If you have a house with a thermostat, its no problem. Unless you have no AC. In todays world thats a real minority.Example:
So when you turn your computer on a cold Monday morning, it does it's training and we then reach a hot Thursday after your computer has been crunching for a couple of days, then why is the training which is done a cold morning more stable than a restored training from a hot afternoon?
What I'm just questioning is whether one "training" is more stable over time than another.If you have a house with a thermostat, its no problem. Unless you have no AC. In todays world thats a real minority.
Even if you don't have AC, the memory will change timings that much over a few degrees ??? (-20f to 105f makes no difference to a computer other than the CPU/video card)
Actually here in Germany ACs are a minority.If you have a house with a thermostat, its no problem. Unless you have no AC. In todays world thats a real minority.
Someone is taking my comments personally.
Booting 10 seconds. 20 seconds. 30 seconds. It has little to no importance over stability and performance.
It is a silly party trick to impress non computer enthusiast friends who are less versed in what true PC performance entails.
My phone takes ~10 seconds for cold boot until PIN entry.How about your phone? Noticed you left that response out.
But Windows updates are usually being applied in the background, so then it doesn't block you from working. Or on shutdown, but then you're done working anyway, so it should not matter that it takes some more time to shut the PC down.I didn't say that Windows updates my PC daily. But a weekly Windows update takes longer to apply than spending 60 seconds booting your PC a few days a week.
You're right, 60 seconds is too long. You should hop on over to the Intel thread since it's a faster boot time.My phone takes ~10 seconds for cold boot until PIN entry.
Also, you very rarely do a cold boot or even restart on phones anyway. And when you don't it's instant-on, within a few hundred milliseconds of putting your finger on the fingerprint sensor.
But Windows updates are usually being applied in the background, so then it doesn't block you from working. Or on shutdown, but then you're done working anyway, so it should not matter that it takes some more time to shut the PC down.
Occasionally there are also updates applied on subsequent bootup, but that's quite rare. Also, there's really no option, it just has to be done sometimes.
Now with regards to PC bootup times, there are options, since some PCs boot up quickly, while others take much longer time. So I'd rather choose to have a PC with quicker bootup time if possible.
No need, there are AMD based PCs that boot up in 10-15 seconds too. Just not all AMD based PCs, apparently.You're right, 60 seconds is too long. You should hop on over to the Intel thread since it's a faster boot time.
Dunno man, my Zen 4 PC takes about 10 seconds to boot up. All I did was enable Memory Context Restore and very fast boot.No need, there are AMD based PCs that boot up in 10-15 seconds too. Just not all AMD based PCs, apparently.
Dunno man, my Zen 4 PC takes about 10 seconds to boot up. All I did was enable Memory Context Restore and very fast boot.
This is a solved problem. The only actual issue is that AMD can’t write software worth anything. MCR = auto should mean train once and then remember it. Instead it appears to mean disabled.
It will run no problem at 140W. I’m just saying that it’s not how it’s configured by default on the enthusiast motherboards.OK, I was reading in the Intel thread, someone saying the 7950x would not run 140 watts, and someone else said it will always use 230 watts. Well, this is my main 7950x. BIOS on ASUS Prime x67e is totally stock except EXPO memory, and its using 130 watts (147 if you add SOC) ? Actually I am confused. And at 100% load on all 32 cores at 4.5 ghz ? (its running WCG on all cores.) I know my other 7950x are set to 142 watts, and run great, but this one is 100% stock bios settings.
View attachment 85681
View attachment 85680
I have a 250 watt huge air cooler. Hard to think I am thermally limited. And as I said this is DEFAULT BIOS SETTINGS for the x670e Prime ASUS motherboard.It will run no problem at 140W. I’m just saying that it’s not how it’s configured by default on the enthusiast motherboards.
In this case you’re heavily thermal limited. You’re running at base clocks, if you weren’t thermally limited the typical all core boost clock is usually >=5.1ghz.
You’re at 95* C, you’re definitely thermally limited. At 140W on my 7950X system I don’t think I’d be above 85* C but I was using a 360 AIO.I have a 250 watt huge air cooler. Hard to think I am thermally limited. And as I said this is DEFAULT BIOS SETTINGS for the x670e Prime ASUS motherboard.
Also, I wanted to reply to that user reborn something, as he was totally wrong on everything he said. But it was an Intel thread, so I am taking it here.
ALL my 7950x's run at 142 watt, and all run at the max temp I set. The ASUS is the oddball. And as far as performance ? We have a primegrid contest coming up in a day or so. avx-512 is in heavy use. 13900k or ks or 14900k would not stand a chance.
First, I have never seen it under 95c, even at a light load, its something about the bios and the chip. I have a 420 AID (the highest rated one) and under full load (same load) it also runs 4.5 ghz.You’re at 95* C, you’re definitely thermally limited. At 140W on my 7950X system I don’t think I’d be above 85* C but I was using a 360 AIO.
Is it a Noctua air cooler? If so, get the AM5 offset bracket and you’ll pick up a 100mhz or so at the very least.
The AK620 is a great cooler and should definitely be capable of cooling more than 140W. What case do you have it in?First, I have never seen it under 95c, even at a light load, its something about the bios and the chip. I have a 420 AID (the highest rated one) and under full load (same load) it also runs 4.5 ghz.
The cooler on this one is an AK620 (I think thats the numbers) same size almost as the Noctua. I have one of those contact frames if thats what you mean. I will be trying it out soon.
Well, since the side cover is off on all my cases, I doubt that makes a difference. I do have 3 inlet and one exhaust fan front front the back (same as the HSF is going. The 420 AIO also stays as exactly what temp I allow.The AK620 is a great cooler and should definitely be capable of cooling more than 140W. What case do you have it in?
This is what I was referencing but I think it’ll only work on Noctua coolers.
Almost. It will stop at the PPT limits in its default configuration, no matter how good the cooling. The cooling CAN adjust the v/f curve, somewhat.the processor will continuously boost until it hits a thermal wall again.
Only issue with this is Zen 4 is efficient per watt. So while there is a PPT wall the road to get there is longer than the competition. I still find the z height a weird choice but I suppose it was something AMD wanted to give into given the board and DDR5 costs associated with the then new platform. An extra 50-120 for a new cooler would have been a cruddy move.Almost. It will stop at the PPT limits in its default configuration, no matter how good the cooling. The cooling CAN adjust the v/f curve, somewhat.
You can set a the limit by frequency, power draw or temperature or a combination of any of these to prevent an unstable system. What more would you want?Bit of a correction here. You're thermally limited but not truly. AMD said they designed the processor to use as much cooling as it can. In other words if you set this up under a loop and got the temps down through chilled water the processor will continuously boost until it hits a thermal wall again. The more cooling the more performance until the processor taps out what can be boosted. I personally think it's a weird design choice.
Insert my long old rant on the z axis height being a mistake because amd wanted to support a batch of coolers and save their consumers money.
My only complaint was it was a weird design choice alongside the z height. I never complained about stability.You can set a the limit by frequency, power draw or temperature or a combination of any of these to prevent an unstable system. What more would you want?
Only issue with this is Zen 4 is efficient per watt. So while there is a PPT wall the road to get there is longer than the competition. I still find the z height a weird choice but I suppose it was something AMD wanted to give into given the board and DDR5 costs associated with the then new platform. An extra 50-120 for a new cooler would have been a cruddy move.