I have checked the power use of the system when I put the two 660's in and it is using 350-458W depending on if the two GPU's are busy and 4 Rosetta WU's on the GPU.
The PSU is a Cooler Master Silent Pro M600, 80 plus bronze.
So I think that is the problem?
It has run for 23h41m before yesterday. I powered it this morning and finished a GPUGRID SR. Now it is powered down again.
I only have a spare 750W EVGA 80plus gold PSU as a spare, will try that one.

---

Greetings from TJ

Might be some variation in that EVGA range but I did see one that is 90% efficient. The EVGA is likely to be 5% more efficient than the Cooler Master, as the EVGA is a higher end PSU (Gold rather than Bronze and with more power headroom).

---

FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Yes thanks skgiven.
I put the 750W Gold EVGH PSU in and is now running 23h30m, so almost the same time when it powered itself down. Now two LR's on the 660's so more power draw then yesterday with one GPUGRID and one Einstein. So I guess the PSU was not powerful enough. I will let know tomorrow if it still runs. Know I alos see why it is handy to have spare hardware, even older stuff.

---

Greetings from TJ

Coincidentally I was behind this PC.
I have Core Temp 1.0RC% running on the AMD (gives error when set to start at boot) and set the overheat protection function on at 80°C (CPU) to shutdown after ten seconds.
The PC was nicely working at 48°C (52°C according to Asus's Thermal Radar 1.01.20) and a message appeared that the temp was reached and system will shut down in 10 seconds. I could just stop that.
Very likely that this happened a few days ago and that the PSU could manage (as it did for two days).

Problem is now that there is no program that measures the temperature correct, all I tested gave different readings. The one most reliable, CPUID HWMonitor has no overheat protection in it. I like that in case I am away.
Has someone any Ideas? Should I use TThrottle for this?

---

Greetings from TJ

That 80+ Gold PSU is a better fit for that system - saves you money and operates closer to peak efficiency (~50% load). You can check with your power meter, you should see less power usage under comparable load now.

Regarding your CPU: you always have trouble cooling your CPUs, don't you? ;)
Anyway, that 8350 is one power-hungry beast and supports a turbo mode. that means it will keep pushing itself harder as long as temperature and power draw allow it. Getting precise temperature measurements from AMDs has been a pain since quite a few years, but: you can trust the internal measurement. I.e. when the CPU still turbos up, it's not dangerously hot. If you set a different threshold you two will be fighting each other.

What I suggest: deactivate that turbo mode in the BIOS. It will make the chip run more efficiently (lower voltage) and at the same time cut back on heat generation. You'll loose some CPU performance, but maybe you can make up for that buy crunching on one more CPU core (now that it runs more efficiently).

This doesn't really help you in monitoring and trusting CPU temeprature.. but if you're using any decent CPU cooler with a 120 mm fan and fluid bearings, it will not just suddenly fail. And if it does, CPU & mainboard still have internal protection against damaging temperatures. So the advice is this: use a working point where you can easily handle CPU temperature and then stop worrying about it.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Hello ETA, you have a very good memory. Indeed I have always problems with my CPU coolings.

Problem is, if it is a problem, that I have checked with 4 different programs to measuere CPU temperature and they all give a different reading. That worries me.
I will try your advise to deactivated the turbo mode.

But even now, last Saturday I brought my new built on line with a i7 4771 and a Sabertooht Z87 (yes Asus again, EVGA hard to obtain or very very expensive) and Zalman CNPS12X with 3 fans. According to Thermal Radar 2, the MOBO readings the CPU is 47 to 52°C when 7 cores a busy but according to CPUID HWMonitor and Core Temp 1.0 its 10 degrees hotter. Still not alarming as it never was over 65°C, but the difference gives me worries. I checked a few time with an IR-thermometer and all is still okay. Temperature of the MOBO have both programs the same (Asus and HWMonitor)

---

Greetings from TJ

I've noticed differences in reported temperatures from different programs too. There is no single way to read the temperature sensors. It's not like looking at a thermometer and reading a number off of a scale. Different programs use different methods to read the temperature therefore you get a different report from each one. It's not because the sensors are broken or inaccurate or that the software is broken. It's due to different software developers having different philosophies about how the sensors should be read and reported. Take an average of 3 or 4 readings and relax. Or err on the side of caution and watch only the one that gives the highest reading. If none of them are reporting excessive temperature then that's a good sign because it means no matter which standard you use you're inn the green. At least they all agree on that point.

---

BOINC <<--- credit whores, pedants, alien hunters

There's also some variation in which sensors are reported as CPU. For Intels you can trust CoreTemp: it reads the values directly measured and reported from the cores, the same which Intel uses themselves to set the turbo mode states. Each core has 100+ temperature sensors and reports the hottest one. Some of these are directly at the FPUs, which are hot spots during heavy number crunching. So these are really worst-case numbers and can hence reach 70°C without trouble, with even 80°C still being OK.

Then there are temperature sensors on the mainboard, in the CPU socket, like in the "good old days" before the integrated ones. These naturally report lower values, by 10 - 20°C, and react slower to load changes but are often reported by various tools.

For AMD things are not as clear, unfortunately. There are internal sensors, but they seem to be placed in some remote places and measure far lower temperatures than Intels. This is also expressed by the limits being far lower: typically around 63°C, depending on the CPU. The hot spots in the CPU will probably be 20 - 30 °C hotter than this reading. And on the software-side things are not as clear as well: I'm often seeing people report nice low load temepratures.. but when they take a reading at idle, it's below ambient temperature. You're breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics, AMD!

I'm not saying all of their readings would be wrong or useless.. it's just that something very different from what CoreTemp reads on Intels is being reported.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Thanks ETA and Dagorath, I didn't know all of that. But knowing this now and seeing no temperature higher than 65°C for the 4771 i7 with running 4 Rosetta's and 2 GPU's, leaves two for me to play with, I am happy.
The noise is quite low even of all fans (10 in total).
But I want to use the iGPU for Einstein@home as well, but I need to study a bit first how I get that working, but will go to the excellent Einstein fora for that.

---

Greetings from TJ

Use driver 9.18.10.3071 (date 19.03.2013), not the current 10.x (could be Win 8.1 only anyway, don't know), a current BOINC and connect something to an output port of the iGPU (VGA cable of monitor, VGA dummy, whatever). Allow "Binary Radio Pulsar Search (Perseus Arm Survey)" (the WUs don't count as GPU WUs for the server) and switch off "run CPU tasks for projects where GPU is available". If it works run 2 WUs in parallel for a nice throughput boost and you're good to go :)

For problems or further discussion let's head over there.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Thanks for the good advise ETA. Will try in the coming days.

---

Greetings from TJ