• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

FX8120 and his temp

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Cloudheaven

Registered
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Location
Italy
Hi to all, i want to know if my cpu temps are ok!
This is the image of hardware monitor after 20min of Prime95



Thanks in advance for any reply!
 
In CPU-Z i've noticed that the core multiplier of the cpu
goes from x7 to x14 to x20 in a cycle of about 30seconds! It's normal?
Even the vcore is going up and down every 30 seconds and
so the cpu temps! I've never seen anything like this!
 
In CPU-Z i've noticed that the core multiplier of the cpu
goes from x7 to x14 to x20 in a cycle of about 30seconds! It's normal?
Even the vcore is going up and down every 30 seconds and
so the cpu temps! I've never seen anything like this!

U really need to read up on how the cpu you purchased actually works. At stock the newer TurboBoost mode is operational; if the 'green' stuff is not turned off in bios and Windows Power Mode is not set to "Performance" mode. Nothing really wrong with using it that way as I see it. Does not run nearly as hot.

FX-8120
Specifications:

■Family: AMD FX-Series
■Model number: FX-8120
■Frequency: 3100MHz = Initial Frequency if not in TurboBoost
■Turbo Frequency: 3400MHz (8cores), 4000MHz (4cores) = TurboBoost speeds that also require greater or lesser voltages, that change with load on CPU.
■Socket: Socket AM3+
■Microarchitecture: Bulldozer
 
I know that my 8120 has TurboBoos feature, but it's normal to see
the multiplier goes up and down so fast at idle?
Thanks for the reply!
 
what was your clock speed?
amd says core temp max of 55c, please never over 62c untill much later.
please allow 10 mins at idle before you shut down after hot running.

1.49 vcore is good up to 4.5ghz-4.6ghz
 
Last edited:
pardon me, everclear (again), Rgone. working with four and a tall glass.
 
Last edited:
Hi to all, i want to know if my cpu temps are ok!
This is the image of hardware monitor after 20min of Prime95



Thanks in advance for any reply!

Can you install and run speedfan and post a screenshot with both speedfan and HWMonitor running side by side while under load?

You are on the edge.
Mid 50's on the cores is the max.

Wrong! On AMD CPU's the "core temps" (TCore) are not "real" physical temperatures. The are derived by a mathmatical formula using the TCase thermistor readings. Those thermistors are averaged out for the TCase reading. They are located somewhere on the die package and the exact location and number is "proprietary" so they won't release more detailed info other than that. The formula takes the closest thermistors to the "Core" and uses a formula to give an "approximation" of the "core temp". Which is why for our purposes as end users the "core temps" are completely irrelevant. TCase (i.e. CPU Temp) is the only reading that matters as far as the CPU is concerned. The maximum operating temperature for the FX-8120/8150 is TCase=62C (it's a conservative limit).
 
Wrong! On AMD CPU's the "core temps" (TCore) are not "real" physical temperatures. The are derived by a mathmatical formula using the TCase thermistor readings. Those thermistors are averaged out for the TCase reading. They are located somewhere on the die package and the exact location and number is "proprietary" so they won't release more detailed info other than that. The formula takes the closest thermistors to the "Core" and uses a formula to give an "approximation" of the "core temp". Which is why for our purposes as end users the "core temps" are completely irrelevant. TCase (i.e. CPU Temp) is the only reading that matters as far as the CPU is concerned. The maximum operating temperature for the FX-8120/8150 is TCase=62C (it's a conservative limit).

Thing is from around 55°C on the cores, FX and Phenoms become unstable. That's a matter of fact.

The socket temp is totally unreliable on FX processors as it's sometimes 10/15°C off the real temp.

EDIT: have you overclocked a FX to its limit?
 
Thing is from around 55°C on the cores, FX and Phenoms become unstable. That's a matter of fact.

The socket temp is totally unreliable on FX processors as it's sometimes 10/15°C off the real temp.

EDIT: have you overclocked a FX to its limit?

Wrong on both counts. The "socket" thermistor you find on MB's is only used IF the bios doesn't receive a TCase (CPU Temp) input from the CPU.

And yes I've overclocked my 6100 to 4.9GHz and was completely stable although I exceeded the "max temp" by 3C with CPU Temp (TCase) at 73C.

But if you don't want to take my word for it then feel free to contact AMD Tech support to get correct information like I have....

My last email in the string of emails regarding Temps -

From: Stephen xxxxxxxxx([email protected])
Sent: Wed 5/16/12 10:44 AM
To: [email protected]


I'll sum up what I've learned and deduced and tell me if it's makes sense and/or is correct. As you've stated the Tcase is a singular temperature taken at the top of the CPU (I'm assuming from a diode at the top of the die where it makes contact with the IHS?). What seems to me as a dead giveaway that Tcase is not being used by programs like HWmonitor is that they list seperate values for each of the cores that can be the same but usually differ from each other (usually by 1-3C). Are individual "core" temperatures taken from a diode within each core? Or is it mathmatically based off of something like Tjunction to give a "guesstimate" for each core? But clearly the standard assumption I see that says quote: "CPU Temp = Tjunction or true Junction Temperature (This reading is taken from the sensor fixed in CPU socket on Motherboard.)" is clearly wrong. I was also under the assumption that motherboards didn't use a "socket" diode anymore as well. Does all of that make sense?

AMD's last response on Temps (I've bolded the relevant info) -

From: [email protected]
Sent: Thu 5/17/12 8:14 AM
To: [email protected]

Dear Stephen,

Your service request : SR #{ticketno:[8200488157]} has been reviewed and updated.

Response and Service Request History:

You pretty much nailed it. I was able to get a little more info from the embedded team into borderline-proprietary information, so I'll try to elaborate on what you understood. TCase for AMD processors comes from a few thermistors (not one, apparently, just found that out) inside the processor case (at the bottom, where the pins are), connecting down to the CPU via the Junction. There are always more than 1 (at least 2, up to 6-8 potentially, but no elaboration given on how many per model), but the TCase temperature is determined by averaging those values out, done by the processor. TJunction is the temperature where the pins hit the board, and is usually a couple degrees cooler as all 940/941 pins aren't all firing at the same exact time, and not always evenly distributed when only 400 are on at one time.
TCore is actually mathematically guessed based on the varying TCase values, as there is no way to get a diode on top of the cores inside the processor, and putting it underneath the cores (between the bottom of the case and the bottom of the cores, which hover on a little silicon platform) would yield an inaccurate reading. As such, optimizing the core space on the wafers by keeping thermistors off, they just mathematically extrapolate the core temperature from the TCase values, based on core location on the processor and the values retrieved in that general area, plus some mathematical calculations.
TJunction is still a diode on the board, under the processor, which most boards still have, just in case the TCase values (or TJunction value given by Intel processors) are wrong for whatever reason. Though in some cases, TJunction can be off by as much as 20F, so it's obviously not an ideal value. Still, there are a lot of board manufacturers who will still include it, regardless of how necessary, because it's how they've always done things, and if there are problems with new processors or broken thermistors, they can still report a temperature, even if it's not the most accurate.

Sorry for the misinformation about the cores, I really had to get the embedded guys to give a little to get some information confirmation, including the number of thermistors in the case and where this coretemp comes from. A coworker summarized it well by saying that it's so tough trying to get confirmed information, because you get different reports from 3rd parties, and the actual designers/manufacturers want to keep as much information secret as possible. Sorry that this still isn't 100% concrete, but they finally gave in a bit and gave me a bit more information to work with this time, so now you (and I) have a clearer definition at least of what's going on temperature-wise.

In order to update this service request, please respond, leaving the service request reference intact.

Best regards,

AMD Global Customer Care

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

This email is a direct result of your contact with AMD Global Customer Care and not part of a campaign. There is no need to unsubscribe to this email as you will only be contacted again if you directly request another service from AMD Global Customer Care.

The contents of this message are provided for informational purposes only. AMD makes no representation or warranties with respect to the accuracy of the contents of the information provided, and reserves the right to change such information at any time, with or without notice.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

To the OP, offhand I would say that TMPIN1 is your "CPU Temp" (i.e. TCase) but I wouldn't be able to tell you without seeing a screenshot of Speedfan next to it since Speedfan lists "CPU Temp" taken from TCase on AMD CPU's.
 
If you say so...

That's why everybody (talking about seasoned overclockers, benchers...) on this forum use the core temps. They're wrong for sure!

Nevermind...
 
Thing is from around 55°C on the cores, FX and Phenoms become unstable. That's a matter of fact.

The socket temp is totally unreliable on FX processors as it's sometimes 10/15°C off the real temp.

EDIT: have you overclocked a FX to its limit?

If you say so...

That's why everybody (talking about seasoned overclockers, benchers...) on this forum use the core temps. They're wrong for sure!

Nevermind...

No, I don't say so, AMD says so. Who are you going to believe? "Seasoned overclockers" or the company who actually makes the CPU? My money is on the manufacturer.
 
:facepalm:

EDIT: 4.9GHz stable? Custom water loop I guess, unless you live on the North Pole!
 
:facepalm:

EDIT: 4.9GHz stable? Custom water loop I guess, unless you live on the North Pole!

Nope, Modified H40, using the H50 copper block and both radiators from the 2 kits. Only slightly better than the H100 since it has more coolant because of the longer tubes. Ambient temp was 21C. 4.875 (using both base clock and multi) with Ambient 20C gave me 71C. Feel free to go look at that one on OCN in the AMD grudge match thread I started there. Not hard to overclock these chips with a good MB and using proper settings.
 
When the liquid temp reach equilibrium, doesn't matter if there is 1, 10 or 100 litres of liquid.
It only takes longer to reach this state and, when talking about a couple of feet of tubing, it's a matter of seconds.
 
Back