is 40-50c cpu temp in windows healthy?

[jVoglae]

Title

[Bad_Conduct]

FeilDOW původně napsal:

Bad_Conduct původně napsal:

No, that's the max thermal limit. Not the operating temperature. They shut down at 68, hence the thermal limit.
I don't believe they actually "shut down", they typically just throttle themselves within spec.

AMD temperatures are also a bit wonky. Different programs give different results.
https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/ambiguous-cpu-temperatures-using-speccy-and-msi-afterburner.2609605/#17578142

You need to use their official overdrive program for an accurate reading, otherwise you'll get +10 degrees or more difference. I thought my A10 was overheating for years, finally realized it was just reading the wrong temps.


Yes, 60-80 is usually considered safe, anything above the max thermal limit (ie 100 on the Intel chip) will potentially melt the chip. Usually it throttles before that.

You can, in theory, run the chip right below the max temp without any issues. It could damage the chip over time, but it would be covered under warranty.

They do indeed shutdown, like I said I had a bunch of them.

That was my point is FX CPUs have a lower temp limit next to the new chips. I think your both confusing older AMD GPU with CPUs.

Your point is wrong, and my point is that you are wrong. You said the max temp is the operating temp of the chip, but it's not. It's unrelated, you are looking at the wrong numbers

Those are thermal limits, the absolute limit of the CPU before you risk damaging it, or the warranty is expired.

That has nothing to do with the operating temperatures.

The FX chips DO run hot because they have a higher TDP than modern chips. Power usage generally correlates with temperature, and higher power consumption (and larger nm chips in general) use more power, they always run hotter. That's why AMD chips always run hotter than Intel chips, they consumed more power.

I'm not confusing anything, you already confused max temp with operating temp once and you are still trying to turn this argument into a different subject.

You:

"Older AMD CPUs run cooler and new ryzens run close to the same, sure the FX sucked a lot of juice but max temps where only 62°c. Intel CPUs and the new ryzens have a max temp of 90-100°c and they all run about the same temps depending on the coolers used."

This is 100% false.
Older FX CPU's have a very low thermal limit, they can't run at a higher temperature.
Most CPU's on this chart are in the 100's though, except high TDP units.
https://www.amd.com/en/products/specifications/processors

Old CPU's, especially in the FX line, draw considerably more power than any Intel chip from the same era (including Core2's) and run significantly hotter with little to no performance benefit. They were forcing higher power consumption trying to compete with Intel's lower nm architecture. They might run cooler out of the box, thanks to clever power reduction and throttling in the BIOS, but they burn hard when you start to OC them. You can get a way better OC on an Intel chip with much less effort.

[FeilDOW]

Bad_Conduct původně napsal:

FeilDOW původně napsal:

They do indeed shutdown, like I said I had a bunch of them.

That was my point is FX CPUs have a lower temp limit next to the new chips. I think your both confusing older AMD GPU with CPUs.

Your point is wrong, and my point is that you are wrong. You said the max temp is the operating temp of the chip, but it's not. It's unrelated, you are looking at the wrong numbers

Those are thermal limits, the absolute limit of the CPU before you risk damaging it, or the warranty is expired.

That has nothing to do with the operating temperatures.

The FX chips DO run hot because they have a higher TDP than modern chips. Power usage generally correlates with temperature, and higher power consumption (and larger nm chips in general) use more power, they always run hotter. That's why AMD chips always run hotter than Intel chips, they consumed more power.

I'm not confusing anything, you already confused max temp with operating temp once and you are still trying to turn this argument into a different subject.

You:

"Older AMD CPUs run cooler and new ryzens run close to the same, sure the FX sucked a lot of juice but max temps where only 62°c. Intel CPUs and the new ryzens have a max temp of 90-100°c and they all run about the same temps depending on the coolers used."

This is 100% false.
Older FX CPU's have a very low thermal limit, they can't run at a higher temperature.
Most CPU's on this chart are in the 100's though, except high TDP units.
https://www.amd.com/en/products/specifications/processors

Old CPU's, especially in the FX line, draw considerably more power than any Intel chip from the same era (including Core2's) and run significantly hotter with little to no performance benefit. They were forcing higher power consumption trying to compete with Intel's lower nm architecture. They might run cooler out of the box, thanks to clever power reduction and throttling in the BIOS, but they burn hard when you start to OC them. You can get a way better OC on an Intel chip with much less effort.

So a 3770k at 100c and throttling is running cooler and put out less heat than a 8350 running at 62c?

If the thermal limit is lower would it not produce less heat?

[Bad_Conduct]

FeilDOW původně napsal:

Bad_Conduct původně napsal:

Your point is wrong, and my point is that you are wrong. You said the max temp is the operating temp of the chip, but it's not. It's unrelated, you are looking at the wrong numbers

Those are thermal limits, the absolute limit of the CPU before you risk damaging it, or the warranty is expired.

That has nothing to do with the operating temperatures.

The FX chips DO run hot because they have a higher TDP than modern chips. Power usage generally correlates with temperature, and higher power consumption (and larger nm chips in general) use more power, they always run hotter. That's why AMD chips always run hotter than Intel chips, they consumed more power.

I'm not confusing anything, you already confused max temp with operating temp once and you are still trying to turn this argument into a different subject.

You:

"Older AMD CPUs run cooler and new ryzens run close to the same, sure the FX sucked a lot of juice but max temps where only 62°c. Intel CPUs and the new ryzens have a max temp of 90-100°c and they all run about the same temps depending on the coolers used."

This is 100% false.
Older FX CPU's have a very low thermal limit, they can't run at a higher temperature.
Most CPU's on this chart are in the 100's though, except high TDP units.
https://www.amd.com/en/products/specifications/processors

Old CPU's, especially in the FX line, draw considerably more power than any Intel chip from the same era (including Core2's) and run significantly hotter with little to no performance benefit. They were forcing higher power consumption trying to compete with Intel's lower nm architecture. They might run cooler out of the box, thanks to clever power reduction and throttling in the BIOS, but they burn hard when you start to OC them. You can get a way better OC on an Intel chip with much less effort.

So a 3770k at 100c and throttling is running cooler and put out less heat than a 8350 running at 62c?

If the thermal limit is lower would it not produce less heat?

The thermal limit has nothing to do with the operating temperature for the 100th time.
Do you not understand what a thermal limit is?
That's the temperature the chip can reach before the CPU itself is damaged, not the temperature it runs at normally, or the temperature it runs at before it throttles.

A lower thermal limit just means you risk damaging the CPU at a lower temperature. That's actually a bad thing. Higher thermal limits = lower risk of damaging running at higher clock speed at a higher tempertature.

You can OC a 3770 to run up 99c without (in theory) damaging the chip.
Running an FX8350 over 63c would (in theory) begin to damage the processor.

You will not hit 100c on an Intel 3770c with a stock cooler at stock speeds, but if you are running in a very hot environment or overclocking, you will be able to run it at a much higher temperature than an FX chip.

[FeilDOW]

Bad_Conduct původně napsal:

FeilDOW původně napsal:

So a 3770k at 100c and throttling is running cooler and put out less heat than a 8350 running at 62c?

If the thermal limit is lower would it not produce less heat?

The thermal limit has nothing to do with the operating temperature for the 100th time.
Do you not understand what a thermal limit it?
That's the temperature the chip can reach before the CPU itself is damaged, not the temperature it runs at normally, or the temperature it runs at before it throttles.

You will not hit 100c on an Intel 3770c with a stock cooler at stock speeds, but if you are running in a very hot environment or overclocking, you will be able to run it at a much higher temperature than an FX chip.

I apologize, I was talking about if both overclockable CPU were overclocked and how hot the chip is able to run.

Intel can produce more heat, that is what i'm are talking about.