-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Back home to Team Red
- Thread starter trents
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2012
Exactly!
I read that somewhere too and I wish you bookmarked it because I forgot to! And now I don't remember if the source of that information was reputable, or biased.
Frankly, I find it very frustrating HWiNFO64 (my favorite, by far), HWMonitor, Speccy, CPU-Z and _________________ (fill in the blank) do not all report the exact same thing. It makes no sense to me they don't. The temperature of something is not a subjective value. If I put 10 different technology-type thermometers (digital, analog, mercury, resistance, thermocouple, infrared, bimetal, liquid crystal, younameit) in my oven, and it is 350° degrees in there, they should all read ~350°. And they likely will! If I put 10 thermometers in my hallway and set my furnace thermostat (located in same hallway) to 70°F, all 10 thermometers should read ~70°F. And they likely will.
All these hardware monitoring programs are getting their information from the exact same sensor. So why would the temperatures be different? Its the same problem with voltages. Why would two programs report different voltages? 60°C is 60°C. Period. +12.1VDC is +12.1VDC. Period. It does not (or should not) matter how that 60°C or +12.1VDC is measured.
Those sensors produce a specific numeric value that represents a specific voltage or temperature or fan speed. Why don't those programs use the same formula to display the true value? It makes no sense to me. I understand sample rates will be different. And sample times will be different so a couple degrees, RPMs, or 1/10s of volt variance should be expected. But way off? Doesn't make sense to me.
Another problem is a total lack of industry standards here. Even within the same brand!Different labels are used. Different sensor locations are used. So are we talking the same thing, or not? If this CPU temp sensor is located deep inside the core at a junction, and that CPU sensor is located on the case (or is it IHS?
), which is real? Which is better? How does one compare?
If pros find it confusing, it is no wonder the less experienced do.
And what are offsets and why are they used? A temp is a temp. It seems to me offsets are there to make the temp "look" cooler than it really is. Why? That makes no sense - unless the purpose is to deceive consumers.
Real Temps and Offsets explained. Oh, I totally understand now!
[rant off]
I've been messing with AM4 since launch and it's better now than it has been. First I'll answer your lasr question. AMD introduced an offset for the "X" chips to enable the fans sooner to maximize their performance boost feature which relies on temperature. The CPU senses, for lack of a better term, the actual temp but the board works od the offset to keep things cooler.
Part of the problem is from the hop AMD has multiple embedded sensors in the ZEN die typically the "hottest" one pings the IO chip, the monitor SW writers didn't know which signal to monitor real temp offset temp. The guy from HWINFO spent a lot of time working in forums that's why his SW works better everytime there were changes (and there were many with AGESA) things changed a bit and monitoring SW was a mess again. I think many just gave up because AMD was irrelevant and it was too much work.
Just my opinion
storm-chaser
Disabled
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2011
- Location
- Upstate NY
For a little context and background on trents CPU choice and decision making read his thread "How Ryzen has Altered the CPU Market Landscape"
https://www.overclockers.com/forums...ow-Ryzen-has-altered-the-CPU-market-landscape
OP
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
- Thread Starter
- #25
Update: Weirdest thing happened. I powered my wife's computer own and took it out to the garage to blow the dust out with compressed air. When I hooked it all back up it went into a bootloop and would no longer work properly with the 3200 mhz Plantinum Z except at 2300 mhz. I had stress tested it earlier and it worked perfectly with that RAM at full speed. So I swapped it with the FlareX in my machine which I knew from experience would run fine with the Platinum Z Hynex. I can't explain this.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2018
- Location
- Nebraska USA
First, sorry for not replying earlier but I have received no email notifications for this thread since my last reply, until today.
My rant was about "reporting" temperatures. When the motherboard/chipset tells the fan to ramp up speed does not concern me (as long as temps are controlled). My rant is that there is no industry standard - a standard where motherboard makers, chipset makers, CPU makers, and hardware monitors - all use the same standard for labeling, sensor location, measuring, and reporting temperatures (and voltages) so the "normal" consumer can use any standard compliant hardware monitoring program and get the same temperature (or voltage) reading.
If CPU A uses a sensor located deep in the core and measures 75°C and CPU B uses a sensor located on the IHS and measures 60°C, does that mean CPU B is running cooler? Maybe, maybe not. Does that mean CPU A needs additional cooling? Maybe, maybe not. If Speccy reports CPU C is running at 70°C and HWiNFO64 is reporting that same processor is running at 65°C, and HWMonitor is reporting 218°C, which do we believe?
This standard should, IMO, extend to how motherboards report "system" temps too. Same with GPUs/graphics cards, drives, RAM, etc. I am NOT saying all these components must have sensors. I am saying "IF" they do have sensors, their placements, labeling, and reporting should be standardized - whether displayed in the BIOS Setup Menu or via an installed HW monitoring program.
I am saying it should be like the ATX Form Factor standard addressing case standoffs and motherboard mounting holes. The ATX standard does not state every ATX case will have a standoff mounting point in locations A, B, C, D and E. It says "IF" there is a standoff, it can only be located in those locations. Same with motherboard mounting holes. "If" there is one, it can only be in designated (and standardized) locations. This standard is what allows us consumers to pick any ATX compliant case and be assured any of a 100s of different ATX compliant motherboards will fit and properly mount inside the case. Otherwise, it is a non-compliant (proprietary ) board and/or case.
As seen by the last line in my sig, I take heat seriously. As a certified master electronics technician for over 45 years, I personally understand what is going on in terms of heat, how it relates to current and resistance through a circuit or component, efficiency, device performance, aging, stability and the need for and how to achieve adequate cooling. And because of my background and experience, I can, without too much effort, sort out the particulars for each individual CPU and other components.
But I am not a "normal" user. Most users, even most experienced computer users and enthusiasts have never had formal electronics training, certs or electronics degrees. They have no clue what E=IR and P=IE means or who Ohm was, or that there ever was someone named Ohm. Nor should they have to! Yet most users know enough to understand proper cooling of electronics is essential - if for no other reason than to prevent the house from burning down. Or perhaps from stinking up the house with "that" smell.
I have actually had more than one persons ask, "Do you mean Mr Homn?" lol
@storm-chaser Thanks but again, that has nothing to do with my point - which was favoring "brand" A over "brand" B - the entire brand - not specific CPUs or families of CPUs.
Right, that, and Johan45's explanation make it clear - or clearer. But I was really speaking hypothetically.
My rant was about "reporting" temperatures. When the motherboard/chipset tells the fan to ramp up speed does not concern me (as long as temps are controlled). My rant is that there is no industry standard - a standard where motherboard makers, chipset makers, CPU makers, and hardware monitors - all use the same standard for labeling, sensor location, measuring, and reporting temperatures (and voltages) so the "normal" consumer can use any standard compliant hardware monitoring program and get the same temperature (or voltage) reading.
If CPU A uses a sensor located deep in the core and measures 75°C and CPU B uses a sensor located on the IHS and measures 60°C, does that mean CPU B is running cooler? Maybe, maybe not. Does that mean CPU A needs additional cooling? Maybe, maybe not. If Speccy reports CPU C is running at 70°C and HWiNFO64 is reporting that same processor is running at 65°C, and HWMonitor is reporting 218°C
, which do we believe?This standard should, IMO, extend to how motherboards report "system" temps too. Same with GPUs/graphics cards, drives, RAM, etc. I am NOT saying all these components must have sensors. I am saying "IF" they do have sensors, their placements, labeling, and reporting should be standardized - whether displayed in the BIOS Setup Menu or via an installed HW monitoring program.
I am saying it should be like the ATX Form Factor standard addressing case standoffs and motherboard mounting holes. The ATX standard does not state every ATX case will have a standoff mounting point in locations A, B, C, D and E. It says "IF" there is a standoff, it can only be located in those locations. Same with motherboard mounting holes. "If" there is one, it can only be in designated (and standardized) locations. This standard is what allows us consumers to pick any ATX compliant case and be assured any of a 100s of different ATX compliant motherboards will fit and properly mount inside the case. Otherwise, it is a non-compliant (proprietary
) board and/or case. As seen by the last line in my sig, I take heat seriously. As a certified master electronics technician for over 45 years, I personally understand what is going on in terms of heat, how it relates to current and resistance through a circuit or component, efficiency, device performance, aging, stability and the need for and how to achieve adequate cooling. And because of my background and experience, I can, without too much effort, sort out the particulars for each individual CPU and other components.
But I am not a "normal" user. Most users, even most experienced computer users and enthusiasts have never had formal electronics training, certs or electronics degrees. They have no clue what E=IR and P=IE means or who Ohm was, or that there ever was someone named Ohm. Nor should they have to! Yet most users know enough to understand proper cooling of electronics is essential - if for no other reason than to prevent the house from burning down. Or perhaps from stinking up the house with "that" smell.
I have actually had more than one persons ask, "Do you mean Mr Homn?"
lol@storm-chaser Thanks but again, that has nothing to do with my point - which was favoring "brand" A over "brand" B - the entire brand - not specific CPUs or families of CPUs.
