[SOLVED] Are these temps ok for an i7-9700k after running RealBench?

[jmhoward622]

I just installed my aftermarket air cooler and ran a 15 minute stress test via RealBench. The max temp after 15 minutes was 81 degrees Celsius. Idle is around 32 and BFV/Division 2 hang around 50-70 degrees at 100-144 FPS.

 

[Darkbreeze]

What model is the cooler? That's actually about a degree higher than you'd prefer to ever see, max, when overclocking.

If you're running at the stock configuration and depending on the model of the cooler, that is probably rather high for a system that isn't overclocked.

 

[Farix]

I just installed my aftermarket air cooler and ran a 15 minute stress test via RealBench. The max temp after 15 minutes was 81 degrees Celsius. Idle is around 32 and BFV/Division 2 hang around 50-70 degrees at 100-144 FPS.

These are safe temperatures 81 is little bit hot but not too hot to worry about. What's your room temperatures?

 

[Darkbreeze]

81°C is pretty hot, if it's not an overclocked configuration. For stock operation, you should never see temps that high with an adequate CPU cooler.

But again, it's not critically past spec either.

 

[jmhoward622]

What model is the cooler? That's actually about a degree higher than you'd prefer to ever see, max, when overclocking.

If you're running at the stock configuration and depending on the model of the cooler, that is probably rather high for a system that isn't overclocked.

It is a Hyper 212 Black Edition. I was hoping it was ok because it was a pain wiring my RGB controller. Ha. I should’ve stress tested it before doing wire maintenance.

 

[jmhoward622]

These are safe temperatures 81 is little bit hot but not too hot to worry about. What's your room temperatures?

My room temp is about 74-75 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

[Farix]

If your ambient temperature is 24°c and you are getting 81°c on stock speed then it's pretty hot. Just download a software called fanspeed and make custom fan curves for your cpu it will greatly reduce your over heating issues and make sure to maintain good airflow.

 

[sizzling]

The Hyper 212 is a bit weak for a 9700k. You can try changing fan curves which might help a little but you are never going to get great temperatures.

 

[mdd1963]

temps might be 5C more than expected, but 80C peaks are no reason to go buy a new cooler, really...

It's all good enough...

 

[jmhoward622]

temps might be 5C more than expected, but 80C peaks are no reason to go buy a new cooler, really...

It's all good enough...

Thank you. That's good to hear. Honestly, I'll never overclock it anyways more than likely. If I get to the point where I need to then I'll just buy a new cooler. In real world situations, it seems to be cool enough compared to what others are seeing.

 

[Darkbreeze]

I don't agree. At the stock configuration, even running a stress test like Prime95 version 26.6 Small FFT, you should not be exceeding mid 70's temps when not overclocking.

I think you need to double check the cooler mount and paste job. While that CPU cooler is not great, and probably isn't the best choice for that CPU, it should do better than what you are seeing there.

Realistically that cooler is not suitable for the 9700k. It is only rated for up to 150w and IMO that is an overly optimistic rating if you don't want a system that is toeing the line in terms of thermal compliance and noise levels. It will work, but it will be loud anytime a moderate load is in place. A 140mm unit with a higher number of heat pipes would be very advisable with that 8 core processor.

Even so, I think you should do at least a little better than what you are seeing and I'd read and check everything listed here in my guide from a few years back.

How To - Solving temperature issues with the Hyper 212 EVO

Solving temperature issues with the Hyper 212 EVO There are already a ton of tutorials on how to install the Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO on various motherboard sockets along with the corresponding backplates, so I won't bother creating another repetitive tutorial on that. (Personally, I...

forums.tomshardware.com

 

[mdd1963]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I--zROoRws&t=504s


It would be hard to imagine a 9700K only doing 75C with small FFTs without a golden sample, and, likely undervolted....

(You may note at 8:27 in the video above that a stock 9700K under heavy Blender load was at 85C with even an NH-D15....; at least they tend to run cooler than the 9900K, but, frankly I am surprised a Hyper212- cooled 9700K was not even warmer than as tested above..; small FFTs will normally give 4-5C warmer temps than Blended)

If some can find some reputable folks routinely getting only 70-75C in Prime95 small FFTs with any air cooler, I, for one, would sure like to see it.

 

[Darkbreeze]

He's not running Small FFTs though. He's running Realbench. Realbench doesn't tend to get anywhere near max TDP like Small FFTs does, and especially not in a steady state load.

And yes, you can see it. At least, what I can "find" anyhow since it seems that there are practically no reputable reviews of the 9700k running Prime 26.6 Small FFT on air that I could find. Most of them are 100% AIO testing. There are a few independents though, like this one, with a U14S that doesn't break 77°C after a proper mount and paste job.

UPDATE:

So as recommended by redditors in the comments, I remounted the cpu cooler, with X shape thermal paste as recommended by /u/falkentyne and my temps went down by around 11C. And now I no longer thermally throttle in p95 29.4.



Below are the results I got after remounting. Test was conducted inside the case with side panel ON.

Idle temps are around 35C

1. p95 26.6 (non AVX) with custom torture test settings (12K FFT) Max temps: 77C (see screenshot)
2. p95 27.9 small FFTs Max temps 83C (see screenshot) (no changes were made in local.txt)
3. p95 29.4 small FFTs Max temps 87C (see screenshot) (I ran it for only 8 minutes, but temps had gotten pretty steady state by that point)

Link to the thread the above quote was taken from.



Honestly, with a mid level LLC like 4 or 5, and switching the CPU cache ratio (Uncore) off of auto and setting it to about 300mhz less than whatever the CPU ratio is set to (Doesn't actually affect performance that much anyhow in all of the various Gen testing I've seen since Skylake but DOES have a substantial impact on core thermals) seems like it tends to help a bit as well. Then again, that's talking about an overclocked system, which his is not. For stock operations, none of that should even be necessary.

Certainly, and without a doubt, that cooler is not sufficient for that CPU, but considering what it IS and the CPU in question, you might be right that the thermal results are about what you should expect all things considered.

 

[mdd1963]

I did personally compare Realbench 2.53 stress testing to compare those thermals with the results compared to those of Prime 95 v26.6/ small FFTs on my own rig , and, Darkbreeze is 100% correct in that Prime95 v26.6/small FFTs does in fact generate warmer CPU temps ...; my own OC'd 7700K at 4.7 GHz all core turbo was +2C warmer in testing with P95/small FFTs, hitting 83C with small FFTs, with only 81C achieved in Realbench testing (my first time testing with 4-5C warmer ambients while OC'd )

(Another mod stated here in an article last year stated that Realbench stress seemed to be akin to a 99% TDP load test compared to Prime 95 V26.6/small FFTs being about a 100-101% load test, which matches my results with it's 2C temp difference, about a 2.5% increase in my testing)

Perhaps the OP would not mind a 10-15 min Prime95 (v 26.6)/small FFT test to compare results, just to confirm his CPU is still in low-mid-80C range... (the OP's BF5 60-70C gaming temps, however, are pretty comparable to other CPUs in BF5 testing, as BF5 itself is known is being pretty CPU intensive in it's own right, seemingly rivaling CPU-z/cpu stress)

 

[nicholas70]

I was going to say my I7 9700k would sometimes hit 70c during bfv gaming prior to me undervaluing it a bit. In my opinion anyone with these chips that isn't OCing them should undervolt them as the autovoltage for Z390 motherboards for these chips is extremely liberal. In fact I've heard of some boards autovoltages almost pushing 1.35 at stock which is what some consider to be max safe 24/7 OC voltage.

 

[Darkbreeze]

If you drop the core voltage in any way, on any CPU, even with the rest of the configuration at the stock settings, you need to do the EXACT same full set of stability tests you would do for any overclock normally, otherwise you run the risk of minor (Which is a misnomer since there really IS no MINOR instability. There is just stable or not stable) instabilities resulting in micro-errors. Cumulative micro errors will trash your entire OS, application structure and personal files a heck of a lot faster than you would ever believe even if you never see a single sign or symptom such as blue screens, freezing, error messages or any other weird behavior.

And I'd agree with you though that if you can reduce core voltage and still maintain fulls stability, at the stock frequency, for any CPU, it would be beneficial for a variety of reasons not least of which is long term longevity of the CPU and motherboard, memory and most probably your cooling fans as well to some degree since they will less often be ramping up or down or running at the same high RPMs quite as much. Plenty of good reasons to do it, plenty of good reasons to be sure you know WHAT you are doing as well.