Originally Posted by ProTekkFZS
This has been answered time and time again and even directly from AMD in their own blog. In short, it's to help create consistent fan profiles across board manufacturers. Do you think it'd be easy to write fan profiles over a whole range of board offerings, even for just one manufacturer, depending on CPU?
Maybe I'm looking at it too simplistically.
Would it not be a case of for x temp do x PWM?
For example AMD GPU have 2 fan profile options in ROM. One is lookup table, it has 3 temp values with PWM for each, min / med / max, then there is temp hysteresis to solve unnecessary fan ramping when GPU is between temp ranges.
That is like manual curve in UEFI for us on C6H, but it is still "hit'n'miss" for us to use. "X" owners have unrealistic temps and highest value of temp is 75C in there. Then we have what is going on with SIO CPU Sensor. Which is used for fan control.
Another profile GPUs have is Fuzzy Logic. Here there is a target temperature that cooling solution will maintain on GPU, it can automatically adjust PWM so as "factors" affect temps or cooling solution variation it changes PWM "on the fly". There is settable min/max fan limit, so Fuzzy Logic knows what is the lowest it can go and max it can go. It has temp sensitivity to vary fan speed granularity, so say you want more reactive fan profile it is tweaked, etc.
In my view AMD are to blame for this issue. Never had this kinda stuff on Intel and are we saying Intel does not need to consider variation?
And as said by another all they had to do was show "real" temps, would it not be easier to set profiles for variation on that?
If I'm highlighting my woes on temps to Elmor it is down to how the SIO CPU Sensor mode is for me on R7 1700, which to me is in their control.
Yeah I have contacted AMD_Matt on OCUK as well, as @LtMatt
on here. He is AMD techie, is on here and other forums plus official AMD community forum. Does own C6H.Edited by gupsterg - 4/19/17 at 12:01pm