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

Unaccurate Core Temps on AMD FX-4170

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

8ian1

New Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Hi i was wondering if someone could help me out.

I have a AMD FX-4170 and cannot monitor my core temps...
Well the temps it shows on AMD overdrive are showing for example 5c at idle..
Was wondering how i could fix that to show the real temps or some fix for it.

Thanks 8ian1.

Im running...
Asus M5A97 Mobo
8gb Corsair ram
Nvidia Geforce GTX 550 Ti
Rosewill 1000 Watt PSU
 
Try Coretemp.

Tried that still weird temps...

6
 
Yes but if you look on Overdrive it shows all 4 of them....with the same type of temps... but in the UEIF BIOS there is a normal temp reading that actually is right.
 
Idle/no load teimps are n0t accurate nor is there a real need for them to be so. Well maybe if idle temps showed 50c or so but that is hardly ever the case. It is the load temps that is best seen as a concern. No software is going to read idle temps accurately. Not for you or the thousands of others that have posted about the condition. It is just how it is so far since BD release.
 
so when i do a benchmark it should have accurate readings is what your saying?
 
Yes but if you look on Overdrive it shows all 4 of them....with the same type of temps... but in the UEIF BIOS there is a normal temp reading that actually is right.

That is the CPU TEMP reading and not CORE TEMP reading which is what the program CoreTemp is reading...make that reading what seems inaccurately since a core temp could never be below ambient air temp. So it is just plain not acccurate and none we have seen in the forum can read idle accurately.
 
Please note that the 'sensor' in newer AMD platforms purposely diminishes accurate idle temps as they are based on the movement of electrons in the channels of the chips transistors, this being said that you probably wont get accurate idle temps, but your load temps will be accurate as that is how AMD intended it to be.

mine on air.
oced2.png


trust me bro, I have been doing the AMD thing for a long time, just pretend that you live in Antarctica while you're idle, lol.
 
as they are based on the movement of electrons in the channels of the chips transistors, this being said that you probably wont get accurate idle temps, but your load temps will be accurate as that is how AMD intended it to be.

Interesting bit of info there...the last part we can agree on, and is the same with intel. Their sensors are also made to be more accurate at load/closer to TJMax. That said, can you explain what the electrons are doing at cold vs hot and how the sensor works?
 
Make sure you don't have the core unlocking feature enabled in bios. That messes with core temps big time.
 
Interesting bit of info there...the last part we can agree on, and is the same with intel. Their sensors are also made to be more accurate at load/closer to TJMax. That said, can you explain what the electrons are doing at cold vs hot and how the sensor works?

well I am at work but i'll give you the short version, when the electrons speed up from processor activity, they generate heat. when Idle they are not moving fast enough for the sensor to properly read the temp, therefor the load temps will be correct, while idle temps may be extremely off base.

there is a way to circumvent this problem with an option in the bios called acc core control. when disabled it will show you correct temps. However, some people say it can cause system hang on some amd boards, if you got your board stock this way try it maybe you will get lucky (MAY ALSO BE CALLED UNLEASHING MODE OR LAB BURST MODE)

You can do what you want as for me, if im stable and my load temps are good after prime 95 + Furmark for 2 hours I call it good.

-5ghz
 
Unlocking the cores (what ACC core control is for I believe?) are what cause invalid readings. The 'electrons' are doing the same thing with that on or off. I cant place my finger on it, but something doesnt seem right with that explanation... I cant disprove it, but from what (little) I know, that doesnt sound right.
 
Unlocking the cores (what ACC core control is for I believe?) are what cause invalid readings. The 'electrons' are doing the same thing with that on or off. I cant place my finger on it, but something doesnt seem right with that explanation... I cant disprove it, but from what (little) I know, that doesnt sound right.

well in my ex-expert opinion, it doesn't make since but!

ACC = Advanced Clock Calibration which I believe was introduced with the original Phenom architecture. It enables a user to fine tune each individual core's frequency, or have it automatically done. It's not useful on Phenom II / Ahtlon II's unless you're trying to unlock cores that are locked. Since the FX series and A-series of CPUs have any 'extra' cores disabled by being laser cut, unfortunately this control also screws with the sensor on newer amd chips, however (and ill find it when i get off) AMD confirms that load temps are still accurate.

TTOP: the main thing is to look for the tell tail signs of overheating, hanging, pauses, artifacts, BSOD (obviously) If you are having none of these issues you're most likely fine, if you want to try to get 100% accurate temps, try the 'load optimal defaults' option in your BIOS and reboot, if you get good temps proceed with your OC, however all indications from my self, AMD, and the web will support that load temps will still be accurate. You could RM and google 'How AMD CPU heat sensors work' or click this convenient link https://www.google.com/search?q=How...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

PS: Your CPU @ idle while being throttled to 1400Mhz doesn't help imho, mine is at 4.1 with an H-80 and reports 8c idle BUT throw down some BF3 and it goes right up to 58c
 
Last edited:
well I am at work but i'll give you the short version, when the electrons speed up from processor activity, they generate heat. when Idle they are not moving fast enough for the sensor to properly read the temp, therefor the load temps will be correct, while idle temps may be extremely off base.

there is a way to circumvent this problem with an option in the bios called acc core control. when disabled it will show you correct temps. However, some people say it can cause system hang on some amd boards, if you got your board stock this way try it maybe you will get lucky (MAY ALSO BE CALLED UNLEASHING MODE OR LAB BURST MODE)

You can do what you want as for me, if im stable and my load temps are good after prime 95 + Furmark for 2 hours I call it good.

-5ghz
This is a two part post. Here's part one:

All temp sensors are based on electron flow, one way or another.
There are three primary flavors of sensor that I am aware of, two generally used outside of high density ICs and one used in them.

Outside option one is a thermocouple. Junctions between different metals will generate voltage, how much voltage varies depending on how hot the junction is. With very specific, pure, junctions very accurate temps can be read this way. In this sensor, the sensor itself causes electron flow.

Outside option two is a thermistor. It is a resistor that changes resistance dramatically based on its temp. All resistors change, thermistors change a lot, and by predictable and repeatable amounts. In this sensor, the sensor resists electron flow.

The internal option is a thermal diode. It is a diode with a voltage drop that changes significantly and predictably based on its temperature. This is what Intel, and I believe AMD, use for core temps. In this sensor, the sensor sucks some energy out of the electron flow.


Here's part two:
In a given medium electrons will always travel at more or less the same speed. At high load the electrons are not traveling any faster or slower than at idle.
Even if they were the difference in heat given off would be awfully small.
The reason cores run so much hotter at load is that more electrons are moving. A lot more. When a chip is actively calculating it is shuffling electrons in and out of a spectacular number of junctions, capacitors, through resistors, through transistors, all over the place.
Electron movement is, of course, measured in amps (among other measurements). More electrons moving in a given time = more amps.
Add to that the fact that power saving features reduce the clock speed (further reducing the amps) and reduce the voltage (which reduces the amount of energy involved per amp), and you have a chip that runs a lot cooler at idle than it does at full load.

The electric charge travels at about 0.7 c in a decent conductor, for whatever that is worth. The actual electrons travel far slower, a few cm/second. It's rather like those swinging metal ball things right at the moment of impact the energy is transferred from the end the swinging ball hit to the far ball far, far faster than the swinging ball was moving when it hit the other balls.

Why enabling ACC disables the core temp sensors is something I do not know, but it does. It is not involved in their accuracy though.

As for their accuracy, a large part of the idle inaccuracy comes from the traces between the sensor diode itself and the brains behind it that translate the voltage drop into a temperature. The resistance in those traces also causes a voltage drop, and worse that voltage drop varies by temperature.
Intel and AMD calibrate each individual chip's sensor brain to assume a given resistance in those traces, a resistance that corresponds to their real resistance at TJMax.
The further away you get from that temperature the further from that resistance the traces are, and the further out to lunch the sensors are.



TL: DR version:
Electrons only move at one speed.
Electrical charge only moves at one speed.
Chips move more electrons at higher loads.
More electrons dropping more energy = higher temp.
Sensors are calibrated to work when they really need to, at max temps.
 
Back