Athlon 64 FX-60 reports higher temperatures than other Athlon 64 X2 CPUs?

[Link19]

I tried overclocking the Opteron 175 to 2.8GHz at 1.5V. When at idle, NV Monitor reported the CPU tempertaure as 38C. WHen running dual instances of Prime95 (one instance for each CPU core), the CPU temperature read at maximum 57C. Both cores were never completely stable with dual Prime95, so I decided to try the Athlon 64 FX-60 to acieve a faster overclock for both cores.

With the Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.9GHz and the VCORE set at 1.475V, NV Monitor reports the CPU temperature as 48C at idle. When I run dual instances of Prime95 (one instance for each CPU core), it jumps up into the high 50s really fast and then goes to 65C and even gets as high as 70C.

Now, why is the Athlon 64 FX-60 reporting significantly higher temperatures at a slightly lower VCORE than the Opteron 175 CPU?


The heatsink I am using is an XP-120 with a 58CFM 120mm fan mounted with Arctic Silver 5 thermal paste. The motherboard I am using is an ASUS A8N-SLI Premium with the latest 1011.006 BIOS.

Cool and QUiet has always been disabled in the BIOS. Anyone have any idea why the Athlon 64 FX-60 is reporting 10-13 degrees celcius higher than the Opteorn 175 and other Athlon 64 X2 CPUs at an equivelent VCORE and similar clock speed?

Is the temperature reading on either the Athlon 64 FX-60 or Opteron 175 incorrect, or does the Athlon 64 FX-60 surprisingly run much hotter than the other dual core socket 939 Athlon 64 and Opteron counterparts?

Help greatly appreciated.

 

[imported_miahallen]

I'd try re-mounting your HSF, that doesn't sound good, and I'm pretty sure the max rated temp on the opterons is 65C, I'd imagine the FX-60 is the same, so be careful.

When running at normal speed/voltage, does it still run hot?

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: miahallen
I'd try re-mounting your HSF, that doesn't sound good, and I'm pretty sure the max rated temp on the opterons is 65C, I'd imagine the FX-60 is the same, so be careful.

When running at normal speed/voltage, does it still run hot?

Yes it does. It still runs a lot hotter. It didn't run at 70C for very long. How long do you think I would have to run it at 70C to damage the CPU?

I did try taking off the heatsink and reapplying the thermal paste. I use ArctiClean Thermal remover to remove the thermal paste.

It still reads hotter than the Opteorn 175 by about 10 degrees celsius.

At 1.425 CPU VCORE, the Opteron 175 CPU reached a maximum tempertaure of 51C when running dual Prime95 CPU stress test. However, the Athlon 64 FX-60 at 1.425V recahes 63C when running dual Prime95? Why is the Athlon 64 FX-60 running so much hotter at the same VCORE?

And yes, at stock/normal voltage, it does run about 8 degrees celsius warmer than the Opteron 175, but not hot enough to be at the threat of being too hot.

 

[imported_miahallen]

Sounds like a bad CPU or a bad sensor...but I couldn't say for sure, can you RMA it for another?

 

[Link19]

Could the Arctic Silver 5 thermal paste have gone bad within just a couple of days. I have two 5g tubes of it. One of the tubes is 1.5 years old and the other is baout 8 months old. Is it possible one of them went bad in just a few days?

It seems I have gotten my Athlon 64 FX-60 to run at 2.91GHz at 1.425V dual Prime95 stable. So far, it has been running for a few hours and has passed on everything. It started out and the temperature read as hot as 63 and ran dual Prime95 stable for about a half hour. I was a little concerned about the temperature being that high, even though it kept going stable, so I uppsed the Antec Tri-Cool fan to maximum speed, and the temperature dropped to about 57C. It is still running dual Prime95 stable at 57C right now.

However, the fan is quite loud at maximum speed and I would prefer to run it at medium speed all the time. And since the Opteron 175 was able to run dual Prime95 at 1.425V and reach a maximum temperature of only 54C with the fan at medium speed, I would think the Athlon 64 FX-60 at the same VCORE should be able to easily do the same as the cores are all identical in the Athlon 64 dual core CPUs.

 

[Duvie]

The FX60 is a new cpu are you sure it has 100% cpu bios support? Just in case something was tweaked???

Why I have no doubt it would be warm since I know the 90nm process starts hitting the wall at these speeds on air...70c was more then I expected as well


How is the case temps....Are you working with a too high ambient temp out of the gate??? You will likely get a 3-4c correction in a few days with curing of the AS5.....I would look at case fan situation and overall case circulation....

IMO and experience these dual cores dont like temps higher then mid 50's period if you want prime95 stable cores....I have to keep it below max temp of 52 to get mine to pass no matter vcore...

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: Duvie
The FX60 is a new cpu are you sure it has 100% cpu bios support? Just in case something was tweaked???

Why I have no doubt it would be warm since I know the 90nm process starts hitting the wall at these speeds on air...70c was more then I expected as well


How is the case temps....Are you working with a too high ambient temp out of the gate??? You will likely get a 3-4c correction in a few days with curing of the AS5.....I would look at case fan situation and overall case circulation....

IMO and experience these dual cores dont like temps higher then mid 50's period if you want prime95 stable cores....I have to keep it below max temp of 52 to get mine to pass no matter vcore...

That is why I updated to the latest 1011.006 BIOS ,despite it being a beta BIOS which supports the Athlon 64-FX-60 CPU. With the 1009 BIOS, it would say AMD Processor Model Unknown. When I updated to the 1011.006 BIOS, it officially recognizes it as an Athlon 64 FX-60 CPU. The temperature readings however, did not change much.

So far, it is running dual prime95 stable for about an hour and a half. The temperature reading is 57C.

 

[Hans Maulwurf]

Hi,

we all know AMD is using different kinds of transistors on Turion, A64 and Opteron in order to optimize for speed or power usage. They probably do the same with Athlon FX. Remember these do even have a higher TDP. As far as I know they are even using different wafers for A64 and Opteron(optimizing for high yields or high quality).

Honestly I did never understand the higher TDP for the FX line, but it makes sense after reading this thread.

 

[Bull Dog]

sounds like maybe too much thermal paste. How much are you putting on the processor ?

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: Bull Dog
sounds like maybe too much thermal paste. How much are you putting on the processor ?

About the size of a grain of rice.

 

[Bull Dog]

try putting about 1/2 that amount in the EXACT center of the heatspreader.

Then clear the CMOS, boot into windows and start Dual sessions of prime95 large-FFT tests. No overclocking, I just want to see how hot its getting with stock everything.

 

[Aries64]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: miahallen
I'd try re-mounting your HSF, that doesn't sound good, and I'm pretty sure the max rated temp on the opterons is 65C, I'd imagine the FX-60 is the same, so be careful.

When running at normal speed/voltage, does it still run hot?

Yes it does. It still runs a lot hotter. It didn't run at 70C for very long. How long do you think I would have to run it at 70C to damage the CPU?

I did try taking off the heatsink and reapplying the thermal paste. I use ArctiClean Thermal remover to remove the thermal paste.

It still reads hotter than the Opteorn 175 by about 10 degrees celsius.

At 1.425 CPU VCORE, the Opteron 175 CPU reached a maximum tempertaure of 51C when running dual Prime95 CPU stress test. However, the Athlon 64 FX-60 at 1.425V recahes 63C when running dual Prime95? Why is the Athlon 64 FX-60 running so much hotter at the same VCORE?

And yes, at stock/normal voltage, it does run about 8 degrees celsius warmer than the Opteron 175, but not hot enough to be at the threat of being too hot.

It is logical that the FX-60 runs hotter than the Opteron 175 at the same voltage. Why? Because the FX-60 has two 128K L1 caches (128K L1 cache per core) that neither version of the Opteron 175 lacks.

The extra transistors in the FX-60 contribute to greater heat output, although I'm not sure how much more heat the L1 caches actually contribute. But they definitely produce heat. Thats' one reason why less expensive processors with less cache often achieve higher overclocks than more expensive models with additional or greater cache.

 

[Unkno]

just out of curiosity, are you postive it's running at that temperature? try putting your hand near it, if it's that hot, you should feel the heat coming out of it....if you don't feel the heat, touch it (as close to the cpu as possible) and see if it's hot...

 

[Bull Dog]

Originally posted by: Aries64
It is logical that the FX-60 runs hotter than the Opteron 175 at the same voltage. Why? Because the FX-60 has two 128K L1 caches (128K L1 cache per core) that neither version of the Opteron 175 lacks.

The extra transistors in the FX-60 contribute to greater heat output, although I'm not sure how much more heat the L1 caches actually contribute. But they definitely produce heat. Thats' one reason why less expensive processors with less cache often achieve higher overclocks than more expensive models with additional or greater cache.

BS!

The FX-60, 4800+, 4400+ and all the DC Optys (165, 170, 175, 180?) ALL use the SAME EXACT Toledo core. If you were to take all of those processors above and run them at 1.8GHz they would all perform EXACTLY the same.

 

[jiffylube1024]

The FX-60 may just be a hotter CPU by nature. I was checking heatsink reviews recently and above 60W power load, it seemed the XP-120 started to climb, while for example the TT Big Typhoon remained pretty much the same.

If the temps are a concern for you, you may want to look into getting a TT Big Typhoon, which is probably the best air cooler out there (and I'm a Thermalright fanboy ).

 

[Aries64]

Originally posted by: Bull Dog

Originally posted by: Aries64
It is logical that the FX-60 runs hotter than the Opteron 175 at the same voltage. Why? Because the FX-60 has two 128K L1 caches (128K L1 cache per core) that neither version of the Opteron 175 lacks.

The extra transistors in the FX-60 contribute to greater heat output, although I'm not sure how much more heat the L1 caches actually contribute. But they definitely produce heat. Thats' one reason why less expensive processors with less cache often achieve higher overclocks than more expensive models with additional or greater cache.

BS!

The FX-60, 4800+, 4400+ and all the DC Optys (165, 170, 175, 180?) ALL use the SAME EXACT Toledo core. If you were to take all of those processors above and run them at 1.8GHz they would all perform EXACTLY the same.

Thats what I thought before. But if that is true, why does AMD's own web site not list either of the two current Opteron 175s' (OEM or Retail (Boxed) versions as having any L1 Cache, but does list the FX-60, 4400+, and 4800+ processor's with their respective (128K) L1 and (1MB) L2 Cache (per core)? Does AMD use the Toledo cores on all, but purposesfully disable the L1 caches on some to be sold as DC Optys' (since everyone knows they are going to sell a lot more Optys' than FX-60s'). We already know this happens with CPUs (and videocards when they can't quite run at a specified speed, i.e. X800 XT PE AGP becomes X800 XT AGP or some pipelines don't quite run reliably.

See AMD's 4400+ page:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/Default.aspx

There are actually two different 4400+ models listed, both 90nm SOI, E6 Steppping but one runs max wattage at 110:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/details.aspx?opn=ADA4400DAA6CD

And, the other at 89W:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/details.aspx?opn=ADV4400DAA6CD
___________________________________________________________________

See AMD's 4800+ page:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/details.aspx?opn=ADA4800DAA6CD
___________________________________________________________________

See AMD's Opteron page:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us%2Den/opteron/Default.aspx

And the individual (Retail) "Box" page:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/details.aspx?opn=OSA175CDBOX

Now, the OEM page:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/details.aspx?opn=OSA175DAA6CD

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: Aries64

Originally posted by: Bull Dog

Originally posted by: Aries64
It is logical that the FX-60 runs hotter than the Opteron 175 at the same voltage. Why? Because the FX-60 has two 128K L1 caches (128K L1 cache per core) that neither version of the Opteron 175 lacks.

The extra transistors in the FX-60 contribute to greater heat output, although I'm not sure how much more heat the L1 caches actually contribute. But they definitely produce heat. Thats' one reason why less expensive processors with less cache often achieve higher overclocks than more expensive models with additional or greater cache.

BS!

The FX-60, 4800+, 4400+ and all the DC Optys (165, 170, 175, 180?) ALL use the SAME EXACT Toledo core. If you were to take all of those processors above and run them at 1.8GHz they would all perform EXACTLY the same.

Thats what I thought before. But if that is true, why does AMD's own web site not list either of the two current Opteron 175s' (OEM or Retail (Boxed) versions as having any L1 Cache, but does list the FX-60, 4400+, and 4800+ processor's with their respective (128K) L1 and (1MB) L2 Cache (per core)? Does AMD use the Toledo cores on all, but purposesfully disable the L1 caches on some to be sold as DC Optys' (since everyone knows they are going to sell a lot more Optys' than FX-60s'). We already know this happens with CPUs (and videocards when they can't quite run at a specified speed, i.e. X800 XT PE AGP becomes X800 XT AGP or some pipelines don't quite run reliably.

See AMD's 4400+ page:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/Default.aspx

There are actually two different 4400+ models listed, both 90nm SOI, E6 Steppping but one runs max wattage at 110:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/details.aspx?opn=ADA4400DAA6CD

And, the other at 89W:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/details.aspx?opn=ADV4400DAA6CD
___________________________________________________________________

See AMD's 4800+ page:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/details.aspx?opn=ADA4800DAA6CD
___________________________________________________________________

See AMD's Opteron page:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us%2Den/opteron/Default.aspx

And the individual (Retail) "Box" page:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/details.aspx?opn=OSA175CDBOX

Now, the OEM page:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/details.aspx?opn=OSA175DAA6CD

I am afraid you are incorrect

The Opterons are AMD's top end server/workstation cpus. If they disabled the L1 cache they would probably lose 10-20% performance and cripple their best processors that cost more than their X2s (200 and 800 series dualcores). Additionally, you must ask how a dualcore Opteron with no L1 cache performs the same in all benchmarks at all equivalent speedgrades as the X2 4400+/X2 4800+/FX-60 (with the 1024KB L2 cache).

The Opterons all have 128KB L1 cache per core and 1024KB of L2 cache per core.

Edit: I just wanted to add that the lack of the L1 description on website is probably an oversight.

 

[Aries64]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33

Originally posted by: Aries64

Originally posted by: Bull Dog

Originally posted by: Aries64
It is logical that the FX-60 runs hotter than the Opteron 175 at the same voltage. Why? Because the FX-60 has two 128K L1 caches (128K L1 cache per core) that neither version of the Opteron 175 lacks.

The extra transistors in the FX-60 contribute to greater heat output, although I'm not sure how much more heat the L1 caches actually contribute. But they definitely produce heat. Thats' one reason why less expensive processors with less cache often achieve higher overclocks than more expensive models with additional or greater cache.

BS!

The FX-60, 4800+, 4400+ and all the DC Optys (165, 170, 175, 180?) ALL use the SAME EXACT Toledo core. If you were to take all of those processors above and run them at 1.8GHz they would all perform EXACTLY the same.

Thats what I thought before. But if that is true, why does AMD's own web site not list either of the two current Opteron 175s' (OEM or Retail (Boxed) versions as having any L1 Cache, but does list the FX-60, 4400+, and 4800+ processor's with their respective (128K) L1 and (1MB) L2 Cache (per core)? Does AMD use the Toledo cores on all, but purposesfully disable the L1 caches on some to be sold as DC Optys' (since everyone knows they are going to sell a lot more Optys' than FX-60s'). We already know this happens with CPUs (and videocards when they can't quite run at a specified speed, i.e. X800 XT PE AGP becomes X800 XT AGP or some pipelines don't quite run reliably.

See AMD's 4400+ page:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/Default.aspx

There are actually two different 4400+ models listed, both 90nm SOI, E6 Steppping but one runs max wattage at 110:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/details.aspx?opn=ADA4400DAA6CD

And, the other at 89W:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/details.aspx?opn=ADV4400DAA6CD
___________________________________________________________________

See AMD's 4800+ page:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/details.aspx?opn=ADA4800DAA6CD
___________________________________________________________________

See AMD's Opteron page:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us%2Den/opteron/Default.aspx

And the individual (Retail) "Box" page:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/details.aspx?opn=OSA175CDBOX

Now, the OEM page:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/details.aspx?opn=OSA175DAA6CD

I am afraid you are incorrect

The Opterons are AMD's top end server/workstation cpus. If they disabled the L1 cache they would probably lose 10-20% performance and cripple their best processors that cost more than their X2s (200 and 800 series dualcores). Additionally, you must ask how a dualcore Opteron with no L1 cache performs the same in all benchmarks at all equivalent speedgrades as the X2 4400+/X2 4800+/FX-60 (with the 1024KB L2 cache).

The Opterons all have 128KB L1 cache per core and 1024KB of L2 cache per core.

Edit: I just wanted to add that the lack of the L1 description on website is probably an oversight.

I am waaaay ahead of you on that Michael - as I had considered that AMD had forgotten to list the L1 cache on their web. Though I find it a very odd/large oversight on AMD's part not to list the L1 Cache on their highest-end server/workstation chips, don't you? Personally, I do believe that it is an oversight on AMD's part.

Do you have any other insight other than a mis-seated heatsink or too much thermal compound as to why Link19's FX-60 is running hotter than his Opteron 175? I figure if Link19 can mount the XP120 on the Opty 175 correctly than he is smart enough to get it right on the FX-60 too.

 

[CP5670]

It could be that the heatspreader on that particular FX-60 is poorly attached and not making good contact. You could try popping that off and see if it results in a large temperature drop.

 

[Link19]

Well, it souinds like the difference all lies in the 110WATT vs 89WATT AMD CPUs. Apparently, all the high end AMD CPUs with 1MB of L2 cache need to be 110WATT TDP in order to be rated at such a high speed. I guess the best AMD dual core CPU with a TDP of 89WATT at 2.2GHz with 1MB of L2 cache per core.

I overlooked that and thought they were all the same. I guess not. But anyways, an overclocked Athlon 64 X2 4400 from 2.2GHz to 2.6GHz rated at TDP 89WATT would probably need the VCORE raised enough so that it would equate to a 110WATT TDP when overclocked to 2.6GHz to be stable. Is that correct?

Now as for my dual core Athlon 64 FX-60, I tried running it at stock VCORE (1.35V) and speed (2.6GHz). I ran dual FFT Prime95, and it was rock stable and the highest the temperature got was 52C. Now I tried overclocking it to 2.838GHz (258*11) with VCORE set to 1.3625. SO far, dual Prime95 stable for 6+ hours. The temperature averages from 55 to 57C. Are those temperatures ok, or do you think they are a little too hot?

Also, would there be any better air cooling solution out there for the Athlon 64 FX-60 if I want to achieve a slightly better overclock, while keeping temps under control and lower them if possible? I want a heatsink that can run with a fan that isn't too loud, while maintainiung as cool of a temperature as possible. My case is an Antec P180. The fan I have on my XP-120 is a 120mm Antec TriCool running at medium speed for 56CFM airflow. If I run it higher, it is too loud. I want a relatively quiet computer as well as a solid overcloked fast and stable system. That is why I choose all 120mm fans and the Antec P180 case. Is it possible to obatin better cooling on air with this case while still maintaining the same quietness?



Also, as with the heat spreader, isn't that really just well bonded and essentially part of the CPU. It looks super bonded to it as well as any other. Taking it off would likely damage the CPU. So how could it not be bonded perfectly tight?