TDP against PPT and with their formula. This picture does not saying anything about efficiency.
> 
> ----------------------------------
> ...



But that's my point. 

Transistors do not USE up the current. 
The wattage is transformed into another energy, basically through resistance. (Conservation of energy)
100w in = 100w out. (Or very damn near it.) 
I'm no engineer, but that's the way I've always thought how processors really work.

Maybe I'm mistaken?

Here's a small forum post with a similar question.



> "Where does all the power consumed by a cpu go?"
> 
> Answer
> "In the CPU it's all heat. It's the changing from 0 to 1 and back (which ultimately is what a computer does) which consumes the energy, because charge has to be moved from one place to another, and it's this current (moving charge) through resistance which causes heat. P=I2×R"



Again, I have no idea how reputable this link is. But I'm trying to back my statements.
And since you cannot open links that I can, I quoted it above for you.
Source https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/79166/where-does-all-the-power-consumed-by-a-cpu-go


----------



## Night (Oct 1, 2022)

Let's say that base clock current use is 64A, and that the CPU uses 1.25V, power would be 80W so I guess that's a possibility. P = I^2 *  R (formula for direct current), R = U / I, which is 0,01953125 ohms so
P = 4096 * 0,01953125 = 80 W. Or more simply P = U * I.



Zach_01 said:


> CPUs/GPUs/etc don't work by directing the energy elsewhere, so it's not clear how you would rate their efficiency.


It's actually possible to rate their efficiency with performance per watt, and could also be expressed as FLOPS per watt.
Also like this:


			
				W1zzard said:
			
		

> Just looking at power draw in watts won't paint the whole picture for any given processor. It's not only important how much power is consumed, but also how quickly a task is completed—taking both into account results in "efficiency." Since a faster processor will complete a given workload quicker, the total amount of energy used might end up less than on a low-powered processor, which might draw less power, but will take longer to finish the test. In this section, we divide the achieved performance by the power usage, to get a Cinebench points per watt single-threaded and multi-threaded result.


----------



## freeagent (Oct 1, 2022)

I can see your brains pulsating from here 

I hate math.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Oct 1, 2022)

Night said:


> Let's say that base clock current use is 64A, and that the CPU uses 1.25V, power would be 80W so I guess that's a possibility. P = I^2 *  R (formula for direct current), R = U / I, which is 0,01953125 ohms so
> P = 4096 * 0,01953125 = 80 W. Or more simply P = U * I.


So is that accurate then?

The wattage in (electrically) is converted and then dissipated as a "Thermal" (Missing here: Design Point) In total TDP?


----------



## Night (Oct 1, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> So is that accurate then?
> 
> The wattage in (electrically) is converted and then dissipated as a "Thermal" (Missing here: Design Point) In total TDP?


From Wikipedia:


> The *thermal design power* (*TDP*), sometimes called *thermal design point*, is the maximum amount of *heat* generated by a computer chip or component (often a CPU, GPU or system on a chip) that the cooling system in a computer is designed to dissipate under any workload.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Oct 1, 2022)

Night said:


> From Wikipedia:


Oh, right. 

Then what is put into a cpu is converted and simply dissipated as a different type of energy. Nothing more to it then. That's all I was trying to say this entire time.

Put in 100w, get out 100w. 
Efficiency of this transaction is simply measured by calculations per watt.

I think I better understand the thought a CPU is 100% efficient where all processing is done on all 100w now. 
Figuring you can process a lot or a little, the energy USE is almost totally wasted because we get only but digital currency from the transaction of changing electrical wattage to a thermal wattage. 

Cool.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 1, 2022)

Night said:


> It's actually possible to rate their efficiency with performance per watt, and could also be expressed as FLOPS per watt.
> Also like this:


Yes I’ve said that several times actually.
This is different kind of efficiency though (than a PSU, or a light bulb efficiency) and has a meaning by comparison to another CPU. It’s not a percentage. That’s what I was saying.

To sum up

Every CPU will convert all its input power into heat at any given time. The difference is that some do more work and others less.
Depending on the characteristics of their process node, their architecture and of course their operating temp.


----------



## Mats (Oct 1, 2022)

A single tower heatsink managed to run cooler, with higher clock speed, and higher CBench score than with the 360 mm Corsair H150i thanks to PBO2 undervolting Curve optimizer in BIOS.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 1, 2022)

Mats said:


> A single tower heatsink managed to run cooler, with higher clock speed, and higher CBench score than with the 360 mm Corsair H150i thanks to PBO2 undervolting in BIOS.
> 
> View attachment 263900


True…
Still if you do the same with the H150i 360 you may get even better results.


----------



## Mats (Oct 1, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> True…
> Still if you do the same with the H150i 360 you may get even better results.


Of course, but I think the whole point with that video was to show that you don't have to go liquid cooling, and you can still stay under 90 degrees, most likely.

He really missed the point tho with the video title, I mean how many are interested in seeing a Wraith cooler being tested?


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 1, 2022)

Mats said:


> Of course, but I think the whole point with that video was to show that you don't have to go liquid cooling, and you can still stay under 90 degrees, most likely.


Yes
Tuning and tweaking tends to be the real new normal with every new generation.


----------



## Mats (Oct 1, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> Yes
> Tuning and tweaking tends to be the real new normal with every new generation.


Yup, it wasn't the same kind of necessity with the 5000s.

A 31 degrees drop when combined with lower power limit is more than what I expected. (OptimumTech)


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 2, 2022)

Mats said:


> Yup, it wasn't the same kind of necessity with the 5000s.
> 
> A 31 degrees drop when combined with lower power limit is more than what I expected. (OptimumTech)
> 
> View attachment 263907


Yeah I saw that before and two things impresses me...

1. The level of performance Ryzen 7000 offers below 100W
2. The level of inefficiency AMD chose to default them for the sake of competition

Most likely if you set this at half the wattage of the 5000 equivalent (5800X 142W) you get at least the same performance, if not more.
I guess AMD is on the edge with the Intel 13th and didn't wanted to be left too far behind until 3D V-Cache arrives at 2023.

EDIT: typo


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 2, 2022)

Mats said:


> A single tower heatsink managed to run cooler, with higher clock speed, and higher CBench score than with the 360 mm Corsair H150i thanks to PBO2 undervolting in BIOS.
> 
> View attachment 263900


Did he do the curve optimizer or just the undervolt? There's still lots of room for tuning if it's the latter.


----------



## Mats (Oct 2, 2022)

R0H1T said:


> Did he do the curve optimizer or just the undervolt? There's still lots of room for tuning if it's the latter.


Curve optimizer. Sorry, just a typo


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 2, 2022)

Mats said:


> A single tower heatsink managed to run cooler, with higher clock speed, and higher CBench score than with the 360 mm Corsair H150i thanks to PBO2 undervolting Curve optimizer in BIOS.
> 
> View attachment 263900


That's proof of what reviewers have been saying, and of what some of us have been saying in the last 10 or so pages:
1. Zen 4 will always run hot. Your cooler choice will have little to no effect on temperatures. What your cooler choice will affect, is your clock speed that goes with that temperature.
2. It also proves that the Zen 4 is massively overvolted by default.


----------



## Mats (Oct 2, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> That's proof of what reviewers have been saying, and of what some of us have been saying in the last 10 or so pages:
> 1. Zen 4 will always run hot. Your cooler choice will have little to no effect on temperatures. What your cooler choice will affect, is your clock speed that goes with that temperature.
> 2. It also proves that the Zen 4 is massively overvolted by default.


It's not really surprising, as that much higher clock speed must come from somewhere. AMD showcased the 7950X running a game at 5.5+ GHz in May.


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 2, 2022)

Mats said:


> It's not really surprising, as that much higher clock speed must come from somewhere. AMD showcased the 7950X running a game at 5.5+ GHz in May.


Exactly. Especially when you pair it with increased TDP and increased density of the chiplets.


----------



## Upgrayedd (Oct 2, 2022)

I see you guys talk chips being hotter that are "denser" which to me, means packing more transistors.
That doesn't make sense to me.  
Whether it has 5 transistors or 50bil, if using 100w there's 100w of heat. I don't think the silicon molecules are getting any more or less dense.

Or are you guys referring to actual die area just getting smaller?  Like 100w in 200mm^2 vs 100w in 100mm^2.


----------



## kapone32 (Oct 2, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> I see you guys talk chips being hotter that are "denser" which to me, means packing more transistors.
> That doesn't make sense to me.
> Whether it has 5 transistors or 50bil, if using 100w there's 100w of heat. I don't think the silicon molecules are getting any more or less dense.
> 
> Or are you guys referring to actual die area just getting smaller?  Like 100w in 200mm^2 vs 100w in 100mm^2.


The 7950X has about 3 times the transistors vs a 5950X. The package is about the same size and you need to power every single one of them. That in turn means more gates are opening in the same space which means more heat in a defined space. Testing and time may prove that a cooler that has a base plate much larger than the actual CPU may be better able to spread that heat corresponding to lower temps. .


----------



## Upgrayedd (Oct 2, 2022)

kapone32 said:


> The 7950X has about 3 times the transistors vs a 5950X. The package is about the same size and you need to power every single one of them. That in turn means more gates are opening in the same space which means more heat in a defined space. Testing and time may prove that a cooler that has a base plate much larger than the actual CPU may be better able to spread that heat corresponding to lower temps. .


More gates but the same power draw just means each gate uses less power right?  Still the same amount of energy used overall.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Oct 2, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> I see you guys talk chips being hotter that are "denser" which to me, means packing more transistors.
> That doesn't make sense to me.
> Whether it has 5 transistors or 50bil, if using 100w there's 100w of heat. I don't think the silicon molecules are getting any more or less dense.
> 
> Or are you guys referring to actual die area just getting smaller?  Like 100w in 200mm^2 vs 100w in 100mm^2.


The reduction of transistor size helps use less current.
The addition to transistor count adds to use more current.

90nm 50mil = 100w
5nm 50bil = 100w.

Transistor density from reduced node size, but more productive at the same wattage. Because there's more transistors.

Could you imagine how cool these chips would run if we never made it past dual core days?

In example, my 12400F is quite cool with 2 core running 5.2ghz or faster even at 1.30v. Which all core 6c 12t would be pretty hot.

Surface area would be smaller if the motherboard still housed the North Bridge chipset, but having I/O on die reduces latency quite a bit. And only a couple extra watts involved there.


----------



## kapone32 (Oct 2, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> More gates but the same power draw just means each gate uses less power right?  Still the same amount of energy used overall.


Even if the the smaller gates use less power the fact that there is more of them inherently means there is more power. We are basically discussing the mitigating factor of why 7000 is so much faster than 5000. Even LN could only get a 5950x to over 5 GHZ stable but that is literally the limit of the chip where as the 7950x hits 5.8 GHZ with regular cooling, even the base clock is 1.1 GHz higher. If they had done the same thing with the 5950x in terms of transistor count you would have a chip between the size of a TR4 and AM4 chip. This is why even in eco mode a 7950x will be "faster" than a 5950X. AMD has turned the chips to 11 so tuning one of these monsters could really show that these chips are one of the major benefits of competition as 13th Gen will be great too.


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 2, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> Or are you guys referring to actual die area just getting smaller?  Like 100w in 200mm^2 vs 100w in 100mm^2.


Yes, though the main reason is still more power, higher clocks and voltage, I think.


----------



## Upgrayedd (Oct 2, 2022)

kapone32 said:


> Even if the the smaller gates use less power the fact that there is more of them inherently means there is more power.


Can you see how that doesn't make sense at all. Maybe processor performance but not watt power.  100w is 100w.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 2, 2022)

Transistors and size

Zen3 8-core CCD: 4.15B, 83mm²
Zen4 8-core CCD: 6.57B, 70mm²

58.3% more transistor in a 15.3% smaller area.

Zen3: 50M/1mm²
Zen4: ~94M/1mm²

Almost double (+88%) transistor density

Even at the exact same power heat dissipation is getting harder indeed.
Let alone the increased power limit
142W >> 220~230W

The 115C Tjmax is not so crazy now I guess. I mean… it is but, no wonder…


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Oct 3, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> Transistors and size
> 
> Zen3 8-core CCD: 4.15B, 83mm2
> Zen4 8-core CCD: 6.57B, 70mm2
> ...


105w and 6.57B transistors, how many watts does a single transistor require to operate?


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 3, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> 105w and 6.57B transistors, how many watts does a single transistor require to operate?


I think it’s impossible to calculate this.

Between different core speeds and loads, different characteristics of cores, caches and what ever else is in there, dynamic operation with possibly different rate for each section of the CCD (caches, cores, etc).
Also traces in between them could add some more to resistance…

…and I’m sure I can’t think of everything.

Any attempt of calculation would terribly wrong.

Of course you can find an average value if 105/6.57B that includes every resistance possible inside the 8-Core CCD but you can’t really know what can be the min/max value for a singe transistor at any given time even for a locked speed and power.

I mean even at static conditions (speed, voltage, power) you can’t really know how the CPU distributes anything in there and what parts are (and if) working more than others.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Oct 3, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> I think it’s impossible to calculate this.
> 
> Between different core speeds and loads, different characteristics of cores, caches and what ever else is in there, dynamic operation with possibly different rate for each section of the CCD (caches, cores, etc).
> Also traces in between them could add some more to resistance…
> ...


Yea, you're right. Probably like 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001234w or some shit. 

At least what we have today beats what was going on back in school the early 90s. 
Like 10 mhz chips. Blazing fast computing. Maybe 5w and 100K transistors maybe. Everything off die basically. Cache upgradeable expandable. 

But luckily, you could break down some of that wattage usage from HWInfo64. 

The 12400F breaks down 

_________________________Max
CPU package power W - 62.579
IA cores Power W - 57.823
SA power W - 3.383
Rest of chip power W 0.449

Completing WPrime 32m in 2.7s (no avx)
DDr5 memory sticks report 1w and 0.875w with low of 0.125w. 2759mhz
Heat sinks on memory sticks? I don't think it's needed here....

Makes me curious at what frequency and or core reduction these new 7000 series chips become able for passive cooling.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Oct 3, 2022)

I wonder if we will begin to see vapor chamber IHS in future AM5 CPUs. The heat density is considerable, and the very thick IHS could make it a possibility.


----------



## Night (Oct 3, 2022)

Upgrayedd said:


> Can you see how that doesn't make sense at all. Maybe processor performance but not watt power.  100w is 100w.


Yes, however 5950X for example boost clocks to 4.9 GHz out of the box, while 7950X boosts to 5.7 GHz, that's a substantial increase for the same amount of power being used, a 7950X would use around 80W or less for a clock of 4.9 GHz. As far as cooling goes, a physically bigger chip and its IHS would be more efficient at transfering heat in my opinion, making it easier on cooling solutions.


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 3, 2022)

Night said:


> As far as cooling goes, a physically bigger chip and its IHS would be more efficient at transfering heat in my opinion, making it easier on cooling solutions.


That! When you increase your cooler's size, you're increasing its contact surface with air. When you increase the size of a chip, you're increasing its contact surface with the IHS / cooler coldplate.


----------



## tabascosauz (Oct 3, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> The 12400F breaks down
> 
> _________________________Max
> CPU package power W - 62.579
> ...



I used to have this whitepaper saved somewhere about how Intel hardware internally measures power. Off the top of my head I remember Intel measures not estimates most rails.

On AMD only Vcore and VSOC are measured, everything else is estimated to add up to Package power. Which leads to some wacky numbers that don't add up on APU, but in the end measured EPS power is still roughly in the right place.

Both can have their power reporting messed with, though.

Manufacturers will always say measure EPS if you want accurate numbers but that includes VRM losses, not sure how much difference it makes. But, it should be very close (1-2W tops) if my 2060 Super is any indication - the total board input power is usually about a watt off the GPU power (relatively mediocre 8(?)phase VRM with ONsemi 50A parts). It's a shame that the total input power measurement disappeared on RTX 30 series, but AFAIK GPU power is still measured the same way (albeit transients are now even worse as with RDNA2).


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 3, 2022)

Here we go.


----------



## Zach_01 (Oct 3, 2022)

@buildzoid has a video with testing 7950X power limits with a little unusual method. He compares the CPU power scaling against it self on 50W as a starting point up to 275W (steps of 25W).
Its interesting, as it shows that past 175~200W there is almost no gains.
I think most of us here in this thread at least already established that.

A reminder that this test is with just power limit increase and nothing else (no info about EDC either). Its not that the CPU necessarily did draw that level of power (275W).
In fact there is no info of what level of power the CPU did reach but given the results I would say around 200~210W.

Remember also that Ryzen7000 is very much.... I want to say temp sensitive, but not quite... I'll say heat dissipation sensitive first and then temp sensitive.
_Per AMD: The CPU will reach temp limit before power limit._
Most likely if there is a possibility for a higher dissipation rate (better cooler) the CPU would scale a little better past the 150~175W points and up to stock power limit (220~230W). Not great, sure... but better.


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 3, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> @buildzoid has a video with testing 7950X power limits with a little unusual method. He compares the CPU power scaling against it self on 50W as a starting point up to 275W (steps of 25W).
> Its interesting, as it shows that past 175~200W there is almost no gains.
> I think most of us here in this thread at least already established that.
> 
> ...


"Not great, not terrible." 95 °C is the new 3.6 Roentgen.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Oct 3, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> I used to have this whitepaper saved somewhere about how Intel hardware internally measures power. Off the top of my head I remember Intel measures not estimates most rails.
> 
> On AMD only Vcore and VSOC are measured, everything else is estimated to add up to Package power. Which leads to some wacky numbers that don't add up on APU, but in the end measured EPS power is still roughly in the right place.
> 
> ...


For earlier gen Ryzen chips, the HWInfo power deviation reporting at or near enough to 100% should have the PPT reading pretty close to accurate. give or take 5% I believe, which is also the allowable (in most processors) TDP swing. This would be in regards to total package power draw.

If the chip is 145w power draw limit, depending on how the bios is written, this figure can be skewed however. Basically the bios lying and reporting a lower figure than actual, the power deviation would not be near 100%, then you know something whacky is going on.



Zach_01 said:


> @buildzoid has a video with testing 7950X power limits with a little unusual method. He compares the CPU power scaling against it self on 50W as a starting point up to 275W (steps of 25W).
> Its interesting, as it shows that past 175~200W there is almost no gains.
> I think most of us here in this thread at least already established that.
> 
> ...


That was really interesting.

The high temperature threshold specifies the CPU temperature that causes ALERT_L to assert if the CPU temperature is greater than or equal to the threshold. SBTSI::HiTempInt and SBTSI::HiTempDec combine to specify the high temperature threshold. See 6.2.5 [SB-TSI Temperature and Threshold Encodings]. Reset value equals 70 °C. Write access causes a reset of the alert history counters (specified by SBTSI::AlertThreshold[AlertThr]) and the corresponding timer (specified by SBTSI::UpdateRate[UpRate]). See 6.2.3 [Alert Behavior].

That would be page 322 on the white sheet I left a couple pages back.

This specific quote is what I look for in the white papers. The above is the same in all generations of Ryzen chips available, but I cannot confirm this for Zen 7000.

I would pay close attention to the threads and comments, "My CPU sounds like a jet engine!!!"" and the above is why.

100% temperature sensitive. The cpu would use the temperature change given over a small threshold of time and will adjust power and frequency accordingly.

Probably with some other values involved, but 70c, the Cpu will not request additional power.

_____

So hopefully at some point they release the white papers.

The revision guide is viewable however.


----------



## Mats (Oct 6, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> I wonder if we will begin to see vapor chamber IHS in future AM5 CPUs. The heat density is considerable, and the very thick IHS could make it a possibility.


Or, what if that beefy lid is a placeholder for a stack of multiple dies in the future, not just CCD + 3D cache. I've heard about such designs for years, but never understood how they would cool it properly..

*Maybe the lid will get thinner even after 7000X3D and before AM5 is EOL, because of more stacked dies? *

If AMD just wanted to keep the height without making a thick lid, why didn't they? They designed the socket from ground up, I fail to see what could have stopped them. AM4 coolers are nowhere near 100 % compatible anyway, so that's not it.

On the other hand, AMD *must* make the lid thicker now in order to make room for stacked dies in the future, without having to change the socket specifications later.
(The CCD in 5800X3D is thinner than other CCD's because otherwise there would not be any room for the cache die.)

Maybe the thick lid is just a sign of something yet to come, and not just an annoying compromise, or a mistake.


----------



## A Computer Guy (Oct 6, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> @buildzoid has a video with testing 7950X power limits with a little unusual method. He compares the CPU power scaling against it self on 50W as a starting point up to 275W (steps of 25W).
> Its interesting, as it shows that past 175~200W there is almost no gains.


I'd like to see that same test for comparison with a delidded Zen4 CPU.



Mats said:


> Maybe the thick lid is just a sign of something yet to come, and not just an annoying compromise, or a mistake.


Maybe something juicy like stacked e-cores.  That would be wild.


----------



## Xex360 (Oct 8, 2022)

Zach_01 said:


> @buildzoid has a video with testing 7950X power limits with a little unusual method. He compares the CPU power scaling against it self on 50W as a starting point up to 275W (steps of 25W).
> Its interesting, as it shows that past 175~200W there is almost no gains.
> I think most of us here in this thread at least already established that.
> 
> ...


Seems AMD went full on to take on Intel, with Zen3 it seems they left some performance on the table, have they been more forgiving power and temperature wise they could've been faster.
Having said so, I do think we have this unfortunate trend of pushing hardware beyond its sweet spot, especially with some "reviewers" giving too much importance for 2 more FPS as if there are no settings to tweak (useless RT alone gives 50%+ performance).


----------

