What is your CPU Idle temp?

Dude said:

I am no where near that cool

What you see with the Ryzen CPUs, is NOT the Core temp.
For example.. here is my 3700K. For this CPU, AIDA doesn't even HAVE a Core temp available.





CPU D = CPU package
CPU D = CPU diode

Dude said:

I am no where near that cool

Attachment 336538

Then what are you doing wrong? I leave it up to you.

Lance1 said:

Then what are you doing wrong? I leave it up to you.

You and @Dude are not seeing the temps from the same sensors.
I don't think Ryzen even HAS a Core temp sensor.

Ghot said:

You and @Dude are not seeing the temps from the same sensors.
I don't think Ryzen even HAS a Core temp sensor.

I don't have a Ryzen.

Lance1 said:

I don't have a Ryzen.

I know. @Dude is running a Ryzen CPU. Unlike the AMD FX CPUs, there is no way to "see" the Ryzen "core" temps.
Remember, the AMD FX CPUs CAN/do show the core temp.


You need to use a different program... like say HWMonitor, or AIDA64 when checking the AMD FX temps.

THEN you will see the really low Core temp "and" the CPU overall temp.


This is AIDA64 reading the temps on my AMD FX-8350.
The top CPU temp is the "only temp we can see on the Ryzen CPUs.

In this pic however, we can see BOTH the CPU temp and the Core temp, on my old FX-8350...





In order to compare your AMD FX-9590 temp, with the temp of a CPU like a Ryzen, you need a program that shows BOTH the CPU temp and the Core temp. A program like AIDA64 or HWMonitor


There are NO programs that will show the Core temp of Ryzen. So you can't use the "core temp" to compare CPU temps. You need to compare using the CPU temp.







Here's a Speccy screenshot of the RYZEN CPU temp. Even Speccy can't see the Core temp of a Ryzen CPU.
Screenshot taken May 2021...

Ghot said:

I know. @Dude is running a Ryzen CPU. Unlike the AMD FX CPUs, there is no way to "see" the Ryzen "core" temps.
Remember, the AMD FX CPUs CAN/do show the core temp.


You need to use a different program... like say HWMonitor, or AIDA64 when checking the AMD FX temps.

THEN you will see the really low Core temp "and" the CPU overall temp.


This is AIDA64 reading the temps on my AMD FX-8350.
The top CPU temp is the "only temp we can see on the Ryzen CPUs.

In this pic however, we can see BOTH the CPU temp and the Core temp, on my old FX-8350...





In order to compare your AMD FX-9590 temp, with the temp of a CPU like a Ryzen, you need a program that shows BOTH the CPU temp and the Core temp. A program like AIDA64 or HWMonitor


There are NO programs that will show the Core temp of Ryzen. So you can't use the "core temp" to compare CPU temps. You need to compare using the CPU temp.







Here's a Speccy screenshot of the RYZEN CPU temp. Even Speccy can't see the Core temp of a Ryzen CPU.
Screenshot taken May 2021...

If it is impossible to have these temps then why do I get the same reading from multiple app's? Note the diode reading from AIDA64. Is my sensor malfunctioning?

Lance1 said:

If it is impossible to have these temps then why do I get the same reading from multiple app's? Note the diode reading from AIDA64. Is my sensor malfunctioning?

For the AMD FX series CPUs... AMD pulled some fast ones. Namely, things like Core count, and the fooling around with the Core temp sensors. They even played silly buggers with the CPU speeds.

They were trying to pass Intel, before they actually HAD the goods. This didn't stop the... crockery.
No one called them about the Core temps... but they did sue them concerning the Core count.

In their claims... the FX 8350, and even the 9590, were sold as having 8 cores, which wasn't really true.


For example, here's the email I got concerning my FX 8350...





This netted me a whopping $32 when all was finally settled.



The thing with the CPU speed, also, never incited a lawsuit, but was BS just the same.
An FX CPU running at say... 4.5Ghz was really only as fast as a comparable Intel CPU running at 4Ghz.
Or, to put it another way... an Intel CPU running at 4Ghz, was just as fast as an AMD FX CPU running at 4.5Ghz

As for the Core count... my chip and yours... technically only had 4 cores. Each core has 2 modules, but that didn't really count as 8 cores.




Now... as far as we can tell... the claims for the Ryzen CPUs... seem to be accurate. Time will tell, ofc.





/edit


And what @stormy13 said is true... you can't get a CPU running cooler than ambient temperature, without exotic cooling.

Here... the Liquid Nitrogen (LN2) cooling part, starts at 10:30...








You have to think of CPU cooling like trying to cool a room on a very hot summer day.
You can use all the "fans" you want, and it may "feel" cooler, but in actuality you're just blowing hot air around.

Now... if you use some sort of exotic cooling like say... and air conditioner, you can get the room cooler than the outside temps. Same with an automobile.
The only problem with A/C is condensation. Any time the temp of one location drops below the temp of an adjacent location... you get condensation. This is not really an issue in something like a room, or a car.

But... in a computer...the water that condensation causes, would fry the electronics in the computer.
So... unless you have condensation forming all over your CPU cooler, the CPU can not be colder than the ambient temps.