Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 12:55 AM Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Besides, for the wattage >> the CPU uses, the cooler I have is waaaaaay overkill. I think my cooler >> is rated well above 200 watts. The CPU is around 100 watts, 105 I think >> or maybe 95. > So, I am just picking someplace a little random to reply to all of this. > > Normal temps vary by CPU model and you need to look up what is expected. > > All modern CPUs will throttle to maintain below a certain temp, and so > if you have thermal issues you'll just get lower performance. > > A cooler might dissipate a certain amount of power, but that is going > to be at a particular temp. Obviously a radiator that is at ambient > temperature will dissipate no heat at all. > > The external temp of the CPU has nothing to do with the internal temp > of the CPU, and a modern CPU can generate MUCH more heat than it can > internally transfer to the surface of the die, and so internally it > will heat up even if you use liquid cooling. > > As far as governors go, I'm not sure what is even recommended with > Linux with modern CPUs. Most modern CPUs and their firmware manage > heat/power based on performance limits. AMD calls this > Performance-based Overclocking, but it is basically how they work even > up to factory clock rates. Assuming you meet the cooling/power > requirements the CPU can sustain a particular frequency on all its > cores at once, and a higher frequency on only one core if the rest are > idle, and then it has a maximum frequency that a small number of cores > can temporarily exceed but internal temperature will rise when this > happens until throttling kicks in (I think this is at least in part > firmware modeled and not exclusively based on sensor data). This is > all by design in a desktop CPU, and allows a CPU to have significantly > better burst performance than sustained performance, which is a good > approach as desktop loads tend to be bursty. I imagine server > processors (like enterprise SSDs) are optimized more around sustained > performance as they tend to be operated more at load. > > I suspect that the most recent CPU generations will work best if the > hardware is allowed to manage frequency, with the OS at most being > used to communicate whether a core is idle or not. >
I have to say, mobos and CPUs have come a long ways since my last build about 10 or 11 years ago. When the ASUS first booted and I went into the BIOS thing, is it still called BIOS, it was very different. I think my current rig allows you to use the mouse. It's slow tho. This ASUS is vastly improved. It gives you a LOT more control and I'm not even interesting in trying to overclock or anything. Just the fan controls are a huge improvement. I suspect most newer mobos are all that way. I'm going to have to get used to seeing CPU temps in the 190F area I guess. But dang, that's hot. I suspect tho that if the sensor was in the same place on my current rig, it may measure that high as well, deep inside the chip. It may be giving a temp where the CPU is always cooler, closer to the top where the CPU cooler is touching or something. Placement of the sensor is key. Still, if I could get it down to 140F or even 150F, I'd be happier. Dang rig is snappy tho. :-D Dale :-) :-)
