Temps from FX to Ryzen, What is GOING ON?

[trickson]

So I got this on my FX 8300 System. I was doing this to compare temps from my Ryzen systems.

I got to say this FX CPU is WAY COOLER than the Ryzen CPU's. Hell I seen 91C running this test on my Ryzen 7 1700.

Granted the FX has a Cooler Master V8 cooler but still. The R7 1700 is tapped out Can not go Higher than the 4.0Ghz.

Is it just me or are the Ryzen Chips just way more "heat sensitive"?
They seem to heat up way faster and the heat is way harder to get rid of. It is literally incrementally based on the frequency of the chip it seems. for every 100 MGHz there is a 10*c rise in the temperature of the silicon No matter what I do the temps are so close to the top end it's just utterly frustrating! I mean I really have NEVER seem this before in ANY CPU offering from AMD. This may not be a huge issue, BUT I think it is.
I may have to go liquid.
Intel is not having this issue is it?
Intel can hit 5.0+GHz all day long AMD can't pass 4.1GHz on a good day!

I am not trying to knock the Chip or anything it's just,, What the HELL is AMD doing?
The only thing I can think of is poor silicon, Silicon valley must be running out of good stuff and now this is it? (LOL)

Any thoughts on this?
I am NOT going to back off the OC ON any machine I have. I built them with all the BEST parts I could Get (Best my money could get me. My Opinion for the money I had at the time).
I'll tell you what I wont back off any OC till the smoke clears! LOL.....

 

[dirtyferret]

the FX8300 is a quasi octa-core CPU with four modules. The Ryzen 7 is a real octacore CPU with more cache on its smaller die (I'm guessing, too lazy to look up specs) so you can expect more concentrated heat.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Fx throttle at 66c ryzen are good up to 95c nothing to see here /thread

 

[cucker tarlson]

no mention for cooler and vcore,what is your point?

 

[Toothless]

If you got the 1700, 4ghz is about your cap anyway. What else were you expecting with a bigger (more threads and real cores) chip?

 

[NdMk2o1o]

No point he buys hardware slates it as crap then does the same again

If you got the 1700, 4ghz is about your cap anyway. What else were you expecting with a bigger (more threads and real cores) chip?

Not to mention the ipc is much higher on ryzen than fx and even at stock it blows the fx away in everything

 

[Fouquin]

Any thoughts on this?

Yes. Your experience is at odds with every single reviewer who has ever handled a Ryzen 7 1700. I suggest you use something other than a piece of tinfoil as a heat sink.

 

[Mayclore]

I have 1.4V going through my 1600X and I literally cannot get it past 65C under any all-core workload. It's not like I have an NH-D15 to cool it, either (although the fan I have is slightly overkill).

 

[eidairaman1]

More Components inside the Ryzen Part vs the FX Part.

 

[trickson]

Fx throttle at 66c ryzen are good up to 95c nothing to see here /thread

That is NOT the POINT.
No one seems to get the point.
You plop talking points.
Okay they BOTH run at the same kind of heat I get it. But they RAISED the accepted heat limit to 100c WHY?

When 70c has been the norm, Then Ryzen comes along and it is 100C TDP! Okay and it still runs "Much like the others" Right at or NEAR that very mark when you start to load them up.
Now my point is I see the temps climb FASTER at lower Voltages and lower Frequencies.
The FX could reach higher clocks at lower temps MY FX has not seen anything above 60C!!!!
Yet same clocks ( Actually lower and lower voltage) 4.0GHz (on BOTH Ryzen system I HAVE THE R3 and the R7) and the temps climb to 85c FAST AS ALL GET OUT!!

Now you say that is "Nothing to see hear" DUDE I am trying to understand what the hell happened to AMD's Silicon they are FING FURNACES!
When an FX 8300 at 1.4 vCore and 4.1GHz the thing NEVER gets above 60C and the OTHERS hit the throttle mark and NEVER lower? I can run my systems fine and all I am not arguing that at all.
I am saying some where AMD lost something and as the "performance" is better than the FX line the facts still remain they are slower (MGz wise as I have yet to see 4.1GHz on any of the Ryzens I have.) and produce far more heat and reach that TDP clearly faster than ever now.
This is just my observation.
I have 4 computer systems and have been in this industry for 20 years and well you can get all technical but the facts are still there.
The Ryzen chips run hot and top out at a meager 4.0 GHz (4.1 if you are extremely lucky, Just not mine). When you start out at 40c and climb to 85c under load that tells me a LOT! and 20c is NOT HEARD ROOM! It is 10c from throttle!

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

the FX8300 is a quasi octa-core CPU with four modules. The Ryzen 7 is a real octacore CPU with more cache on its smaller die (I'm guessing, too lazy to look up specs) so you can expect more concentrated heat.

True, it's much more dense too, smaller node and all, means more heat per mm2 with no real addition to how it's extracted (the heat)ie the IHS are similar sizes and composition ,but yep they're hot at the top end no doubt , but no need for the dramma.
Intel also run hot these day's.

Imagine the panic if AMD and Intel didn't Offset their temp sensors , modern chip internals get hotter than you would Think.

This is the reason Forest Norrod came out with his clock regression statement.

It's becoming hard to fit twice the amount of transistors within the same thermal package.

I can't hit 90 on my 2600x at 4.25 i get close but not that high, could be a settings issue.

With some overclock's i can get to 90 but i can't get passed 4.275.

Perhaps you can reduce a voltage somewhere to reduce temps while keeping the same clocks, it is a new platform and old OC theories don't always fit it.
For example memory Soc voltage ,too low , instability ,quite high gives stability with more heat and too high and you loose stability.

And are they on stock coolers? Because those were not made for overclock's.

The right TIM can be invaluable these days, too thermal grizzly kryonaught reduced my temps by 12°c.

 

[silentbogo]

Another thing to consider is that at the time FX was out AMD changed their temperature reporting, and from my personal experience I can say that it was all over the f#$%ing place for AM3, FM2 and even AM1 platforms (due to some super-secret pre-coded delta value, which was different for almost every individual chip). I had two A6-5400K's that on the same board with the same OS and software reported drastically different temperatures. One would sometimes idle at sub-ambient temperatures (e.g. +15C SoC while it's +25C in the office).

With Ryzen things did not improve much. They have that stupid Tctl offset, which is present on some CPUs, and is not present on the others, so in software like HWInfo you get stupid Tpackage readings, like this:

Mind you, it's trying to say I'm running 60C stock clocks on water with barely any load on CPU (just chrome w/ static pages + Skype)

EDIT: Almost forgot the most important thing about these crazy temps. Essentially AMD added a 20C offset to all X-variants of Ryzen, and no offset for regular non-X CPUs. Hence, Ryzen 3 1200 will display correct temps, and Ryzen 3 1300x will be 20c "hotter". In HWinfo temps are probably incorrect all the time, cause devs simply hardcoded a single offset for all 1st gen ZEN CPUs instead of differentiating between X/non-X chips.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

100c is not the norm, no one said it was though apart from fx which was a bad architecture of a chip anyway, most Intel and amd processors are fine with temps up to 95c, not saying you should be running 95c though fx was an anomaly in that sense that it was poor preforming but could still run at 5ghz at fairly low temps even while using 250w of power, heh go figure.

Anyway your 1700 is either clocked too high, too many volts, poor cooling or cooler not fitted right, what's the point of your rant?

 

[eidairaman1]

That is NOT the POINT.
No one seems to get the point.
You plop talking points.
Okay they BOTH run at the same kind of heat I get it. But they RAISED the accepted heat limit to 100c WHY?

When 70c has been the norm, Then Ryzen comes along and it is 100C TDP! Okay and it still runs "Much like the others" Right at or NEAR that very mark when you start to load them up.
Now my point is I see the temps climb FASTER at lower Voltages and lower Frequencies.
The FX could reach higher clocks at lower temps MY FX has not seen anything above 60C!!!!
Yet same clocks ( Actually lower and lower voltage) 4.0GHz (on BOTH Ryzen system I HAVE THE R3 and the R7) and the temps climb to 85c FAST AS ALL GET OUT!!

Now you say that is "Nothing to see hear" DUDE I am trying to understand what the hell happened to AMD's Silicon they are FING FURNACES!
When an FX 8300 at 1.4 vCore and 4.1GHz the thing NEVER gets above 60C and the OTHERS hit the throttle mark and NEVER lower? I can run my systems fine and all I am not arguing that at all.
I am saying some where AMD lost something and as the "performance" is better than the FX line the facts still remain they are slower and produce far more heat and reach that TDP clearly faster than ever now.
This is just my observation.
I have 4 computer systems and have been in this industry for 20 years and well you can get all technical but the facts are still there.
The Ryzen chips run hot and top out at a meager 4.0 GHz (4.1 if you are extremely lucky, Just not mine). When you start out at 40c and climb to 85c under load that tells me a LOT! and 20c is NOT HEARD ROOM! It is 10c from throttle!

Overall they use less power. Just remeber another point, P4 vs Core 2, Core I different architectures. P4 and FX can be categorized as the same. Core i is a hybrid of core 2 and P4 (P6 arch with hyperthreading).

Ryzen has more physically internally in regard to resource, FX halved some resources.

Ryzen and core i7 have way more IPC in single thread and multithread than FX series did. More physical components means more heat for a given clock speed.

 

[Vario]

The temp doesn't matter why worry about it? The temperature is within the range it should be in.

Ryzen is a different architecture from Bulldozer. Smaller die with more components on it means it runs hotter than the FX8350, but it also uses less power than FX8350. Its not really comparable. Often people mistakenly conflate component heat with power consumed when comparing two different platforms. Seen this with the 580 vs 1060 debates. People say the 1060 uses less power. 580 defenders say the 580 runs cooler (with the proper heatsink). Both are right.

 

[Ruyki]

That is NOT the POINT.
When an FX 8300 at 1.4 vCore and 4.1GHz the thing NEVER gets above 60C and the OTHERS hit the throttle mark and NEVER lower?

Temperature sensors can be inaccurate or not placed in the hottest spot on the chip etc.
That's why you probably can't take the reported temperature value and use it to directly compare FX to Ryzen or to Intel.
The hottest spot on an FX 8300 at 95W TDP is probably more than 60°C even with high end air.

 

[Vario]

Temperature sensors can be inaccurate or not placed in the hottest spot on the chip etc.
That's why you probably can't take the reported temperature value and use it to directly compare FX to Ryzen or to Intel.
The hottest spot on an FX 8300 at 95W TDP is probably more than 60°C even with high end air.

Also the temperature diode is likely in different spots between different micro-architectures. Its apples to oranges comparison. Ultimately irrelevant to worry about this stuff anyway. The V8 is a pretty decent cooler, I have one on a Xeon right now. Its certainly better than the Ryzen stock cooler. So @trickson isn't even using the same cooler. Its futile to compare different heatsink, different cpu. Put the V8 on the Ryzen and it would probably run cooler.

 

[biffzinker]

Ryzen is a different architecture from Bulldozer. Smaller die with more components on it means it runs hotter than the FX8350, but it also uses less power than FX8350.

Also Ryzen is a SoC (System on a Chip) it doesn't necessarily require anything more than the A300/X300 provide. The 2400G/2200G throws in a Vega iGPU for a complete SoC similar to the ARM SoC in your smartphone.

 

[Splinterdog]

I get very rapid fluctuations of temperatures on my Ryzen 2600X, from 26c to 41c in seconds, but I can only imagine that it's the change of frequency due to activity. It's much more noticeable than on my previous CPU, an FX8320.
Anyway, the maximum it's reached so far is 50.5c, according to HWinfo and it's water cooled. I wouldn't much like 91c though.

 

[Vario]

I get very rapid fluctuations of temperatures on my Ryzen 2600X, from 26c to 41c in seconds, but I can only imagine that it's the change of frequency due to activity. It's much more noticeable than on my previous CPU, an FX8320.
Anyway, the maximum it's reached so far is 50.5c, according to HWinfo and it's water cooled. I wouldn't much like 91c though.

SMT/HT can get pretty hot too.

 

[trickson]

I get very rapid fluctuations of temperatures on my Ryzen 2600X, from 26c to 41c in seconds, but I can only imagine that it's the change of frequency due to activity. It's much more noticeable than on my previous CPU, an FX8320.
Anyway, the maximum it's reached so far is 50.5c, according to HWinfo and it's water cooled. I wouldn't much like 91c though.

See? just what I am talking about!
You are liquid cooled and well that is probably what I need to do.

So I was right really. They changed so much and shrank it all and put it all on the same silicon only smaller.
See yeah now that makes sense, THey have changed it all from top to bottom and well in the meantime aslo gained tons of heat faster as well.
Makes more sense now.

I will just have to look into some cooling that can take the heat LOL...

 

[hat]

I'd be willing to bet the temps on your FX chip are much higher in reality than what that sensor reports. Those sensors were terrible, didn't even read the core temps at all... and it wasn't an uncommon thing for them to even report temps below ambient...

 

[storm-chaser]

Ryzen is a different architecture from Bulldozer. Smaller die with more components on it means it runs hotter than the FX8350, but it also uses less power than FX8350. Its not really comparable. Often people mistakenly conflate component heat with power consumed when comparing two different platforms. Seen this with the 580 vs 1060 debates. People say the 1060 uses less power. 580 defenders say the 580 runs cooler (with the proper heatsink). Both are right.

Yes it can get confusing when talking heat and processor temps. Generally speaking, the higher the TDP rating the more heat a processor will produce. I.E. The higher the TDP the more robust the cooling system must be. Operating temperature is irrelevant in this scenario, you can't really compare temps across platforms...

 

[Fouquin]

I am saying some where AMD lost something and as the "performance" is better than the FX line the facts still remain they are slower (MGz wise as I have yet to see 4.1GHz on any of the Ryzens I have.) and produce far more heat and reach that TDP clearly faster than ever now.

Clock cycles mean nothing if work isn't being completed. You can have all the GHz you want and get barely anything done (FX), or you can have very few cycles that are incredibly efficiently packed with instructions, executed almost flawlessly (Ryzen).

In the end you are trying to compare an under-clocked (100MHz below max p-state) FX processor well below its maximum vCore to an overclocked (300MHz above max p-state) Ryzen processor pushed right up next to the maximum vCore. You couldn't have tipped the scales any more if you tried.

I have 4 computer systems and have been in this industry for 20 years and well you can get all technical but the facts are still there.

Here's the facts:

FX has less logic, sucks more watts, pushes less oomph, runs into a wall at 70C.
Ryzen has more logic, sucks fewer watts, pushes more oomph, can stretch its legs comfortably up to 95C.

And you never mentioned what cooler you were using on the Ryzen parts. I'm still assuming it's a ball of tinfoil.

 

[trickson]

Clock cycles mean nothing if work isn't being completed. You can have all the GHz you want and get barely anything done (FX), or you can have very few cycles that are incredibly efficiently packed with instructions, executed almost flawlessly (Ryzen).

In the end you are trying to compare an under-clocked (100MHz below max p-state) FX processor well below its maximum vCore to an overclocked (300MHz above max p-state) Ryzen processor pushed right up next to the maximum vCore. You couldn't have tipped the scales any more if you tried.



Here's the facts:

FX has less logic, sucks more watts, pushes less oomph, runs into a wall at 70C.
Ryzen has more logic, sucks fewer watts, pushes more oomph, can stretch its legs comfortably up to 95C.

And you never mentioned what cooler you were using on the Ryzen parts. I'm still assuming it's a ball of tinfoil.

I had the Stock cooler on took it off in-favor of the H7 Cryorig.
No tin foil here.
I am starting to understand this a lot better now thank you.