Hey, per the topic, I’m getting quite high (I think) CPU temperatures when playing Helldivers 2. I expect this isn’t the only game that does this, but this is where I noticed it.
My CPU temperature is hitting 95+C almost instantly upon turning the game on. I’ve seen it get as high as 98C. When idle, it sits around 50-60C. The CPU utilization though is only 32%. I do have the dedicated GPU option and I’m running the 7940HS CPU.
Here’s a screenshot of the AMD Adrenaline overlay showing the CPU util and CPU temp. This also occurs on Linux, so it seems to not be OS-specific.
I have ruined GPUs in the past by letting them run too hot, so I’m hoping to figure out what’s going on quickly before something goes wrong. That is pushing a little too close to the max 100C operating temperature for comfort.
Ya odd it’s not showing CPU power (it shows it for both GPUs). My guess is that it’s primarily one or two cores that are boosting up really high so you’re Temps are high even though you only have like a third of the CPU utilized.
I’ll add CPU power to the graph and get another screenshot today hopefully. Are these safe thermals though, or should I really try to do something to reduce that? I already tried lowering the max FPS, reducing the graphics settings, and increasing the fan curve to blast the fans higher, sooner, but no real luck there
As far as I can tell, no. I believe they’re spinning at like 80% speed probably.
I’ve gone ahead and reached out to FW support, since these temperatures are being reached without any modifications to my system. I got those temps on a clean installation of Windows 11 with only the Framework 16 Windows drivers, Steam, Helldivers 2, and Adrenaline. That’s it. I would expect it to throttle long before reaching those temperatures, but it’s not
If the CPU util is 61% and the power is 27.7W, 90C is expected(the actual utilization is about 61% X current clock speed / base speed), it’s being said that the CPU is designed to run straight to the wall, turbo boosting until hitting 100C then reduce boost to maintain an almost constant 100C or slightly below, which result in power consumption at TDP and sustained frequency at base frequency. Whether this is healthy in terms of longevity is another topic though…
As Charlie said, this is expected, and well within design tolerances!
I’d rest well assured, I’ve heard of GPUs failing due to high heat over prolonged periods, but never CPUs.
I assume that this is due to differences in packaging size and method.
temperatures are just not a good indicator of anything with these CPUs. You should run benchmarks to see if everything is working fine. I get 900 points in cinebench24 with 7840HS
Case 1: CPU is power limited, it’s burning 45W at 95°C you get 900 points in Cinebench 24
Case 2: CPU is thermally limited, it’s burning 44.9W at 100°C, you get 899 points in Cinebench
Case 3: The thermal interface is broken - e.g. not enough liquid metal - your CPU is burning 20W at 100°C, you get 400 points in Cinebench
Case 1 and 2 are almost the same performance and the limited warmer temperature is no reason to take action.
Case 3 is a problem, but temperature alone is not enough to see if there is a problem or not - only a benchmark will tell.
I got 825 points in Cinebench 24 MC and 96 SC. Is there enough variance in the scores that that wouldn’t indicate a problem, or is that enough to show that there’s something wrong with the CPU? It’s the 7940HS btw. Idk if that one’s supposed to have higher performance or not, but I would guess it should at least a little
This doesn’t sound right for me.
I got FW13 (Ryzen 7 7840U) as well as new FW16 (Ryzen 9 7940HS) and on CPU-Z tests they performing very close to each other, while FW16 has +30C on it’s cores and it’s thermal throttling (lowered CPU power to 36-38W from initial ~60W). FW13 started with 52W and lowered it to 32W while having 81-84C.
FW13 results: AMD Ryzen 7 7840U @ 4441.23 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
FW16 results: AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS @ 4492.91 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
Single core - same score, Multicore - FW16 200 points higher, but CPU temps are 100C, while FW13 has 83C max.
Note: FW16 has Liquid Metal with 2 separate fans in thermal solution! I am using eGPU via USB4 connected to both laptops when running tests (same Win 11 Pro fresh installed + latest Win Update + FW drivers + latest FW BIOS + same Kingston Fury RAM).
Not sure, if there some Framework/AMD design flaw or some issue in my specific FW16, but looks like extra $300 for Ryzen 9 is waste of money… getting +3-5% increase in multicore with ~20C thermals increases as well…
P.S.: Checked on gaming benchmarks as well - the average FPS is about same (with max of 1 difference). Moving from i7-1370P to 7840U gave +8-12 FPS overall…
