FX 8320 power usage sensor details?
FX 8320 power usage sensor details?
Core temperature maximum (Tjmax) reaches 61.1°C.
The silicon surface at the IHS (Tcase) measures 63°C.
Engineers at AMD used specialized samples with thermocouples attached to the IHS during measurements. The Tjmax value isn't a direct reading but an estimate based on their experience, as placing thermocouples inside the cores would disrupt normal operation and affect results.
Functional FX with internal sensors were not produced because such components would alter CPU characteristics.
This discussion stays relevant since power usage, consumption, and temperature are closely connected. The user can obtain power data from HWInfo, but without stable temperatures, accurate power metrics become unreliable. Improving cooling or reducing clock speeds to maintain safe temperatures would also impact the reported power figures.
Unfortunately, the tech doc links aren't functioning properly. However, it seems Tcase is a parameter inherited from earlier processor specifications—specifically Athlon, Sempron, or Phenom—that the responder relied on when documentation wasn't available. The most reliable information I've found indicates that "Tjmax" values listed on AMD's FX Specs site are what users should consider. So, I'm still uncertain, but it appears the Tmargin figure is likely calculated from the unreliable temperature data sent by the processor itself. It provides insight into how close the system is to triggering safeguards like fan speed changes, throttling, and eventual shutdown. This difference must come from a calculation such as (Tjmax - Tcurrent), meaning Tmargin inherits the same inaccuracies present in Tcurrent.
The TM comes from various parameters such as loads per core, socket temperatures, core and package voltages, etc. All these values are interpreted similarly to how HWInfo processes them. Each measurable detail goes through a sophisticated calculation, resulting in a value displayed on the temperature map. For instance, a TM of 1.4276 corresponds to a 20TM rating, while 1.4278 might match a 17TM.
This means that a CPU with 8 threads running at 4.7GHz could display a TM of 15, whereas the same CPU with 6 threads at 4.5GHz might also show the same TM. However, adjustments in core loads or thread counts will cause variations in the TM. Small differences in frequency lead to noticeable changes in the TM.
TM isn't a fixed figure like a temperature reading; it's an indicator of a range. A lower number indicates higher power usage and increased heat, similar to a scale where 0 means cool and 5 means hot. If the CPU consistently shows a 3, occasional drops to a 2 are normal—no concern regardless of actual power use or voltage levels.
It’s about understanding that not being a straightforward measurement helps acknowledge its flaws. Still, it offers useful direction for those who need it. Personally, I’d keep thermal margins similar to monitoring HWInfo CPU temperatures—I don’t push a CPU to its extremes unless under specific stress tests, like Prime95. Generally, the 10C limits I see when Tjmax is active are likely sufficient. The key to successful overclocking is easing back and ensuring a solid safety buffer once you hit the boundaries.
I agree with that. That's the advantage of preferred cores—it's always there, one at a time. The silicon structure is distinct, even between cores, and these small variations can make some stronger or better cores while weakening others. If all cores are treated equally, regardless of their condition, the weaker one will face just as much stress as the stronger ones, making it the first to lose stability during an extended overclocking phase aimed at high performance levels.
Preferred cores shift more abuse toward the stronger ones, balancing things out so that the CPU always performs according to its best capabilities.
Except there's no way I'm aware of to change core ordering as that's fused-in by AMD at manufacture for Zen 2 , 3 and probably 4 too. The Windows 10/11 scheduler, with CPPC enabled, picks it's preferred cores based on core ordering with consideration for CPU architecture; mainly shared resources such as L2 and L3 caches I suppose. CPPC disabled it seems to simply prefer the "best" cores based on core ordering with my Ryzen systems. Although, with all the cores at a fixed clock it may not prefer any cores; I've never tested it since I don't all-core OC my Ryzen systems.
And I do understand any overclocked CPU will at some point become unstable. But that's inevitable in the scheme of things since any semiconductor degrades when used. Using it more heavily only degrades it faster - ANY overclock, especially when coupled with extensive heavy processing, will do. When, or if, that happens, re-establish stability with a lower clock and march on. IMO, overclocking should only be attempted if you accept that your CPU is, at some level, a consumable. Right now, with $10-20 dollar FX6300's widely available on Ebay it's a viable proposition since overclocking these things is enjoyable and with a capable enough motherboard not going to be all that expensive even if things go south quickly.