AMD Ryzen 7 1800X (14nm Zen)

[watercooled]

Like I said on OcUK the R7 1700X seemed to be much worse than the R7 1700 at idle. They had an H110i which is a 280mm rad AIO water cooler. Their R7 1700X sample was hitting over 50C at idle and their R7 1700 sample was just over 30C.

Can I just say again - my 1700X is not even warm - I can feel it, first hand (literally) - I'm not relying on software readings, calculations, arbitrary offsets or anything. The heatspreader is absolutely, certainly, definitely *not* hot. And like I also said earlier, I can unplug the fan and reported idle temps don't move (and everything, IHS, heatpipes, HS fins, stay cool to touch) - this has absolutely nothing to do with cooler performance.

The only *possible* way the die could be 60C whilst the heatspreader is 20-something would be a serious fault between the die and the IHS, and a fault of that severity under thermal load of a few watts at idle would seriously struggle under heavy load where the CPU is dissipating around 100W.

Idle temps being higher on the X doesn't make complete sense to me anyway - the uncore power should be roughly the same, and the cores/cache will be mostly gated off, but lets just say the higher idle clocks/voltage are causing higher power draw, you're talking a few watts difference, and almost certainly less than double the total idle power of the 1700, so it still fails a sanity check to think the reported temps on the X are anywhere close to correct.

Do you really believe that a soldered-die CPU could reach 50C at idle under a very high performance AIO cooler, and/or that a few extra watts from a higher clocked version would cause 20C higher temps at idle?

@Xlucine - idle clocks are peculiar but not really an issue in and of themselves provided it's by design - modern CPUs like Ryzen use power gating to basically switch off inactive parts of the die anyway. You can see when people lock the clocks of modern Intel CPUs, the idle power consumption barely moves for this reason.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Can I just say again - my 1700X is not even warm - I can feel it, first hand (literally) - I'm not relying on software readings, calculations, arbitrary offsets or anything. The heatspreader is absolutely, certainly, definitely *not* hot. And like I also said earlier, I can unplug the fan and reported idle temps don't move (and everything, IHS, heatpipes, HS fins, stay cool to touch) - this has absolutely nothing to do with cooler performance.

The only *possible* way the die could be 60C whilst the heatspreader is 20-something would be a serious fault between the die and the IHS, and a fault of that severity under thermal load of a few watts at idle would seriously struggle under heavy load where the CPU is dissipating around 100W.

Idle temps being higher on the X doesn't make complete sense to me anyway - the uncore power should be roughly the same, and the cores/cache will be mostly gated off, but lets just say the higher idle clocks/voltage are causing higher power draw, you're talking a few watts difference, and almost certainly less than double the total idle power of the 1700, so it still fails a sanity check to think the reported temps on the X are anywhere close to correct.

Do you really believe that a soldered-die CPU could reach 50C at idle under a very high performance AIO cooler, and/or that a few extra watts from a higher clocked version would cause 20C higher temps at idle?

@Xlucine - idle clocks are peculiar but not really an issue in and of themselves provided it's by design - modern CPUs like Ryzen use power gating to basically switch off inactive parts of the die anyway. You can see when people lock the clocks of modern Intel CPUs, the idle power consumption barely moves for this reason.

Well its no point arguing with me - if you have an issue with those two people owning BOTH a R7 1700X/1800X and R7 1700 and saying in BOTH cases,their R7 1700 samples are running much cooler even when using AIO water coolers,then moan at them. Jeez.

Here read the thread:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/th...temp.18771900/

You have a Gigabyte motherboard,the first person has a MSI one and the other one hinted it was an Asus one.

Hi,

Setup is MSI B350 Tomahawk and Corsair H110i.

Upon first boot it was sat at 55c in the bios, I thought it may be a buggy BIOS. But I booted into Windows (on my old install) and saw it was now at 60c in the AMD Ryzen utlity.

Remounted the H110i twice with new paste, no luck, identical temps. Putting it under load was impossible as it hit 70c+ pretty much instantly. It was also very loud.

At this point I really am scratching my head wondering how the H110i could be faulty, wondered if the pump wasn't working etc. I was thinking maybe I could have mounted it wrong, but it really is very very simple to install on the AM4 socket. I saw other people with the B350 Tomahawk reporting normal temps, so I ruled that out.

So I picked up a Ryzen 1700 with the stock cooler.

Firstly I fitted the stock cooler with the 1700x... 62c to 69c at idle! at this point I knew it had to be the CPU.

Fitted the 1700 with the H110i, 31c idle...

So yeah I am RMA'ing the CPU. I have built 100's if not 1000's of PC's and I've never had a faulty CPU. Has anyone else had a faulty Ryzen CPU?

Hope this helps if anyone else has the same issue with stupidly high temps!

If its an issue,send the chip back and say its faulty.

I think its normal with the X? I have 110I but changed the fans to Noctua NF-A14 3000. If you have on auto it will go up and down all the time from 3.4 - 3.8GHz -+ Volts. Mine 1800X have same temp idle 53-60, clocks goes from 3.6-4.1 on 2 cores. When I do nothing. Have ca 60-65C when I game. But have seen someone says the new beta bios for CH6 shows 15+ degrees too much. There is no warm flow from the radiator soo something is up And 1700 have - 15-20C just beacuse its a none X.

Stop trying to blame me for your issue,and ignoring that link I posted earlier.

Three different motherboards from three different companies,three R7 1700X/1800X samples and three different people seeing the same issue with the R7 1700X/1800X.

Honestly if it is causing an issue,send the whole lot back and wait another month or so,or just bypass the motherboard fan controller with one of these:

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/zalma...oa-000-za.html

I mean even though I was sold on upgrading to socket 1155 at launch I waited a few months,and I avoided the whole B2 chipset issue.

Edit!!

Plus you can always get one of these to manually check the temperatures:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Health-Pe...ics/B00AYUHSM4

That way you will probably get a better indication of what temperatures you are seeing in reality.

Edit!!

Also one more think - temperature is not always a good indication of actually how much heat is being produced. My IB CPU with a low profile cooler ran hot- but the heatsink wasn't that hot either.

Compare to my Q6600 which was high VID and not only ran hot but kicked out a fair amount of heat too,especially if it was overvolted.

In the end if you don't want to send it back,the only way is to get a infrared thermometer gun,calibrate it and see what temperatures are being reported.

[watercooled]

I'm not blaming you or ignoring anything you said. You're not acknowledging that you're confusing "running much cooler" with "reporting lower temperatures". You do not physically have a system in your possession, I do - I can feel the heatspreader with my very own hands, and a k-type thermocouple. The CPU case *is not 60 degrees Celsius*, I don't know how much clearer I can possibly make that.

It does not make sense that every 1700X is faulty with regard to thermal path - these CPUs are reporting idle temps higher than load temps of 1700 - how is that even remotely logical? It is not sensible to conclude that fractionally higher idle power draw can account for the substantially higher reported idle temps.

It seems to be pretty well accepted on Reddit that reported temps are not close to being reliable. E.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comment...nd_others_are/

I'm not being defensive or ignorant - I'm reporting on plain and simple facts right in front of me. TBH if I get nowhere with Gigabyte support I am tempted to return and go with another platform for now as these issues are frustrating me and I don't have the time to waste on trying to solve them, nor to faff about with replacement CPUs or motherboards.

If I had a way of being completely sure that the CPU *die* is running at acceptable temps, I would just connect the CPU fan to my fan controller and be done with it. That's what's bothering me - the die temperature is an unknown. The only two logical explanations for this situation are:
a) Reported temps are just plain wrong
b) Broken IHS TIM.

But b) seems unlikely given the number of people reporting the exact same problem.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Going further from my previous post - Bagnaj97 had a very hot running Q9300 - we were perplexed why it was doing that.

Only when he went to upgrade his system did he noticed the IHS was not flat.

I'm not blaming you or ignoring anything you said. You're not acknowledging that you're confusing "running much cooler" with "reporting lower temperatures". You do not physically have a system in your possession, I do - I can feel the heatspreader with my very own hands, and a k-type thermocouple. The CPU case *is not 60 degrees Celsius*, I don't know how much clearer I can possibly make that.

It does not make sense that every 1700X is faulty with regard to thermal path - these CPUs are reporting idle temps higher than load temps of 1700 - how is that even remotely logical? It is not sensible to conclude that fractionally higher idle power draw can account for the substantially higher reported idle temps.

It seems to be pretty well accepted on Reddit that reported temps are not close to being reliable. E.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comment...nd_others_are/

I'm not being defensive or ignorant - I'm reporting on plain and simple facts right in front of me. TBH if I get nowhere with Gigabyte support I am tempted to return and go with another platform for now as these issues are frustrating me and I don't have the time to waste on trying to solve them, nor to faff about with replacement CPUs or motherboards.

If I had a way of being completely sure that the CPU *die* is running at acceptable temps, I would just connect the CPU fan to my fan controller and be done with it. That's what's bothering me - the die temperature is an unknown. The only two logical explanations for this situation are:
a) Reported temps are just plain wrong
b) Broken IHS TIM.

But b) seems unlikely given the number of people reporting the exact same problem.

Thats the point - two other people have noted the same issues with their R7 1700X/1800X CPUs with different motherboards and the R7 1700 they have,have no issues.

Look at the R7 1700 idle clocks?? The R7 1700X/1800X seem to idle at 50% higher clocks.Even on XS forums they tested the R7 1700 and 1700X and found at certain voltages,the R7 1700 seem to actually draw less power.

The whole point I did tell you the R7 1700 was the better bet going forward. Unless you really need the highest clockspeeds possible,the R7 1700 is close enough,draws less power and seems to have less issues out of the starting block.

[DanceswithUnix]

It does not make sense that every 1700X is faulty with regard to thermal path - these CPUs are reporting idle temps higher than load temps of 1700 - how is that even remotely logical? It is not sensible to conclude that fractionally higher idle power draw can account for the substantially higher reported idle temps.

Is that the temperature reported in the hardware monitoring screen in the BIOS?

I'm out of touch with the circuitry design, but there used to be components on the motherboard that the CPU thermistors were referenced against, and if you didn't know the values you didn't know the offset and scaling values to apply to the ADC reading so you got iffy results. Now, the BIOS is the only software on the planet tied by residing on the same PCB to knowing how your thermal circuitry works. If the BIOS screen reads wrong, I would raise a bug report against Gigabyte.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I'm not blaming you or ignoring anything you said. You're not acknowledging that you're confusing "running much cooler" with "reporting lower temperatures". You do not physically have a system in your possession, I do - I can feel the heatspreader with my very own hands, and a k-type thermocouple. The CPU case *is not 60 degrees Celsius*, I don't know how much clearer I can possibly make that.

Because you are just arguing with me for no reason to blame me for YOUR issue - what has this launch done to people??

The moment I pointed out TWO other people had the same problems,and their R7 1700 samples did not,you are trying to twist the argument to fight with me.

The R7 1700X/1800X have issues,the R7 1700 does not - do you honestly think high temperatures are a big deal for me. 11 years of owning highish performance SFF rigs,and so what? Do you think feeling a heatsink means anything?? I had SB/IB CPUs run hot since I had small cases - the CPU coolers were not that warm.

Plus even you can see the R7 1700 seems to consume less power,run at lower idle power and voltage,etc. Have you not even considered that the R7 1700X/1800X are overvolted to reach the higher clockspeeds - look at what happens to the R7 1700 when it starts getting bumped up to near R7 1700X/1800X speeds.

Just because the review samples are closer we don't know on average what the real difference is,especially with XFR.

We can see from testing that Ryzen is much more efficient at lower clockspeeds.

Compare that to my high VID Q6600 which was at the upper end of the scale for G0 Q6600 samples,it was more like a Q6600 B3,and that was in a Shuttle which confounded things,and apparently it was an issue with that batch.

Is that the temperature reported in the hardware monitoring screen in the BIOS?

I'm out of touch with the circuitry design, but there used to be components on the motherboard that the CPU thermistors were referenced against, and if you didn't know the values you didn't know the offset and scaling values to apply to the ADC reading so you got iffy results. Now, the BIOS is the only software on the planet tied by residing on the same PCB to knowing how your thermal circuitry works. If the BIOS screen reads wrong, I would raise a bug report against Gigabyte.

Its happening on MSI and Asus motherboards too with the R7 1700X/1800X with 280mm rad H110i coolers. The R7 1700 does not have the problem.

Edit!!

You know what I am done talking about Ryzen for a while.

People are getting stupidly defensive about it - even the SOC thing I talked about months ago,in regards to certain reviews who isolated CPU power consumption only,which would paint Ryzen in a worse light compared to Intel and not a single person batted an eyelid.

The moment you mention it now - oh!noes! he is trying to put AMD down,lets fight!!

Then when I try to highlight the temp issue is seen by a few people and not those with the R7 1700,that is another set of arguments.

Second Edit!!

The people EVERYBODY SHOULD BE BLAMING for all of this is AMD. Not me or the fairy god mother!

They have weeks until the end of March to still have hit a Q1 launch - I will never understand AMD as a company,even after 11 years of trying to be fair to them,I still don't understand this mentality of theirs and I never will understand it I think.

Whatever the real reason is even if it is wrong offsets for the X series sensors,TIM,IHS issues,or overvolt problems,etc,they pushed Ryzen out half baked and expected the end users to beta test it for them,especially when they can least afford to,since they are not Intel and have that level of mind share,and it leads to all these arguments on forums. Every AMD launch this seems to happen.

[watercooled]

Seriously CAT you're being paranoid. At no point have I blamed you for anything, I'm simply disputing your apparent claim that the reported temperatures are logical. That is not your fault, nor something you have any control over. I'm simply disagreeing with what these readings actually mean. As I've said before, I know with certainty the temperature of the IHS - there is no sensible arguing there, it is pure fact measured by myself. I am not 'just feeling the heatsink' - for the xth time, I am feeling the heatspreader - the way the 212 cooler mounts, the IHS is large enough that some of it is still exposed and can be touched with a finger, or a thermal probe. I am not, as you're implying, making any assumptions about the thermal resistance of the cooler itself - it is not a part of this logic whatsoever.

And I know what you're saying about the differences between 1700 and 1700X clock speeds/voltages, and I am certainly not ignoring that. I still disagree that this disparity could lead to such significant differences in temps. Without getting into thermal resistance calculations, a fractional rise in thermal dissipation should not lead to a more than doubling of delta-to-ambient with a near-constant thermal resistance (which for our purposes, the heatsink pretty much is). This part is completely illogical. How do you explain that these 1700X idle temps are higher than 1700 load temps based on this logic? The 1700 quite obviously has massively higher load power consumption than the 1700X's idle power consumption! Unless all of these 1700X have broken IHS, it is not a logical conclusion that these are true, linear temperature readings.

I don't understand how I'm twisting an argument - TBH I didn't even realise it was an argument. I'm simply trying to think logically about the evidence presented, and I don't agree with some of your conclusions. I don't even know how anyone could describe me as being defensive??? If I was that concerned about it, or in some fact-hiding conspiracy, I wouldn't be posting about how frustrated I'm getting with stupid bugs like this, would I?

I'm not defending nor putting down AMD. I am annoyed collectively at AMD and Gigabyte at the moment - that may shift if/when I find out who is to actually blame for this. The fact this is also hapenning on other brands of motherboard has the finger pointing more at AMD - even if it's a BIOS issue, AMD should have made more of an effort to ensure stability before release.

Make of that what you will, but seriously, yeah I'm annoyed and frustrated I wasted several hours yesterday and probably more in the future getting this resolved, but I'm not annoyed at or blaming you for anything. Me not agreeing with your own personal conclusions is not something to take personally!

@Danceswithunix: Yes, the BIOS readings are crazy too, and I think software is just reading this value. I have already submitted a ticket to Gigabyte - their response will likely be the deciding factor of whether I keep the system or not.

[DanceswithUnix]

Why would it wash out - the chip in an I7 6900K is 230ish MM2 - the R7 series is around 190mm2,is around 20% larger and the X99 motherboards have a much larger chipset too. You know very well that the AMD AM4 platform chipset really does not do that much. So when you have the Intel CPU being 20% larger and when 99% of the chipset functionality is under the same cooler,unlike with X99 OFC it is going to run hotter.

The graph you showed is for the complete system, so it will no doubt be measured at the wall.

Just looking at the Ryzen and nothing else, we see 47W for the system. Well that is after it has been through a ludicrous 1000W PSU, so we are using an entire 4.7% of the rated power available at the PSU, so it is struggling like hell to maintain regulation and the efficiency is pants. Lets assume 50% to make the maths easier.

So at idle, the PSU is using about 24W, the entire rest of the system is pulling about 24W. Of that, say 4W for the SSD, call it 10W for an idle top end graphics card. The motherboard will need some power for things like the Intel ethernet chip, the VRM digi controllers, the fan controllers and it looks like there are some mux chips on there presumably to route the SLI lanes between graphics slots, I have no idea but let's conservatively guess at 5W for the lot.

That would leave about 5W for the CPU itself at idle. Sounds about right to me, and would leave the heatsink stone cold, just as Watercooled describes.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

NVM.

Ryzen is the bestest CPU in the world,the spawn of Keller's loins,it even changes its stance depending on the time-line,tis a wondrous creation it is!

[watercooled]

I really don't understand your whole reaction to this TBH.

How am I being defensive about anything? *Something* is broken, but I'm not just going to accept it's broken in one specific way when everything in front of me points to something else.

FWIW I also have a power meter connected to my system, and with a fairly old Enermax Modu82+ power supply, I'm getting about 50W idle at the wall. That's with a 2TB HDD, two SSDs, a number of fans, a DVD drive and a 280X connected. Under load e.g. y-cruncher, this raises to about 150W - right in line with what the TDP suggests - given PSU and VRM losses, that's not bad going.

Furthermore, HWmonitor has picked up on some power sensors for the processor - these also seem about right, with multi-core load getting about 10-12W per core, and idle power being around 5W total as DanceswithUnix guessed.

So, 5W at the die, with a stone cold IHS and cooler - exactly as you'd expect. The one thing that does not make sense given the rest of the data is the *reported* temperature. Therefore, I'm concluding that something is wrong with the temperature sensor.

I'm not suggesting anything else, blaming anyone, defending anyone, or implying anything else I've not explicitly written. If e.g. the CPU power sensors were reporting 500W whilst my power meter was reporting 150W, I'd conclude that something was wrong with the sensors, don't you agree?

[watercooled]

For anyone following the thread wondering about temps, check out this post:BIOS updates for AM4 motherboards

A BIOS update fixed it in that case, now reporting realistic temps and running the fan properly - it seems that Gigabyte are concentrating on their higher-end boards first but I'll be watching keenly for an update for my board. I'll keep you posted.

Another worrisome development was the odd bit of stuttering in Windows, including dropped frames in Youtube, etc. I went through and manually re-installed chipset and GPU drivers to the latest versions, and it *seems* to have been OK all day today since then. I'm not sure if I mentioned but I didn't bother re-installing Windows for the upgrade so I could be to blame for that one. Again, I'll keep y'all posted in case anyone's interested.

BTW, if anyone has any questions about the system, any tests they want me to run, etc, just ask!

As far as recommendations go, I'd say unless you're really in need of upgrading, I'd wait a bit longer. Everything still feels very 'beta' at the moment, and while chances are this sort of bug will be ironed out given time, I'd find it annoying to have this as my only system. I was under no illusions about the performance of the system before buying - I took all of the numbers at face value with the hope, but not expectation, that many of them would improve with appropriate patches.

[kompukare]

BTW, if anyone has any questions about the system, any tests they want me to run, etc, just ask!

An open invitation!
Actually, if you are going to be doing any overclocking, I'd be interested in the power consumption.
From some the forum posts I have seen it seems the like of HWiNFO can sense the package power ratings. Now I know since the BIOS temps can't be trusted, that rating might not be accurate, but somehow still think it's more useful than a mains power tester (obviously when overclocking it doesn't know about VRM or PSU losses though).
What I'd like to know is the various frequency @ voltage = watts (and if it's the same setup, temperature too) for as many clocks as possible. Guess this would vary based on the leakage / binning of the chips. No tools to read something like ASIC rating for CPUs like GPUz can for GPUs, is there?

[watercooled]

I wasn't planning on overclocking (not something I usually do lately) and I have a uATX B350 board so probably not the best system for overclocking. Also I wouldn't be comfortable trying with the current state of the BIOS*, but I might give it a go at some point.

Yep, HWinfo can sense power ratings. In fact it seems Ryzen exposes per-core power ratings:


*That reminds me of another thing - navigating the BIOS is horrid - sometimes keypresses are registered normally, sometimes they're ignored, sometimes they're interpreted as two presses. And the mouse cursor is really slow. It's not a fun experience at the moment.

[kalniel]

Watercooled, I think this explains your temp thing:
https://community.amd.com/community/...e?sf62107357=1

Specifically, the AMD Ryzen™ 7 1700X and 1800X carry a +20°C offset between the tCTL° (reported) temperature and the actual Tj° temperature. In the short term, users of the AMD Ryzen™ 1700X and 1800X can simply subtract 20°C to determine the true junction temperature of their processor. No arithmetic is required for the Ryzen 7 1700. Long term, we expect temperature monitoring software to better understand our tCTL offsets to report the junction temperature automatically.

[Corky34]

Can anyone explain how you get a consistent fan policy by adding 20°C to some CPU's and not others, am i just being dumb.

[kalniel]

Can anyone explain how you get a consistent fan policy by adding 20°C to some CPU's and not others, am i just being dumb.

You get the correct ramp up to tjmax. Fan speed should be set as a derivative of %tjmax really, but tends instead to just be set on absolute temperatures.