Question How do i get my CPU temps down ?

[BossSiggy]

Spoiler

Not just the VPN, but none of what they stated the PC is used for really screams 'performance lost' if they were to set a lower thermal limit.
Would you notice a few seconds longer virus scan?


Then buy a thermometer that you can dangle the sensor in front of the cpu cooler - or perhaps you already have a thermometer, just need to improvise in suspending it in front of the cooler.
Then you'll know how warm/cool the air going into the cooler is.
Inside the case is typically warmer than outside and in your room. When the gpu is active, the case ambient will be warmer.
Just because it's 6 or 25C outside, doesn't mean it's the same going in the case.


I guess you missed where I posted that Intel cpus don't care about their operating thermals sans the thermal limit. Understandable, as I have a bad habit of long posts.
They do not run any slower, unlike Ryzen cpus, Geforce and Radeon gpus. [Can't recall if Intel ARC functions the same as the other gpus.]
Cores are at 20C? It's 5.0ghz or whatever the boost is.
50C? Still 5.0ghz.
85C? Yep, still 5.0ghz.
98C? You guessed it - 5.0ghz.
At 100C? It'll dial back a few hundred mhz, and if successful in lowering temperature, they're right back up to 5.0ghz until 100C is reached... and this is repeated over and over and over, and over - it does not stay at lower clocks unless the throttle protections aren't working.


Take the above and change 100C to 80C.


So what you're saying is, the PC doesn't run slower. Cpu gets too hot for you during virus scans, but everything else is fine. One application is making everything else look bad?
What was wrong with Windows Defender? Or maybe you're using Linux.

Get a bigger cooler then - despite my responses to your query about no cost solutions. That's the main reason I chimed in.
Undervolting will only go so far; it has limits. If it doesn't do enough to lower core thermals, you gotta get a bigger cooler.

Also im gonna wait with UV'ing, since i dont want to do it 2 times and im getting a new CPU of the same model and every chip is different.

 

[BossSiggy]

I can't believe we're in page four of this thread.

Really, the premise is the same: wattage means heat. If you don't want to ever have your CPU go over 80 degrees, that's fine, but you have to take the very real performance hit as a tradeoff. OP, it sounds in places like you want for us to make the laws of physics to not apply to your PC. We can't do that. You get to determine what tradeoffs work best for your own situation, but you don't get to not have tradeoffs.

So you are saying if i put it the thermal limitis to 80 degrees i will lose performance ? Because from what i understand from Phaze thats not the case ? And i know there will be a tradeoff in some way, either i have to change something on my pc or spend some money, im trying to change something on my pc and hearing peoples opinions before spending money though.

 

[BossSiggy]

Agreed, this was obvious on page 1 or 2 of this thread.

On page 1 og 2 of this thread there was suggestions on how to solve this problem that i had not heard yet, its not until a few days ago Phaze said to change the thermal limit in BIOS, its also not until a few days ago someone that to put a Contact Frame on my CPU or something like that, its also not until a few days ago someone said i should do something with Intel ME, etc.

 

[KyaraM]

Spoiler

Not just the VPN, but none of what they stated the PC is used for really screams 'performance lost' if they were to set a lower thermal limit.
Would you notice a few seconds longer virus scan?


Then buy a thermometer that you can dangle the sensor in front of the cpu cooler - or perhaps you already have a thermometer, just need to improvise in suspending it in front of the cooler.
Then you'll know how warm/cool the air going into the cooler is.
Inside the case is typically warmer than outside and in your room. When the gpu is active, the case ambient will be warmer.
Just because it's 6 or 25C outside, doesn't mean it's the same going in the case.


I guess you missed where I posted that Intel cpus don't care about their operating thermals sans the thermal limit. Understandable, as I have a bad habit of long posts.
They do not run any slower, unlike Ryzen cpus, Geforce and Radeon gpus. [Can't recall if Intel ARC functions the same as the other gpus.]
Cores are at 20C? It's 5.0ghz or whatever the boost is.
50C? Still 5.0ghz.
85C? Yep, still 5.0ghz.
98C? You guessed it - 5.0ghz.
At 100C? It'll dial back a few hundred mhz, and if successful in lowering temperature, they're right back up to 5.0ghz until 100C is reached... and this is repeated over and over and over, and over - it does not stay at lower clocks unless the throttle protections aren't working.


Take the above and change 100C to 80C.


So what you're saying is, the PC doesn't run slower. Cpu gets too hot for you during virus scans, but everything else is fine. One application is making everything else look bad?
What was wrong with Windows Defender? Or maybe you're using Linux.

Get a bigger cooler then - despite my responses to your query about no cost solutions. That's the main reason I chimed in.
Undervolting will only go so far; it has limits. If it doesn't do enough to lower core thermals, you gotta get a bigger cooler.

To clarify, undervolting was never presented as the be all, end all solution, but in conjunction with a specific cooler the TC looked at, the Pure Rock 2, when that is not enough yet. Might have been a misunderstanding or miscommunication on my end there.

 

[Karadjgne]

By setting a thermal limit of 80 instead of unlimited, the cpu will boost its cores and voltages until it hits 80 instead of boosting without limits and hitting 100.

UV is a multiple step process, often repeated. The only thing you are looking for is the minimum amount of voltage it takes to run the cpu stable. Less voltage = less heat.

Yes I do understand. You got 21 different opinions. Not all of which were fixes. Taking the side panel off allows for direct cold air access to the cooler. If temps change drastically, it becomes obvious that the case airflow is very insufficient. By doing so you also can tell just how affective the current cooler should be. If the temps change very little, then case airflow is good, but the cooler really sucks.


There is no guarantee of a 1 thing change fix, it could be multiple things, there's simply no way for outside internet surity, we can only guess based on past history/experience but it's up to you to apply testing methodology and get results.

 

[Phaaze88]

To clarify, undervolting was never presented as the be all, end all solution, but in conjunction with a specific cooler the TC looked at, the Pure Rock 2, when that is not enough yet. Might have been a misunderstanding or miscommunication on my end there.

Yes, but some people ate it up as such, including me.
UV has been around a long time, but only recently, 'it's the shizz', 'you must do this', 'OMG amazing', etc, and when something gets hyped, it tends to come across to the unknowing as an end all, be all.
To those that know, it's just another method; it's not entirely necessary, has caveats, and may not work out for everyone.
AMD has Curve Optimizer(superior method), so their users should use that instead.

It's not even that good on Nvidia gpus. If you UV too much on today's cpus, you get telltale signs something's wrong, like blue screens and failure to POST.
For an Nvidia gpu, there are no obvious signs like that if you UV too much. You have to sit there and watch for oddities, as well as compare performance to the default profile.
Radeon 7000 starts reducing memory clock if you overdo it on them(if I remember correctly).

 

[Karadjgne]

Overclocking is all about undervolting. Always has been. Even with the best cooling solutions, ppl chased dream targets, hit stability and still had to finagle a way to drop temps. Which meant undervolting as far as they could take it, which usually ended up @ 0.08v ± higher than bluescreen voltages.

UV isn't a new concept, it's just an extension of an old concept since actual overclocking by raising multipliers has become basically DOA with as much as Intel/Amd is pushing the cpus boost performance targets today, UV just allowing longer and higher boosts on more cores for longer because of higher thermal headroom.

Which in a nutshell, is overclocking.

 

[BossSiggy]

By setting a thermal limit of 80 instead of unlimited, the cpu will boost its cores and voltages until it hits 80 instead of boosting without limits and hitting 100.

UV is a multiple step process, often repeated. The only thing you are looking for is the minimum amount of voltage it takes to run the cpu stable. Less voltage = less heat.

Yes I do understand. You got 21 different opinions. Not all of which were fixes. Taking the side panel off allows for direct cold air access to the cooler. If temps change drastically, it becomes obvious that the case airflow is very insufficient. By doing so you also can tell just how affective the current cooler should be. If the temps change very little, then case airflow is good, but the cooler really sucks.


There is no guarantee of a 1 thing change fix, it could be multiple things, there's simply no way for outside internet surity, we can only guess based on past history/experience but it's up to you to apply testing methodology and get results.

How do i change the thermal limits in BIOS ? I tryed googling it and looked through multiple sites with no results ?

yeah i know its a process repeated before UV'ing and after every time you UV to check scores so that you dont lose stability and performance (how to actually do it i dont know how to do though and what programs are best for it, because there is so many programs for it and people have different opinions on what is best, but it sounds pretty easy, just time consuming)

yeah thats the point of taking the side panel off, but some people wanted me to have it off as a permanent solution in other threads and im not a fan of that, i smoke and have a dog, so i dont want my pc to be that open.

 

[BossSiggy]

To clarify, undervolting was never presented as the be all, end all solution, but in conjunction with a specific cooler the TC looked at, the Pure Rock 2, when that is not enough yet. Might have been a misunderstanding or miscommunication on my end there.

No no you gave the best respone ive got from anyone so you are good

 

[Darkbreeze]

The answer for both threads is the same. Better cooler. THEN, after that, IF you still have a problem, you CAN consider other options if you still have a problem. Which, you won't.

 

[cryoburner]

I'm not going to read through all the interim pages of posts here, since this thread (and the one at the other site) appears to have become needlessly long, but on the first page they mentioned not using the computer for gaming, and it doesn't sound like they typically use it for demanding workloads in general.

So, in my opinion, their existing cooling solution is probably "fine". There doesn't really seem to be a problem here, at least not anything that is likely to affect the processor's health. Today's CPUs are designed to run at higher temperature levels under load. Intel lists the standard operating range for the 12700F as being up to 100C, and the processor will automatically throttle performance to avoid exceeding that temperature. I could see one not wanting their CPU to run close to that limit frequently, especially if the throttling were to noticeably affect performance, but it's arguably not going to be a problem if they occasionally see temperatures in the 80s when running a demanding task like a virus scan that may be operating on all cores. During more typical workloads, most of the processor cores will be sitting unused, and temperatures should be lower.

Now, while a better cooler isn't necessarily required, one might want to get one if they find the noise levels of the system to be distracting with the stock cooler ramping up to full speed. It probably doesn't need to be a high-end cooler though, considering the system doesn't seem to be getting used for demanding all-core workloads all that often. Something like the Pure Rock 2 that the shop suggested would likely be plenty to keep the processor at decent temperatures at moderate fan speeds.

Though really, even with the stock cooler, the system shouldn't be set to ramp the fan up to 100% at 50 degrees, because that's completely unnecessary, and isn't going to keep these maximum temperatures down any better than if it were set to reach 100% at 80 degrees. Setting the fan curve up that way is just going to make the fans ramp up and make excessive noise even under light loads that don't require those kinds of fan speeds.

 

[Darkbreeze]

So, in my opinion, their existing cooling solution is probably "fine".

Actually, it's not. Not if they have left the turbo boost enabled, which frankly it would be plainly stupid for anybody to disable except under the most dire of circumstances where no other option is available. Even Intel PLAINLY states that the stock cooler is NOT satisfactory for turbo boost enabled configurations and is ONLY recommended for 65w configurations. Clearly, based on Intel's own specs, turbo boost enabled 12700F CPUs are NOT within the "65w" envelope.

Clearly outlined in this article.

Intel Core i7-12700 + Intel B660 Review

Today we have a combo review of all-new Intel hardware, our first look at the affordable Intel B660 platform, the non-K Core i7-12700 and Intel's latest box...

www.techspot.com

And, clearly stated as only good to 65w in Intel's own datasheet.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000089189/processors.html

Also stated in Intel's datasheets is the fact that this CPU will run AT LEAST up to 180w under full boost and that is ONLY if the Intel spec is adhered to. With the motherboard manufacturers changed limits, we know that can and probably will be higher.

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/134592/intel-core-i712700f-processor-25m-cache-up-to-4-90-ghz.html

So, just because the board itself is capable of keeping the CPU from becoming burnt toast because of it's throttle capabilities, does not mean the cooler is able to keep the CPU acceptably cool OR that getting a better cooler, even a pretty inexpensive aftermarket one many of those in the 20-40 dollar range, wouldn't result in completely eliminating any need for the board to throttle the CPU.

 

[GarrettL]

@Darkbreeze, most of us checked out of this thread a while ago stating what you are once again explaining.

 

[Darkbreeze]

@Darkbreeze, most of us checked out of this thread a while ago stating what you are once again explaining.

And what is your point? I was asked/invited to this thread by the OP and have been merely responding to that invitation plus the additional posts that have gone up since that time. So confirming what's already been said, whether in different or the same words, should be welcomed, not problematic. Clearly they didn't get it the first time, nor in their other thread, so sometimes it takes a sledgehammer rather than a rubber mallet to get idea home.

 

[GarrettL]

And what is your point? I was asked/invited to this thread by the OP and have been merely responding to that invitation plus the additional posts that have gone up since that time. So confirming what's already been said, whether in different or the same words, should be welcomed, not problematic. Clearly they didn't get it the first time, nor in their other thread, so sometimes it takes a sledgehammer rather than a rubber mallet to get idea home.

Yeah, saw that a page or three ago.

I was not trying to offend you nor anyone else. I didn't mean to allude anything as being "problematic" and not sure how that was even surmised by my post.

Sledgehammer all of us?

 

[jasonf2]

I just went through this thread. I am in awe.

 

[GarrettL]

I just went through this thread. I am in awe.

Yeah....quite the read.

 

[cryoburner]

Actually, it's not. Not if they have left the turbo boost enabled, which frankly it would be plainly stupid for anybody to disable except under the most dire of circumstances where no other option is available. Even Intel PLAINLY states that the stock cooler is NOT satisfactory for turbo boost enabled configurations and is ONLY recommended for 65w configurations. Clearly, based on Intel's own specs, turbo boost enabled 12700F CPUs are NOT within the "65w" envelope.

Again, my point is that for the basic desktop tasks that it sounds like they are using the system for, it doesn't really matter all that much. For typical lightly-threaded workloads, the CPU generally isn't going to be drawing more than 65 watts even when it's boosting. If the processor gets over 80 degrees when performing a virus scan, who cares? That's well within its designed operating conditions, and the hardware is specifically built to manage performance to avoid exceeding its limits. So long as throttling isn't noticeably affecting performance for what they use the system for, those kinds of temperatures shouldn't be much of a concern.

If they want to add a relatively inexpensive tower cooler to help reduce fan noise and temperatures, and to maintain optimal performance on the rare occasions when they run a heavily-multithreaded workload, then great. I'm not sure how this thread managed to get past the first page though, when a simple answer would be that if they are concerned about temperatures, then just get the Pure Rock 2 offered by the shop and call it a day.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Again, my point is that for the basic desktop tasks that it sounds like they are using the system for, it doesn't really matter all that much. For typical lightly-threaded workloads, the CPU generally isn't going to be drawing more than 65 watts even when it's boosting. If the processor gets over 80 degrees when performing a virus scan, who cares? That's well within its designed operating conditions, and the hardware is specifically built to manage performance to avoid exceeding its limits. So long as throttling isn't noticeably affecting performance for what they use the system for, those kinds of temperatures shouldn't be much of a concern.

If they want to add a relatively inexpensive tower cooler to help reduce fan noise and temperatures, and to maintain optimal performance on the rare occasions when they run a heavily-multithreaded workload, then great. I'm not sure how this thread managed to get past the first page though, when a simple answer would be that if they are concerned about temperatures, then just get the Pure Rock 2 offered by the shop and call it a day.

Well, while I sometimes agree with most of what you post, in this case, I cannot. If the CPU is reaching 90 degrees doing nothing more intensive than running a virus scan, then that is a problem and it's a problem that only better cooling is going to resolve. If you can't afford 20-40 dollars for a cooler, depending on what level of results you want to see in exchange for the upgrade, then you probably shouldn't have bought a system that high end to begin with and if all a person is doing is running "basic desktop tasks" then they COMPLETELY wasted their money buying a 12700F because all they needed was a much less expensive i3 or 5600G, or heck, perhaps even a Pentium, would have been MORE than sufficient and not only would have likely worked completely fine with the stock cooler but would have cost significantly less money.

In this case since they DO have a 12700F and they ARE seeing temperatures they should not be seeing running only that kind of task, then there is either something seriously misconfigured or the cooler just plain ain't good enough. There really is no two ways about that.

 

[jasonf2]

I cannot believe I am tagging into this but Darkbreeze is right.

1. Stock coolers are typically marginal at best and it isn't unusual that they limit performance by default. Unless you have done your homework (or more importantly someone else has tested it) and purchased one of the unbelievably rare unicorn CPU/Cooler box setups that are well matched just expect to put stock coolers in your "parts that are too good to throw away but I will never actually use" box, or, if you don't have this box, the trash can works equally as well. Keep the thermal paste, it usually is ok.

2. While I can quote the laws of thermal dynamics relative to the mechanics of cooler design I don't need to. A properly sized CPU cooler is a CPU cooler that keeps the CPU from thermal throttling. Not just part of the time, but all of the time( within its defined wattage limits). I just need to refer back to point one. Stock coolers suck.

3. Anytime you are running a cooler that isn't able to keep your processor from thermal throttling( in its stock configuration and rated wattage window) it is inadequate. Again refer to point one.

4. Any attempt to downclock, restrict thermal ceiling, undervolt, etc. will reduce performance. And while these techniques can be effective in controlling thermals they are like putting a block of wood under your custom sports car's gas pedal to keep it from overheating because you undersized the radiator. It might work, but it really defeats the purpose. If you have to do this your cooler is undersized and you are limiting performance.

5. Water cooling and air cooling both have their pros and cons. In a typical build with a properly sized cooler both work very well and achieve the ultimate goal of keeping the CPU from thermal throttling in it's operating limits.

6. If you are trying to figure out what a good cooler for your CPU is you are going to have to do some reading. Check out CPU reviews with benchmarks and look to see what the reviewers are using on your CPU. Test rig configuration is almost always published. Also read professional reviews on the coolers as well. I have been building machines for a long time and one of the things I have learned is that every CPU is different. Just about everything Intel from the 14nm+ generation (and up) can perform well. But since they were stuck on 14nm they didn't have the efficiency gains that came form the die shrinks. To increase performance they continued to increase wattage. If they cannot dissipate that heat the chips are very self limiting. So an adequate cooler is more important than ever, especially on Intel Chips.

7. You cannot oversize a CPU cooler. At a certain point you won't get any gains for spending more money, but throwing a massively oversized cooler on your computer will never hurt performance.

8. If the case is unable able to exhaust the heat properly to the environment the cooler cannot work. Case air flow is just as important as the cooler.

9. When you buy a prebuilt machine there is a pretty solid chance that the thermal solution is marginal. Margins are razor thin in the computer game and the dime you don't spend is the dime you make. Even at the boutique level it is why you see boxed coolers and single sticks of RAM used all of the time. Even at volume good thermal solutions can add $100 to a build cost on a machine that doesn't have that much profit in it from the start. Stock coolers exist because they are cheap, not because they are good. Again refer back to Point 1.

In conclusion: I am just glad to have been able to say the same thing that everyone else (that knows what they are doing) has said 30 times before me in this thread. I hope that my contribution here helps push this to be the single longest, self repeating and pointless thread ever. Not that it wasn't before. I am going to drop the mic now. Elvis has left the building.

 

[BossSiggy]

I cannot believe I am tagging into this but Darkbreeze is right.

1. Stock coolers are typically marginal at best and it isn't unusual that they limit performance by default. Unless you have done your homework (or more importantly someone else has tested it) and purchased one of the unbelievably rare unicorn CPU/Cooler box setups that are well matched just expect to put stock coolers in your "parts that are too good to throw away but I will never actually use" box, or, if you don't have this box, the trash can works equally as well. Keep the thermal paste, it usually is ok.

2. While I can quote the laws of thermal dynamics relative to the mechanics of cooler design I don't need to. A properly sized CPU cooler is a CPU cooler that keeps the CPU from thermal throttling. Not just part of the time, but all of the time( within its defined wattage limits). I just need to refer back to point one. Stock coolers suck.

3. Anytime you are running a cooler that isn't able to keep your processor from thermal throttling( in its stock configuration and rated wattage window) it is inadequate. Again refer to point one.

4. Any attempt to downclock, restrict thermal ceiling, undervolt, etc. will reduce performance. And while these techniques can be effective in controlling thermals they are like putting a block of wood under your custom sports car's gas pedal to keep it from overheating because you undersized the radiator. It might work, but it really defeats the purpose. If you have to do this your cooler is undersized and you are limiting performance.

5. Water cooling and air cooling both have their pros and cons. In a typical build with a properly sized cooler both work very well and achieve the ultimate goal of keeping the CPU from thermal throttling in it's operating limits.

6. If you are trying to figure out what a good cooler for your CPU is you are going to have to do some reading. Check out CPU reviews with benchmarks and look to see what the reviewers are using on your CPU. Test rig configuration is almost always published. Also read professional reviews on the coolers as well. I have been building machines for a long time and one of the things I have learned is that every CPU is different. Just about everything Intel from the 14nm+ generation (and up) can perform well. But since they were stuck on 14nm they didn't have the efficiency gains that came form the die shrinks. To increase performance they continued to increase wattage. If they cannot dissipate that heat the chips are very self limiting. So an adequate cooler is more important than ever, especially on Intel Chips.

7. You cannot oversize a CPU cooler. At a certain point you won't get any gains for spending more money, but throwing a massively oversized cooler on your computer will never hurt performance.

8. If the case is unable able to exhaust the heat properly to the environment the cooler cannot work. Case air flow is just as important as the cooler.

9. When you buy a prebuilt machine there is a pretty solid chance that the thermal solution is marginal. Margins are razor thin in the computer game and the dime you don't spend is the dime you make. Even at the boutique level it is why you see boxed coolers and single sticks of RAM used all of the time. Even at volume good thermal solutions can add $100 to a build cost on a machine that doesn't have that much profit in it from the start. Stock coolers exist because they are cheap, not because they are good. Again refer back to Point 1.

In conclusion: I am just glad to have been able to say the same thing that everyone else (that knows what they are doing) has said 30 times before me in this thread. I hope that my contribution here helps push this to be the single longest, self repeating and pointless thread ever. Not that it wasn't before. I am going to drop the mic now. Elvis has left the building.

Some people are saying that: restrict thermal ceiling, undervolt, etc. wont reduce performance, but it does make sense that it will.

 

[cryoburner]

Well, while I sometimes agree with most of what you post, in this case, I cannot. If the CPU is reaching 90 degrees doing nothing more intensive than running a virus scan, then that is a problem and it's a problem that only better cooling is going to resolve. If you can't afford 20-40 dollars for a cooler, depending on what level of results you want to see in exchange for the upgrade, then you probably shouldn't have bought a system that high end to begin with and if all a person is doing is running "basic desktop tasks" then they COMPLETELY wasted their money buying a 12700F because all they needed was a much less expensive i3 or 5600G, or heck, perhaps even a Pentium, would have been MORE than sufficient and not only would have likely worked completely fine with the stock cooler but would have cost significantly less money.

In this case since they DO have a 12700F and they ARE seeing temperatures they should not be seeing running only that kind of task, then there is either something seriously misconfigured or the cooler just plain ain't good enough. There really is no two ways about that.

Perhaps I didn't word my initial post as well as I could have, but when I said their existing cooling solution was "fine" in quotes, I meant more that it was "fine" in the sense that it wasn't likely to damage the CPU, which seemed to be their main concern, and that it might not even affect their performance for the standard desktop tasks that it sounds like they use the system for. And yes, they probably could have gone with a processor with fewer cores and lower clocks that may have performed just as well for their needs. But given what they have, it seemed a bit unnecessary for the thread to continue on for 100+ posts, suggesting overkill solutions like replacing the case or installing a higher-end AIO, given that they won't often be fully utilizing the hardware, and that the shop they asked already suggested a suitable solution of installing a Pure Rock 2.

It also sounded like the processor only reached 81 degrees after they turned the fan speed up, though as I pointed out, that would likely make an excessive amount of noise (even more so with the fan curve set to needlessly jump to 100% at 50 degrees), that a better cooler could eliminate. So I would certainly agree that replacing the cooler would be best, but I also feel that people were far overthinking the problem considering their apparent light use of the system.

 

[BossSiggy]

Perhaps I didn't word my initial post as well as I could have, but when I said their existing cooling solution was "fine" in quotes, I meant more that it was "fine" in the sense that it wasn't likely to damage the CPU, which seemed to be their main concern, and that it might not even affect their performance for the standard desktop tasks that it sounds like they use the system for. And yes, they probably could have gone with a processor with fewer cores and lower clocks that may have performed just as well for their needs. But given what they have, it seemed a bit unnecessary for the thread to continue on for 100+ posts, suggesting overkill solutions like replacing the case or installing a higher-end AIO, given that they won't often be fully utilizing the hardware, and that the shop they asked already suggested a suitable solution of installing a Pure Rock 2.

It also sounded like the processor only reached 81 degrees after they turned the fan speed up, though as I pointed out, that would likely make an excessive amount of noise (even more so with the fan curve set to needlessly jump to 100% at 50 degrees), that a better cooler could eliminate. So I would certainly agree that replacing the cooler would be best, but I also feel that people were far overthinking the problem considering their apparent light use of the system.

No it hit 9x's before i touched the fan curve and took it off performance mode and put it on power save mode, then it would start hitting low 8x's, then i touched the fan curve and put it on balanced and it stayed in the lower 8x's, id like to put it on performance mode again though, because i feel like its way slower on balanced mode.

 

[Darkbreeze]

It should NOT be "slower" in balanced mode, and for 12th and 13th Gen Intel CPUs you NEED to do ALL of the following or your CPU is just going to be riding along at potentially full boost at all times, which doesn't actually realistically make anything faster and might actually make it slower because you will LOSE some speed when the CPU throttles rather than boosting some cores for LONGER because some cores are able to "rest" which allows the entire "package" to run cooler and that results in NOT throttling. At least, more often than otherwise.

First, make sure you have the most recent chipset driver directly from your motherboard's product support page installed. Then restart the system.

Second, choose the Balanced power plan. Then go into the advanced settings for that power plan and make sure the Min "Processor power state" is set to 5% and the Max is set to 100%.

Third, go into the BIOS and disable Intel speed SHIFT, but make sure EIST (Intel enhanced speed STEP) is enabled. Also, make sure ALL of the low power C-states are either enabled or set to auto.

After doing that, you should see a significant reduction in both individual core and package temps in normal use. It won't reduce overall temps under extended full load stress testing, since obviously everything will be running at full bore, but rarely is everything running at full bore under normal conditions in real world use unless the CPU is not configured as recommended.

 

[BossSiggy]

It should NOT be "slower" in balanced mode, and for 12th and 13th Gen Intel CPUs you NEED to do ALL of the following or your CPU is just going to be riding along at potentially full boost at all times, which doesn't actually realistically make anything faster and might actually make it slower because you will LOSE some speed when the CPU throttles rather than boosting some cores for LONGER because some cores are able to "rest" which allows the entire "package" to run cooler and that results in NOT throttling. At least, more often than otherwise.

First, make sure you have the most recent chipset driver directly from your motherboard's product support page installed. Then restart the system.

Second, choose the Balanced power plan. Then go into the advanced settings for that power plan and make sure the Min "Processor power state" is set to 5% and the Max is set to 100%.

Third, go into the BIOS and disable Intel speed SHIFT, but make sure EIST (Intel enhanced speed STEP) is enabled. Also, make sure ALL of the low power C-states are either enabled or set to auto.

After doing that, you should see a significant reduction in both individual core and package temps in normal use. It won't reduce overall temps under extended full load stress testing, since obviously everything will be running at full bore, but rarely is everything running at full bore under normal conditions in real world use unless the CPU is not configured as recommended.

Okay i will take a look at that and none of this will make my pc slower ? I feel like my pc got slower after i started trying to get it down in temperatures and the only things i remember i switched it from performance mode to balanced mode and touched the fan curve ? Maybe its the amount of programs i have installed trying to get it down in temperatures like Intel XTU, Throttlestop, Speccy and HWMonitor ?