New
#21
I've see that video. As for the core count you are very right. I have 4 cores with 8 Threads. This is turning out to be a very educational post. AMD advertises the FX9590 as 8 cores and 8 Threads.
I've see that video. As for the core count you are very right. I have 4 cores with 8 Threads. This is turning out to be a very educational post. AMD advertises the FX9590 as 8 cores and 8 Threads.
Back in late 2013, I had contacted AMD about the temps on the FX chips. Went back and forth for a few days, jumped through a few hoops, and eventually they sent me this email explaining how the temps on the FX CPUs worked.
I can't seem to find that email anymore, but I'll take a stab at it, from memory.
In a program like AIDA64 Extreme, you use the CPU temp for everyday temp monitoring.
But for overclocking, you use the Core temp. And the graph the core temp makes as the temp rises, is NOT linear.
It looks something like this...
When you start to load the CPU, the core temp rises very fast. Faster than the CPU temp.
They meet at about the 45C spot, then the core temp and the CPU temp... pretty much rise in a similar and drastically slowing fashion.
For AMD FX CPUs
CPU = temperature read from sensor beneath CPU socket
CPU Diode = temperature read internally in CPU
There is only only one internal CPU temperature sensor so it is impossible to know the individual core temperatures.
I ran AIDA64 and ran the OSD to take some readings. All I did was move my mouse curser around. The CPU Diode adjusted accordingly. So if the sensor is bust then why would it respond to just a mouse movement? Explain this please. Run the video.