I have filed a support ticket with Framework Support and they have said they are launching an internal investigation. I’m still waiting for a response, but I will send an email asking them if they are still testing or if they are finished, what are the results they are getting.
In some previous benchmarks, my CPU had around a 13 degree difference between the hottest core are 99.6 (Reaches even higher but that was the temp I took the screenshot at) and the lowest core at around 86.2 degrees. This is one of the screenshots I filed to support.
Please keep us posted on how your ticket goes. I have a 7840HS but I am seeing the same as you, an average delta of 13 degrees between my hottest and coldest cores under stress though it reaches as high as 16 degrees at its peak.
I have been using mostly Cinebench and before seeing this thread and the one linked about the 23 degree delta I hate to say it but I was only looking at listed package temperature and not individual core temperatures.
I was getting about 14200 with the full 45 watt TDP enabled and around 13775 with all boosts off and the TDP limited to 35 watts, which also kept my package temps down to about 86 degrees.
Just curious, but were you comparing the average core temps with the package or what temps did you see the 13 degree difference?
I’ve been using OpenHardwareMonitor after Framework Support asked me to monitor with that, so I’m not sure if HWiNFO has package temperature. I was mainly looking at individual core temps when using HWiNFO. Sadly, OpenHardwareMonitor doesn’t show individual core temps.
I was using HWMonitor and just leaving it open and watching it. I have been rerunning it with HWInfo this time. Core 1 is consistently the coolest core and Core 6 is consistently the hottest for me. I have a TDP locked and TDP unlocked run logged here but they average out to be about the same after the limit kicks in with just the peaks being higher.
TDP Locked
I will also add that I have tried a few operating systems on the FW16 now. Fedora 39/40, Zorin 17(17.1 I think but I cannot swear to it), and Windows 11 all just ran the CPU up to 99/100 degrees and kept it screaming there. Now that I am on Windows 10 it seems to actually care about the CPU somewhat and the temps are much more reasonable.
Framework Support responded and determined that a mainboard replacement is necessary.
Also for you performance numbers on Windows 11, did you get a higher score than you did with Windows 10 or were they very similar? I’m not sure but Windows 11 might be pushing it more than Windows 10, so you might have a higher score on 11 at the cost of way higher thermals.
I don’t remember the exact score but it was a bit higher on Windows 11, consistently over 14k. Not enough of a jump for 14 degrees to be justified for me though. The keyboard definitely stays cooler with Windows 10.
And thank you for the follow up. I suppose I will put my ticket in and see how it goes.
Just as another data point my F16 w/7940HS scores 16,783 in Cinebench R23 Multi (3 run average, 24-25C ambient, laptop on raised stand, 180w FW adapter). Average CPU temp was 94.5 at 20m in the 30m loop, with average CPU Package Power at 50w at that same 20M mark (reported by HWiNFO74 v8.02-5440). Win11 Pro with balanced power profile. I was saw no difference between the balanced and performance plan, although I just compared a single run at performance (R23 is remarkably consistent in it’s scores though).
This score is inline with all my CPU tests compared to my Legion with a 7745HX - IOW, the 7940HS is about 10% slower.
So I did a bit more testing today and got some interesting results. I don’t know how much of a difference it makes but I was using BOINC to do some thermal testing because it is always running on my desktop and if I am going to waste electricity to make heat then it might as well be useful instead of just running Cinebench over and over. BOINC is also nice because it gives you easy control over how many active threads it will run at any given time instead of just an on/off of 0% or 100% like Cinebench. I ran it with performance boost enable and disabled at marks of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of core usage, letting things hit a steady state and then logging about five minutes of data. All tasks were the same being MCM through WCG and the only other open program was the monitoring program.
I am not sure about what the thread scheduler is doing but the cooler cores are quite disfavored by the system. Also, when performance boost is disabled I had the expected outcome that less CPU usage leads to lower CPU temperatures. I had the inverse with performance boost enabled with higher CPU temperatures reported on the package with less CPU usage. At 100% utilization, both with and without performance boost, I saw a sustained delta of about 13°C between the warmest and coolest cores. I saw a sustained temperature delta as high as a 18°C with performance boost disabled and as high as 42°C with performance boost enabled.
The dump of graphs is to follow.
Thank you for the new data point. Seems like on the properly functioning systems scores do check out with the NoteBookCheck review. I will try to add my new performance test results once my new mainboard ships and I can install it in my system.
Sadly, Framework RMA has been quite slow and I have to leave on a near one month vacation on June 8th so I’m praying it can arrive before I leave.
Another not as big issue popped up the same day that I received the email I was being forwarded to the RMA team. My Framework dGPU expansion bay module suddenly started coil whining when navigating the viewport in Blender.
It’s tolerable when I am in a slightly noisy environment but in a quiet environment (honestly the fans are enough to disturb the quiet after like 10 minutes), it gets pretty noticeable.
I’m not a professional on these issues so this may be incorrect, but my guess is probably that the hotter cores are also the ones that can boost more aggressively.
The thread director might be checking which cores are the fastest and assigning the loads there when threads are limited.
I agree that it is probably selecting for more performative cores and HWInfo does show the core selection ranking in its report, it just doesn’t square with me from what I have seen. I would think the coolest core under uniform load would be the most efficient. Either that or there is poor thermal transfer from some cores to the heatsink. I am also wondering if there was a thermal design tweak at some point.
In the iFixit teardown there are little bumpy bits that can be seen on the torn metal pad and on the heatsink itself. Those bumpy bits are missing from the store listing pictures for both the metal pad and the heatsink. Or maybe it is some side effect of the material repeatedly melting and solidifying.
There’s only a very loose relationship between what Ryzen Master showcases as the “best cores”, and what the AGESA firmware decides is the “preferred cores” that are communicated to the operating system… “[The firmware] mixes in additional requirements to optimize user performance: individual core characteristics, overall CCX performance, cache awareness, overall CPU topology, core rotation, localized thermal management, lightly-threaded performance counters and more.”
I haven’t ran these specific benchmarks as I am on Linux, but just got in a secondary SSD so will try them on a temporary Windows install this weekend to see if I have a lower score or not. Before I only had good insight into a the overall soc temp, but that would hit 100c quickly: https://community.frame.work/t/framework-16-thermals/
I am almost a week into communication with support, 20+ emails back and forth, and have reset the bios, reset the mainboard, removed all expansion cards, recorded idle temps for them, run it unplugged, ensured it was on best performance, done a RAM shuffle with six configurations of RAM, taken two videos for them, and none of this had any effect on the core to core temperature differences. Just this morning they were saying my Windows 11 tests were not actually Windows 11. I cannot think of a more trying customer service experience I have had.
Did you have to jump through all these hoops? If so are there more to come?
They did have me run multiple tests using different hardware monitors. I had to reset my bios, but other than that, it was just switching to open hardware monitor from HWiNFO.
Unfortunately since I’m currently on vacation, I have delayed my RMA request to once I return.
!
