I7-11700F 100 C Temps

[xotzz]

Hello. I am new here and I have a question. I recentry upgraded my work PC to I7-11700F. I used the stock cooler and didn't change anything in BIOS except the Resizable BAR and VT option. Is this normal? The temps seem extreme. This happened during importing a new catalog in the Lightroom)some thousand photos ~4k).

[Stahlmann]

Seems like normal temps when talking about the little stock cooler. It's just barely enough for your CPU. Maybe it's even thermal throttling at that point. I'd suggest investing $40 in something decent like a Noctua NH-U12S Redux. This will greatly improve your thermals and maybe even give you better performance because it avoids thermal throttling.

[Dujith]

Get any other cooler then the stock one and you'll drop around 25 degrees. Stock coolers are just that bad from intel.

[porina]

11700F is rated at 65W TDP so that's what the bundled cooler is probably targeted at. You're drawing sustained powers well above that, throttling is expected. If you don't want to upgrade cooler, then look in your bios options for something called "long duration power limit" and set that to 65W.

[Stahlmann]

1 minute ago, porina said:

11700F is rated at 65W TDP so that's what the bundled cooler is probably targeted at. You're drawing sustained powers well above that, throttling is expected. If you don't want to upgrade cooler, then look in your bios options for something called "long duration power limit" and set that to 65W.

Oh right i overlooked that. I saw 125W and thought that sounds about right for an i7.

[porina]

1 minute ago, Stahlmann said:

Oh right i overlooked that. I saw 125W and thought that sounds about right for an i7.

I initially thought that at first, but that sounds too high for a bundled cooler so I checked the CPU. I think only the k's are rated at 125W and don't come with a cooler.

[RejZoR]

30 minutes ago, porina said:

11700F is rated at 65W TDP so that's what the bundled cooler is probably targeted at. You're drawing sustained powers well above that, throttling is expected. If you don't want to upgrade cooler, then look in your bios options for something called "long duration power limit" and set that to 65W.

Then how are they bundling a cooler meant for 65W when CPU clearly pulls over 120W ? That makes no sense.

[RejZoR]

2 minutes ago, Benji said:

Because the CPUs are meant to be operated at their target TDP after their boost duration is over, and the thermal capacity of those small things is usually sufficient to sustain significantly higher thermal output for a short amount of time. A 65W chip is not meant to be operated at boost values all the time. Motherboard manufacturers who just disable short-term turbo boost and just let that thing boost all they want are actually making the CPUs run outside of their specifications.

 

Enable the long-term TDP as 65W (sometimes, motherboard manufacturers automatically do this once you disable the occasionally factory-enabled settings like Multi-Core Enhancement). In most cases, it is sufficient to disable these multi-core enhancement settings because these make the CPU boost continuously instead of falling down to it's actual TDP, in the latter case the cooler would be sufficient.

He clearly stated he didn't change anything in BIOS other than ReBAR and VT. So, stock operation.

[Thymme]

pretty much what everyone says here. the stock cooler is not ment for hard loads & isn’t reliable at all aspecially for your needs.

[porina]

11 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Then how are they bundling a cooler meant for 65W when CPU clearly pulls over 120W ? That makes no sense.

Description by Benji is mostly correct. The TDP-limited scenario is a choice, not a requirement from Intel. For general systems it is expected to run the CPU at a long term power limit equal to the TDP and the cooler is likely targeted for that. Short term excursions above that are allowed if it averages out.

 

5 minutes ago, Benji said:

Motherboard manufacturers who just disable short-term turbo boost and just let that thing boost all they want are actually making the CPUs run outside of their specifications.

This part is not entirely incorrect. Intel explicitly allows system builders to set power limit above TDP and it does not affect warranty. The TDP operation can be seen as a baseline.

 

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

He clearly stated he didn't change anything in BIOS other than ReBAR and VT. So, stock operation.

With Intel you have freedom to choose your stock. Enthusiast grade (Z chipset) boards will tend to default to unlimited power. Non-Z boards might be more conservative.

[porina]

3 minutes ago, Benji said:

Wrong. Stock is what Intel defines as stock, and continuous 100+W are outside of the specifications. And, as I said, these Multi-Core Enhancement things are commonly factory-enabled, usually to make the motherboard look better. It doesn't say "Enhancement" for no reason.

Operating at high powers can still be in spec. We have to differentiate between two operating conditions.

 

Scenario 1: everything else at default, practically unlimited power limit = ok by Intel. This is not overclocking. This is not warranty affecting. Many enthusiast grade mobos do this by default, and have done for a long time.

Scenario 2: MCE or similar from mobo manufacturer. This typically sets the all core turbo equal to the single core turbo, and increases voltages. This IS overclocking. This will affect warranty. This should default off but I'm aware some boards might default this on. They are usually higher end overclocking focused boards.

[xotzz]

Hello guys, thank you for all the help! I did change cooler once I saw your messages with one we had in the storage and it helped a lot. Cooler is something simillar to Noctua NH-U12 but mine is no-name Chinese cooler. I think my Arctix will help even more because I used the included thermal paste which is probably low quality.

These are the numbers after running the Cinebench R20 3 times back to back.

Also, why does it say CPU Package Power > 208W Maximum? Is this right?

[porina]

3 minutes ago, xotzz said:

These are the numbers after running the Cinebench R20 3 times back to back.

Also, why does it say CPU Package Power > 208W Maximum? Is this right?

Cinebench since R20 uses AVX which can run a bit hotter than without e.g. R15 or older. If you saw 208W maximum, it means that at some point it hit 208W. To me that sounds on the high side for Cinebench as those numbers I'd expect more from Prime95 territory. If the cooling is coping with it, leave it be. The suggested performance setting for "short term power limit" on 65W Rocket Lake is 224W so you're well within that.

[xotzz]

Found something(my motherboard is an Asus Prime H510M-K). I got into the BIOS and looked around. By default the option Asus Performance Enhancement was enabled....
So the final question is: Do I leave it enabled for max performance when doing some heavy tasks or should I disable it for lower performance but safer temp?

 

Scores are
Asus Performance Enhancement enabled: 4605
Asus Performance Enhancement disabled: 3372

[porina]

5 minutes ago, xotzz said:

Found something(my motherboard is an Asus Prime H510M-K). I got into the BIOS and looked around. By default the option Asus Performance Enhancement was enabled....
So the final question is: Do I leave it enabled for max performance when doing some heavy tasks or should I disable it for lower performance but safer temp?

I have that on my Asus B560 board too, but not got around to checking exactly what it does. I think APE on is basically unlimited power budget so the CPU runs as fast as it can, and APE off are the Intel suggested power settings which drops to 65W sustained power draw. It is up to you to trade off the power vs performance. You can also manually customise it to somewhere in between if you want.

[xotzz]

13 minutes ago, porina said:

I have that on my Asus B560 board too, but not got around to checking exactly what it does. I think APE on is basically unlimited power budget so the CPU runs as fast as it can, and APE off are the Intel suggested power settings which drops to 65W sustained power draw. It is up to you to trade off the power vs performance. You can also manually customise it to somewhere in between if you want.

So if I choose the performance it's not going to void my warranty right? If that's the case I'll leave it open for now and maybe lower some values later.  

[porina]

54 minutes ago, xotzz said:

So if I choose the performance it's not going to void my warranty right? If that's the case I'll leave it open for now and maybe lower some values later.  

If you (or the motherboard) only alters the power limit, that is not warranty affecting in Intel's eyes. Only if you start to directly affect clocks or voltages does it become overclocking, which isn't even possible with your CPU or motherboard (normally need K CPU with Z chipset mobo).

[Auggybendoggy]

Does anyone know if this Zalman cooler would sufficient for a 11700f or 10700f cpu?
Amazon.com: ZALMAN Computer Noise Prevention System with Ultra Slim Direct Touch Heatpipe Heatsink CPU Cooler CNPS8900 Quiet: Computers & Accessories

 

I favor the style because they're super easy to blow dust out, rather than the vertical style.  My PC is in a 4U mounted case for a digital audio workstation and I have to unplug all the rack units above the computer to get inside to clean it.  I don't want to have to pull the computer out to get to the fans.  This style has worked great for my 4770k but I don't know if it will cool an 11700f.

[Tan3l6]

2 minutes ago, Auggybendoggy said:

Does anyone know if this Zalman cooler would sufficient for a 11700f or 10700f cpu?
Amazon.com: ZALMAN Computer Noise Prevention System with Ultra Slim Direct Touch Heatpipe Heatsink CPU Cooler CNPS8900 Quiet: Computers & Accessories

Probably not. It's design is almost 10 years old.

[Auggybendoggy]

Tan, you're probably right but I was hoping being a lower watt cpu, it might do the job.

 

[Tan3l6]

20 minutes ago, Auggybendoggy said:

Tan, you're probably right but I was hoping being a lower watt cpu, it might do the job.

 

If you already have the cooler, then it's just a matter of testing it. Takes some time to mount and probably unmount, but you'd get much better idea of the performance than my prediction.