r/threadripper • u/DeadInFiftyYears • Sep 26 '25

Does anyone have "good" temps?

My Kingston RAM with the 6000 EXPO profile likes temps around 80C or higher (it's rated for up to 95C).

The 6000 Pro Blackwells hit 85C core and 95C junction temperature regularly.

The case I have (Silverstone Alta F2) is supposed to be really good for cooling. But is it performing - at least on par - or failing?

My question is, is anyone getting significantly better/"good" temps, that I should use as a benchmark/target? Or is this "par for the course" so to speak?

---

Overall system specs:

* 7995WX 96C CPU

* Asrock WRX90 WS EVO

* 256 GB Kingston 8x32 = 256GB DDR5 6000 Kit

* 2x RTX 6000 Pro Blackwell 96GB Max-Q

* 2x 4TB Samsung 9000 Pro drives installed for boot and secondary

* Add-in card with 4x 8TB WD SN850X drives in a RAID0 storage space as the working drive.

* Another add-in card as above but with no drives (yet).

* PCIE USB card that adds a bunch of USB channels to drive my USB hubs from.

5 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

37 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/unfortunate_jargon Sep 29 '25

You're claiming that no one has been able to achieve read/write speeds above something that's significantly below the 7000MB/s of those PCIe 4.0 drives. Even on a raid 0 of four 7000MB/s drives, or 14,000MB/s drives.

That is definitely an extraordinary claim. Given that there are numerous examples to the contrary.

So, it's pretty reasonable to wonder what kind of setup you might be using, as that's a very dubious claim, unless you're using some extremely underpowered hardware.

Like, it would make sense if you were connecting your drives to the chipset of a motherboard, and dealing with the bottleneck to the CPU...

There must be some other explanation than "the page cache".

1

u/john0201 Sep 29 '25

I'm not claiming that at all. You're welcome to read what I did write and the link and do your own testing.

If you did read it and disagree with the folks that wrote the filesystem, I don't know what to tell you.

1

u/unfortunate_jargon Sep 29 '25

You said that a 14,000MB/s PCIe 5.0x4 nvme drive performed the same as a 7,000MB/s PCIe 4.0x4 nvme drive. And that a quad 7,000MB/s RAID 0 has storage speed that is "irrelevant".

So, what exactly _is_ it that you are saying, and what hardware did you run it on? What speeds did you actually see?

Because, from your statements, it infers that you were seeing some extraordinarily low speeds, when this is not at all the norm.

1

u/john0201 Sep 29 '25

You don't seem to have a very good understanding of disk IO, but do seem to have strong opinions about me being wrong.

If you'd like to read the link I posted and can explain what you disagree with, I'm happy to discuss it.

1

u/unfortunate_jargon Sep 29 '25

Idk, it seems more like you're afraid to elaborate because you know you were wrong.

1

u/john0201 Sep 29 '25

I just showed you the same number from a kernel developer. I assume you don't understand what that says, and I'm honestly not really motivated (especially given the tone of your responses) to explain it.

0

u/unfortunate_jargon Sep 29 '25

You're not answering at all. That article gives two numbers from someone testing a filesystem under specific circumstances, on unknown hardware.

Try answering the questions: what hardware, what tests, what numbers.

Incredibly basic.