[SOLVED] Intel Core i9-10850K temperature at 89 C with CPU-Z "Stress CPU" test

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

rasmasyean

Distinguished
Mar 15, 2008
264
1
18,795
I just build this system and ran CPU-Z.
When I press "Stress CPU", it goes up to 93 C and then settles at 89 C.
The Core speed is around 4400 MHz.
The Multiplier says 8-50 so I guess that means it should go up to 5000 MHz?

Is this throttling?
I read that CPU's should run like 70 degrees or something.
I don't think I overclocked it, unless the board automatically does it.
Is there something wrong with my system?

Thanks.
 
Solution
Phaaze88
rasmasyean said:
Where does this number come from? It looks almost like a random number between 3.6 and 5.2. I assume it's not throttling so what's with 4.8?
Click to expand...
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-10900k-cpu-review
"The Core i9-10900K's ten cores and 20 threads operate at a 3.7 GHz base frequency when all cores are loaded, but that can improve to 4.8 GHz via the normal Turbo Boost, and up to 4.9 GHz via Intel's Thermal Velocity Boost (TVB) feature."
[Note: TVB is only active up to 70C.]

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-10850k-cpu-review
"Compared to the Core i9-10900K, the i9-10850K comes with an across-the-board 100 MHz reduction in the base and boost frequencies. The ten-core 20-thread chip runs at a...
Sort by date Sort by votes
popatim said:
This is thermal throttling. Which CPU cooler do you have on this?
Click to expand...

Cooler Master Hyper T2 Compact CPU Cooler Dual Looped, CDC Heatpipes, 92mm PWM Fan, Aluminum Fins for AMD Ryzen/Intel LGA1200/1151
https://www.newegg.com/cooler-master-hyper-t2-rr-ht2-28pk-r1/p/N82E16835103107?Item=N82E16835103107

Arctic Silver CMQ2-2.7G Céramique 2 Tri-Linear Ceramic Thermal Compound - OEM
https://www.newegg.com/arctic-silver-cmq2-2-7g/p/N82E16835100017?Item=N82E16835100017

For reference, I also have it on a Intel Core i7-7700K (with 3 year old same thermal paste if that matters).
"Stress CPU" -> 60 C @ 4500 MHz
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
89C is likely the best you could hope for with a smallish-single stack cooler with a single fan on a 10c/20t Intel cpu that likely dissipates 140+ watts under some CPU-intensive loads...

Intel's 10c/20t CPUs likely deserve the better 280/ 360mm large radiators/AIO territory...not single stack coolers appropriate for the stock 7700K at 95 watts or so...
 
  • Like
Reactions: rasmasyean
Upvote 0 Downvote
I took that one off another computer that I'm going to retire.
I didn't think it made that much of a difference since it seemed to work well for the i7-7700K.
I supposed I'll have to look for a new cooler and make sure it fits my case. They look huge. And I thought this one was bulky! lol
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I was looking around for coolers...

Am I to understand that most of the large ones require you to remove the motherboard to mount something on the bottom?

Also, how do you mount those multifan AIO things? Are those for specific cases where you have like a whole vent on one side of the case instead of slots? What happens if you have like drive bays? Does anyone make one with a like a "radial flow" fan to mount into one of those?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Not on any budget really. But just want a basic case without lights and stuff like that. All I have is a DVD drive, which is questionable whether I want to keep it as I have another computer (that 7700K one) that has a Blu-Ray drive if I really need to make an iso or something.

It looks like the trend is getting rid of the entire front of the case it seems. My case has a front 120 mm fan slot at the bottom where I mounted a fan connected to "M.2 fan header". Not sure if that helps. But yeah, the only spot I see for a potential 1x120mm AIO radiator is a back slot where the case fan is.

Other than that avenue, I suppose I can buy a large CPU cooler if that's sufficient.

Do you guys think I need one of those "fans on top, front, and back" things to cool this CPU? Or is that just excessive marketing trends?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I wouldn't get 120 aio. Not worth it. And in general I would steer towards air cooling. Get yourself noctua, be quiet or scythe. And a case with mesh up front and enough clearance to fit those coolers. Lian li mesh II, lian li 215, corsair d4000, phanteks 500 or 600 series if you can find them. You are looking around 200-250 upgrade that should make your pc run way cooler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rasmasyean
Upvote 0 Downvote
Prices on 7700K have been ludicrous for a fairly long time, but, as that's the proverbial 'last stop' for all 100/200 series mainboards, hence prices have elevated to suit limited supply for those seeking one last upgrade, even if that recipe is stupid in light of the 7700K's price matching new R5-5600X (availability not withstanding!) and mainboard combined for the same price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rasmasyean
Upvote 0 Downvote
Do you guys think I need one of those "fans on top, front, and back" things to cool this CPU? Or is that just excessive marketing trends?
Click to expand...

I think the fans are needed to offset the heat from the tempered glass windows, which seems to be the excessive marketing trend. lol

Except the 10850k does run extremely hot; I'm still at 100c during stress tests. 🙁 It's turbo boosted right out of the box. I've hit 5000 MHz but mostly it stays at 4800 MHz and someone helped me tweak it so it's at 800 MHz when idle. I don't have enough fans yet so I can't advise on how many, and I'm just not thrilled about AIOs. But these guys are right that cooling is super important for this cpu. Oh, I did lower it by 5c when I upgraded my PSU to a 750w, so there's that too. Going with a higher wattage would probably have been better.

ETA: Another 10850k owner got to lower his temps by getting rid of the motherboard software that's redundant or unnecessary; Gigabyte had a lot, but getting rid of it didn't work for me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rasmasyean
Upvote 0 Downvote
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well. I don't know. I mean, that's the best air cooler, I know that, but I don't know about the multiplier, and I'm surprised Intel/Newegg is promoting 5.2 Ghz. There's another thread about overclocking a 10850k and I don't understand why he can't get it to 5.0 Ghz; mine won't stay there but it gets there pretty often.

https://forums.tomshardware.com/thr...ual-overclocking-guide.3676897/#post-22157729

But 5.2 Ghz? You're going to have to overclock it more than the board did automatically. (I had thought it was the cpu but it was actually the motherboards that turbo-boosted them.) If you're at 69c with the best air cooler - maybe everything will stay under 80c or maybe it will all shoot to 100c and you'll have thermal throttling.

See if you can flag down @Darkbreeze for advice or make a post in the overclocking section.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rasmasyean
Upvote 0 Downvote
I didn't actually purposefully overclock anything per say. So could 4.8 GHz be the "base clock" of the motherboard? Where does this number come from? It looks almost like a random number between 3.6 and 5.2. I assume it's not throttling so what's with 4.8?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rasmasyean said:
Where does this number come from? It looks almost like a random number between 3.6 and 5.2. I assume it's not throttling so what's with 4.8?
Click to expand...
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-10900k-cpu-review
"The Core i9-10900K's ten cores and 20 threads operate at a 3.7 GHz base frequency when all cores are loaded, but that can improve to 4.8 GHz via the normal Turbo Boost, and up to 4.9 GHz via Intel's Thermal Velocity Boost (TVB) feature."
[Note: TVB is only active up to 70C.]

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-10850k-cpu-review
"Compared to the Core i9-10900K, the i9-10850K comes with an across-the-board 100 MHz reduction in the base and boost frequencies. The ten-core 20-thread chip runs at a 3.6 GHz base frequency, peaks at 5.2 GHz, and retains all of Intel's normal boost mechanisms (like Turbo Boost 2.0, 3.0, and Thermal Velocity Boost)."
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
Phaaze88 said:
"Compared to the Core i9-10900K, the i9-10850K comes with an across-the-board 100 MHz reduction in the base and boost frequencies.
Click to expand...

I had a guy in another thread a few days ago tell me the 10850k and the 10900k are basically the same chip... said something about Intel took the lesser performing chips and labeled them 10850k while the better ones end up in a 10900k box. He said something about clearing out overstock too...

I only mention it because I've seen quite a few posts about people having issues getting their 10850k to OC past 5ghz ac while my 10900k is running very smoothly at 5.2 ac and I could probably get 5.3 if I really wanted too... but I'm happy with the current temps and am calling it good. Still, if what the guy said is true then the performance I'm getting from my cpu would back up that statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rasmasyean
Upvote 0 Downvote
TravisPNW said:
I had a guy in another thread a few days ago tell me the 10850k and the 10900k are basically the same chip... said something about Intel took the lesser performing chips and labeled them 10850k while the better ones end up in a 10900k box. He said something about clearing out overstock too...

I only mention it because I've seen quite a few posts about people having issues getting their 10850k to OC past 5ghz ac while my 10900k is running very smoothly at 5.2 ac and I could probably get 5.3 if I really wanted too... but I'm happy with the current temps and am calling it good. Still, if what the guy said is true then the performance I'm getting from my cpu would back up that statement.
Click to expand...
It's true: The 10850K is a 10900K that failed to meet the stringent requirements Intel set; a worse bin of the golden chip.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rasmasyean and Deleted member 2838871
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom