[SOLVED] Why so hot? / upgrade advice

[J_dizzle]

I''ve had low performance from my PC since I've had it (6 years) I was hoping to do an upgrade during black friday, but I'm wondering if my performance is due to heat issues?
(I never realized because I'm an idiot with computers and just starting to learn about them, had someone else build my comp for me, but I feel confident enough to do it on my own now for assembly)

right now I've got 6 tabs on chrome, and league of legends client running in the background (not a game going) and my temp is sitting around 90' isn't that hot enough to impact performance? should I try to resolve that before upgrading? or should I just stick to my guns for an upgrade? Thanks for the advice!

current rig:
AMD fx 8120
Sabertooth r2.0
nvidia gtx 770
Captain 240 ex water cooler
1000W PSU
8gb

future rig:
amd ryzen 5 3600
8 gb ram
msi geforce rtx 2070
gigabyte x570 gaming x

 

[Darkbreeze]

No, it's not around 90 degrees. In fact, you have no idea WHAT temperature it is sitting at or near, because that is not how AMD FX processor thermal management works. You can't take an accurate measurement temp on them, you MUST use Overdrive or Core Temp (With the option in the advanced settings for "use distance to TJmax in thermal fields") enable if you want to use Core Temp, to monitor thermal margin.

THIS, is how you monitor thermal margin on AMD FX processors.

How to Understand AMD CPU Temperatures | Daves Computer Tips

Over the years I've used both Intel and AMD processors and whichever monitoring utility I've used, it has always reported the real temperatures at core and socket. Since upgrading one of my PCs from…

davescomputertips.com

 

[J_dizzle]

No, it's not around 90 degrees. In fact, you have no idea WHAT temperature it is sitting at or near, because that is not how AMD FX processor thermal management works. You can't take an accurate measurement temp on them, you MUST use Overdrive or Core Temp (With the option in the advanced settings for "use distance to TJmax in thermal fields") enable if you want to use Core Temp, to monitor thermal margin.

THIS, is how you monitor thermal margin on AMD FX processors.

How to Understand AMD CPU Temperatures | Daves Computer Tips

Over the years I've used both Intel and AMD processors and whichever monitoring utility I've used, it has always reported the real temperatures at core and socket. Since upgrading one of my PCs from…

davescomputertips.com

I'm using coretemp lol

https://imgur.com/a/x8p6Zl5

View: https://imgur.com/a/x8p6Zl5

 

[Darkbreeze]

You are not using Core Temp, CORRECTLY, because if you were there would be NO temperatures displayed. ANY "temperature" displayed by ANY monitoring utility when monitoring ANY FX series processor core or package temperature will be false. It can't. It CAN NOT be accurate or even remotely accurate, because it was not DESIGNED to be monitored in that way. It can ONLY be monitored using DISTANCE TO TJ MAX which is THERMAL MARGIN. Read the article.

If you are using Core Temp, you MUST go into the advanced options and change the type of thermal monitoring being used.

To do so, open Core temp. Click on the Options tab. Then click on Settings. Next, click the Advanced tab. Then, put a check mark next the the setting that says "Display the distance to TJmax in temperature fields". Then click "ok". It may be necessary to restart Core Temp, or it may not. Now you should be showing thermal margin. Anything LESS than 10 degrees distance to TJmax is getting into "bad" territory. Once you REACH TJmax and there is no thermal margin, you are IN bad territory. Anything larger than ten degrees distance to TJ max is acceptable, with larger distance to TJ max being better/cooler.

 

[J_dizzle]

You are not using Core Temp, CORRECTLY, because if you were there would be NO temperatures displayed. ANY "temperature" displayed by ANY monitoring utility when monitoring ANY FX series processor core or package temperature will be false. It can't. It CAN NOT be accurate or even remotely accurate, because it was not DESIGNED to be monitored in that way. It can ONLY be monitored using DISTANCE TO TJ MAX which is THERMAL MARGIN. Read the article.

If you are using Core Temp, you MUST go into the advanced options and change the type of thermal monitoring being used.

To do so, open Core temp. Click on the Options tab. Then click on Settings. Next, click the Advanced tab. Then, put a check mark next the the setting that says "Display the distance to TJmax in temperature fields". Then click "ok". It may be necessary to restart Core Temp, or it may not. Now you should be showing thermal margin. Anything LESS than 10 degrees distance to TJmax is getting into "bad" territory. Once you REACH TJmax and there is no thermal margin, you are IN bad territory. Anything larger than ten degrees distance to TJ max is acceptable, with larger distance to TJ max being better/cooler.

I went ahead and did the steps like you said, this is what my core temp looks like, it looks lower, but it's still a mini space heater and running around 90

https://imgur.com/a/2Vje1sM

View: https://imgur.com/a/2Vje1sM

 

[Darkbreeze]

So that is NOT working right, with Core Temp. Download AMD Overdrive and use that. Not sure why Core Temp isn't working correctly if you made those changes, but something is borked there for sure. This is what it SHOULD look like with those changes. Plus, I assure you that TJmax on FX Bulldozer or Piledriver CPUs is NOT 194°C. So either you have a very old version of Core Temp or something else is borked. I'd also check to see if you have the latest BIOS version installed. Until then, use Overdrive.

You can download AMD overdrive here:

https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/amd-overdrive

 

[InvalidError]

I assure you that TJmax on FX Bulldozer or Piledriver CPUs is NOT 194°C.

Look again, OP's screenshots show Fahrenheit.
100°F is barely above normal body temp, practically chilly by semiconductor standards.

 

[Darkbreeze]

You're right, I totally missed that. It still is not showing the correct display though, since it should be showing distance to TJmax and it's not. So regardless, what is being shown isn't credible given the design of the platform. But you're right, 194°F which translates to 90°C, is probably about right for TJmax on that CPU. Unfortunately, the actual "CPU 0" package temperature shown, won't be accurate because of the AMD thermal design, as I know you know.

I wonder if maybe that's why it's not showing correctly to start with. You might try changing the advanced settings to show Celcius rather than Fahrenheit, and then see if it starts properly showing Distance to TJmax, although I honestly doubt that is related. Even so, ANY time you are monitoring CPU temps on any platform, you pretty well want it to read Celcius, not Fahrenheit, so be sure to change settings accordingly when you see that. Which of course I missed so thanks to IE for pointing it out.

 

[InvalidError]

It still is not showing the correct display though, since it should be showing distance to TJmax and it's not.

If you know what TjMax is and that the CPU is reporting thermal margin instead of straight temp which you do based on CPU family, then Tj is simply TjMax - delta to TjMax, a trivial conversion. I don't have any AMD CPUs recent enough to have on-chip thermal monitoring but CoreTemp is perfectly fine with showing me delta to TjMax on my i5, I'd expect it to be able to do the opposite conversion on FX.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Except that the AMD Piledriver and Bulldozer thermal sensors were never designed for or intended to be used with any sort of direct translation to a numerical, actual, temperature. Instead it uses a formula to derive thermal margin. Trying to use actual temperatures on FX is not possible, because the numbers you see will not be accurate. FX when monitored normally, as you would with Intel, can you show you higher or lower thermal readings and even lower than ambient idle temps, which of course isn't possible without refrigeration. So any "temp" you see cannot be accurate. Yes, Core Temp will show thermal margin, but in this case it isn't, as seen by his screenshot compared to the screenshot I posted of a system that is showing thermal margin while running Core Temp.

Since Overdrive was MEANT for this, it's still the better option. I'd prefer to be sure that what you are seeing, is actually what you are seeing. It might be possible to do the conversions yourself, but why bother when you don't have to?

 

[InvalidError]

Unless you don't mind disrupting CPU core layout to cram temperature sensor circuits in the middle of everything, all temperatures are an approximation based on nearby measurements, electrical and thermal modeling. Intel CPU temperatures are often far from accurate at least at the lower end of the scale - no shortage of people reporting sub-ambient idle CPU temperatures in summer.

 

[Darkbreeze]

I've never seen that on Intel. At least not any "modern" Intel, from the last six or seven years or so. I've seen it lots on AMD, but I'll take your word for it. It's usually, practically always, good.

I think the difference though is that one is by design, meant to be monitored a certain way while the other isn't. For somebody without a clear understanding of the methods involved, I'd prefer to recommend they use the intended methodology.

 

[InvalidError]

I think the difference though is that one is by design, meant to be monitored a certain way while the other isn't. For somebody without a clear understanding of the methods involved, I'd prefer to recommend they use the intended methodology.

It only makes things needlessly more confusing IMO. Thermal margin means nothing to most people unless you do the TjMax - delta conversion so arguing about any inaccuracies from "not being intended to be used that way" is futile.

Also, on-die temperature measurement are pretty inaccurate to begin with (unless dealing with actual thermometer chips) since processes designed for high speed logic generally suck at precision analog stuff. The CPU's thermal management measurements only needs to be good enough to keep the chip from crashing or self-destructing under otherwise normal operating conditions. Reaction speed (is the silicon warming up faster than it should be?) is a much greater concern than accuracy here.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Sorry, I don't see where there is anything to "do" when the software already does it for you. If overdrive says you are out of thermal margin, then you are out of thermal margin. Simple. I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it's easily consumed by the average user, especially if they are here asking about it in the first place.