Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 12:55 AM Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Besides, for the wattage
>> the CPU uses, the cooler I have is waaaaaay overkill.  I think my cooler
>> is rated well above 200 watts.  The CPU is around 100 watts, 105 I think
>> or maybe 95.
> So, I am just picking someplace a little random to reply to all of this.
>
> Normal temps vary by CPU model and you need to look up what is expected.
>
> All modern CPUs will throttle to maintain below a certain temp, and so
> if you have thermal issues you'll just get lower performance.
>
> A cooler might dissipate a certain amount of power, but that is going
> to be at a particular temp.  Obviously a radiator that is at ambient
> temperature will dissipate no heat at all.
>
> The external temp of the CPU has nothing to do with the internal temp
> of the CPU, and a modern CPU can generate MUCH more heat than it can
> internally transfer to the surface of the die, and so internally it
> will heat up even if you use liquid cooling.
>
> As far as governors go, I'm not sure what is even recommended with
> Linux with modern CPUs.  Most modern CPUs and their firmware manage
> heat/power based on performance limits.  AMD calls this
> Performance-based Overclocking, but it is basically how they work even
> up to factory clock rates.  Assuming you meet the cooling/power
> requirements the CPU can sustain a particular frequency on all its
> cores at once, and a higher frequency on only one core if the rest are
> idle, and then it has a maximum frequency that a small number of cores
> can temporarily exceed but internal temperature will rise when this
> happens until throttling kicks in (I think this is at least in part
> firmware modeled and not exclusively based on sensor data).  This is
> all by design in a desktop CPU, and allows a CPU to have significantly
> better burst performance than sustained performance, which is a good
> approach as desktop loads tend to be bursty.  I imagine server
> processors (like enterprise SSDs) are optimized more around sustained
> performance as they tend to be operated more at load.
>
> I suspect that the most recent CPU generations will work best if the
> hardware is allowed to manage frequency, with the OS at most being
> used to communicate whether a core is idle or not.
>

I have to say, mobos and CPUs have come a long ways since my last build
about 10 or 11 years ago.  When the ASUS first booted and I went into
the BIOS thing, is it still called BIOS, it was very different.  I think
my current rig allows you to use the mouse.  It's slow tho.  This ASUS
is vastly improved.  It gives you a LOT more control and I'm not even
interesting in trying to overclock or anything.  Just the fan controls
are a huge improvement.  I suspect most newer mobos are all that way.

I'm going to have to get used to seeing CPU temps in the 190F area I
guess.  But dang, that's hot.  I suspect tho that if the sensor was in
the same place on my current rig, it may measure that high as well, deep
inside the chip.  It may be giving a temp where the CPU is always
cooler, closer to the top where the CPU cooler is touching or
something.  Placement of the sensor is key.   

Still, if I could get it down to 140F or even 150F, I'd be happier. 

Dang rig is snappy tho.  :-D 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Reply via email to