Confused: How do we moniter our AMD CPU's?

[Herkulese]

After a lot of searching, here and elsewhere, and getting lots of suggestions on the best CPU monitors for temps and voltage, I have come to understand that monitoring core temp for an AMD CPU is not actually available.

Can you guys help me out here with how to test my Phenom II and monitor core temp and core voltage?

I have discussed this in other threads, but felt the need to address the information that has recently been brought forward regarding AMD CPU's not having on die temp sensors.

What is the actual best way to monitor while testing?

 

[monstercameron]

After a lot of searching, here and elsewhere, and getting lots of suggestions on the best CPU monitors for temps and voltage, I have come to understand that monitoring core temp for an AMD CPU is not actually available.

Can you guys help me out here with how to test my Phenom II and monitor core temp and core voltage?

I have discussed this in other threads, but felt the need to address the information that has recently been brought forward regarding AMD CPU's not having on die temp sensors.

What is the actual best way to monitor while testing?

core temp works for my phenom II 965...

 

[Herkulese]

Double Post

 

[Herkulese]

core temp works for my phenom II 965...

But do you know it to be accurate?
I have read in more than one place, and here as well, that it can read low, as much as 10 degrees C.
_________________________

I have tried Real Temp, highly recommended, but it simply says my CPU is not supported and stops.
_________________________

I am running Prime 95 as I type this, and am monitoring with:

HWMonitor
Core Temp
HWiNFO64
They all three read the same temps (Maxing out an 49c) and I am suspicious that this is low.

Again, I am set at -.125v from Normal of 1.475v for a setting of 1.35v.
I also have LLC set for Regular, which I understand is the same as disabled (correct me if I am wrong).

It is the voltage readings that have me really stumped:

HWMonitor reads Idle at 1.08v, and Peak at 1.344v
Core Temp and HWiNFO64 both read all values at 1.475, which is the Normal setting for my board.

 

[GaiaHunter]

About the temperature it doesn't matter what the real temperature is as long as the reported temperature is under 55-60ºC, which is the safe limits for the phenom II.

The default voltage is bit high - the average phenom II X4 runs at around 1.35-1375.

The LLC normal setting will still change the voltage.
It is possible that Core Temp and HWINFO64 aren't taking voltage reads from the sensors but from the bios information or whatever.

 

[Phynaz]

Did you need to start another thread? You already have one about this.

Anyway, did you do the search on this very forum like I said? Did you find where I answered this question just a couple of days ago?

AMD doesn't publish their temperature sensor specifications. Without that information any temperature monitoring software is just taking an educated guess.

 

[Herkulese]

Did you need to start another thread? You already have one about this.

Anyway, did you do the search on this very forum like I said? Did you find where I answered this question just a couple of days ago?

AMD doesn't publish their temperature sensor specifications. Without that information any temperature monitoring software is just taking an educated guess.

That thread was about getting monitors to work, and YES I did do the search that you suggested, and read those threads, but all of that still left me with more questions, and I find that a new wrinkle in a thread, many times does not get answered in that thread.

For example, GaiaHunte's answer, above, is the specific information that I need to know, that I probably would not have gotten in the other thread. I now know that even though the reported temp may not be real, it still is applicable, and I can know what rang the reported temps need to be in. I can also rest in my suspicion that some of those monitors do read the bios voltage rather than the actual voltage being used.

This thread is specifically in regards to what to do about the fact that AMD processors don't give the real temps, which to me is a whole different question altogether, and one that is not addressed at all in most of the threads that I have read.

I apologize if I have been a pain with this build, but there is a lot of new tech that I was not aware of, and that I have had to deal with. Ten years ago I was building a couple of PC's a year, or even more at times, so how hard could it be, right?

On the upside, however, I am very pleased with the info that I have gotten here. I have been able to put together a pretty savvy PC that seems to be rock solid and overclockable, as well.

I could not have done this without all the help found here.

Thanks to all of you,
Roger

 

[bononos]

That thread was about getting monitors to work, and YES I did do the search that you suggested, and read those threads, but all of that still left me with more questions, and I find that a new wrinkle in a thread, many times does not get answered in that thread.
......
This thread is specifically in regards to what to do about the fact that AMD processors don't give the real temps, which to me is a whole different question altogether, and one that is not addressed at all in most of the threads that I have read.
.....

The curt and misleading answers(from newbie threads that continually pop up) from your original thread about temps may have also led you to create this thread.

After 10 years out of the game, you should have realised that there is many years of threads for an old cpu such as the phenom. Search for "amd phenom temps" and look for some promising titles. There short answer is that AMD doesn't report actual cpu temps and you'll have to go by what is commonly regarded as 'ok' for a particular cpu/monitoring utility combination and hope for the best.

 

[coercitiv]

You built one new system, have questions related to that system in particular, yet have created 3 threads in the CPU section.

Related to temps: the digital temperature sensor is not accurate for low values, but becomes increasingly accurate as temperature increases, to the point where it is "100%" correct before temperature reaches dangerous levels. After all, it's main purpose is to help detect dangerous heat levels, not measure room temperature

This means you get good readings for high temps (let's say 45C and higher) and can still detect value changes at lower temps, but those are not linear changes. A reported increase from 30C to 33C may actually be a 4C increase and the real temp might be 35C, but you can still monitor the change using the sensor and you still know it is definitely an increase.

This article might help, even though it's related to Intel CPU's.

Related to voltage: If the reported value is static (does not vary with tiny amounts in time) then that is not a real voltage the CPU is being supplied with. If the reported value has a tendency to vary around a bit from your set value and also changes with CPU load and/or frequency change, that is likely to be real sensor data.

 

[succes]

I built my computer with the top of the line everything. But when I access software that monitors the cpu it is only showing one cpu core. But in the task manager under performance it is showing only two cores I have the setting to one graph per cpu core. so it should be showing 4 graphs. and my motherboard has a program that also monitors the cpu usage, temp, cpu fan speed cpu voltage. its only showing one core the other three are shaded out. it too is set to show each core in its own graph. I have a GeForce SLI Two Graphic cards with quad core vpu and all eight on the cores show up in the graphs. I also have a quad core audio apu and all four cores are showing up.

Is the cpu bad? or could it be the software? If not to both questions, then how do I get the software to show all four cpu cores?

I emailed AMD three times, they have not replied yet that was two months ago.

Also on the box the cpu came in it says its a Phenom Black Limited Collectors Edition. it says the clock speed per core is 3.4GHz, but its showing to be running at 3.8GHz in all the graphs.is this going to hurt the cpu running this fast?

I need answers to all the questions, before the store return policy runs out, on August 23, 2009

Thank You

 

[schmuckley]

HWmonitor
http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/hwmonitor.html
and cpu-z
It looks like you're using old,single-threaded software.

 

[Herkulese]

HWmonitor
http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/hwmonitor.html
and cpu-z
It looks like you're using old,single-threaded software.

I downloaded the latest just days ago, and HWMonitor is showing 4 core temps, even though AMD CPU's, supposedly only have one, off die, sensor.

All core temps are the same and static relative to each other, indicating that they are coming from the same sensor.

 

[Phynaz]

From the Core Temp FAQ

I can only see a single temperature reading.
AMD processors based on the Phenom and Phenom II (Athlon II, Sempron II, Turion II, etc.) and all of AMD's new CPUs such as the FX and APU series only have a single thermal sensor.
Thus Core Temp will only display a single CPU temperature reading. There is no way of getting a per-core reading on these processors.

Why is the temperature of my FX, Phenom, Athlon based processor lower than the ambient temperature?
Starting with the Phenoms, AMD's digital sensor no longer reports an absolute temperature value anymore, but a reading with a certain offset, which is unknown. It is estimated that this offset is between 10 - 20c.

Why does my AMD processor's temperature always read 0C/32F?
On older processors based on the Athlon 64 core (K8) this is usually caused by a problematic thermal sensor in the processor, this is a pretty uncommon issue.
On CPUs starting with the Phenom architecture AMD has introduced the ACC function, it allowed the early Phenoms to achieve higher overclocks, and on the Phenom II based processors it allowed unlocking of extra cores and L3 cache.
Some motherboards include a Core unlock feature, which is based on ACC as well.
In most cases disabling these features in the BIOS will bring temperature readings back.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I pushed my FX till it shut off a couple times. :awe: Temps were reading in the low 50C range. I imagine it was reading ~10C lower than actual. Though if CPU-Z was accurate, I'm not sure if I had a low voltage issue (1.47v just doesn't cut it for 5.2+GHz) or a high temp issue. With AMD CPU's, even though overclocking is really simple, when you want to really push it you have to kind of 'learn' your CPU.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. If I were you, and had good cooling, I'd just set the voltage to 1.4-1.45 and see how high you can go. That voltage and a quality cooler shouldn't give you any temp problems.

 

[Herkulese]

The curt and misleading answers(from newbie threads that continually pop up) from your original thread about temps may have also led you to create this thread.

After 10 years out of the game, you should have realised that there is many years of threads for an old cpu such as the phenom. Search for "amd phenom temps" and look for some promising titles. There short answer is that AMD doesn't report actual cpu temps and you'll have to go by what is commonly regarded as 'ok' for a particular cpu/monitoring utility combination and hope for the best.

My apologies, but I did search, a lot, but never saw a mintion of that important detail. Not here nor anywhere else. I have seen a lot of recommended monitors, but never did I read a single thing about AMD not reporting actual temps. What I did not think to do was look for FAQ's, as shared above. Again, my apologies.

Odd, I know, but that is the truth.

When I said there was a lot of new tech that I didn't know about, I meant that I had to do a lot of research, and some of it happened here.

You are correct about many short answers without enough detail, and thay can streatch out a thread to where it almost looses any traction.

 

[Herkulese]

This is the kind of information that has had me a little of track.

Here is a direct quote from one of Anandtechs own articals:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2821

The power consumption tests utilize an watts up? Pro meter and we capture total power consumption for the system at the wall, less the monitor and speakers. Our faith in capturing true core temperatures with various software utilities for the Phenom II series is suspect at times based on the diode design and chipsets. Regardless if the reported temperatures are exactly true or not, the delta between settings is our primary focus today. We are using Everest 5.0.2.1810 to capture our individual core temperatures.

If it is common knowlege that AMD cpus only put out one temp, and not the actual one, at that, how would I be expected to pick up on that factoid, based on this kind of published information, that all but swares to the contrary?

Further, this is an article on the very same CPU that I am using to boot.

I am really not trying to be difficult, nor even point any fingers at anyone or anything, but I have taken a bit of chastizing here regarding all of my questions, and regarding, alleged, multiple threads on the same subject, but mayby this will help you understand the perdicament that we, who are not experts, run into at times when trying to catch up on current tech.

Thanks again,
Roger

 

[SlowSpyder]

AMD made it kind of confusing because you can never really know the true temp you're at. I say don't worry about making a few threads, it really doesn't affect anyone... You are running stock now? I got a nice performance bump by pushing the NB/IMC/L3 clock. Bumping the multiplier is easy, but you'll leave some performance on the table if you don't push the NB/IMC/L3. What kind of memory are you running? Like I said earlier, I'd probably put it at a sane voltage bump and shoot for ~3.8GHz, it should be achievable if you have decent cooling.

 

[Herkulese]

AMD made it kind of confusing because you can never really know the true temp you're at. I say don't worry about making a few threads, it really doesn't affect anyone... You are running stock now? I got a nice performance bump by pushing the NB/IMC/L3 clock. Bumping the multiplier is easy, but you'll leave some performance on the table if you don't push the NB/IMC/L3. What kind of memory are you running? Like I said earlier, I'd probably put it at a sane voltage bump and shoot for ~3.8GHz, it should be achievable if you have decent cooling.

My cooler is the Noctua NH-UNB SE2
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

My Ram is the G.Skill Ares Orange 1600 8gb (2x4gb) Kit.

 

[bononos]

This is the kind of information that has had me a little of track.

Here is a direct quote from one of Anandtechs own articals:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2821

The power consumption tests utilize an watts up? Pro meter and we capture total power consumption for the system at the wall, less the monitor and speakers. Our faith in capturing true core temperatures with various software utilities for the Phenom II series is suspect at times based on the diode design and chipsets. Regardless if the reported temperatures are exactly true or not, the delta between settings is our primary focus today. We are using Everest 5.0.2.1810 to capture our individual core temperatures.
.......

Here are some threads about measuring AMD temps. The OCN thread includes a reply from AMD support.
I think AMD did not publish the usual thermal requirements whitepaper for the Bulldozer/Piledriver cpus, so max temps are a mystery, the last whitepaper was for PhenomII.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2336126
http://www.overclock.net/t/1139726/amd-fx-bulldozer-piledriver-owners-club/4800#

Why did you build your pc around the PII instead of a Haswell?

 

[Herkulese]

multiple posts

 

[Herkulese]

multiple posts

 

[Herkulese]

Why did you build your pc around the PII instead of a Haswell?

That is a very good question, and one that I was asking myself just yesterday.

No 1 – I am not an Intel fan, although I would consider there chips, but I have always preferred to go with AMD, more for price, and philosophical reasons I guess.

No 2 - I started with the plan of upgrading my CPU on my old board, in my old system, and the Phenom II was all it would handle.

Then one of the guys here turned me on to a combo, Phenom II X4 i64 and GA 970A-UD3, that another guy here had for sale for $140. It was a really good deal, compared to the CPU alone, so I went for it.

Now I realize that I probably should have rethought that decision, given the fact that I ended up building an entire new system. I probably would not have gone Intel, but you never know what the research would have brought up

20-20 hindsight..................?

I am pretty happy with this system, however.
The smaller Diablotech Titan case seems to breath really well, and along with the Noctua, duel 120mm fan, cooler, my temps stay nice and low. Not as low as guys with the EVO 212’s but still really good.

I am running at 3.8ghz, at 1.5v, with LLC set at Regular:
1 hour of Prime 95 Small FFt’s settles in at a nice 36c. with steady voltage of 1.488
That said, I still need to so a longer Prime95 test, to verify that it is truly stable at these settings.