- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
FX 4100 with CoreTemp
- Thread starter predator500
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Location
- JAX, Mississauna
Every temp shown seems low. So there are a few possibilities.
1. Bios needs updated to latest.
2. Cpu is really good or has BAD sensor output circuit.
3. Motherboard bad.
You don't get much more to choose from, since all temps seem off and not just one temp program.
1. Bios needs updated to latest.
2. Cpu is really good or has BAD sensor output circuit.
3. Motherboard bad.
You don't get much more to choose from, since all temps seem off and not just one temp program.
OP
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Thread Starter
- #3
Thanks for the help i will try updating the Bios and see if that helps
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Location
- Idaho
I'm having pretty much the exact same problem. http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=702234
My board is an ASUS Sabertooth but I also have the FX-4100, so I'm wondering if it's a chip issue. I'll keep an eye on this thread to see if you have any further insight, and if I come up with a solution I'll let you know!
My board is an ASUS Sabertooth but I also have the FX-4100, so I'm wondering if it's a chip issue. I'll keep an eye on this thread to see if you have any further insight, and if I come up with a solution I'll let you know!
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Location
- JAX, Mississauna
For "Weatherlite"...
Look at first link below. If your temps look very close to what is shown in his capture "under-load" then I doubt you have anything to worry about at all.
Now to the second link below. You 'should' see that posters title. "Developer" and to me if he is not looking at AMD NDA papers, then none of us likely will get to the bottom of what is a real temperature of an AMD cpu.
I can imagine some ways it might be done, but I have not seen any talk of doing enough research to get a real temp. Most of the time I too don't even care. If I see what I am pretty certain in my mind is a low temperature I just pay close attention to how things are acting and make sure I have the cpu throttle back set to shut off before it gets too high in overall temp...and then I never ever look at temps again. Sorry that is me and I have been doing this so long am just jaded at all this temp stuff.
Link #1 >> Fx4100 and Temps Likely Asus Sabertooth also.
Link #2 >>
Posted 12 December 2011 - 09:37 AM
I'm afraid it's not AIDA64. FX processors feature a temperature diode that measures wrong temperatures in basically all conditions. Usually that temperature is unrealistically low, well below ambient temperature. So far noone seems to have an idea on how to implement a workaround. It already happened before, with some AM2 processors, and there a simple offset helped to get proper temperatures. Maybe this time it's the same, but AMD didn't provide any useful information on the issue.
Look at first link below. If your temps look very close to what is shown in his capture "under-load" then I doubt you have anything to worry about at all.
Now to the second link below. You 'should' see that posters title. "Developer" and to me if he is not looking at AMD NDA papers, then none of us likely will get to the bottom of what is a real temperature of an AMD cpu.
I can imagine some ways it might be done, but I have not seen any talk of doing enough research to get a real temp. Most of the time I too don't even care. If I see what I am pretty certain in my mind is a low temperature I just pay close attention to how things are acting and make sure I have the cpu throttle back set to shut off before it gets too high in overall temp...and then I never ever look at temps again. Sorry that is me and I have been doing this so long am just jaded at all this temp stuff.
Link #1 >> Fx4100 and Temps Likely Asus Sabertooth also.
Link #2 >>
Posted 12 December 2011 - 09:37 AM
I'm afraid it's not AIDA64. FX processors feature a temperature diode that measures wrong temperatures in basically all conditions. Usually that temperature is unrealistically low, well below ambient temperature. So far noone seems to have an idea on how to implement a workaround. It already happened before, with some AM2 processors, and there a simple offset helped to get proper temperatures. Maybe this time it's the same, but AMD didn't provide any useful information on the issue.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
Temp sensors not calibrated properly seems to be a common problem with a number of AMD CPU lines. The Thubans seemed to be off about 10 C. on the cool side. It's looking like the FX CPUs have core temps sensors off by about that same amount. Perhaps this is why it seems the FX line are very prone to thermal down-throttling. Maybe that problem wasn't due to the FX CPUs being especially sensitive to heat but that there was actually more heat than the readouts were reporting.
OP
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Thread Starter
- #7
Well so far i have changed the Bios to the new one 1.30 and i still have the temp readings the chip seems to be running fine but i was air cooled i would be very worried as to what the temps was getting to.
OP
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Thread Starter
- #8
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Location
- JAX, Mississauna
HWMonitor across the internet is about 10c low on CoreTemp
ASRock 970 Extreme 3 with FX-4100
That link above is to what seems the same motherboard BUT does not have your crazy CPU Temp or VRM temp. In fact his temps in general show what most other people with FX-4100 are seeing with HWMonitor in that the temps shown SEEM LOW. But they normally do not see that crazy CPU Temp and VRM temp unless there is a problem not related to software.
In the graphic below of your HWMonitor, the graphic shows 'edits' to pin-point issues that do not in general show up with software monitoring issues. The #2 and #3 highlights can be from using W/Cooling and n0t having enough air flow across the motherboard from an Air-cooler, since you have water-cooling.
http://www.overclockers.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=106929&stc=1&d=1331738253
ASRock 970 Extreme 3 with FX-4100
That link above is to what seems the same motherboard BUT does not have your crazy CPU Temp or VRM temp. In fact his temps in general show what most other people with FX-4100 are seeing with HWMonitor in that the temps shown SEEM LOW. But they normally do not see that crazy CPU Temp and VRM temp unless there is a problem not related to software.
In the graphic below of your HWMonitor, the graphic shows 'edits' to pin-point issues that do not in general show up with software monitoring issues. The #2 and #3 highlights can be from using W/Cooling and n0t having enough air flow across the motherboard from an Air-cooler, since you have water-cooling.
http://www.overclockers.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=106929&stc=1&d=1331738253
Attachments
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Location
- Idaho
Oddly enough, I've been playing around and I found that once my system was fully warmed up and stable (about 20 mins after powering on my temps actually come down a hair and stabilize--these temps being everything other than the core temps) it would still show stupid temps on the core at idle, like 1C, but when I OCd it after a minute or so it would suddenly spike to ~40C and then gradually rise up to it's max temp. It's almost as if these sensors aren't calibrated below a certain temp, and so report erroneous data at that point, but when they reach their designed operating temp they begin to get more accurate. 
Seems plausible anyway based on my experience with other types of circuitry.
Seems plausible anyway based on my experience with other types of circuitry.
OP
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Thread Starter
- #11
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Location
- Orange County, CA
AMD says officially that Tctl ("core temp" is the Intel term) is on a "synthetic", "non-physical" scale. That's because it's scaled in such a way that the limit is always 70 (*not* C), independent of technology. It's all in AMD's data sheets.
