Monday, March 13th 2017
AMD Says Ryzen 1700X, 1800X Have a Temperature Reporting "Offset"
AMD is now saying reports of poor thermal performance from the flagship Ryzen products can be attributed to a simple thing: Temperature Offsets. Apparently, to keep a "consistent fan policy," AMD has placed a 20C offset on the Ryzen 1700X and 1800X products, making them report temperature a good 20C above what the sensor reads. This interesting design choice may most assuredly be confusing to end users, but AMD is confident software will soon automatically adjust for this offset and report the true temperature when required.
In the same blog post detailing the changes on the 1700X and 1800X, AMD claims that temperature reporting "may be offset on certain CPU models so that all models on the AM4 Platform have the same maximum tCTL value." This could mean other future models would utilize a similar setup, so remember that moving forward with AMD's Zen-based lineup.
Source:
AMD
In the same blog post detailing the changes on the 1700X and 1800X, AMD claims that temperature reporting "may be offset on certain CPU models so that all models on the AM4 Platform have the same maximum tCTL value." This could mean other future models would utilize a similar setup, so remember that moving forward with AMD's Zen-based lineup.
89 Comments on AMD Says Ryzen 1700X, 1800X Have a Temperature Reporting "Offset"
Hey, windows, how about you load two heavy threads on the same core, b/c you don't know the difference between logical and physical. It's totally going to run the same speed as putting each thread on real cores. Dippydingaling told me so!
Scale that up to more threads, plus, spread across the CCXs when the relevant threads could be put on one CCX.
AMD has MORONS speaking.
BTW, didn't anyone see benchmarks with a CCX shut off and SMT disabled? Magically, the bug is gone! AMAZING! lol
8c/16 threads 1800x - 56w
8c/16 threads 6900k
Intel uses TIM instead of solder on their mainstream products only. And they do this because they can. the 7700k still has OC headroom with the TIM. Soldering it would reduce temps sure, but not provide much more OC headroom. Delidding has shown this. You might gain 1-200Mhz more, but the real gain is in the load-temps.
However the cpu is rated at a Tjunc of 100c so there is no need for them to use a more expensive method of cooling it since the TIM solution keeps it WELL within the specs as it is.
AMD use solder on ryzen because it needs to be, just like the 2011 chips from Intel is soldered.
Funny how TH gets a 95W CPU that only pulls 56W... maybe they measured the 65W 1700 and got their numbers mixed up. o_O
short version: all the graphs are from different conditions and are not comparable.
7700k
gaming - watch dogs 2, custom high cpu load test sequence.
max - intel ptu
1800x
gaming - metro ll (rather lean on cpu by todays standards)
max - luxrender/prime95 (prime afaik is still not working properly on ryzen)
6900k
you didn't post the right graph for gaming. that would be the one with 64.7 avg/73.3 max
max - fpu torture (i'd assume aida64). notably, 7700k had far lower consumption with fpu torture than ptu.
you said 67°c typical load OC @200W and ~middle 20°C idle and it's ... bad? (or did i just cross read it ? )
my 6600K at 4.4 idle at middle 20C° and typical load between 55 and 68°C depending on the game/software ...
actually that a 8 core 16 thread (albeit at a lower clock) manage to get the same temp as a quad ... 95W (oh wait OC too soo probably more than 95W )
though you mentioned not being able to add more V than 1.375 due to the temperatures ... you mean 67°? (because 67° load for me is kinda low )
price/performance Ratio... Ryzen take the Crown .... a 7700K is less and less desirable for me ... even a 6900K, a simple R7 1700 will suffice ... now i just wait to see a TPU ASRock Taichi review ...
also gaming wise ... i fail to see the fail ... even at 1080p ... all comparison i saw put the 1700 on par with a 7700K (but ... 3.8ghz vs 5.0ghz) with a +/-10fps margin depending the game for the same price ... i go with AMD next (that will not be soon nonetheless) and i know it's 4C/8T vs 8C/16T.
tho i am glad you called Ryzen R7 "mainstream" ... that comfort me :D
Don't you think criticising Intel for not using costly solutions to problems that don't exist is a bit unfair? :)
Sure, Intel could solder the IHS for another $5 or something, but why do it?
Before we know you'll be expecting IHS made of diamond, because using copper is to cheap, obvious and lazy.
i seem to have a rather unfortunate (but not the worst) 6700k specimen. the initial motherboard i got (gigabyte z170n-wifi which can burn in hell) had a hard throttle point at 60c. any kind of load whatsoever sent the cpu over that, with a ekwb predator 240 attached to it, this should really not have been the case.
at bone stock it will even now go 70c+ easily with heavy load. that is with watercooling that should be way more than needed to get rid of the heat. cpu block is good enough, it worked fine-ish with haswell (<60c) and it was simply awesome with sandy bridge (40c-ish). among these, skylake uses the least power...
there is no gradual warming up of the processor. even considering the small size of the cpu die/ihs, the jumps in temperature are way too fast. idles at 35-40, something causes load and cpu gets +20c or more just like that. again, this was not how it worked with sandy and to lesser degree, haswell.
tl;dr - intel's tim can go to hell. soldering ftw.