AMD Ryzen 9 7950X Cooling Requirements & Thermal Throttling

[AusWolf]

this is telling us even more how idiotic was this default choice by AMD. Zen 4 would have been good without skyrocketing TDP that way...

I agree. But at least you can enable Eco mode and call it a day.

 

[jsven008]

Great article!! Thanks to W1zzard for putting this all together!

 

[TechLurker]

It feels like I'm in a basic Physics class again, with professors trying to explain why temperature does not equal heat output.

Then I'm also reminded of one of their examples being humans themselves; we maintain an average body temperature of 98 degrees no matter how much or little work is done; the body aims to maintain that. Yet we barely output about 80 watts of heat. I forget the rest of the example, but it was one of those "aha" moments that helped me divorce temperature from heat.

That said, I wonder if there will be custom IHS that swaps the aluminum with copper. See how much that will bring down temps, assuming same size as the regular IHS.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

That said, I wonder if there will be custom IHS that swaps the aluminum with copper. See how much that will bring down temps, assuming same size as the regular IHS.

Pretty sure those are nickel-plated copper, but I could be wrong...

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Yet we barely output about 80 watts of heat.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

 

[Steevo]

this is telling us even more how idiotic was this default choice by AMD. Zen 4 would have been good without skyrocketing TDP that way...

I suppose team blue doesn't like options and sucks down whatever Intel tosses their way.

 

[thestryker6]

Reading comprehension fail.

Double down and keep repeating.

Wtaf is this tactic, we heard your opinion, how many times do you want us to hear it.

I quote

"What you might not be noticing immediately is that with Zen 4 you will now get higher performance in return, automatically, without doing anything, that will be your benefit of upgrading—more perf, not lower temps. As we've seen in this article, if you already have very decent cooling, then the gains from going water are relatively small, and probably not worth it, especially in games. Also, infinitely good cooling will not scale clocks and performance up automatically. Rather there are some hard limits, above which the CPU will not boost, even with excellent cooling."

So baring extreme cooling methods and effort, it's not possible to get more performance than what you have anyway.

A thinner IHs would not boost higher and due to the way it's designed it would , work load allowing get to 95 anyway, because it's designed to aim for that.

And that's a better temperature than 65 because. The differential in temperature between that and your typical ambient temperature.

Actually allows more heat to be removed for the same effort.

The only person with a reading comprehension problem is you as the poster I was responding to was talking about Eco mode and that's what I was referencing.

It doesn't drop performance. It runs well above base clock unless you use the most basic cooler in existence with the lowest fan rpm possible. I get the feeling that you didn't read the article and didn't watch HU's video testing Eco mode.

My i7 11700 non-K runs at 4.9 GHz in single core and 4.4 GHz in all-core workloads. Is it a 500 MHz performance drop, or what? Not to mention the 2.8 GHz I see when the 65 W TDP is enforced as PL1.


You probably can, but as long as Eco mode drops performance only by a couple percent (literally), and power consumption as well as heat by a considerable margin, I'm fine with it.

You were asking about why Eco mode is a problem I responded I'm not referring to anything but Eco mode. It does drop performance and it gets worse as you go up in SKU. Once it's in Ryzen Master it'll be great for turning on for gaming as all of the chips should perform great in lightly threaded applications under Eco mode, but it's not a good solution for the whole lineup.

Pretty sure those are nickel-plated copper, but I could be wrong...

That's what AMD has always used, and from the testing Der8auer had done on the 5xxx series metal quality it's extremely high (both AMD and Intel use copper higher quality than his control sample). The primary issue with the IHS is thickness related (some people have posited that without the cutouts more surface area could help as well).

 

[kapone32]

The only person with a reading comprehension problem is you as the poster I was responding to was talking about Eco mode and that's what I was referencing.

You were asking about why Eco mode is a problem I responded I'm not referring to anything but Eco mode. It does drop performance and it gets worse as you go up in SKU. Once it's in Ryzen Master it'll be great for turning on for gaming as all of the chips should perform great in lightly threaded applications under Eco mode, but it's not a good solution for the whole lineup.

That's what AMD has always used, and from the testing Der8auer had done on the 5xxx series metal quality it's extremely high (both AMD and Intel use copper higher quality than his control sample). The primary issue with the IHS is thickness related (some people have posited that without the cutouts more surface area could help as well).

Do you have a 7000 chip in your possession? Why would AMD sell their chip turned up to 11? Have you heard of Raptor Lake? I will tell you this, if you watch Testing Games benchmarks you will see that the 7000 series pushes the 3090TI to draw more power by actually keeping the GPU fed. 5.5 GHZ is an achievement in a chip that is in the same die space. It would be foolish to see that advance in gates and not translate it to increased heat. We are talking about 16 physical cores after all. It is obvious from Wizzard's review that these chips are smart enough to maintain clocks based on their own thermal envelope as well. Eco mode is not some cop out either. What AMD has given us with these 7000 chips is a chip that has all the previous power profiles in one package. The best thing is tuners will be able to make these chips purr like a refined European Sports Car vs an American Muscle car. By the way the consensus is that if you use a plate that is larger than the CPU and it keeps the chip under control.

 

[Mussels]

Users are starting to find some far more reasonable settings that drastically cut wattages and temperatures while barely reducing performance

Is this something you'd consider doing an article on, @W1zzard ?

Losing 1% gaming performance but the max temps to 75C and wattage to under 100W, is exactly what gamers on Zen4 would want to use - basically an Eco mode test?
I'm unsure what you could do to be truly repeatable without relying on golden sample PSU's, but settings like PBO limits to restrain the wattage or the negative -100Mhz offset could be simple and repeatable for every Zen4 owner.

 

[AusWolf]

You were asking about why Eco mode is a problem I responded I'm not referring to anything but Eco mode. It does drop performance and it gets worse as you go up in SKU. Once it's in Ryzen Master it'll be great for turning on for gaming as all of the chips should perform great in lightly threaded applications under Eco mode, but it's not a good solution for the whole lineup.

By comparing the power to the performance graphs in the opening article, I think it is. The Noctua 20% result shows a drop of ~10% performance in Cinebench nT, but also a reduction in power consumption from 230 W to about 170.

 

[Max(IT)]

How is it worse? By the user having to enter the BIOS to enable Eco mode?

That could be easy for Forum users… that’s not the case for most of the customers out there. AMD should have made Eco Mode the default, giving the opportunity for the “idiotic mode” for advanced users. Not the way around. Or even better, they should have designed a better IHS

I suppose team blue doesn't like options and sucks down whatever Intel tosses their way.

This is not about team blue or team red. This is just about reasonable choices. AMD choice is utterly embarrassing, and just saying customers “95° is expected behavior “ doesn’t make it any better. For me and you here would be easy to specifically set power limits according to our cooler and target temperatures, but that’s not the case for most of the customers

 

[AusWolf]

That could be easy for Forum users… that’s not the case for most of the customers out there. AMD should have made Eco Mode the default, giving the opportunity for the “idiotic mode” for advanced users. Not the way around.

I can agree with that. It's just weird when PC enthusiasts who know all bits and bobs about BIOSes and settings complain about this.

Or even better, they should have designed a better IHS

Then people would have cried that their coolers aren't compatible anymore. Having Eco mode as default would have been the only good solution, imo.

 

[Mussels]

That could be easy for Forum users… that’s not the case for most of the customers out there. AMD should have made Eco Mode the default, giving the opportunity for the “idiotic mode” for advanced users. Not the way around. Or even better, they should have designed a better IHS


This is not about team blue or team red. This is just about reasonable choices. AMD choice is utterly embarrassing, and just saying customers “95° is expected behavior “ doesn’t make it any better. For me and you here would be easy to specifically set power limits according to our cooler and target temperatures, but that’s not the case for most of the customers

No one has ever said that.

AMD has just said they're safe to run at 95C, not that they have to, need to, or anyone wants to.
Exactly like how modern intel CPU's behave....

 

[Max(IT)]

No one has ever said that.

please check your facts: it is literally what AMD said in response to the initial concerns about high temperatures.

AMD has just said they're safe to run at 95C, not that they have to, need to, or anyone wants to.
Exactly like how modern intel CPU's behave....

It is not safe to run 95° on the long run, no matter what AMD marketing is saying.
And NO, using a 12700K with power limit unlocked on a daily basis I don’t go north of 70° with a regular 360mm AIO, so that’s not how “modern Intel CPUs behave”.
By the way this “Intel too” narrative is childish: we are speaking about AMD HERE, where a low end 6 core CPU is expected, according to their wording, to reach 95°. Which is totally ridiculous.
I don’t care if a 12900K is reaching the same temperature. I criticized Intel for the same reason

 

[HTC]

It is not safe to run 95° on the long run, no matter what AMD marketing is saying.

Says you.

Do you honestly believe AMD would risk facing class action law suit(s) because of "CPU's failing due to running @ safe advertised temps for long periods" if these temps weren't safe?

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

It is not safe to run 95° on the long run, no matter what AMD marketing is saying.
And NO, using a 12700K with power limit unlocked I don’t go north of 70° with a regular 360mm AIO, so that’s not how “modern Intel CPUs behave”.
By the way this “Intel too” narrative is childish: we are speaking about AMD HERE, where a low end 6 core CPU is expected, according to their wording, to reach 95°. Which is totally ridiculous.
I don’t care if a 12900K is reaching the same temperature. I criticized Intel for the same reason

And your backing your statement with what evidence.
Because AMD back there's with a warranty and plenty of scientific test data.


And that's good enough for me plus, what's AT 95, because I am not sure some of you know.

It's not the whole chip completely saturated to 95°c is it, it's the actual core's, most of the chip is not at that temperature.

Post some data on Tsmc's actual in use node that backs your claim OR it's just your OPINION.

 

[Max(IT)]

I can agree with that. It's just weird when PC enthusiasts who know all bits and bobs about BIOSes and settings complain about this.

I can speak for myself here: I am complaining because of an idiotic default choice, not for the behavior itself. I could buy a 7900X and seri it exactly how I like it. I never use a CPU in “default settings “ anyway.

Then people would have cried that their coolers aren't compatible anymore. Having Eco mode as default would have been the only good solution, imo.

We are speaking about people spending A LOT of money for a 6 core CPU here (if you consider the CPU itself, mobo and DDR5). Do you really think they would have complained about a few more bucks for a cooler or an adapter?

Says you.

Do you honestly believe AMD would risk facing class action law suit(s) because of "CPU's failing due to running @ safe advertised temps for long periods" if these temps weren't safe?

Says whoever has a little knowledge on the matter. AMD just care about warranty period. If the cpu degrade after that, they really don’t care. AMD isn’t using any magic here. They are using the same technology anyone else is using. black’s equation still is valid no matter what AMD marketing machine is saying to justify their poor choice.

 

[AusWolf]

I can speak for myself here: I am complaining because of an idiotic default choice, not for the behavior itself. I could buy a 7900X and seri it exactly how I like it. I never use a CPU in “default settings “ anyway.

So you're complaining about a bad default setting choice that you know very well you can change with a flick of a switch. Erm... ok?

We are speaking about people spending A LOT of money for a 6 core CPU here (if you consider the CPU itself, mobo and DDR5). Do you really think they would have complained about a few more bucks for a cooler or an adapter?

Yes. People complain about everything. You just admitted that you're complaining that you have to go into your BIOS to push a button even though you do that with every system anyway.

 

[Max(IT)]

So you're complaining about a bad default setting choice that you know very well you can change with a flick of a switch. Erm... ok?


Yes. People complain about everything. You just admitted that you're complaining that you have to go into your BIOS to push a button even though you do that with every system anyway.

English may not be my primary language, but I explained it quite well above:

I am complaining because of an idiotic default choice

That's more than enough to complain. I hate idiotic choices by manufacturers. I hate marketing BS. AMD new CPUs are garbage at default setting and I feel entitled to complain here, especially because I'm not wearing a nice pair of red glowing glasses like many here.

And before trying to imply I'm an Intel supporter or anything,



no, I am not (and we have 2 Asus notebooks, one with 5800HS and one with 6800H).
I am just not biased.
I really don't know how tech savvy people here can defend a choice to have a CPU running at 90+ degrees under load when you can have THE SAME CPU running 10/15° less within 2/5% of its performance. This is when the technology is driven by marketing and not engineering.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

English may not be my primary language, but I explained it quite well above:

I am complaining because of an idiotic default choice

That's more than enough to complain. I hate idiotic choices by manufacturers. I hate marketing BS. AMD new CPUs are garbage at default setting and I feel entitled to complain here, especially because I'm not wearing a nice pair of red glowing glasses like many here.

And before trying to imply I'm an Intel supporter or anything,

View attachment 264624

no, I am not (and we have 2 Asus notebooks, one with 5800HS and one with 6800H).
I am just not biased.
I really don't know how tech savvy people here can defend a choice to have a CPU running at 90+ degrees under load when you can have THE SAME CPU running 10/15° less within 2/5% of its performance. This is when the technology is driven by marketing and not engineering.

Still no facts, still no data, just hot air opinion and drivel.

 

[AusWolf]

I really don't know how tech savvy people here can defend a choice to have a CPU running at 90+ degrees under load when you can have THE SAME CPU running 10/15° less within 2/5% of its performance. This is when the technology is driven by marketing and not engineering.

It's capitalism. Everything is driven by marketing. I'm not defending any CPU manufacturer here. I just really don't think doing one click in the BIOS is a reason to complain. You have to do a one-click operation to enable XMP as well, yet no one seems to complain about that.

I feel entitled to complain here

Ah, so that's what it is! I rest my case here - no more questions.

 

[A Computer Guy]

That could be easy for Forum users… that’s not the case for most of the customers out there. AMD should have made Eco Mode the default, giving the opportunity for the “idiotic mode” for advanced users. Not the way around. Or even better, they should have designed a better IHS

I don't mean to beat a dead horse but I still haven't see any information that indicates the IHS is actually a problem. I'd like to see tests that shave down the thickness of the IHS or complete delidding that shows reasonable end-user increases in performance because of it. So far I guess I have to wait and see.

This is a good point. If the cpu is regulating its clocks to stay at 95, how should one program a sensible fan curve to ramp up cooling based on need?

Doc Brown has entered the chat. "Marty, where we are going we don't need curves."

 

[Max(IT)]

Still no facts, still no data, just hot air opinion and drivel.

Not easy to speak with AMD supporters that ignore what Black's Equation means...

I don't mean to beat a dead horse but I still haven't see any information that indicates the IHS is actually a problem. I'd like to see tests that shave down the thickness of the IHS or complete delidding that shows reasonable end-user increases in performance because of it. So far I guess I have to wait and see.

Are you serious ?
It is on the web since 26 Sept...

20° just by delidding it.
It is an insane result, showing us how bad designed this IHS is.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

In fact, as a guy who has promoted the use of Older /500 watt PC's for heater's here why use 500/1000 watts just to heat when you can get computation effectively at the same time.

Not easy to speak with AMD supporters that ignore what Black's Equation means...


Are you serious ?
It is on the web since 26 Sept...

20° just by delidding it.
It is an insane result, showing us how bad designed this IHS is.

As someone who has actually ran hardware for consumers at its limits day in day out continuously from both teams as an unbiased engineer I have experience that "this is fine".

You haven't used said equation to prove your right, just mentioning it instead, like no one else is aware, we are.
So are AMD, they're scientific based testing did too, so again put up some evidence, do the Math.

And your pulling the fanboi argument out your pocket reaks of desperation, I suppose you too could just keep repeating the same shit while trying to undermine others with bias tags but know this, it reflects badly on you're own bias's IMHO.

Oh and as someone who has degraded CPUs with they're activity, I am actually ok with CPU designed to provide Max performance within a useful lifespan, Moore's law dictated shit before but got vague in the quad core erra, but given modern performance increases we should be back to about three years useful use, with conditional restricted use beyond that relative to the latest tech IE shit should be surpassed in every metric within 3 years anyway.

Usually migration took 3 years to begin to develop though obviously with effort you can do wonderful things, not.

 

[Frick]

Says whoever has a little knowledge on the matter. AMD just care about warranty period. If the cpu degrade after that, they really don’t care. AMD isn’t using any magic here. They are using the same technology anyone else is using. black’s equation still is valid no matter what AMD marketing machine is saying to justify their poor choice.

How fast do CPU's degrade at those temps?