90c+ CPUs

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

Still alive..

 

[Zach_01]

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.

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.

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]

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

 

[Valantar]

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.

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.

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]

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.


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...

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Upgrayedd]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 185158]

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 185158]

. 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]

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?!.