satyamdubey :
What Adam is suggesting is an issue of how AMD bins it's cpu and not the fact that the cpu per say runs hot. A cpu wont run cooler than ambient even with an aftermarket air cooler. Water cooling units can however bring the temps lower. Most if not all AMD FX cpus have the issue of reporting wrong tempswhen they idle and the margin of error becomes less with load.
an 8120 system that I have for instance reports 16-19 C with the ambient being around 34C. It does however report ~50s C on load which seems to be correct. Now about the way AMD bins the cpus, my i5 2400 also reports 32C idle and is reporting 70C with F@H. nor mal gaming load is 56-57C. But Intel bins it's cpus for higher temps 74 C package temp in my case. this just makes it seem that the AMD cpus run hotter than Intel just because they are running close to their manufacturer claimed cpu package thermal ceiling.
Remember that cpu cores can reach higher temps than the package temps as they are both read at different points on the cpus. Core temps are read by temp diodes close to the cores while the Package temps are read at the IHS (Integrated heat spreader, the shiny metallic part on the cpu).
All modern cpu have a hard built overtemp failsafe which cannot be circumvented and they would anyway trip the system before any damage can happen. Do not worry too much about cpu temps with stock cooler as long as you don not OC. the stock coolers, Intel or AMD are fine for their intended mode/situation of operation.
+1. yes it always appears AMD chips run hotter but actually usually at lower temps than intel chips. however, the lower maximum operating temperature means they appear to run closer to their maximum temperature than intel chips do. many argue this is due to the type of architecture used which differs greatly from intel chips.
my fx6300 has the temperature reading "issue" too. it reports idle temperatures ~9c but when under load, shows more realistic readings of about 50c with an overclock to 4.2ghz (maximum i could safely get from my motherboard)
and yes as mentioned above, psu's are the most important component when measuring energy use and efficiency, not the cpu alone. if you arent planning to overclock, theres no reason why you cant use budget boards. it depends on what you need out of it. for example, do you want USB 3.0 or will you add several hard drives, and so need lots of high speed sata connections? any motherboard that supports AM3+ sockets will do just fine. just find one with the specs you want. for example, i use a gigabyte 78mlt-s2p. cheap at around $40 but lacks USB 3.0 and the newest generation of sata connections, neither of which i require much for what i use it for. not much use for overclocking due to its power designs but does just fine at stock speeds.in addition, the revision 5 model i have has all sorts of thermal and electrostatic protection built in, meaning it should, in theory, last much longer than the older versions and be more reliable. not had it very long so i cant claim this to be true just yet. hope that helps.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram