Just got a i7-4790K should i be concerned about it running hot?

[Achilleslastand]

With all of the stories ive read on the internet of the card running hot I must admit I am rethinking my purchase a bit.
I plan on overclocking{eventually}and have a Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO on the way as well.
Is this cause for concern or am I worrying to much?

 

[Yuriman]

How hot is hot? Tj max is 105c, and anything below that is fine. Your CPU will throttle before it cooks itself. A new cooler will allow you to run higher clocks and more voltage before it throttles, or at a given clock/voltage with less noise.

On the other hand, most 4790K's are already close to their limits. If I were building a new system last month (I would buy a 6700K today) I probably wouldn't even bother with a Z series motherboard and cooler, since you're likely to get less than 5% additional performance.

 

[Arachnotronic]

With all of the stories ive read on the internet of the card running hot I must admit I am rethinking my purchase a bit.
I plan on overclocking{eventually}and have a Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO on the way as well.
Is this cause for concern or am I worrying to much?

No need to worry.

 

[StrangerGuy]

How hot is hot? Tj max is 105c, and anything below that is fine. Your CPU will throttle before it cooks itself. A new cooler will allow you to run higher clocks and more voltage before it throttles, or at a given clock/voltage with less noise.

On the other hand, most 4790K's are already close to their limits. If I were building a new system last month (I would buy a 6700K today) I probably wouldn't even bother with a Z series motherboard and cooler, since you're likely to get less than 5% additional performance.

I won't even bother overclocking on a Skylake i5 either, would just get a 6600 non-K that already turbos up to 3.6GHz at 4 cores.

 

[Kenmitch]

Stock cooler works.....Barely! Hyper 212 will be much cooler and quieter.

As for the talk about running k's stock....Guess it would depend on the chip in the end. I could see the stock approach if one lost the silicone lottery. On the other hand I see the benefit of taking what intel left on the plate. No harm in seeing what you could have. Takes some work but could be rewarding in the end. If you can pick up a couple hundred MHZ for free without anymore or even less vcore why not?

 

[Ramses]

I had the same experience, coming from a 9590 no less. They do run hot, you can cause problems running stress tests that use AVX extensions "incorrectly" and induce over-volting(temp). I wouldn't worry about it really, let it cook, they apparently designed it to be that way. Run a decent cooler and be reasonable about it. I run mine 4.6 on all cores at stock voltage (whatever that is) and ignore it otherwise. I do have a big cooler on it, but I already had it. Unless you are planning to overclock just for the sport of it or have some crazy high requirements for processing power there isn't much reason to on this CPU.

 

[RussianSensation]

With all of the stories ive read on the internet of the card running hot I must admit I am rethinking my purchase a bit.
I plan on overclocking{eventually}and have a Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO on the way as well.
Is this cause for concern or am I worrying to much?

Impact of Temperature on Intel CPU Performance (with i7 4790)

Conclusion

"The results of our testing can pretty much be summarized with the following three points:

1. Modern Intel CPUs run at full speed (including the full Turbo Boost allowed based on the number of cores and workload) all the way up to 100 °C

2. Even after the CPU hits 100 °C, the performance is not greatly affected until the CPU spends about 20% of the time > 99 °C

3. While stock cooling only causes around a 2.5% drop in performance, even a budget after market cooler will dramatically improve CPU temperatures"

Source: TechSpot

 

[escrow4]

I won't even bother overclocking on a Skylake i5 either, would just get a 6600 non-K that already turbos up to 3.6GHz at 4 cores.

A Z board would run that at 3.9GHz all cores on load with a simple BIOS toggle. Maybe some Asrock H170 boards too.

 

[crashtech]

Intel CPUs can bump up against their maximum rated operating temp all day long and not get hurt. I've proven that to my own heart's content by lifting the heat sink off many running Intel CPUs, just like the venerable Thomas Pabst showed us back in the 90's.

 

[LTC8K6]

A hyper 212EVO and a little bit of undervolting has totally tamed my 4790K.

It hits 80C tops on Intel Burn Test, which is an unrealistic test.

This is with all 4 cores running at 4.4

The 212EVO is big, though.

 

[crashtech]

Big, but not big enough to max out a 4790K. For that you need a Noctua D15, or go under water.

 

[LTC8K6]

Big, but not big enough to max out a 4790K. For that you need a Noctua D15, or go under water.

I don't think he wants to max it out.

I definitely have more speed available than 4.4 with the 212.

I just choose to stay very conservative with air cooling.

 

[LTC8K6]

Do not underestimate the importance of good airflow through the case.

 

[crashtech]

I might have that problem, since I run a Lian-Li PC-T60.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I had the same experience, coming from a 9590 no less. They do run hot, you can cause problems running stress tests that use AVX extensions "incorrectly" and induce over-volting(temp). I wouldn't worry about it really, let it cook, they apparently designed it to be that way. Run a decent cooler and be reasonable about it. I run mine 4.6 on all cores at stock voltage (whatever that is) and ignore it otherwise. I do have a big cooler on it, but I already had it. Unless you are planning to overclock just for the sport of it or have some crazy high requirements for processing power there isn't much reason to on this CPU.

Its also comparing apples and oranges. The 9590 would shut down with a power cut due to overheating at what, 80C?

And for the OP, what is "hot"?

 

[Ramses]

Its also comparing apples and oranges. The 9590 would shut down with a power cut due to overheating at what, 80C?

And for the OP, what is "hot"?

The apples to oranges part is that we don't know if 80c reported for the AMD chip is the same as 80C reported for the Intel, or if either are in fact 80c when software is reporting such. If you take them at face value, the AMD chip never got anywhere near as hot as the Intel chip did(in my setup), regardless of where either of them throttle or whatever(neither ever have for me). However I don't believe that is an accurate way to compare the two though, or that you even can, having owned both. But it is what an average user is going to see if they have one cpu then swap to another one so it's worth mentioning. When I first got my 4790K and fired up prime95 just like I have with pretty much every other CPU I've ever owned, I thought something was wrong with it. As it turns out it's just how they are. Google says I'm not the only person by far to have that experience.

Not a knock against the 4790K, it's just the way it is. As I said, let it cook(within reason), it'll be fine.

 

[ShintaiDK]

We know its not the same. Just ask the people coding these utils to measure with. Its not something new either, been so the last 10 years+

Temperature monitoring on current AMD processors differs from that on Intel CPUs in two ways:

There is only one temperature sensor per CPU (not one per core), meaning there are no separate temperature measurement values available for each CPU core.

The temperature sensor does not read real physical CPU temperature, so that there can be a rather large temperature difference between the measured and real CPU temperature -- especially if the CPU is idle.

 

[Ramses]

yep