安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
VRMs won't even reach such heat even with passive cooling. It's something not even worth worrying about, let alone spending more money on because of a falsehood that's tossed around as if it's fact.
I've overclocked before, and the VRMs never exceeded the 60s, on passive cooling. If you're overclocking to the point that it consistently runs at 100+ degrees, then your OC is too high.
Either way, if someone is going to get a motherboard like a Z390 AORUS Master for the 9600K... they're better off just opting for a 9700K or 9900K, because overclocking the 9600K to 5 GHz is not going to be as good as the 9700K or 9900K at 5 GHz. (Not to mention that the value point is atrocious when you're spending more on your motherboard than your CPU when the difference to performance is effectively null over base models.)
Excerpt from below the second video:
"Now, we can see the difference towards the end is roughly 10C, but we should also notice the importance of letting you know that these are surface temperatures, and that the temperature inside the MOSFETs is much higher, slowly climbing to throttle point for most models."
X299 also had terrible vrm thermals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7BqAjC4ZCc
So VRMs can and do hit 100°c or higher with passive cooling.
So are you trying to apply one example to all VRM setups?
^
My example was with the 3900X.
It isn't. Your "proof" is on X299, which is a platform that very few people actually use and is designed for much more power hungry processors than on mainstream desktop hardware like Z390 or X570.
You don't need to spend 260$ on a higher grade motherboard for a 230$ CPU that has comparatively low power requirements with only 6 cores and threads just because people (who lack knowledge and experience with overclocking on a varying degree of motherboard hardware, hence their fears that it's just going to burn itself out) say you should.
I've overclocked Ryzen both on low end boards like the B450M-DS3H, and on higher end boards like the AORUS GAMING 7, the difference in VRM temps are small, often within 10 degrees due to worse heatsinks and less powerful VRM spec.
Consider the fact that 300 and 400 series boards have lower quality components compared to Z390.
Most (if not all) motherboards are fine at stock settings.
(Some exceptions to this, like A320 boards and Ryzen 7/9s, and i9-9900k in B365 boards.)
And with an overclock, it's not going to require that much better of a VRM.
Sure, it can get toasty, because it's got power going through it, but they're designed to work under heat. And will continue to work to tempretures of like 150 or something c.
It's not false, read the spec sheets of the mosfets in most motherboards, everything but trash (bottom of the barrel ♥♥♥♥♥) is fine VRM wise. (Excluding HEDT stuff, becuse that draws much more power.)
Most high end boards would be fine with no heatsink, most mid range boards would be fine with a small heatsink.
And 95% of VRMs would be fine if you simply pointed a fan at them. Doesn't even need to be a good fan, just get air moving over them.
I wonder why is it people worry about CPU VRMs, but don't give a ♥♥♥♥ about GPU VRMs?
Example, the G12(? That think from NZXT that lets you mount an AIO to the GPU), it has nothing but a fan cooling the VRMs afaik. And GPUs are generall going to pull 2-3x the power that a CPU will.
Or another one, arctics aftermarket GPU heatsinks, come with small blocks with prongs and some thermal glue, that does fine for that.
So why do you worry about a CPU VRM with just as many phases as a midrange GPU, and os dealing with 1/2-1/3 of the power?
I've got an bit of anecdotal evidence for this; one of my friends got an i7-8700k, and some trashy 3-4 phase (doubled) with no heatsink, and he could overclock to 5ghz perfectly fine, and hasn't run into any issues so far.
Sure, it's gonna get warm, but it's fine and it works.
I don't get why you're being all 'muh VRMs.'
It's something that's nice to have, but on a budget build? Not needed, a cheaper board with similar feature set is just as good.
Sure, except for the ones they haven't told us about / discovered yet.
But that aside, why are you recommending an i5? The Ryzen 3600/x is just as good, has more threads, is able to be overclocked, is cheaper, uses less power, and isn't on a dead end socket.
And I'm not even going to get into the whole overkill motherboard argument, because it's already been mentioned.
In my humble opinion, intel win out on that.
All the people here advising against more threads/cores is delusional...
They are like the guys who swore an i5 was all you would need back when i7 was king... Notice how those that took that advice then are now stuck *having* to upgrade b/c their 4c/4t chips cant make muster, meanwhile people on 3700k/3770k/4770/4790k are all doing fine for most games still if they want to b/c of the extra thread counts that many (including myself) said would come in handy in the long run. We were right.
To think that games/apps are moving in *any* direction aside from more threads is ignoring reality.
3 years ago AMD upturned the industry pushing out 16 cores on the HEDT platform and 8 cores on the Desktop platform. In that 3 years we now have AMD pushing 64 core HEDT and 16 core mainstreme, while gearing up to put Zen2 based silicon in 8c/16t options into the next consoles.
Games can and will use the cores. Do your self a favor and go AMD now and avoid the forced upgrade latter. Dont be an i5'er...
If you are talking AMD vs Intel you are flat out wrong. Any decently configured AMD system will be just as stable as the intel one, and to be honset their modern software suites (Ryzen Master) are equal to or better than the likes of IETU...
how MANY system do you have ?
i swear 2 weeks ago you had this :
i7-4690, 12 gigs ram, 840 evo 250gigs hard drive, it works with igp but not with gtx2070s Is 1200W gold not enough.
There is some truth to it on CPU side with certain configurations.
i.e. 300 series motherboards
trying to use over 3200 MHz RAM on 4 RAM modules, even on X570
Pretty sure all of his threads are bait threads.
RAM issues are not down to software nor neccisarily AMD hardware, its down (often) to motherboard design (mainly lead quality and length).
CPU compatibility with 300 series motherboards is again not an AMD fault, its an unavoidable by-product of having a consumer friendly upgrade path. We as purchases can choose to be dumb and not think and let the maker put out a new socket for every new egneration *OR* we can have a good company put out products with broad compatability and then its on *US* to think about if we are buying a motherboard made before the CPU and if we need to upgrade. QQing over that is not AMD's fault, its the consumers for not being educated before buying and instead wanting to put their own laziness ("I shouldnt have to do this, this is AMD's job!) ahead of the good of the overall consumer (having ability to run Zen2 in some launch boards when updated).
Dont get me wrong, AMD has had some major issues with drivers, thankfully mostly in the past, but now days people want to make issues out of things that are either not AMD's issue to begin with, or are there b/c of AMD being prosumer and them being to blind to see it.