• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Athlon 1300 Running TOO HOT!

T

TheHorta

Member
I'm running a new Athlon 1300 (100FSB) on my Asus A7V Rev 1.02 with a Global Win FOP32-1 and "Artic Silver" thermal compound. Even when I'm NOT overclocking, the mobo BIOS reports that the CPU is running at 53 DEGREES C! I'm in a cool room (70-72 degrees F) and my case is well cooled with dual high-CFM 92mm intake fans on the system side of the server pedestal.

Every benchmark and report I've seen says that this configuration should be running at 40-Degrees C - MAX!

Is this "normal" or should I try to more carefull re-seat the HSF?

The one nice thing about Intel CPUs is that they run ice-cold by comparison. Probably a better, more efficient design than AMD.


 
1, you may have the wrong temperature reporting... 2, maybe too much artic silver...

try this.. after running reporting it up to 53°c which should be bleeding hot, take the heatsink off and feel it, see if it really feels 53, if it does, your in trouble, if it doesn't the sensor may be wrong.

get an external sensor, mount it as close as possible and take the temperature again..
 
because of the crappy njature of socket-a temp measurements, you can't compare your temps to any other MB whatsoever.

And you only barely compare against hte same MB. Compared to other a7v mb's, you're looking at temps that are normally in the 50-60C range, so your temps are fine. No real need to worry.


Mike
 
I'm running an AV7133 Bios ver1005

2 Quantum fireballs AS drives 40 & 60gig
Geforce2 gts 32meg
512ram
1 burner
1 dvd rom

I'm hitting around 50c sometimes 51c at near full load and 44c low load with a Gobalwin CAK-38 heat sink... So i feel your pain ! I can't get it any lower that.. I think it's the damn Asus temp readings ... Plus I mind you I used only the paste that can with the heatsink but I still think It might be running hot ! Was told by AMD not to really worrie till it hits 75- 80c
 
All Asus boards with bios's later than 1003 prevent the CPU from being in a total idle state. Also Asus boards have a problem displaying the real temps. I can certify that with my system, I have the Asus Thermistor and an independent sensor attached to the core and Asus temps are off by 7c all the time. This is a known problem with Asus boards and can be backed up at www.a7vtroubleshooting.com

>I'm hitting around 50c sometimes 51c at near full load and 44c low load with a Gobalwin CAK-38

This is exactly what I'm getting during hot days on my system but I removed the delta fan and put the fop32's YS fan on the WBK38, very quiet.

I'm running RC5 24/7 with a 1.33 at 13x100=1300 on an A7V without the cpcredit fix with a vcore of 1.65

Last evening (during hot weather) my case temp was 29.9c and cpu load was 51.9 (sensor)
This morning my case temp was 24.6 and cpu load was 44.7 (sensor)

Case temps and ambient temps are the same give or take 1c difference.

>the mobo BIOS reports that the CPU is running at 53 DEGREES C!

-7c = 46c so I agree with Mike your temps are fine, specially if you're acheiving this with a fop32. If you would have put an indipendent sensor and have a case temp of 24c you would probably see 40c to 44c whith what you have now. TheHorta I wouldn't touch anything if your getting this type of performance with a fop32, that is really good.

This is what I posted in another forum.

==
From my experience and from this forum, onboard temps really cannot be trusted. Different boards will display different temps, even different BIOS's may have a significant impact on accurate readings by as much as 15c or more and on top of that some boards may not even show accurate temps. The only true way is to put an separate and independent thermostat touching the core.

Overclockers.com had an excellent article on this, the best accurate and external temp they could achieve with an athlon with airflow was 36c. What one reads on ones board will be totally different on another with the exact same setup.

Take Asus for example, every bios starting with the 1004 had the HLT command disabled in the bios, this prevents the cpu from being in a total idle state, it's as if it's running at %75 load so unless you enable the HLT command in the bios your CPU will always run near load and so creating a temp closer to under load. Just in this example you cannot compare the Asus temps to other boards and even if you do have an external thermostat like the compu-nurse. However there are advantages to having the HLT command disabled, so you trade off higher temps for more performance.

What I'm saying is that every system is different, having lower temps on one system may not be the best, and having high temps on another system may also not be the best.
===
 
A big thanks to Psyched and NicColt. I really appreciate all of the information. It's put me much more at ease now that I know it's "normal."

Let's hope that Asus continues to hear the cries of overclocking and performance enthusiasts everywhere and corrects this thermistor reliability problem ASAP. I love their boards, but this seems to be a problem that borders on serious.


 
NicColt,

Which edge of the t-bird was the thermistor contacting.... yes, this makes a huge difference in hte readings. Also, remember that external readings such as external thermistor-side mounted read well lower than full core/die temp.



Mike
 


<< Also, remember that external readings such as external thermistor-side mounted read well lower than full core/die temp. >>



Ok I understand that, but external readings by independent sensors will be much more accurate than any sensor or built-in sensor controlled by the motherboard. Also in the real world of monitoring operating system temps, temps are monitored this way, by having external and independent readings from sensors touching the core.

>yes, this makes a huge difference in hte readings

both are touching on the same side, opposite the L1 side. they are like

---\|
----|core
---/|

slightly at an angle. what I'm saying is that an external thermistor is way more accurate for core temp readings. When you say &quot;well lower&quot; and &quot;huge difference&quot; I fail to see where these huge differences are or where they might be, the only difference that I can see is the mobo failing to read the proper temps accurately. I'm not also saying that this is %100 accurate, you have to give a -/+1-2c either way but it's way more accurate than any motherboard monitoring will ever be. I just don't believe that more sophisticated monitoring equipment is necessary or needed for the this type of task.
 
External side-core thermistor readings, at best, report 80% of the core temp rise over ambient when compared to calibrated internal diode readings. Based on that, the a7v socket-thermsitor &quot;adjusted&quot; readings are much closer to core temp than the side-core thermistor.

Not to mention, it is almost impossible to solely measure cpu-die side temp. You're getting a mix of Ceramic PCB and air temp as well.

I'm definately agreeing that external side-core readings are far better than socket-thermistor, but htey are not a subsitute for, nor are they more accurate then, internal readings. Asus may be trying to give probably DIE temps, which is why it is hotter than your external side-thermistor readings. And yes, full die temps and internal diode temps would likely be significantly higher than your side-thermistor.

For example, i've tested many different mounts of side-thermistor methods on p3s versus internal diode readings. The absolute best I get is this: External thermistor, insulated other parts of the pcb with closed cell foam, and mounted the thermistor to contact between the ALU/FPU portions of the side. Internal diode rise with CPUBurn2(more load than prime95 and other popular loading programs) = 10C, 8C for side-core themistor. Typical non insulated results = 10C rise in core, 6-7C rise in side-core thermistor.


Mike
 
I run an A7V133 my CPU temp's run 48 idle , 51 full load, been as high as 54 on a warm day and never have a problem, Mikewarrior2 website helped me out, when I freaked out about my temp's 🙂 been running at 1511 for 2 month's, very solid rig and fast as hell 🙂
I figure one day the cpu might go to AMD heaven but until then I'm gonna run the HECK out of it 😛

My HS is the Blizzard solid copper 500 g, I think once you get above about 1450 or so at 1.85 V you are creating roughly 80 watt's of heat, and i really do not think there are very many HS out there that can stand that kind of heat load 🙂
 
External side-core thermistor readings, at best, report 80% of the core temp rise over ambient when compared to calibrated internal diode readings. Based on that, the a7v socket-thermsitor &quot;adjusted&quot; readings are much closer to core temp than the side-core thermistor

I understand that but that's why I say that temps are relevant, different bios's, boards, calibrated or adjusted readings, placement of thermistor, internal, external, airflow, cpu, die, core temps. All vary depending on numerous parameters, when someone comes in and says &quot;the mobo BIOS reports that the CPU is running at 53 DEGREES C!&quot; doesn't really mean much until you factor in most of missing parameters. Those of us who do know about this can then give an opinion based on these detail without going into the more technical side of it.

>I'm definately agreeing that external side-core readings are far better than socket-thermistor

and this is what I'm saying, once you understand how temp readings really work, you are then in a better position, based on your best assessment to give out Temp opinions. Readings will never be an exact science (for now) until something more precise comes out. If he wishes to have a more detailed explanation of temp readings then that's another story. But for now and for %99 of users reporting temps, they report it from either the bios, or side mounted independent sensors and we go from there.
 
That DOES seem a bit hot.. but I know that Asus mobo's are known to over estimate the temp readings compared to Iwill's and other boards.. my comp right now (the speculations listed below) runs at about 54deg C, which I was VERY impressed with because I was expecting somewhere around 60, AND i never intended to OC up anywhere past 1.4 in the first place. When I DO run it at somewhere around 1.3, I think it was hanging around 44 deg. c or so.. maybe a bit less, i can't remember. I'm also using arctic silver - a very thin layer of it too, as they explained it in their site. oh yeah.. and I'm using a thermaltake orb.. I'd NEVER in a million lifetimes expect an ORB to do so well in cooling. hanging around 34 dba or so.
 
I think Overclockers.com has hit it on the nail as to how hot the cpu should be and how close your measurements are.

I did these calculations, and my cpu themisthor was 1.5c over the projected calculations form overclockers.
 
NicColt,

Except that where overclockers.com determines C/W is at heatsink-temp at cpu junction, and not actual CPU temp. There is a difference between teh two, and DIE temp is hotter.

I know they claim that their measurements are CPU temp, but I have a feeling that clarification is in order, since they really aren't. They claim they are following the AMD PDF(which they are), but they don't quite reveal htat AMD states this is how to measure HEATSINK Surface temp.

So you can't use their C/W numbers to derive DIE temp, since they aren't measuring DIE temp. You can use their numbers to derive Heatsink_TEmp at CPU junction though.



Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top