Is it safe to operate a CPU on temperatures close to or beyond the "MAXIMUM OPERATING TEMPERATURE"?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

skmyahiya

Prominent
Jun 11, 2017
31
0
530
I've seen that good processors like FX-6300, FX-8320 & i3-6098p have very low "Maximum Operating Temperatures" (ie., around 60 C). Is it good to use such processors as on full load, the temperature of the CPU is expected to go around 60 C+. Or should I go with the i5-4440 which has a slightly higher "Maximum Operating Temperature"?
Also which among Intel and AMD's processors will last longer?
 
Solution
Supernova1138


The i3 isn't much faster than the i5 in terms of per core performance, it's only about a 10% difference clock for clock, and games these days usually do scale up to at least 4 cores, so getting the i5 is the better choice. The FX 6300's cores are about 40 to 50% slower than the i5 4460's, so that's why it's not a great choice as a gaming CPU. Even if games scaled very well across 6 cores, it would probably still lose out to the...
Sort by date Sort by votes
The thing is I'm buying a used PC(can't get a new one). I have 4 choices in front of me. All in almost the same price range(the 8320 is slightly costlier). I have to choose from i5-4440, i3-6098p, fx-6300 and fx-8320. Some insight would be appreciated.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As kaptainkuftic says, most Intel chips throttle at 100c, which is Tjunction max. You may see a specification "Tcase" - this is not core temperature, and not useful to you. Tcase specifies the maximum temperature at the top and center of the CPU's heatspreader, and there's no sensor there. I can only imagine it to be a useful number to a company designing a heatsink or cooling system.

Generally speaking, as long as you stay below Tjmax (100c for most) you'll be alright. Staying further away will improve longevity, but whether that really matters is debatable, since the lifespan of most CPUs is measured in decades, and they almost always become obsolete before they die, even when abused or run in harsh environments.

Forum moderator "CompuTronix" has a temperature guide stickied at the top of this forum which might be useful to you. I consider his recommendations to be rather conservative, but if you follow his advice, you'll definitely be safe.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The FX CPUs were released in 2012 and are EOL. The i5 is the fastest of the chips you listed, but was released in 2013 and is also EOL. The i3 6098 is a 2016 CPU and will beat the i5 in some things, but isn't as fast in most. However, it fits in a socket which is still currently used, and will be receiving new CPUs, so I'd say the i3 is most future-proof because it's the easiest to upgrade and has the best upgrade options.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm not looking to upgrade anything in the next 4-5 years. So, let's keep upgrading aside. Also, I'm getting the FX-6300 and GTX 750 Ti 2 GB at almost the same price as the i5-4440. I'm really confused, I just want to know if the fx-6300 will last me 4-5 years or not. Btw, I won't play at anything more than 900p.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The FX CPUs are 5 years old and many are already ditching them, because they're starting to show their age and not performing well enough for their owners. This is entirely subjective though. I don't know what your uses are and will be, or what your performance expectations are, so I can't say when you'll feel the need for a replacement. However, the i5 is all around the fastest CPU.

For what it's worth, resolution has nothing to do with CPUs. You need the same amount of CPU power to hit 60fps with a 4K monitor as with a 720P screen. CPUs tend to go obsolete more slowly than GPUs (slower pace of innovation) so I tend to encourage people toward spending a bit more on a CPU.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Passmark scores aren't often indicative of real world performance, especially for games, as Passmark scales perfectly across as many cores as you can throw at it and doesn't seem to really use floating point math, essentially ignoring the two big weaknesses the FX series CPUs have: namely bad per core performance and shared floating point resources slowing things down. The individual cores on the FX 6300 are only about half as fast as those on the i5. Games don't scale well across large numbers of cores and prefer fewer, stronger cores over more weaker cores.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote


^ This

Passmarks are okay to show you generally where graphics cards lie, I don't use it much for CPUs though. At least, I've found the GPU passmark scores to be pretty close to what you can expect relative to other graphics cards.

So far, the only game that really uses the extra cores is Battlefield 1, or so I have heard.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
since the i3-6098p has more powerful cores than the i5-4440, is it advisable that I go with the dual core i3 over the quad core i5? Again, I have no intention of upgrading in the near future. I just want to get a PC, set it up and play for at least the next 5 years without having to think about upgrades.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


The i3 isn't much faster than the i5 in terms of per core performance, it's only about a 10% difference clock for clock, and games these days usually do scale up to at least 4 cores, so getting the i5 is the better choice. The FX 6300's cores are about 40 to 50% slower than the i5 4460's, so that's why it's not a great choice as a gaming CPU. Even if games scaled very well across 6 cores, it would probably still lose out to the i5 due to slower per core performance and only having 3 floating point units to the i5's 4.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom