Closed

AMD 8350 Maximum "safe" Temp

Okay guys, this question is a little different than the other 200 'is my temp okay?' questions I've seen posted. Unlike most folks, I am actually looking to make the most heat possible from my CPU/GPUs. So my question is, what is the highest sustainable temperature I can run this AMD FX 8350 indefinitely without melting it down. Please don't suggest anything under 67C at the cores, I've already had it there for more than 24 hours and it never skipped a beat.

AMD has no official max temp listed: Specs


Know that I am running full liquid cooling across all things that go 'ping!' with a 10 gallon thermal reservoir and dual liquid/air radiators plumbed in parallel with 3 Noctua NF-F12 PWM running a Push/Push/Pull config. I have very a stable thermal platform that doesn't get jittery, even at high temps.

Who has run their rig the hottest?
28 answers Last reply
More about amd 8350 maximum safe temp
  1. Lawrence Orsini said:
    Okay guys, this question is a little different than the other 200 'is my temp okay?' questions I've seen posted. Unlike most folks, I am actually looking to make the most heat possible from my CPU/GPUs. So my question is, what is the highest sustainable temperature I can run this AMD FX 8350 indefinitely without melting it down. Please don't suggest anything under 67C at the cores, I've already had it there for more than 24 hours and it never skipped a beat.

    Know that I am running full liquid cooling across all things that go 'ping!' with a 10 gallon thermal reservoir and dual liquid/air radiators plumbed in parallel with 3 Noctua NF-F12 PWM running a Push/Push/Pull config. I have very a stable thermal platform that doesn't get jittery, even at high temps.

    Who has run their rig the hottest?


    I believe it starts to throttle after 70 degrees.
  2. Lawrence Orsini said:
    Please don't suggest anything under 67C at the cores, I've already had it there for more than 24 hours and it never skipped a beat.


    assuming your cpu is reporting it's temps right, you're already 7C-12C over the max "safe" temps for the FX cpu. Generally speaking they are no longer stable or for that matter all that safe over 60C... in reality you probably shouldn't get up much higher then 55C...

    That said i doubt your cpu is reporting it's temps accurately. since the PhII, AMD has shifted away from using an actual thermometer on it's chips, instead they use some weird algorithm to calculate the closest accurate temperature. The result is many AMD chips are as much as 5-20C off on their reported temps (plus or minus)... generally it isn't much more then 5 to 10, but 20 isn't all that unheard of either.

    Not saying you're not running at 67C... just saying you don't have much more to go as if that's accurate (i think AMD throttles their fx chips at 70C; not that anyone ever really sees this... just like the PhII would throttle at 90C... but anyone who's had one will tell you, there isn't a PhII that will run over 65C... so AMDs thermal throttling is silly), you're really risking your chip... and if it's inaccurate you'll be nearing the thermal ceiling very shortly.
  3. ingtar33 said:
    Lawrence Orsini said:
    Please don't suggest anything under 67C at the cores, I've already had it there for more than 24 hours and it never skipped a beat.


    assuming your cpu is reporting it's temps right, you're already 7C-12C over the max "safe" temps for the FX cpu. Generally speaking they are no longer stable or for that matter all that safe over 60C... in reality you probably shouldn't get up much higher then 55C...

    That said i doubt your cpu is reporting it's temps accurately. since the PhII, AMD has shifted away from using an actual thermometer on it's chips, instead they use some weird algorithm to calculate the closest accurate temperature. The result is many AMD chips are as much as 5-20C off on their reported temps (plus or minus)... generally it isn't much more then 5 to 10, but 20 isn't all that unheard of either.

    Not saying you're not running at 67C... just saying you don't have much more to go as if that's accurate (i think AMD throttles their fx chips at 70C; not that anyone ever really sees this... just like the PhII would throttle at 90C... but anyone who's had one will tell you, there isn't a PhII that will run over 65C... so AMDs thermal throttling is silly), you're really risking your chip... and if it's inaccurate you'll be nearing the thermal ceiling very shortly.


    Thanks, that's helpful, I do have a couple more questions though. first, what's the best way to get true temps off the chip if not the core monitor? Second, how high can I take the temp if the CPU is idle or very lightly loaded... I'm assuming it would run at a higher temperature if it weren't actually loaded. And lastly, what physically happens to the chip when it eventually fails on temp?

    Thanks for the help.
  4. 4 and 6 cores have a limit of 71C. 8 cores have a maximum of 61C. So, try for something lower than 61C. And if you want a program that will heat up your CPU I suggest Prime95.
  5. Lawrence Orsini said:

    Know that I am running full liquid cooling across all things that go 'ping!' with a 10 gallon thermal reservoir and dual liquid/air radiators plumbed in parallel with 3 Noctua NF-F12 PWM running a Push/Push/Pull config. I have very a stable thermal platform that doesn't get jittery, even at high temps.


    Wut O.o
  6. Lawrence Orsini said:
    ingtar33 said:
    Lawrence Orsini said:
    Please don't suggest anything under 67C at the cores, I've already had it there for more than 24 hours and it never skipped a beat.


    assuming your cpu is reporting it's temps right, you're already 7C-12C over the max "safe" temps for the FX cpu. Generally speaking they are no longer stable or for that matter all that safe over 60C... in reality you probably shouldn't get up much higher then 55C...

    That said i doubt your cpu is reporting it's temps accurately. since the PhII, AMD has shifted away from using an actual thermometer on it's chips, instead they use some weird algorithm to calculate the closest accurate temperature. The result is many AMD chips are as much as 5-20C off on their reported temps (plus or minus)... generally it isn't much more then 5 to 10, but 20 isn't all that unheard of either.

    Not saying you're not running at 67C... just saying you don't have much more to go as if that's accurate (i think AMD throttles their fx chips at 70C; not that anyone ever really sees this... just like the PhII would throttle at 90C... but anyone who's had one will tell you, there isn't a PhII that will run over 65C... so AMDs thermal throttling is silly), you're really risking your chip... and if it's inaccurate you'll be nearing the thermal ceiling very shortly.


    Thanks, that's helpful, I do have a couple more questions though. first, what's the best way to get true temps off the chip if not the core monitor? Second, how high can I take the temp if the CPU is idle or very lightly loaded... I'm assuming it would run at a higher temperature if it weren't actually loaded. And lastly, what physically happens to the chip when it eventually fails on temp?

    Thanks for the help.


    ok... when a chip gets too hot and fails typically you'll either blue screen or your system will just reset on the spot. It blue screens when the chip is unstable due to temps (it happens) and errors, it black screen resets when it just straight fails from too much heat; if you pass the MB's safe temps for your chip the mb will beep when it turns itself off.

    Generally speaking we're talking about 2 types of failures.
    1) instability caused by excessive heat
    2) overheat causing motherboard to turn off system OR damage which kills chip.

    Generally MBs are good enough to keep your chip from melting. There are two types of wear your chip suffers from overclocking.
    1) gradual warping of the chip itself and the and degrading of transistors due to continual excessive heat, eventually leading to chip death.
    2) gradual degradation of CPU due to excessive voltage.

    Both of these can give the same symptoms... such as gradually needing more voltage to achieve a stable overclock
    similar to one you had when the chip was new. ie... if i needed 1.4385 vcore to overclock my PhII to 3.8ghz when i got the chip new... and 6mo later i need 1.4625 vcore to stabilize the exact same overclock, that's a chip which is breaking down due to excessive voltage/heat). Once this starts to happen your chip is on it's last legs.
  7. MAX Core temps is 61.1°C

    MAX socket temp is 70°C

    See this thread for the complete answer
  8. saintpanache said:
    MAX Core temps is 61.1°C

    MAX socket temp is 70°C

    See this thread for the complete answer


    Thanks for going the extra mile - now we know what AMD feels is a good "safe" temperature.
  9. chromic said:
    Lawrence Orsini said:

    Know that I am running full liquid cooling across all things that go 'ping!' with a 10 gallon thermal reservoir and dual liquid/air radiators plumbed in parallel with 3 Noctua NF-F12 PWM running a Push/Push/Pull config. I have very a stable thermal platform that doesn't get jittery, even at high temps.


    Wut O.o


    Things that go ping is a Monty Python reference for the most expensive of whatever.

    The radiators are sandwiched between 3 Noctua fans with airflow all pointed the same direction and the 10 gallon thermal reservoir is a liquid/liquid heat exchanger that stores the heat from the computer so I can do other things with it... instead of dumping it into the room.

    Makes sense?
  10. ingtar33 said:
    Lawrence Orsini said:
    ingtar33 said:
    Lawrence Orsini said:
    Please don't suggest anything under 67C at the cores, I've already had it there for more than 24 hours and it never skipped a beat.


    assuming your cpu is reporting it's temps right, you're already 7C-12C over the max "safe" temps for the FX cpu. Generally speaking they are no longer stable or for that matter all that safe over 60C... in reality you probably shouldn't get up much higher then 55C...

    That said i doubt your cpu is reporting it's temps accurately. since the PhII, AMD has shifted away from using an actual thermometer on it's chips, instead they use some weird algorithm to calculate the closest accurate temperature. The result is many AMD chips are as much as 5-20C off on their reported temps (plus or minus)... generally it isn't much more then 5 to 10, but 20 isn't all that unheard of either.

    Not saying you're not running at 67C... just saying you don't have much more to go as if that's accurate (i think AMD throttles their fx chips at 70C; not that anyone ever really sees this... just like the PhII would throttle at 90C... but anyone who's had one will tell you, there isn't a PhII that will run over 65C... so AMDs thermal throttling is silly), you're really risking your chip... and if it's inaccurate you'll be nearing the thermal ceiling very shortly.


    Thanks, that's helpful, I do have a couple more questions though. first, what's the best way to get true temps off the chip if not the core monitor? Second, how high can I take the temp if the CPU is idle or very lightly loaded... I'm assuming it would run at a higher temperature if it weren't actually loaded. And lastly, what physically happens to the chip when it eventually fails on temp?

    Thanks for the help.


    ok... when a chip gets too hot and fails typically you'll either blue screen or your system will just reset on the spot. It blue screens when the chip is unstable due to temps (it happens) and errors, it black screen resets when it just straight fails from too much heat; if you pass the MB's safe temps for your chip the mb will beep when it turns itself off.

    Generally speaking we're talking about 2 types of failures.
    1) instability caused by excessive heat
    2) overheat causing motherboard to turn off system OR damage which kills chip.

    Generally MBs are good enough to keep your chip from melting. There are two types of wear your chip suffers from overclocking.
    1) gradual warping of the chip itself and the and degrading of transistors due to continual excessive heat, eventually leading to chip death.
    2) gradual degradation of CPU due to excessive voltage.

    Both of these can give the same symptoms... such as gradually needing more voltage to achieve a stable overclock
    similar to one you had when the chip was new. ie... if i needed 1.4385 vcore to overclock my PhII to 3.8ghz when i got the chip new... and 6mo later i need 1.4625 vcore to stabilize the exact same overclock, that's a chip which is breaking down due to excessive voltage/heat). Once this starts to happen your chip is on it's last legs.


    Thanks, that was really helpful. Do you know what temps a chip will live to when it is idle - I'm assuming it has a much higher threshold if it isn't creating its own heat. I know I'm likely pushing some boundried here but... thats what they are for!
  11. Lawrence Orsini said:
    Thanks, that was really helpful. Do you know what temps a chip will live to when it is idle - I'm assuming it has a much higher threshold if it isn't creating its own heat. I know I'm likely pushing some boundried here but... thats what they are for!


    well, my cpu generally runs around 5-10C hotter then ambient temps when idle... that seems to be pretty much standard. though that will start to get warmer the more vcore being pumped into your cpu. for example... this cpu will idle at (ambient temps at 28C) 33C at stock 1.4V, but at 1.45V it will idle much closer to 35C-37C depending, and at 1.5V it idles at about 40C... (of course this is a PhII, and even if i had your FX cpu, i would point out my cooling solution and chip are not your cooling solution and chip, and therefor this is not much to go on)
  12. So it turns out, after almost a year of testing and tweaking, that the AMD 8350 Black is actually quite stable and happy up to about 79c as long as you underclock. You can see in this pic I'm running the loop temp at 71c at 3.4 on the clock and have the fans configured to maintain the temps at that level while the CPU/GPUs grind away mining coins... which turns out to be a pretty stable load without some of the bumps that prime 95 seemed to have when it was running. There is no damage to the cpu, if I drive the loop temp down to 21c I can still get a stable 4.8 out of the 8350.

    I've checked the loop temp with a Fluke and it is running at the 70c in the pic, you can see when I stop the CPU miner the CPU temp drops right to loop and sticks so thats a pretty good indication that the algorithm AMD is using to calculate temp must be pretty close.

    Thanks for the advice, all.

    So it turns out, after almost a year of testing and tweaking, that the AMD 8350 Black is actually quite stable and happy up to about 79c as long as you underclock. You can see in this pic I'm running the loop temp at 71c at 3.4 on the clock and have the fans configured to maintain the temps at that level while the CPU/GPUs grind away mining coins... which turns out to be a pretty stable load without some of the bumps that prime 95 seemed to have when it was running. There is no damage to the cpu, if I drive the loop temp down to 21c I can still get a stable 4.8 out of the 8350.

    I've checked the loop temp with a Fluke and it is running at the 70c in the pic, you can see when I stop the CPU miner the CPU temp drops right to loop and sticks so thats a pretty good indication that the algorithm AMD is using to calculate temp must be pretty close.

    Thanks for the advice, all.

  13. interesting
  14. Many thanks for this answer, very useful.
  15. According to AMD, 70*C is the maximum.
  16. mine is always ideling at about 80*C when the cpu was new it baked around 75*C and my system temperature is about 35* is this dangerous ?
  17. Yes. It will shorten the life of your CPU.
  18. NightAntilli said:
    Yes. It will shorten the life of your CPU.

    i under clocked the cpu to 3.4ghz and i installed a bigger exhoust fan and inverted the old exhoust fan to intake, 2 small intakes and 1 big exhoust, now it sits at about 60*c under stress :D instead of up til 90*C
  19. What is the point of underclocking it? Just to see how hot you can get it? Why do you hate your CPU?
  20. Here is the solution - we've been running this 8350 at 67-80c at around 3.5 to a peak of 4.8 MHz reliably for almost 2 years. Along the way we have talked with several high temperature computing researchers and gotten a real understanding of how and why most CPU/GPUs fail under prolonged, high temperature use. As CPUs wear the experience something called electromigration. Electromigration is the process by which the electrons moving through the core pick up and carry pieces of the conductor with them during use. Electromigration is accelerated with high temperatures and increased voltages - the hotter and harder you run the chip, the easier it is for the electrons to move move the conductor. The more conductor you move the more errors that are generated by the chip.

    Along the way these increased temperatures also add instability to the gates - the actual switches inside the processor. You can increase the conductor durability by using harder materials (tungsten instead of copper) as well as use a Silicon on Insulator (SOI) design instead of the standard CMO S design used in the majority of high speed processors. These SOI designs are more expensive as well as being slower, largely due to the increased resistance of the conductor. We're proposing some high temperature computing demonstrations to the Department of Energy along with the Fraunhofer Institute's high temperature computing lab to determine the worldwide market for high temperature computing. Fraunhofer already makes SOI chips that operate to 300c.

    As for the little AMD 8350, it is still chugging along with little sign of degradation after all the abuse. It seems as long as the temperature rise is stable and sustained, (we're liquid cooling all the chips) the CPU hasn't had a problem running near 80c.

    To answer the 'why would you underclock it and make it run hot' question, take a look at projectexergy.com
  21. today is my first time overclocking. I'm hoping I never get near these temps but this is an amazing read
  22. Lawrence Orsini said:
    Okay guys, this question is a little different than the other 200 'is my temp okay?' questions I've seen posted. Unlike most folks, I am actually looking to make the most heat possible from my CPU/GPUs. So my question is, what is the highest sustainable temperature I can run this AMD FX 8350 indefinitely without melting it down. Please don't suggest anything under 67C at the cores, I've already had it there for more than 24 hours and it never skipped a beat.

    AMD has no official max temp listed: Specs


    Know that I am running full liquid cooling across all things that go 'ping!' with a 10 gallon thermal reservoir and dual liquid/air radiators plumbed in parallel with 3 Noctua NF-F12 PWM running a Push/Push/Pull config. I have very a stable thermal platform that doesn't get jittery, even at high temps.

    Who has run their rig the hottest?


    Do you use a proper gaming case? Even with liquid cooling? The liquid cooling is all good for your cpu or gpu but not the rest of your motherboard. I run my fx 8350 locked to a constant 4.4 ghz and I know I could go to around 4.6 with just my air cooling but I won't risk it for the sake of a few hundred 3dmark.
    I'm running a cooler master huf case with 5 fans and one high velocity fan on the top with a pull on the back and front configuration with blowing out the top. I get 50 degrees at the most in normal weather in 3dmark cpu stress test.
    Maybe you need an infrared thermometer to see how hot your motherboard and components are really. They are cheap on ebay. Seriously that does seem like an abnormally high temperature. Are you using enough thermal paste? I am using a giant cheap gammax 400 air cooling radiator that barely fits in my case, it has leds to boot. It provides good cooling in my pull push configuration. If I was getting over 55 degrees I'd already be alarmed. Taken in about 29 degrees QLD early summer weather temps.

    Seriously if that's water a water cooling is doing for you I'm shocked. Or my cpu is sweet ass.
    CPU Coolers (In - Depth Look)
    Links To Other Pages:http://tinyurl.com/q8qq2amCPU Tutorialhttp://tinyurl.com/nqfth73http://tinyurl.com/nor9pcwhttp://tinyurl.com/ow4zau2http://tinyurl.com/odrwj5xhttp://tinyurl.com/q8bufvvhttp://tinyurl.com/oerufdthttp://tinyurl.com/naccq5xhttp://www.tomshardware.com/faq/id-1815338/water-cooling-radiators-explained-depth.htmlhttp://www.tomshardware.com/forum/277130-29-read-first-watercooling-stickyhttp://i1201.photobucket.com/albums/bb358/Derek_Bermel/Warning2.jpgThis... Read More


  23. Do you use a proper gaming case? Even with liquid cooling? The liquid cooling is all good for your cpu or gpu but not the rest of your motherboard. I run my fx 8350 locked to a constant 4.4 ghz and I know I could go to around 4.6 with just my air cooling but I won't risk it for the sake of a few hundred 3dmark.
    I'm running a cooler master huf case with 5 fans and one high velocity fan on the top with a pull on the back and front configuration with blowing out the top. I get 50 degrees at the most in normal weather in 3dmark cpu stress test.
    Maybe you need an infrared thermometer to see how hot your motherboard and components are really. They are cheap on ebay. Seriously that does seem like an abnormally high temperature. Are you using enough thermal paste? I am using a giant cheap gammax 400 air cooling radiator that barely fits in my case, it has leds to boot. It provides good cooling in my pull push configuration. If I was getting over 55 degrees I'd already be alarmed. Taken in about 29 degrees QLD early summer weather temps.

    Seriously if that's water a water cooling is doing for you I'm shocked. Or my cpu is sweet ass.

    Hey there, the rig is actually designed to purposefully run at these temperatures. You can check out the full build on ModsRigs or ASUS ROG forum

    Incidentally, it was just featured in September's Popular Mechanics:








    Here is a video of the thing going through its paces:
  24. And that is more efficient than just heating with a regular heater?
  25. seeingeyegod said:
    And that is more efficient than just heating with a regular heater?


    Good question.

    We are working on solutions to run computers significantly hotter and harder to specifically create heat with computation, we're hitting 200+ in the cooling loop of the rig above today with hotter running rigs under construction. This way what was considered waste heat from a computer could be used for things like running a boiler or providing space heat, we can even power air conditioning and refrigeration as well with the 225-235 f were targeting for the next stage.

    Currently the biggest loads in US buildings run on heat (space and domestic hot water) or could be converted to run on heat (air conditioning and refrigeration) with well developed, existing technology. Given that computers are pretty efficient at turning electricity into heat, we could be getting two (or more) benefits out of the same energy that we are currently using to just run our heaters or computers today. When we combine the two one or the other benefit happens for free, from an energy perspective, if we are using computers to make the heat that runs our homes/businesses/economy.

    So, yes, it is more efficient to make the heat you need with a computer if you are getting computation as well as heat from the energy.
  26. It is a cool (haha pun) concept, I just find it hard to believe a computer is more efficient at creating heat than something that only converts electricity directly to heat with a simple resistance coil, especially in the context of the how you are saying you are basically making the computer slower in the process of making it create more heat. But yeah if I had no heater and was cold, I'd huddle behind my computer.
  27. Well consider it this way, the majority of the energy a computer consumes is converted to heat either directly by the components or, in the case of light or sound or mechanical it is as the result of a collision with the case or a wall or the molecules of air that a fan is moving. The only energy that isn't really converted to heat is the product of whatever computation you were doing or information transferred back onto the network that the computer connects. (let me know if you have a different thought on the above)

    This means a computer is mostly a resistance heater that has one defining benefit over a standard one bar heater - it computes. So you get multiple benefits out of the same amount of energy a heater would use to just create heat, therefore it is actually more efficient in the macro sense of energy consumption to create heat with computers... if you can use the heat.
  28. In terms of heat outputs, both computers and normal heaters are very close to 100%. However, a heat pump is generally ~300% because they take the heat from the outside.

    Heat-driven aircon is ridiculously inefficient, and remember that both this and heating don't have huge duty cycles. If people are spending money on expensive computing hardware (and 1.5kW of hardware (which isn't going to be nearly enough) that's performance competitive is going to be stupid expensive), they want it to run 24/7. You're going to need to either switch it off half the time and throw your capex out the window, or leave it on and have yet another pile of cooling gear to dump the heat outside.

    Also, remember datacentres have super-cheap electricity and internet because of scale.

    And that's before you talk about reliability and security concerns. Letting random folk access hardware your sensitive data is stored on is going to be a complete no-show for anyone with the slightest certification requirements, and encryption won't help when you still have to get the key to it in the first place.

    I don't see this working at all. Maybe if you put a miniature data centre in the basement of large apartment blocks, but that's about it.

    You also seem to be a little confused about heat and temperature; they're very different things.
  29. Someone Somewhere said:
    In terms of heat outputs, both computers and normal heaters are very close to 100%. However, a heat pump is generally ~300% because they take the heat from the outside.

    Heat-driven aircon is ridiculously inefficient, and remember that both this and heating don't have huge duty cycles. If people are spending money on expensive computing hardware (and 1.5kW of hardware (which isn't going to be nearly enough) that's performance competitive is going to be stupid expensive), they want it to run 24/7. You're going to need to either switch it off half the time and throw your capex out the window, or leave it on and have yet another pile of cooling gear to dump the heat outside.

    Also, remember datacentres have super-cheap electricity and internet because of scale.

    And that's before you talk about reliability and security concerns. Letting random folk access hardware your sensitive data is stored on is going to be a complete no-show for anyone with the slightest certification requirements, and encryption won't help when you still have to get the key to it in the first place.

    I don't see this working at all. Maybe if you put a miniature data centre in the basement of large apartment blocks, but that's about it.

    You also seem to be a little confused about heat and temperature; they're very different things.


    Thanks for the great observations, let me add some more color so you have a better idea of how this works and why we are punishing AMD CPUs.

    The desiccant enhanced evaporative air conditioning (DEVap) that we're partnered to test is 40% to 80% more efficient than traditional air conditioning - almost the same COP as a heat pump. Using the high temperature heat generated through computation to regenerate the desiccant for this type of air conditioning system has a very significant advantage over a heat pump - you get computation as well as air conditioning. I don't know of any heat pumps that compute. The other thing to note is that heat driven air conditioning is already used in a significant number of the large buildings you see. These systems use boiler heat to drive chiller plants which cool water that is pumped through the building. I can assure you they are efficient with double and triple effect chillers that have resource COP comparable to electric chillers.

    Data Centers do have super cheap electricity but they also uses about twice as much of it as this system will because they are air conditioning the heat out of them. The vast majority of datacenters are running at a PUE of 1.8 to 2.0 according to a recent paper by the NRDC. A PUE of 2.0 means that for every watt used by IT equipment, another watt is used by cooling, power distribution, and lighting equipment - you can bet the use is heavily weighted to cooling.

    The system is designed with integrated phase change thermal storage which should allow the system run 24/7. You are right that anything else would be throwing CAPEX out the window and you can rest assured we won't be exhausting any heat to the atmosphere.

    Reliability is a concern that we are solving for now and is baked into the service model. We want these units to run at or less than 2 years before they are replaced. The units are meant to be rebuilt to reuse a considerable number of the components and recycle the rest.

    The second system is built to prevent access to compute equipment. The case is filled with fluid and only opens from the bottom and only when it is removed from the thermal storage system. As soon as it is removed, power shuts off and the drives wipe. Workloads that are sent to the distributed machines will be segmented into pieces so that no one site has a complete set of data. You would have to access multiple machines at the same time (if you know where they are) and figure out how to access the drives without shutting the system down in order to do anything useful with the stolen data so we're not too worried about the key. I can go deeper if you like but I'm betting you get the picture?

    As far as heat vs temperature please clue me in on where I might have misspoken?
Ask a new question

Read More

AMD Alternative Cooling Overheat Water Cooling Heating CPUs Cooling