Solved

CPU temp too high? 7700k running at 82 C at full load!!!!!

Hey guys,

As the title says, is 82 C too high while gaming? I have the Kraken x62 installed and control it via CAM. My GTX 1080 does not go above 60 C while gaming though. I think this is because of my case NZXT Phantom 530.

Help pls
Reply to Jashim Raswi
18 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about cpu temp high 7700k running full load
  1. 82C is warm but as long as your staying less then 85C you should be ok. i7 7700k are known to run hot, even too hot at stock setttings. Honestly the i7 6700K is a better CPU IMO for OCing do to the crappy TIM on the 7700K considering they have the same IPC (instructions per clock). Anyways I wouldn't stress your temps to hard. You could try reapplying your CPU paste and if your still not happy you could look into de-lidding your CPU to bring temps down.
    Reply to atomicWAR
  2. atomicWAR said:
    82C is warm but as long as your staying less then 85C you should be ok. i7 7700k are known to run hot, even too hot at stock setttings. Honestly the i7 6700K is a better CPU IMO for OCing do to the crappy TIM on the 7700K considering they have the same IPC (instructions per clock). Anyways I wouldn't stress your temps to hard. You could try reapplying your CPU paste and if your still not happy you could look into de-lidding your CPU to bring temps down.


    Hey. Thanks for the quick answer! Regarding the thermal paste, the Kraken x62 already has paste applied before hand. Do you think this is a problem?
    Reply to Jashim Raswi
  3. Problem no...however it is not the best thermal paste out there. If you want to go the really good stuff on the non-conductive route you could go with grizzly kryonaut or if your comfortable/good with conductive paste or liquid metal (ie is conductive of electricity so you must be careful putting it on not to short your CPU/motherboard by ensuring only the heatspreader/heatsink has any on it and not on your motherboard traces, cpu caps, vrm etc) grizzly conductonaut is one of the best. Also on the non-conductive side arctic silver is pretty decent too. Personaly I use grizzle kryonaut or arctic silver.
    Reply to atomicWAR
  4. atomicWAR said:
    Problem no...however it is not the best thermal paste out there. If you want to go the really good stuff on the non-conductive route you could go with grizzly kryonaut or if your comfortable/good with conductive paste or liquid metal (ie is conductive of electricity so you must be careful putting it on not to short your CPU/motherboard by ensuring only the heatspreader/heatsink has any on it and not on your motherboard traces, cpu caps, vrm etc) grizzly conductonaut is one of the best. Also on the non-conductive side arctic silver is pretty decent too. Personaly I use grizzle kryonaut and/or arctic silver.


    Thats funny, I read many threads saying that the pre applied thermal paste in the Kraken is damn good. What would be the temperature difference if I apple the Grizzle Kryonaut in your opinion?
    Reply to Jashim Raswi
  5. Jashim Raswi said:
    atomicWAR said:
    Problem no...however it is not the best thermal paste out there. If you want to go the really good stuff on the non-conductive route you could go with grizzly kryonaut or if your comfortable/good with conductive paste or liquid metal (ie is conductive of electricity so you must be careful putting it on not to short your CPU/motherboard by ensuring only the heatspreader/heatsink has any on it and not on your motherboard traces, cpu caps, vrm etc) grizzly conductonaut is one of the best. Also on the non-conductive side arctic silver is pretty decent too. Personaly I use grizzle kryonaut and/or arctic silver.


    Thats funny, I read many threads saying that the pre applied thermal paste in the Kraken is damn good. What would be the temperature difference if I apple the Grizzle Kryonaut in your opinion?


    It's not bad it is just not the best, the ones I listed are better is all. Especially if you go the liquid metal route. The other non-conductive pastes will likely only give you a 3-5C if you went with the liquid metal grizzly conductonaut it frequently gets as many as 12C+ or so. If you de-lidded your CPU and used liquid metal in place of tim that could give you a 20C decrease. check out the videos below.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzQWvvOTWy8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6KFzoFwYrE
    Reply to atomicWAR
  6. atomicWAR said:
    Jashim Raswi said:
    atomicWAR said:
    Problem no...however it is not the best thermal paste out there. If you want to go the really good stuff on the non-conductive route you could go with grizzly kryonaut or if your comfortable/good with conductive paste or liquid metal (ie is conductive of electricity so you must be careful putting it on not to short your CPU/motherboard by ensuring only the heatspreader/heatsink has any on it and not on your motherboard traces, cpu caps, vrm etc) grizzly conductonaut is one of the best. Also on the non-conductive side arctic silver is pretty decent too. Personaly I use grizzle kryonaut and/or arctic silver.


    Thats funny, I read many threads saying that the pre applied thermal paste in the Kraken is damn good. What would be the temperature difference if I apple the Grizzle Kryonaut in your opinion?


    It's not bad it is just not the best, the ones I listed are better is all. Especially if you go the liquid metal route. The other non-conductive pastes will likely only give you a 3-5C if you went with the liquid metal grizzly conductonaut it frequently gets as many as 12C+ or so. If you de-lidded your CPU and used liquid metal in place of tim that could give you a 20C decrease. check out the videos below.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzQWvvOTWy8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6KFzoFwYrE


    If I understand correctly, you are saying this: https://www.amazon.com/Coollaboratory-Thermal-Compound-Processor-Heatsink/dp/B0039RY3MM/ref=pd_sim_263_4?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B0039RY3MM&pd_rd_r=52DQZNS3BM4B6PTNBGWM&pd_rd_w=ZLrAG&pd_rd_wg=3B2XI&psc=1&refRID=52DQZNS3BM4B6PTNBGWM if delid will give a 20C decrease and this: https://www.amazon.com/Thermal-Grizzly-Conductonaut-Grease-Paste/dp/B01A9KIGSI will give 12C without delidding. Is this correct?
    Reply to Jashim Raswi
  7. Also, de-lidded seems pretty scary :P I don't want to damage my CPU. So it is off.
    Reply to Jashim Raswi
  8. Both are a liquid metal and should perform closely. I only personally seen grizzly in use so I can't say for certain both are good for the roughly 12C decrease for stock CPUs results I have seen. But my guess is your decrease stock or de-lidded should be roughly the same for either one. Obviously de-lidding gives your the higher 20C while stock is closer to 12C because you still have TIM. However de-lidding is more dangerous and voids your CPU warranty which so does overclocking so either way you end up in the same place.
    Reply to atomicWAR
  9. If de-lidding scares you then yeah you can just go with liquid metal but keep in mind liquid metal is harder and more dangerous to use the non-conductive thermal paste. When you going for such extreme cooling nothing is totally safe. Use at your own risk.
    Reply to atomicWAR
  10. atomicWAR said:
    Both are a liquid metal and should perform closely. I only personally seen grizzly in use so I can't say for certain both are good for the roughly 12C decrease for stock CPUs results I have seen. But my guess is your decrease stock or de-lidded should be roughly the same for either one. Obviously de-lidding gives your the higher 20C while stock is closer to 12C because you still have TIM. However de-lidding is more dangerous and voids your CPU warranty which so does overclocking so either way you end up in the same place.


    So I will go with this: https://www.amazon.com/Thermal-Grizzly-Conductonaut-Grease-Paste/dp/B01A9KIGSI and apply it over the IHS between my Kraken x62. Not de-lidding. Then I will be able to see a temp drop, right?
    Reply to Jashim Raswi
  11. Best answer
    Jashim Raswi said:
    atomicWAR said:
    Both are a liquid metal and should perform closely. I only personally seen grizzly in use so I can't say for certain both are good for the roughly 12C decrease for stock CPUs results I have seen. But my guess is your decrease stock or de-lidded should be roughly the same for either one. Obviously de-lidding gives your the higher 20C while stock is closer to 12C because you still have TIM. However de-lidding is more dangerous and voids your CPU warranty which so does overclocking so either way you end up in the same place.


    So I will go with this: https://www.amazon.com/Thermal-Grizzly-Conductonaut-Grease-Paste/dp/B01A9KIGSI and apply it over the IHS between my Kraken x62. Not de-lidding. Then I will be able to see a temp drop, right?


    You should yes and it should be much better then non-conductive thermal paste would give you. I would make sure to read up/watch some tutorials for using liquid metal. It has far less room for error then your normal thermal paste and requires time to cure.
    Reply to atomicWAR
  12. Quote:
    82C is warm but as long as your staying less then 85C you should be ok. i7 7700k are known to run hot, even too hot at stock setttings. Honestly the i7 6700K is a better CPU IMO for OCing do to the crappy TIM on the 7700K considering they have the same IPC (instructions per clock). Anyways I wouldn't stress your temps to hard. You could try reapplying your CPU paste and if your still not happy you could look into de-lidding your CPU to bring temps down


    6700K is not a better CPU.... Not by any benchmark I've seen. How do you figure ?
    Reply to Shotta06
  13. Shotta06 said:
    Quote:
    82C is warm but as long as your staying less then 85C you should be ok. i7 7700k are known to run hot, even too hot at stock setttings. Honestly the i7 6700K is a better CPU IMO for OCing do to the crappy TIM on the 7700K considering they have the same IPC (instructions per clock). Anyways I wouldn't stress your temps to hard. You could try reapplying your CPU paste and if your still not happy you could look into de-lidding your CPU to bring temps down


    6700K is not a better CPU.... Not by any benchmark I've seen. How do you figure ?


    IPC is the exact same as kaby lake (ie 4ghz/ same OC on both chips gets same scores). It does not have the heat issues kaby lake has due to bad tim...though both use it. Intel even had a huge press release saying you should not over clock their overclocking i7 7700k due to heat issues. The i7 7700K is known to jump up to 90C at random with no load which effects the long term viability of the chip. Those are my big reasons. Granted kaby lake when working properly does OC better then skylake but all the other issues over shadow it IMHO. Do a google search if you don't believe me. Here's one bit on it here below...

    http://www.pcgamer.com/intels-tells-core-i7-7700k-owners-to-stop-overclocking-to-avoid-high-temps/
    Reply to atomicWAR
  14. atomicWAR said:
    Shotta06 said:
    Quote:
    82C is warm but as long as your staying less then 85C you should be ok. i7 7700k are known to run hot, even too hot at stock setttings. Honestly the i7 6700K is a better CPU IMO for OCing do to the crappy TIM on the 7700K considering they have the same IPC (instructions per clock). Anyways I wouldn't stress your temps to hard. You could try reapplying your CPU paste and if your still not happy you could look into de-lidding your CPU to bring temps down


    6700K is not a better CPU.... Not by any benchmark I've seen. How do you figure ?


    IPC is the exact same as kaby lake (ie 4ghz/ same OC on both chips gets same scores). It does not have the heat issues kaby lake has due to bad tim...though both use it. Intel even had a huge press release saying you should not over clock their overclocking i7 7700k due to heat issues. The i7 7700K is known to jump up to 90C at random with no load which effects the long term viability of the chip. Those are my big reasons. Granted kaby lake when working properly does OC better then skylake but all the other issues over shadow it IMHO. Do a google search if you don't believe me. Here's one bit on it here below...

    http://www.pcgamer.com/intels-tells-core-i7-7700k-owners-to-stop-overclocking-to-avoid-high-temps/


    So, why is that EVERY benchmark with stock 7700K better and or equal to a 6700k OC'D to 4.6ghz. Yes at stock 4.2ghz for the 7700k a 6700k can go head to head with a non OC'd 7700k. But with the correct knowledge and good cooler you can achieve 4.8 GHz even 5 GHz with a 7700k stable. Stock 7700k>6700k stock. OC 7700K>6700K OC.
    Reply to Shotta06
  15. Shotta06 said:
    atomicWAR said:
    Shotta06 said:
    Quote:
    82C is warm but as long as your staying less then 85C you should be ok. i7 7700k are known to run hot, even too hot at stock setttings. Honestly the i7 6700K is a better CPU IMO for OCing do to the crappy TIM on the 7700K considering they have the same IPC (instructions per clock). Anyways I wouldn't stress your temps to hard. You could try reapplying your CPU paste and if your still not happy you could look into de-lidding your CPU to bring temps down


    6700K is not a better CPU.... Not by any benchmark I've seen. How do you figure ?


    IPC is the exact same as kaby lake (ie 4ghz/ same OC on both chips gets same scores). It does not have the heat issues kaby lake has due to bad tim...though both use it. Intel even had a huge press release saying you should not over clock their overclocking i7 7700k due to heat issues. The i7 7700K is known to jump up to 90C at random with no load which effects the long term viability of the chip. Those are my big reasons. Granted kaby lake when working properly does OC better then skylake but all the other issues over shadow it IMHO. Do a google search if you don't believe me. Here's one bit on it here below...

    http://www.pcgamer.com/intels-tells-core-i7-7700k-owners-to-stop-overclocking-to-avoid-high-temps/


    So, why is that EVERY benchmark with stock 7700K better and or equal to a 6700k OC'D to 4.6ghz. Yes at stock 4.2ghz for the 7700k a 6700k can go head to head with a non OC'd 7700k. But with the correct knowledge and good cooler you can achieve 4.8 GHz even 5 GHz with a 7700k stable. Stock 7700k>6700k stock. OC 7700K>6700K OC.


    show me where? at same clocks it kaby lake at best has a 7% lead and at worst is tied even.
    http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-7700k-vs-core-i7-6700k-cpu-performance-tests/
    https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7-7700K_vs_6700K_Game_Performance/
    http://www.tweaktown.com/news/55219/7700k-vs-6700k-much-hotter-barely-faster/index.html

    EVERYTHING I have read a said clock for clock skylake and kaby lake are extremely close in performance. The numbers do just barely lean in kaby lakes favor, never denied it. I said its faults were a bigger problem then a chips that performs near identically, though older, were. I had a chance to build my nephew an i7 7700k rig. This was very early into the launch. But because of the heat issues (intel had yet to announce anything) I went with the i7 6700K because I felt it was a safer bet for him. I was right. Within a month or so the chatter on the 7700 blew up. Where you're coming up with numbers like a stock i7 7700K at 4.2ghz will beat a i7 6700K @4.6GHZ I have not ever seen. Won't say they don't exist but they have not been in the mainstream tech media AFAIK. You can show me facts or at this point I'll assume troll. I have stated my opinion and backed it up with facts. Please do the same. Also note that that i7 6700k can OC to 4.8ghz...sometimes even 5ghz though as i stated before kaby lake does OC a little better so you may hit higher numbers more often when comparing a handful of cpus. Though in the end the heat issues plagues the i7 7700k make it a less the ideal choice IMO for overclockers or even the non-OC crowd. That's just my two cents based on the facts I have read. Show me something new and different it may sway me another way.
    Reply to atomicWAR
  16. atomicWAR said:
    Shotta06 said:
    atomicWAR said:
    Shotta06 said:
    Quote:
    82C is warm but as long as your staying less then 85C you should be ok. i7 7700k are known to run hot, even too hot at stock setttings. Honestly the i7 6700K is a better CPU IMO for OCing do to the crappy TIM on the 7700K considering they have the same IPC (instructions per clock). Anyways I wouldn't stress your temps to hard. You could try reapplying your CPU paste and if your still not happy you could look into de-lidding your CPU to bring temps down


    6700K is not a better CPU.... Not by any benchmark I've seen. How do you figure ?


    IPC is the exact same as kaby lake (ie 4ghz/ same OC on both chips gets same scores). It does not have the heat issues kaby lake has due to bad tim...though both use it. Intel even had a huge press release saying you should not over clock their overclocking i7 7700k due to heat issues. The i7 7700K is known to jump up to 90C at random with no load which effects the long term viability of the chip. Those are my big reasons. Granted kaby lake when working properly does OC better then skylake but all the other issues over shadow it IMHO. Do a google search if you don't believe me. Here's one bit on it here below...

    http://www.pcgamer.com/intels-tells-core-i7-7700k-owners-to-stop-overclocking-to-avoid-high-temps/


    So, why is that EVERY benchmark with stock 7700K better and or equal to a 6700k OC'D to 4.6ghz. Yes at stock 4.2ghz for the 7700k a 6700k can go head to head with a non OC'd 7700k. But with the correct knowledge and good cooler you can achieve 4.8 GHz even 5 GHz with a 7700k stable. Stock 7700k>6700k stock. OC 7700K>6700K OC.


    show me where? at same clocks it kaby lake at best has a 7% lead and at worst is tied even.
    http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-7700k-vs-core-i7-6700k-cpu-performance-tests/
    https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7-7700K_vs_6700K_Game_Performance/
    http://www.tweaktown.com/news/55219/7700k-vs-6700k-much-hotter-barely-faster/index.html

    EVERYTHING I have read a said clock for clock skylake and kaby lake are extremely close in performance. The numbers do just barely lean in kaby lakes favor, never denied it. I said its faults were a bigger problem then a chips that performs near identically, though older, were. I had a chance to build my nephew an i7 7700k rig. This was very early into the launch. But because of the heat issues (intel had yet to announce anything) I went with the i7 6700K because I felt it was a safer bet for him. I was right. Within a month or so the chatter on the 7700 blew up. Where you're coming up with numbers like a stock i7 7700K at 4.2ghz will beat a i7 6700K @4.6GHZ I have not ever seen. Won't say they don't exist but they have not been in the mainstream tech media AFAIK. You can show me facts or at this point I'll assume troll. I have stated my opinion and backed it up with facts. Please do the same. Also note that that i7 6700k can OC to 4.8ghz...sometimes even 5ghz though as i stated before kaby lake does OC a little better so you may hit higher numbers more often when comparing a handful of cpus. Though in the end the heat issues plagues the i7 7700k make it a less the ideal choice IMO for overclockers or even the non-OC crowd. That's just my two cents based on the facts I have read. Show me something new and different it may sway me another way.

    https://youtu.be/QqZokEE-sWY

    One of many I found. Not here to sway your mind dude. 7700k>6700k in every way. Better is better no matter how small. If 6700k = 7700k no one would even buy the 7700k. Every HEDT would have 6700's if that was the case.
    Reply to Shotta06
  17. I did a youtube search of your "one of many I found" not to mention yet another web search. The Skueztech was the only outfit I could find matching your claims which is the video you posted. EVERYOTHER video on youtube I saw had i7 6700K and i7 7700K neck and neck at the same frequency. No one else had claims similar to The Skueztech video and even in that video the i7 7700K did not out perform the so called overclocked i7 6700K in every test. I honestly need more the one video on youtube to convince me your claims are true. Benchmarks can be easily skewed whether by accident or intentional.

    The generally accepted belief in the tech community at this point is skylake and kabylake are comparable IPC at the same frequency. Kabylake has a slight advantage as I stated but it an extremely small one. Just large enough to be considered statically relevant (ie if the lead was any smaller it would be within the margin of error for the test and not a true "win"). Point being you asked why I thought the i7 6700K could be better. I stand by my issues with the i7 7700K like bad TIM, intel's request users not overclock the i7 7700K unlike the i7 6700K, IPC being so similar, some samples of the i7 7700K and i7 7700 CPUs reaching 90C with no overclocking what so ever lowering the chips life expectancy. That last one could really cost a user as a new CPU is anything but cheap. The truth is the i7 7700K is an overclocked i7 6700K with bad TIM and a limited new feature set that seems to cause it more issues then it helps, especially for the OC community, again not that an overclock is needed for said issues to crop up. Just saying... I never said the i7 6700K = i7 7700K...the i7 7700K has a .2ghz advantage and by my own argument of similar IPC. An i7 7700K has a higher clock rate and thus stock performance. It is the everything wrong with the i7 7700K that is my issue. You can overclock the i7 6700K to similar levels though the i7 7700K will hit slightly higher clocks slightly more often when comparing a handful of chips. I would just rather have a chip that doesn't have issues running at safe temps, that over-clocks and performs nearly as well then deal with the shortcomings of the i7 7700K. So yeah i do disagree 7700K>6700K in every way...many yes even most but every, no sorry not true from the reviews and complaints i have read. As for the HEDT comment. Neither the i7 6700K nor the i7 7700K are HEDT CPUs. They are the top of the line for intel's mainstream chips whereas Intel's HEDT CPUs are the enthusiast/prosumer/workstation/3D modeling crowd for the high/ultra high end chips running on X99 chipsets though the x299 launches soon.
    Reply to atomicWAR
  18. If you can't at least see how someone might choose an 6700K over an 7700K your not looking at all the facts very fairly. Your just assuming newer is better which is not always true, frequently it is but it is no absolute. Unless you can give me more then the one youtube video we will have to agree to disagree.
    Reply to atomicWAR
Ask a new question Answer

Read More

Gaming CPUs