ASRock Fatal1ty X399 Temperature Problem

Jul 25, 2018
3
0
10
I just got an ASRock Fatal1ty X399 Professional Gaming board. For cooling i use Enermax LiqTech TR4 360. After installation i noticed in the Bios the temp is 69 to 70 degree.

So i tought the Cooler pump is dead and i replaced it with another one. The result was the same 69-70 degree.

I updated the bios from 2.5 to 2.0 and after that to 2.1 and after that to 3.1. Still the same result.

I have installed the windows and in windows the HWMonitor and CoreTemp show the temps between 30-40 degree and in the same time "F-Stream Tuning" from Asrock shows the temp over 70.

Which one is correct?
If it is just a mb sensore , Would it cause any problem for me in the future?
I ask because i dont want to go to all trouble of replacing the motherboard.

 
Solution
First off, my recommendation would be to unistall HWmonitor, and never put it back on your system again. I can point you to at least a hundred threads here on this site alone where it was confirmed that it's readings were laughable, and grossly inaccurate on a variety of chipsets.

I think pretty clearly the ASrock utility is bogus as well.

I tend to trust the accuracy of CoreTemp more than just about any other utility, and the HWmonitor thermal sensor seems to back it up, but again, I don't trust that. You would be well advised to download HWinfo and use that to verify the readings from CoreTemp OR download AMD Overdrive and see what the thermal Distance to TJmax readings in there are saying.

Also, Cinebench is not adequately...
Please post HWinfo "sensors only" screenshots for both idle and load temperatures as outlined at the following link. Also, more information, such as, are you overclocking the CPU or memory, what are your memory timings configured to (Stock, tightened, etc), what is the remainder of your case cooling configuration?

What configuration is your AIO cooler arranged in? Front? Top? Are the radiator fans configured as intake, blowing into the case, or exhaust, blowing out of the case?


HWmonitor, Open hardware monitor, Realtemp, Speedfan, CPU-Z and most of the bundled motherboard utilities are not terribly accurate, invariably, and in some cases. Some are actually grossly inaccurate, especially with some chipsets or specific sensors that for whatever reason they tend to not like or work well with. I've found HWinfo or CoreTemp to be the MOST accurate with the broadest range of chipsets and sensors. They are also almost religiously kept up to date.

CoreTemp is great for just CPU thermals including core temps or distance to TJmax on AMD platforms.

HWinfo is great for pretty much EVERYTHING, including CPU thermals, core loads, core temps, package temps, GPU sensors, HDD and SSD sensors, motherboard chipset and VRM sensor, all of it. Always select the "Sensors only" option when running HWinfo.

In cases where it is relevant and you are seeking help, then in order to help you, it's often necessary to SEE what's going on, in the event one of us can pick something out that seems out of place, or other indicators that just can't be communicated via a text only post. In these cases, posting an image of the HWinfo sensors or something else can be extremely helpful. That may not be the case in YOUR thread, but if it is then the information at the following link will show you how to do that:

*How to post images in Tom's hardware forums



Run HWinfo and look at system voltages and other sensor readings.

Monitoring temperatures, core speeds, voltages, clock ratios and other reported sensor data can often help to pick out an issue right off the bat. HWinfo is a good way to get that data and in my experience tends to be more accurate than some of the other utilities available. CPU-Z, GPU-Z and Core Temp all have their uses but HWinfo tends to have it all laid out in a more convenient fashion so you can usually see what one sensor is reporting while looking at another instead of having to flip through various tabs that have specific groupings.

After installation, run the utility and when asked, choose "sensors only". The other window options have some use but in most cases everything you need will be located in the sensors window. If you're taking screenshots to post for troubleshooting, it will most likely require taking three screenshots and scrolling down the sensors window between screenshots in order to capture them all.

It is most helpful if you can take a series of HWinfo screenshots at idle, after a cold boot to the desktop. Open HWinfo and wait for all of the Windows startup processes to complete. Usually about four or five minutes should be plenty. Take screenshots of all the HWinfo sensors.

Next, run something demanding like Prime95 version 26.6 or Heaven benchmark. Take another set of screenshots while either of those is running so we can see what the hardware is doing while under a load.

*Download HWinfo


For temperature monitoring only, I feel Core Temp is the most accurate and also offers a quick visual reference for core speed, load and CPU voltage:

*Download Core Temp
 
It's likely, or at least possible, that you are seeing distance to TJmax temps in one utility, which is how far you have to go until you reach the max safe temperature, and actual core temps in another utility.

I would start by running core temp, click on Options, go into Settings, on the Advanced tab check the box next to Show distance to TJmax in temperature fields. Now save and exit options and see what is being shown at idle and under a load for Distance to TJmax which is how AMD specifies thermal compliance should be monitored on their platforms, unlike Intel which tends to like the actual core or package temperatures specifications to be used.
 
Hi, Thanks a lot for your reply.
I have not done any overclocking, ram and cpu running on the stock speed.
I use the push configuration and the radiator is attached to the top(i had the same result in the bios before putting the mainboard in the case).

I have created the 2 screenshot 1 is for idel and another is with running the Cinebench. I do not know if it is enough information for you.

IDLE:
33bnyn7.jpg

Idle Screenshot

With Cinebench:
w70yue.jpg

Cinebench Screenshot


Here is 2 other screenshot with TJMax checked:

15cc3n.jpg


And Idle:
210g8cw.jpg



Thank you for your help
 
First off, my recommendation would be to unistall HWmonitor, and never put it back on your system again. I can point you to at least a hundred threads here on this site alone where it was confirmed that it's readings were laughable, and grossly inaccurate on a variety of chipsets.

I think pretty clearly the ASrock utility is bogus as well.

I tend to trust the accuracy of CoreTemp more than just about any other utility, and the HWmonitor thermal sensor seems to back it up, but again, I don't trust that. You would be well advised to download HWinfo and use that to verify the readings from CoreTemp OR download AMD Overdrive and see what the thermal Distance to TJmax readings in there are saying.

Also, Cinebench is not adequately representative of a steady state thermal load. With ONLY CoreTemp running, not all those other utilities, run Prime95 version 26.6, and ONLY version 26.6. Choose the "Small FFT" option. Not Large FFT. Not Blend mode. Small FFT. Run it for about five minutes and take a screenshot of the CoreTemp window while it is running. If distance to TJmax becomes to reduced to within 10°C of TJmax, immediately end the Prime95 program by selecting File-->Exit. Don't just click the X in the top right corner, as that will not shut down the program. It will only minimize it to the taskbar tray.



Prime95 v26.6 is THE primarily accepted way to do the majority of baseline thermal compliance testing running the Small FFT option.

Prime95 Version 26.6 download


Further, you can find extensive information regarding the Intel CPU architectures and specifications at the following link which is a somewhat definitive guide on that subject. The information below is taken directly from conversations with Computronix who is also the author of the Intel temperature guide, found here:

The Intel temperature guide

For AMD systems, specifically Zen/Ryzen, this should offer similar albeit not nearly as detailed information on that architecture.

Ryzen overclocking guide


AMD FX and A series overclocking guide



This is probably about the most referred to overclocking guide around, and it's principles can be applied to a variety of generations and platforms.

The Ultimate Overclocking Guide



This pretty well sums things up and is equally relevant whether working with an Intel or an AMD system.

I can think of several reasons why x264 encoding or AVX / AVX2 / FMA3 apps won't work as a unilateral metric for thermal testing.

(1) A steady-state workload gives steady-state temperatures; encoding does not.

(2) Simplicity in methodology; most users would find encoding apps unfamiliar and cumbersome to accomplish a simple task.

(3) Most users such as gamers never run any apps which use AVX or FMA, so adaptive or manual voltage aside, it makes no sense to downgrade your overclock to accommodate those loads and temps unless you KNOW you will be making significant use of AVX/FMA/AVX2.

(4) Standardization; Prime95 has been around since 1996; many users are familiar with it. It is TRIED and TRUE.

For the minority of users who routinely run AVX/FMA apps, then P95 v28.5 or later can be useful for tweaking the BIOS for thermal and stability testing on THOSE types of systems only. For others, it is not recommended.


regardless of platform or architecture, Prime95 v26.6 works equally well across ALL platforms. Steady-state is the key. How can anyone extrapolate accurate core temperatures from workloads that fluctuate like a bad day on the stock market? They can't. That's why steady state is necessary for testing of thermal compliance and for baseline stability verification.

I'm aware of 5 utilities with steady-state workloads. In order of load level they are:

(1) Prime95 v26.6 - Small FFT's (Important. NOT Blend or Large FFT)
(2) HeavyLoad - Stress CPU
(3) FurMark - CPU Burner
(4) Intel Processor Diagnostic Tool - CPU Load
(5) AIDA64 - Tools - System Stability Test - Stress CPU

AIDA64's Stress CPU fails to load any overclocked / overvolted CPU to get anywhere TDP, and is therefore useless, except for giving naive users a sense of false security because their temps are so low.

HeavyLoad is the closest alternative. Temps and watts are within 3% of Small FFT's.

-Computronix


Even though you are not overclocking and do not intend to, the overclocking guides for specific chipsets generally offer very good, relevant information for people with those chipsets related to thermal compliance and testing so they are good to read and use as references in any case, overclocking or not.
 
Solution