Question Fx-6300 overclocked

spaceface25

Reputable
Jul 1, 2015
27
0
4,530
0
Fx-6300 overclocked to 4510 mhz, stable with real bench so far. Kinda new to OC. Is it ok to try a little higher?
Mobo is gigabyte ga-970a-ds3p rev 2.1( from what I've read not the best board for oc). CM evo 212 and 5 case fans. Corsair vengeance 2x8( 16) . Xfx radeon 570. Temps are staying around 48c during stress and bench. Any thoughts or info would be appreciated. Thanks!
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
I wouldn't. Not on that board. It's an "ok" board for 6 core FX, and that's about it. It's not suitable/recommended for any of the FX 8 core CPUs and your current overclock is probably already right at the edge of what's safe and manageable for your VRM configuration.

You can of course TRY, if you wish, but honestly I'd take what you have now and call it a day.

Is there a particular reason why your OC is at 4510mhz instead of 4500mhz. What is your multiplier at? Are you ONLY using the clock frequency for the CPU to overclock or are you using BCLK and affecting other buses?
 

Zizo007

Respectable
Feb 23, 2019
1,653
229
2,290
55
Fx-6300 overclocked to 4510 mhz, stable with real bench so far. Kinda new to OC. Is it ok to try a little higher?
Mobo is gigabyte ga-970a-ds3p rev 2.1( from what I've read not the best board for oc). CM evo 212 and 5 case fans. Corsair vengeance 2x8( 16) . Xfx radeon 570. Temps are staying around 48c during stress and bench. Any thoughts or info would be appreciated. Thanks!
Are you sure your temps are 48C during load? Because the FX cpus don't work with temp monitoring apps. You need to use AMD Overdrive app and see if the thermal margin, not sure how its called, is red. It should be green or blue I think.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
Exactly right. You cannot "read" temperatures on the FX platform. You can ONLY read and monitor "distance to TJmax" or "Thermal margin".

You need to STOP using whatever you are currently using to monitor CPU temperatures and download AMD overdrive or Core Temp and use that. If you use Core Temp you need to go into the advanced options and check the option next to "Show distance to TJ max in temperature fields". You can also use HWinfo but do NOT look at the "core temp" or "package temp" readings, because they won't and cannot be accurate. Look at the "Distance to TJmax" field which will show thermal margin.

As explained here:



Your best bet is to use AMD Overdrive.



*Download AMD Overdrive
 

spaceface25

Reputable
Jul 1, 2015
27
0
4,530
0
I wouldn't. Not on that board. It's an "ok" board for 6 core FX, and that's about it. It's not suitable/recommended for any of the FX 8 core CPUs and your current overclock is probably already right at the edge of what's safe and manageable for your VRM configuration.

You can of course TRY, if you wish, but honestly I'd take what you have now and call it a day.

Is there a particular reason why your OC is at 4510mhz instead of 4500mhz. What is your multiplier at? Are you ONLY using the clock frequency for the CPU to overclock or are you using BCLK and affecting other buses?
I upped the BCLK up to 205.00 and have the multi at 22.CPU NB is at 2000mhz and HT at 2400. It raised my memory to 1640 mhz. I lowered the memory multiplier down to 6.66 for 1365mhz.
 

spaceface25

Reputable
Jul 1, 2015
27
0
4,530
0
Are you sure your temps are 48C during load? Because the FX cpus don't work with temp monitoring apps. You need to use AMD Overdrive app and see if the thermal margin, not sure how its called, is red. It should be green or blue I think.
According to HW monitor it is reading CPU, cores, tmpin2. Never reaches 50c. Idles at 19 or 20. I've never tried overdrive but have read about it. Is it still available through amd?
 

Zizo007

Respectable
Feb 23, 2019
1,653
229
2,290
55
According to HW monitor it is reading CPU, cores, tmpin2. Never reaches 50c. Idles at 19 or 20. I've never tried overdrive but have read about it. Is it still available through amd?
Those are false temps, idle can't be 19 unless your amient temp is under 10C.
Read what Darkbreeze said, the link for AMD Overdrive is at the end of his post.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
HWmonitor isn't even a good choice for non-FX platforms, and it is 100% not usable for FX platforms. It does not monitor or report thermal margin. Stop using it. You might as well just be making up numbers and assigning them randomly to your CPU cores.

There are three utilities, period, that I recommend for thermal monitoring or monitoring in general, and HWmonitor isn't one of the. That's for a REASON. That reason, is because it is randomly accurate and highly problematic on a number of chipsets and platforms.


Monitoring software

HWmonitor, Open hardware monitor, Realtemp, Speccy, Speedfan, Windows utilities, CPU-Z, NZXT CAM and most of the bundled motherboard utilities are often not the best choice as they are not always accurate. Some are actually grossly inaccurate, especially with certain 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 older 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. When starting HWinfo after installation, always check the box next to "sensors only" and de-select the box next to "summary".


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, plus, it is extremely rare for HWinfo to not report the correct sensor values under the correct sensor listings, or misreport other information. Utilities like HWmonitor, Openhardware monitor and Speccy, tend to COMMONLY misreport sensor data, or not report it at all.

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 (With AVX and AVX2 disabled) 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





Ryzen master for Zen or newer AMD CPUs, or Overdrive for older Pre-Ryzen platforms (AM3/AM3+/FM2/FM2+)

For monitoring on AMD Ryzen and Threadripper platforms including Zen or newer architectures, it is recommended that you use Ryzen master if for no other reason than because any updates or changes to monitoring requirements are more likely to be implemented sooner, and properly, than with other monitoring utilities. Core Temp and HWinfo are still good, with this platform, but when changes to CPU micro code or other BIOS modifications occur, or there are driver or power plan changes, it sometimes takes a while before those get implemented by 3rd party utilities, while Ryzen master, being a direct AMD product, generally gets updated immediately. Since it is also specific to the hardware in question, it can be more accurately and specifically developed without any requirement for inclusion of other architectures which won't be compatible in any case. You wouldn't use a hammer to drive a wood screw in (At least I hope not) and this is very much the same, being the right tool for the job at hand.

As far as the older AMD FX AM3+ platforms including Bulldozer and Piledriver families go, there are only two real options here. You can use Core Temp, but you will need to click on the Options menu, click Settings, click Advanced and put a check mark next to the setting that says "Show Distance to TJmax in temperature fields" and then save settings and exit the options menu system. This may or may not work for every FX platform, so using AMD Overdrive is the specific, again, right tool for the job, and recommended monitoring solution for this architecture. Since these FX platforms use "Thermal margins" rather than an actual "core/package" temp type thermal monitoring implementation, monitoring as you would with older or newer AMD platforms, or any Intel platform, won't work properly.

For more information about this, please visit here for an in depth explanation of AMD thermal margin monitoring.

Understanding AMD thermal margins for Pre-Ryzen processors





*Download Ryzen Master




*Download AMD Overdrive



Also, posting screenshots, when requested, is helpful so WE can see what is going on as well and you can learn how to do that here:

How to post images on Tom's hardware forums

 

spaceface25

Reputable
Jul 1, 2015
27
0
4,530
0
Exactly right. You cannot "read" temperatures on the FX platform. You can ONLY read and monitor "distance to TJmax" or "Thermal margin".

You need to STOP using whatever you are currently using to monitor CPU temperatures and download AMD overdrive or Core Temp and use that. If you use Core Temp you need to go into the advanced options and check the option next to "Show distance to TJ max in temperature fields". You can also use HWinfo but do NOT look at the "core temp" or "package temp" readings, because they won't and cannot be accurate. Look at the "Distance to TJmax" field which will show thermal margin.

As explained here:



Your best bet is to use AMD Overdrive.



*Download AMD Overdrive
Thanks for the info. I will definitely check that out! It's my son's old gaming computer that was an entry level so I spent a few bucks on new gpu, ram, new heatsink and some case fans. It's way better now than when he first got it. We built him a new one with a ryzen 5 so I figured I could learn on his old rig. I tried for 4.6 but it crashed through the bench so I'm sticking with the 4.5 for now while its stable. I'll definitely check overdrive though. Should I clock it through that?
 

spaceface25

Reputable
Jul 1, 2015
27
0
4,530
0
HWmonitor isn't even a good choice for non-FX platforms, and it is 100% not usable for FX platforms. It does not monitor or report thermal margin. Stop using it. You might as well just be making up numbers and assigning them randomly to your CPU cores.

There are three utilities, period, that I recommend for thermal monitoring or monitoring in general, and HWmonitor isn't one of the. That's for a REASON. That reason, is because it is randomly accurate and highly problematic on a number of chipsets and platforms.


Monitoring software

HWmonitor, Open hardware monitor, Realtemp, Speccy, Speedfan, Windows utilities, CPU-Z, NZXT CAM and most of the bundled motherboard utilities are often not the best choice as they are not always accurate. Some are actually grossly inaccurate, especially with certain 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 older 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. When starting HWinfo after installation, always check the box next to "sensors only" and de-select the box next to "summary".


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, plus, it is extremely rare for HWinfo to not report the correct sensor values under the correct sensor listings, or misreport other information. Utilities like HWmonitor, Openhardware monitor and Speccy, tend to COMMONLY misreport sensor data, or not report it at all.

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 (With AVX and AVX2 disabled) 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





Ryzen master for Zen or newer AMD CPUs, or Overdrive for older Pre-Ryzen platforms (AM3/AM3+/FM2/FM2+)

For monitoring on AMD Ryzen and Threadripper platforms including Zen or newer architectures, it is recommended that you use Ryzen master if for no other reason than because any updates or changes to monitoring requirements are more likely to be implemented sooner, and properly, than with other monitoring utilities. Core Temp and HWinfo are still good, with this platform, but when changes to CPU micro code or other BIOS modifications occur, or there are driver or power plan changes, it sometimes takes a while before those get implemented by 3rd party utilities, while Ryzen master, being a direct AMD product, generally gets updated immediately. Since it is also specific to the hardware in question, it can be more accurately and specifically developed without any requirement for inclusion of other architectures which won't be compatible in any case. You wouldn't use a hammer to drive a wood screw in (At least I hope not) and this is very much the same, being the right tool for the job at hand.

As far as the older AMD FX AM3+ platforms including Bulldozer and Piledriver families go, there are only two real options here. You can use Core Temp, but you will need to click on the Options menu, click Settings, click Advanced and put a check mark next to the setting that says "Show Distance to TJmax in temperature fields" and then save settings and exit the options menu system. This may or may not work for every FX platform, so using AMD Overdrive is the specific, again, right tool for the job, and recommended monitoring solution for this architecture. Since these FX platforms use "Thermal margins" rather than an actual "core/package" temp type thermal monitoring implementation, monitoring as you would with older or newer AMD platforms, or any Intel platform, won't work properly.

For more information about this, please visit here for an in depth explanation of AMD thermal margin monitoring.

Understanding AMD thermal margins for Pre-Ryzen processors





*Download Ryzen Master




*Download AMD Overdrive



Also, posting screenshots, when requested, is helpful so WE can see what is going on as well and you can learn how to do that here:

How to post images on Tom's hardware forums

I have used hw info also. I read about hw monitor and cpu z and others on these and other similar forums while researching how to OC. Gonna dig in to these others you mentioned tonight. Thanks.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
No. ALL overclocking of the CPU should be done through the BIOS, AND, I would HIGHLY recommend that you NOT mess with the BCLK settings. Put those back to the stock setting and ONLY make adjustments to the CPU core clock multiplier for overclocking purposes. Changing BCLK values tends to de-stabilize other things, or create problems, like the PCI, SATA and memory circuits and buses. Not worth tampering with TBH.

I would recommend AGAINST ever using Overdrive, or ANY desktop application, for the purpose of configuring overclock settings. That messes with the registry and can be hard to undue later without a full clean install of Windows in some cases. Overclocking in the BIOS makes for a clean simple configuration that can be undone at any time by reverting settings or clearing the CMOS.
 
Reactions: spaceface25

spaceface25

Reputable
Jul 1, 2015
27
0
4,530
0
No. ALL overclocking of the CPU should be done through the BIOS, AND, I would HIGHLY recommend that you NOT mess with the BCLK settings. Put those back to the stock setting and ONLY make adjustments to the CPU core clock multiplier for overclocking purposes. Changing BCLK values tends to de-stabilize other things, or create problems, like the PCI, SATA and memory circuits and buses. Not worth tampering with TBH.

I would recommend AGAINST ever using Overdrive, or ANY desktop application, for the purpose of configuring overclock settings. That messes with the registry and can be hard to undue later without a full clean install of Windows in some cases. Overclocking in the BIOS makes for a clean simple configuration that can be undone at any time by reverting settings or clearing the CMOS.
That is what I've read about overclocking with programs such as overdrive. I'll just use it as a reference. Do you think messing with the BCLK is what made my memory go above the 1600mhz that it is clocked for or is that normal with overclocking? In HW info now and the tclt and tsi are at 16.5 to 21c , everything else is under 32 except for temp 4,5,6 while idle. Gonna try a bench and stress to see where it goes.
 

spaceface25

Reputable
Jul 1, 2015
27
0
4,530
0
HWmonitor isn't even a good choice for non-FX platforms, and it is 100% not usable for FX platforms. It does not monitor or report thermal margin. Stop using it. You might as well just be making up numbers and assigning them randomly to your CPU cores.

There are three utilities, period, that I recommend for thermal monitoring or monitoring in general, and HWmonitor isn't one of the. That's for a REASON. That reason, is because it is randomly accurate and highly problematic on a number of chipsets and platforms.


Monitoring software

HWmonitor, Open hardware monitor, Realtemp, Speccy, Speedfan, Windows utilities, CPU-Z, NZXT CAM and most of the bundled motherboard utilities are often not the best choice as they are not always accurate. Some are actually grossly inaccurate, especially with certain 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 older 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. When starting HWinfo after installation, always check the box next to "sensors only" and de-select the box next to "summary".


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, plus, it is extremely rare for HWinfo to not report the correct sensor values under the correct sensor listings, or misreport other information. Utilities like HWmonitor, Openhardware monitor and Speccy, tend to COMMONLY misreport sensor data, or not report it at all.

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 (With AVX and AVX2 disabled) 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





Ryzen master for Zen or newer AMD CPUs, or Overdrive for older Pre-Ryzen platforms (AM3/AM3+/FM2/FM2+)

For monitoring on AMD Ryzen and Threadripper platforms including Zen or newer architectures, it is recommended that you use Ryzen master if for no other reason than because any updates or changes to monitoring requirements are more likely to be implemented sooner, and properly, than with other monitoring utilities. Core Temp and HWinfo are still good, with this platform, but when changes to CPU micro code or other BIOS modifications occur, or there are driver or power plan changes, it sometimes takes a while before those get implemented by 3rd party utilities, while Ryzen master, being a direct AMD product, generally gets updated immediately. Since it is also specific to the hardware in question, it can be more accurately and specifically developed without any requirement for inclusion of other architectures which won't be compatible in any case. You wouldn't use a hammer to drive a wood screw in (At least I hope not) and this is very much the same, being the right tool for the job at hand.

As far as the older AMD FX AM3+ platforms including Bulldozer and Piledriver families go, there are only two real options here. You can use Core Temp, but you will need to click on the Options menu, click Settings, click Advanced and put a check mark next to the setting that says "Show Distance to TJmax in temperature fields" and then save settings and exit the options menu system. This may or may not work for every FX platform, so using AMD Overdrive is the specific, again, right tool for the job, and recommended monitoring solution for this architecture. Since these FX platforms use "Thermal margins" rather than an actual "core/package" temp type thermal monitoring implementation, monitoring as you would with older or newer AMD platforms, or any Intel platform, won't work properly.

For more information about this, please visit here for an in depth explanation of AMD thermal margin monitoring.

Understanding AMD thermal margins for Pre-Ryzen processors





*Download Ryzen Master




*Download AMD Overdrive



Also, posting screenshots, when requested, is helpful so WE can see what is going on as well and you can learn how to do that here:

How to post images on Tom's hardware forums

Overdrive link isn't found and how to post images isn't found. I'll search it and post some either later tonight or tomorrow. Looks like my distance to tj max difference is my cpu temp as shown in real bench. A cool 37c benchmark at 4.5. Stress test next. Thanks. So far so stable.
 

spaceface25

Reputable
Jul 1, 2015
27
0
4,530
0
Overdrive link isn't found and how to post images isn't found. I'll search it and post some either later tonight or tomorrow. Looks like my distance to tj max difference is my cpu temp as shown in real bench. A cool 37c benchmark at 4.5. Stress test next. Thanks. So far so stable.
52c to tj 27c temp tj max 80c
 
4.5 is all your gonna get stable,which is a damn good oc.those temps under stress are not even close tho.lol.i have the same processor oc to 4.5 and it goes over 70c under load.dunno why people rave about the 212 evo.it is not at all good for oc.i am running the noctua nh d14.at best overclocking this cpu is now just a curiousity.dont get me wrong,im still using mine and like it.hw monitor,contrary to popular belief will get you close on temps.you really dont want that cpu to hit 80c.
 
Reactions: spaceface25

spaceface25

Reputable
Jul 1, 2015
27
0
4,530
0
4.5 is all your gonna get stable,which is a damn good oc.those temps under stress are not even close tho.lol.i have the same processor oc to 4.5 and it goes over 70c under load.dunno why people rave about the 212 evo.it is not at all good for oc.i am running the noctua nh d14.at best overclocking this cpu is now just a curiousity.dont get me wrong,im still using mine and like it.hw monitor,contrary to popular belief will get you close on temps.you really dont want that cpu to hit 80c.
As someone stated above that he monitor and others don't read temps, well its checking out same temp as the difference in distance to tj max pretty damn close. Thanks! The 212 was pretty cheap for me to just tinker with this one. Mostly use it for games. Just wanted to see what this overclocking was all about.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
well its checking out same temp as the difference in distance to tj max pretty damn close.

"Temp" and "Distance to TJmax" are not even REMOTELY similar. Temp is assuming a thermal diode near enough to the actual core to take a direct or close to direct reading, as a very short although not entirely accurate explanation.

Distance to TJmax or "Thermal margin" is totally different. This assumes that X is the hottest the CPU can get without getting to the point where thermal damage such as electromigration (Google it, seriously) or VT shift (Voltage threshold shift) begin to occur. So the reading you see when looking at thermal margin means, for example, if you see a 20°C, not that you are AT 20°C, but that there is a 20°C thermal margin or basically "20 degrees hotter and you are beyond what we say is safe".

The hotter it gets, the lower than number will become. Anything less than ten degrees thermal margin is starting to look bad. Anything AT or below some amount of zero or negative thermal margin, IS bad.

And, there is only ONE truly acceptable way to determine if you are thermally compliant or not, while monitoring the thermal margin, and that is to run Prime95, choose the Small FFT option (Not "Smallest FFT". Just "Small FFT") and disable the AVX and AVX2 options in the popup box that opens when you open the program. Run it for 15 minutes. If you do not fall below ten degrees thermal margin, then your overclock is thermally responsible or "compliant".

If it doesn't, then you are not.


That is ONLY to determine thermal compliance. Stability is an entirely different matter.

Full testing procedures for basic overclocking can be found in my guide, here:



I've fixed the links to Overdrive and my posting images tutorial. Thanks for pointing that out.

Image posting tutorial is here:

 
Reactions: spaceface25

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
70c not too high for the FX-6300.
This is not how CPU temperature is measured OR monitored on older AMD platforms such as Bulldozer and Piledriver architectures. So your statement lacks any reason to have faith in it's contents. Same as the OP, you need to familiarize yourself with how to measure thermal compliance on this platform before trying to make recommendations to others about it.

I only need to see the first five seconds of the "overclocking guide" you linked to in order to know THEY TOO don't know what they are doing or talking about since they are erroneously trying to monitor thermals as if it were an Intel platform (Or newer Ryzen) and not monitoring thermal margin (Or listing thermal specifications in thermal margin for that matter). Totally lacks any believability after that.
 

zx128k

Prominent
Nov 23, 2019
616
105
590
8
This is not how CPU temperature is measured OR monitored on older AMD platforms such as Bulldozer and Piledriver architectures. So your statement lacks any reason to have faith in it's contents. Same as the OP, you need to familiarize yourself with how to measure thermal compliance on this platform before trying to make recommendations to others about it.

I only need to see the first five seconds of the "overclocking guide" you linked to in order to know THEY TOO don't know what they are doing or talking about since they are erroneously trying to monitor thermals as if it were an Intel platform (Or newer Ryzen) and not monitoring thermal margin (Or listing thermal specifications in thermal margin for that matter). Totally lacks any believability after that.
 

zx128k

Prominent
Nov 23, 2019
616
105
590
8
Well, I'm not entirely sure about that. I have a utility called CoreTemp that my Rainmeter uses. I also have a physical temperature sensor in my case (hooked to a display on it's front) that is placed deep within the heat sink. The readouts from my physical sensor and CoreTemp correlate almost exactly. My usual idle is between 36-40 C and my physical sensor is displaying a steady 38 C (since the sensor has a very slow update time, it can't keep up with the second-to-second fluctuations) However, when I play games, temps shoot up to around 55, though the physical sensor doesn't seem to go that high.
If CoreTemp is misreading the data fed from the digital sensor in my CPU (FX 6300) then it is doing so with a remarkable degree of accidental accuracy.

Source

https://www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/tutorials/MT-093.pdf



 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS