Recommended Posts

On 9/2/2019 at 4:04 PM, BadKarmaPT said:

Is 80º C that hot for this CPU under load?

 

No it's not!

80 degrees should not cause your overclock to fail, its way below TJ Max. 

How are you measuring that temperature? If you are measuring "CPU temp" it will not be the same as "core temp", core temp will be higher.

Make sure you are using something like the RealTemp or CoreTemp utility to measure the temp. Or something like Hardware Monitor. 

If you are monitoring the temp with a utility that detects CPU temp, then its possible the core temp is actually much higher, hence failing due to thermals. 

 

I would try something other than OCCT. OCCT can be quite vicious. RealBench would be a good get. The other point is that what is actually required is for your overclock to be stable in the sim and the other programs you frequently run.

We do not build stress testing PC's. 

Edited by martin-w
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

No it's not!

80 degrees should not cause your overclock to fail, its way below TJ Max. 

How are you measuring that temperature? If you are measuring "CPU temp" it will not be the same as "core temp", core temp will be higher.

Make sure you are using something like the RealTemp or CoreTemp utility to measure the temp. Or something like Hardware Monitor. 

If you are monitoring the temp with a utility that detects CPU temp, then its possible the core temp is actually much higher, hence failing due to thermals. 

 

I would try something other than OCCT. OCCT can be quite vicious. RealBench would be a good get. The other point is that what is actually required is for your overclock to be stable in the sim and the other programs you frequently run.

We do not build stress testing PC's. 

It is hot if you are cooling the system properly.  

After moving to a new house, my gaming PC is finally in a properly air-conditioned room.  Now the highest temp I see is 65C on the hottest core during Intel Burn Test.  Also ignore the voltage here, that's just VID, not the actual vCore setting which is much lower (around 1.28).

Edit: oh yeah, this is with HT ON.  No need to turn it off when you have proper cooling.

Tpl3XJr.jpg

Anyway, 80C may not be approaching TjMax, but it just so happens to be a standard threshold for motherboard overheat protection to kick in.  @BadKarmaPT should look in his motherboard's UEFI settings for something like "maximum safe temperature" and set the value higher, or to unlimited.  

Edited by TechguyMaxC
added voltage info
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It is hot if you are cooling the system properly.  

 

That wasn't the context I was referring to. I was referring to 80 degrees not being hot enough for the CPU's thermal protection to shut the CPU down. Indeed, its not enough to throttle either. 

 

Quote

After moving to a new house, my gaming PC is finally in a properly air-conditioned room.  Now the highest temp I see is 65C on the hottest core during Intel Burn Test.  Also ignore the voltage here, that's just VID, not the actual vCore setting which is much lower (around 1.28).

 

Again, wrong context. This is not about optimal cooling. It was about the assumption it was shutting down due to excessive temp.


 

Quote

 

Anyway, 80C may not be approaching TjMax, but it just so happens to be a standard threshold for motherboard overheat protection to kick in.

"maximum safe temperature" 

 

 

I've never come across that setting. I presume its new to motherboards? My Maximus X doesn't have it. If it does it's certainly not set to something as low as 80 degrees. My CPU wont shut down until the CPU's thermal protection makes it. 

 

Quote

Edit: oh yeah, this is with HT ON.  No need to turn it off when you have proper cooling.

 

Was that just a random comment or did you assume it related to the OP? the OP has no HT, it's a 9700K. 

 

 

Edited by martin-w
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

That wasn't the context I was referring to. I was referring to 80 degrees not being hot enough for the CPU's thermal protection to shut the CPU down. Indeed, its not enough to throttle either. 

 

 

Again, wrong context. This is not about optimal cooling. It was about the assumption it was shutting down due to excessive temp.


 

 

I've never come across that setting. I presume its new to motherboards? My Maximus X doesn't have it. If it does it's certainly not set to something as low as 80 degrees. My CPU wont shut down until the CPU's thermal protection makes it. 

 

 

Was that just a random comment or did you assume it related to the OP? the OP has no HT, it's a 9700K. 

 

 

Temperature limits have been featured in motherboard BIOS/UEFI for quite some time.  Admittedly, they go by many names so it is entirely possible you will have to look it up or use contextual clues to find the appropriate setting(s) in your motherboard UEFI.

As for my comments being tangential to your point, I disagree.  That is precisely why I brought up the issue of motherboard-imposed temperature limits which are user-configurable and often set below TjMax.  

Re: HT - that was more of a dig at the anti-HT folks around these parts, not intended as a dig against you.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TechguyMaxC said:

Temperature limits have been featured in motherboard BIOS/UEFI for quite some time. 

 

Well yes Max... but 80 degrees! I have overclocked using many boards for years. I have never had to access the BIOS and reduce  a BIOS temp limit. For example, my Maximus X will OC my 8700K to 5.2 GHz. There is no shut down of the system as a result of a BIOS feature being set to such a  low temp.  Temps in the 90's I have experienced with no BIOS feature intervening. I would be very surprised if board manufacturers are setting temp limits so low. Especially on enthusiast boards. 

 

Quote

 not intended as a dig against you.  

 

I know. I hadn't mentioned HT. 

 

Quote

look it up or use contextual clues to find the appropriate setting(s) in your motherboard UEFI.

 

I've just had a quick google for the OP's board, and couldn't find any mention of an 80 degree BIOS thermal limit. 

Five Way Optimisation does have a feature where you can "voluntarily" set a max temp of course, and its true that 5WO enters that information into the BIOS, so that feature is present in the BIOS. But that's a voluntary setting, not a BIOS imposed limit. 

 

Quote

Temperature limits have been featured in motherboard BIOS/UEFI for quite some time.

 

They were years ago, but not with modern boards and components. CPU's throttle back, even VRM's throttle back. 

If you can tell me specifically what this setting is, I'd appreciate it. What is it for your board?

Edited by martin-w
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those overheat messages and presumably the thresholds related to them are part of the test software suite (OCCT), not the BIOS.  The stress test is hitting the limit set in the software and terminating the test with an overheat warning.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2019 at 2:22 PM, w6kd said:

Those overheat messages and presumably the thresholds related to them are part of the test software suite (OCCT), not the BIOS.  The stress test is hitting the limit set in the software and terminating the test with an overheat warning.

 

 

Yep, that sounds more like it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 4:54 AM, martin-w said:

 

Well yes Max... but 80 degrees! I have overclocked using many boards for years. I have never had to access the BIOS and reduce  a BIOS temp limit. For example, my Maximus X will OC my 8700K to 5.2 GHz. There is no shut down of the system as a result of a BIOS feature being set to such a  low temp.  Temps in the 90's I have experienced with no BIOS feature intervening. I would be very surprised if board manufacturers are setting temp limits so low. Especially on enthusiast boards. 

 

 

I know. I hadn't mentioned HT. 

 

 

I've just had a quick google for the OP's board, and couldn't find any mention of an 80 degree BIOS thermal limit. 

Five Way Optimisation does have a feature where you can "voluntarily" set a max temp of course, and its true that 5WO enters that information into the BIOS, so that feature is present in the BIOS. But that's a voluntary setting, not a BIOS imposed limit. 

 

 

They were years ago, but not with modern boards and components. CPU's throttle back, even VRM's throttle back. 

If you can tell me specifically what this setting is, I'd appreciate it. What is it for your board?

 

You're arguing against a position I haven't taken.  Show me where I said anything about an overheat message producing a system shutdown.  

The expected outcome of a thermal event is throttling.  Hence the term "thermal throttling".  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2019 at 8:22 AM, w6kd said:

Those overheat messages and presumably the thresholds related to them are part of the test software suite (OCCT), not the BIOS.  The stress test is hitting the limit set in the software and terminating the test with an overheat warning.

 

 

On 9/11/2019 at 8:50 AM, martin-w said:

 

Yep, that sounds more like it. 

 

The OP is getting a BSOD along with the overheat message, so the source of the message is secondary to the fact that his system is unstable.

Based on OCCT's "critical temperature" warning functionality, it is likely the source of the messages the OP is seeing.  This feature is user-configurable, both in terms of temperature threshold and whether or not the feature is enabled.  If the user is bothered by the message, the feature can be disabled or the threshold can be increased.  Nonetheless, this doesn't solve the BSOD issue so...

@BadKarmaPT, see the link in the 2nd line of my signature to discover the cause of your BSOD.  Hint: it's vCore.  When overclocking, it's (almost) always vCore.  😁

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 3:29 PM, TechguyMaxC said:

 

@BadKarmaPT, see the link in the 2nd line of my signature to discover the cause of your BSOD.  Hint: it's vCore.  When overclocking, it's (almost) always vCore.  😁

I will! 

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@BadKarmaPT, a 2080Ti feeding a 1440p display will hardly get it out of first gear. Why not choose a UHD monitor?

Being the last thing I picked, I was kind of limited in my choices budget wise when it got to choosing a new monitor.

I wanted an Ultra Wide monitor with a decent size and this one seemed like a good choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BadKarmaPT, your choice but the monitor is your window into flying. It should be near the top of your priorities. If you’re certain you prefer the extra wide view over instrument clarity then fine.

But having experienced what UHD gives in terms of being able to read every subdivision in a gauge I could never go back to lower resolutions. 2160 vertical pixels versus 1440. 50% more. Imagine what that does for clarity.

Regarding budget a good monitor will last you longer than most components and is a long-term investment. You’re paying more for the graphics card than the display.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@BadKarmaPT, your choice but the monitor is your window into flying. It should be near the top of your priorities. If you’re certain you prefer the extra wide view over instrument clarity then fine.

But having experienced what UHD gives in terms of being able to read every subdivision in a gauge I could never go back to lower resolutions. 2160 vertical pixels versus 1440. 50% more. Imagine what that does for clarity.

Regarding budget a good monitor will last you longer than most components and is a long-term investment. You’re paying more for the graphics card than the display.

Thank you for your input, Ray. I appreciate it.

You make a valid point but I wanted a monitor for more than just P3D. I also play first person shooters and driving simulators so Ultra Wide had to be a compromise.

I understand what you mean regarding instrument clarity but I used to run FS2004, FSX and more recently P3D on a 24" HP monitor running at 1920x1200.

So running P3D at 3440x1440 on this 34" Ultra Wide monitor is somewhat of an improvement IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hugo, If you’re playing other than P3D then you’ve chosen a display that best suits you. That’s fine. When I think back 20 years we were running FS98 probably at 800*600 and thought it wonderful. How times change! 😁

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Hugo, If you’re playing other than P3D then you’ve chosen a display that best suits you. That’s fine. When I think back 20 years we were running FS98 probably at 800*600 and thought it wonderful. How times change! 😁

Indeed they have, Ray.

I remember flying that default Learjet out of Meigs in FS 4.0 thinking it couldn't get better than that. 🤣

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now