New build performance questions
52 minutes ago, Tobbler said:Hey all,
for the first time, I built my gaming pc by myself, and surprisingly, it all worked out well. But I have a few questions, just to be sure the numbers I am seeing are nothing out of the ordinary, as I’m not the most experienced person in those areas:
- I am running a i5-13600k with an 280mm AIO and the temperature tops out at around 70-73°C when stressing all cores for multiple minutes. Because it’s the first time using an AIO I just wanted to confirm these are not out of the ordinary as I have no idea which temps are normal here.
- I am using 32GB of DDR5-6000 and have activated the corresponding XMP profile in the Bios. When checking with a software like CPU-Z, frequency shows only about 3000MHz everywhere. I think this is normal, as the speed is double the frequency, but I just wanted to confirm
Thanks in advance!
Strikes me as just about perfect. Doesn’t push your silicon into degradation temperatures so you should be able to run it for many years that way, but it’s right near the top of that so you’re wasting minimum energy on fans and stuff. Are you overclocked? That’s really what big AIOs on intel chips and k processors are for. 280 AIOs aren’t as good as 360 AIOs because 140mm fans don’t produce static pressure very well so the rads tend to be thin. If I was building that system myself (and I sort of almost did) I would have gone big air. Your AIO is in hand though. I am not a proponent of rgb and AIOs are a low effort way to do that, so it perhaps holds less appeal for me.
I don’t know what the actual degradation rates for 13th gen silicon is. Even at 95c the thing is likely to last out the duty cycle. The number in 4th gen was “don’t go above 75°c” which was based on degradation of SOI 48nm. Supposedly even solid state stuff eventually dies because at the atomic level dendrites form, etc.. and the hotter and smaller it is the faster it happens. For all I know there isn’t much in the was of atomic level degradation for 13th gen @95°c. The problem is the devs are corporate, and corporate only cares about cost to warranty. Atomic level degradation over time may not be worked into their math, so the number isn’t trustable. I keep on hoping some researcher will call me an idiot for doing it because it’s based on 15 year old info about a totally different thing and I don’t know my ass from a hole in the ground about this (which is true) but it hasn’t happened yet. It’s just the number I was given many years ago. Low temps are for people who want to extend the duty cycle.

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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now