Topic Title: FX-4130 Temperature
Topic Summary: FX-4130 43c on idle?
Created On: 09/13/2013 02:45 AM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 09/13/2013 02:45 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Andozinoz
Peon

Posts: 2
Joined: 09/13/2013

hi, im new here, but i bought a new FX-4130 the other day and ive noticed that it is running at 43c while in BIOS, then climbs to 55c or more (as i havent let it) when on load...is this normal for an FX-4130?? i havent found anywhere with an exact number for optimal temps, maximum temps ect. so im worried that im running hot. 

 09/13/2013 04:33 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Andozinoz
Peon

Posts: 2
Joined: 09/13/2013

Also, if i just sit and watch my CPU temp in BIOS it seams to be gradually increasing by half a degree....i have changed coolers from a stock cooler to a alpine plus 64, re-applying thermal paste as needed but neither have made a difference..

 09/14/2013 02:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
AMDforMe
Overclocker

Posts: 675
Joined: 09/08/2013

No those are not "normal" temps. Are you reading the "CPU" temp or the core temp? Most mobo BIOS show what they refer to as the CPU temp when in fact it is the thermister located below the CPU socket which typically runs 10C-25C higher than the CPU core temp when under load.

Idle temps on the FX series CPUs do not read correctly below 40C and 43C at idle is not normal at all with an OE or better HSF.

I'd suggest that you try the Core Temp applet and see what it shows for temps. Idle temps do not matter but full load temps do. Your max 24/7 CPU core temp (NOT the socket thermister temp - which is higher), is 70C.

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series%20FX-4100.html



-------------------------

Technical ignorance is NOT a destiny it is a choice. Do your homework so that you can make technically informed decisions and not be duped by advertising hype or mis-information stated as fact when its not.


 

 09/14/2013 04:22 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
MisterEd
Nerfed

Posts: 60
Joined: 10/10/2012

Originally posted by: AMDforMe No those are not "normal" temps. Are you reading the "CPU" temp or the core temp? Most mobo BIOS show what they refer to as the CPU temp when in fact it is the thermister located below the CPU socket which typically runs 10C-25C higher than the CPU core temp when under load.

 

Idle temps on the FX series CPUs do not read correctly below 40C and 43C at idle is not normal at all with an OE or better HSF.

 

I'd suggest that you try the Core Temp applet and see what it shows for temps. Idle temps do not matter but full load temps do. Your max 24/7 CPU core temp (NOT the socket thermister temp - which is higher), is 70C.

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series%20FX-4100.html

 

I normally run Core Temp and its app but sometimes run Angus Monitor. Angus Monitor shows both CPU "core" and CPU "socket" temperatures. 

You imply that the difference btween the core and socket temperatures varies depending upon whether the CPU is idle or at full load. I have seen the same claims made elsewhere. To see for myself I have graphed the temperature with Angus Monitor. The difference between these temperature seems to be about 12C whether I am at idle or full load.

Idle:
CPU Core Temperature: 12C
CPU Socket Temperature: 24C
  
Full Load (using Prime95):
CPU Core Temperature: 54C
CPU Socket Temperature: 66C



-------------------------

Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 | AMD FX-8350 | Corsair H60 Cooler | GSkill RipjawsX (2x4GB) | ASUS GeForce GTX 560 | WD Caviar Blue 1TB | Seagate 750GB | ASUS 24X DVD/RW| Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
ASUS M4N82 Deluxe | AMD Phenom II X4 960T | Corsair XMS2(2x2GB) | PNY GeForce GTS 250 (1GB) | Seagate 300GB | Maxtor 200GB/250GB | Memorex 20X DVD/RW | Windows 7 Home Premium 32-bit

 09/14/2013 06:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
AMDforMe
Overclocker

Posts: 675
Joined: 09/08/2013

I'm not familiar with Angus Monitor but I, AMD engineering and Asrock (mobo) Engineering, along with many other folks have run extensive testing and found that the thermister temp vs. the CPU core temps vary 10C-25C depending on CPU load. If you're just running quick tests vs. say P95 stress testing then you aren't likely to see as wide of thermal drift. Mobo design can also affect the thermal drift depending on socket location, case airflow, etc.

That being said, the thermister temp is of no value. It is a carry-over from when CPUs didn't have internal temp monitoring that could be easily read via software. The only temp that actually matters is core temp under full load. I just didn't want people to mistakenly use the socket thermister temp for actual CPU core temp, when it is not.



-------------------------

Technical ignorance is NOT a destiny it is a choice. Do your homework so that you can make technically informed decisions and not be duped by advertising hype or mis-information stated as fact when its not.


 

 09/14/2013 09:59 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
MisterEd
Nerfed

Posts: 60
Joined: 10/10/2012

Originally posted by: AMDforMe I'm not familiar with Angus Monitor but I, AMD engineering and Asrock (mobo) Engineering, along with many other folks have run extensive testing and found that the thermister temp vs. the CPU core temps vary 10C-25C depending on CPU load. If you're just running quick tests vs. say P95 stress testing then you aren't likely to see as wide of thermal drift. Mobo design can also affect the thermal drift depending on socket location, case airflow, etc.

 

That being said, the thermister temp is of no value. It is a carry-over from when CPUs didn't have internal temp monitoring that could be easily read via software. The only temp that actually matters is core temp under full load. I just didn't want people to mistakenly use the socket thermister temp for actual CPU core temp, when it is not.

 

The problem is most people that monitor CPU temperatures do not even know that there is both a core temp and a socket temperature. Some utilities that display the CPU temperature do not even indicate which one it is. It may be of help to have a sticky placed here to indicate which temperature is being displayed by the various utilities that show CPU temperatures. The same goes for a list to indicate which temperature is being displayed in the motherboard BIOSs.

For example, my Gigabyte motherboard in the BIOS seems to be displaying the CPU socket temperature. If I boot the computer I see Core Temp display a CPU temperature that is about 10-15 degrees less than that. It is no wonder why a lot people see this difference and are confused.

I think it is a mistake to just tell people to ignore the CPU idle temperature even though it is not very accurate. At least it does seem to be consistent. I think that if the CPU idle temperature has a value that is outside the expected range then maybe something is wrong with the setup or is malfunctioning. The computer user needs to know whether the computer is operating correctly at idle before he even thinks about trying to stress it by putting loads on it. For example, the user may think the computer is working ok because it is not giving any problems. One day while playing a game it crashes. The supposedly normal running computer may have been running too hot even at idle all along but only crashed now because it has accumulated enough dust to push it over the edge.

In the future if the CPU idle temperature starts to deviate from the baseline value then the user will have a warning that this needs to be investigated. For example, maybe the CPU cooling fan is starting to fail. The user can then investigate the cause of the higher idle CPU temperatures and correct the problem before it becomes worse.



-------------------------

Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 | AMD FX-8350 | Corsair H60 Cooler | GSkill RipjawsX (2x4GB) | ASUS GeForce GTX 560 | WD Caviar Blue 1TB | Seagate 750GB | ASUS 24X DVD/RW| Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
ASUS M4N82 Deluxe | AMD Phenom II X4 960T | Corsair XMS2(2x2GB) | PNY GeForce GTS 250 (1GB) | Seagate 300GB | Maxtor 200GB/250GB | Memorex 20X DVD/RW | Windows 7 Home Premium 32-bit

 09/15/2013 04:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
AMDforMe
Overclocker

Posts: 675
Joined: 09/08/2013

The idle temp really has no bearing on anything as it can vary significantly with the new CPUs that have multiple power planes and CPU vcore and frequency, based on load. Security and other behind the scenes programs running can easily change the idle temp 5-10C. None of the temps below 40C are accurate and the lower the temp the more inaccurate it is. A failing fan usually has a whine to it. Many BIOS or add-on mobo applets show fan speed in addition to CPU temp. With so many variables and the idle temps being inaccurate to start with, it's best to ignore them IMO as max load temps are all that actually matter.

I agree many folks are not aware of the true core temps vs. "CPU" temp which is what most BIOS report. That's why I tried to clarify the situation as it's confusing for many people.

In the top CPU forum thread (sticky) I went into detail as to why the temps below 40C are inaccurate on the FX processors and that AMD engineering has stated that this issue will be corrected in the next iteration of AMD Overdrive. Hopefully the information to correct the issue will be released to other CPU temp applet suppliers such as Core Temp, HWiNFO, etc.



-------------------------

Technical ignorance is NOT a destiny it is a choice. Do your homework so that you can make technically informed decisions and not be duped by advertising hype or mis-information stated as fact when its not.


 

Statistics
88905 users are registered to the AMD Support and Game forum.
There are currently 2 users logged in.

FuseTalk Hosting Executive Plan v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.