Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-14-2012, 01:15 PM   #51
Vesku
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,166
Default

4.6-4.8 is about all that can be expected outside of H100 cooling or better. Still, it's a decent chip, it's offset most of the complaints regarding the FX x1xx series considering they use the same node.
Vesku is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 02:42 PM   #52
hokies83
Senior Member
 
hokies83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rvenger View Post
That was more valid maybe with the 8150, not Vishera.


Plus a member on OCN has an 8320 @ 5.3ghz

http://www.overclock.net/t/1318995/o...ra-owners-club
That guy is full of crap.. I asked him to do a bench off with me and he told me to quit PMing him.. cause all dude has is a Cpu-z validation ...

Soon as he posted in that club thread that a 8350 was faster then a 3770k clock for clock i laughed so hard i spit all over my monitor...

And when i asked him to put up or shut up... " Please do not PM me Again"

Not hard to do bro... http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2549815
__________________
MM Ascension
Gigabyte G1 Sniper 3
I7 3770k 5.1ghz 24/7 with H100
G Skill Trident X series 2500mhz 2x4gb 2x Gtx 680 1350mhz/+500 mem
G19 kb m57 mouse
Bose companion 3 speakers Yamakasi Catleap 2560x1440 Ips

Last edited by hokies83; 11-14-2012 at 02:45 PM.
hokies83 is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 02:45 PM   #53
happysmiles
Senior Member
 
happysmiles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 344
Default

and where is AMDs marketing?

why create such products yet spend more time saying what you're gonna do next in graphs.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Guaraguao View Post
I do not give a happysmiles.
happysmiles is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 02:48 PM   #54
hokies83
Senior Member
 
hokies83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by happysmiles View Post
and where is AMDs marketing?

why create such products yet spend more time saying what you're gonna do next in graphs.

Amd Marketing for 8xxx "give high factory clock" So they look faster then they really are in benchmarks so we can take advantage of stupid people.

Maybe people will not figure out that if you overclock the intel chips clock for clock it destroys us.
__________________
MM Ascension
Gigabyte G1 Sniper 3
I7 3770k 5.1ghz 24/7 with H100
G Skill Trident X series 2500mhz 2x4gb 2x Gtx 680 1350mhz/+500 mem
G19 kb m57 mouse
Bose companion 3 speakers Yamakasi Catleap 2560x1440 Ips
hokies83 is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 03:26 PM   #55
SlowSpyder
Diamond Member
 
SlowSpyder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaydip View Post
In highly threaded apps yes it may have some advantage but it will fall flat in the rest of them.Why buy a processor which will be slower in most of the scenarios?(for general purpose anyway). Look what Apple did with A6 which is ruining the fun for all quad core chips out there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the 8350 is better than a 2500K, or most certainly not an i7. But in the places where the eight cores to in fact get used, I don't think the extra percentage of overclocking a 2500K can achieve is going to change things most of the time.

But my point really wasn't about which chip is better. The point I was trying to make is that I don't feel like those who post positively about the current FX line up do so while overlooking the Intel K chips ability to overclock. I feel the FX 6300 is actually a better choice than the i3, as long as you can live with the potentially higher power draw. I think the 8350 *may* be a better choice than the 2500K for some people depending on what they are aiming to do with the computer. I don't think overclocking those chips or not overclocking changes that, generally speaking.

Or the short version, when someone recommends an AMD part, I don't think it means that they are necessarily ignoring the fact that Intel can overclock.
__________________
Steve
FX 9370 / 7970 / ASRock 990FX Extreme 9
GO PACKERS!
SlowSpyder is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 03:28 PM   #56
Rvenger
VC&G Moderator
 
Rvenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 5,162
Default

nvm
__________________
i7-5820k @ 4ghz 1.12v - MSI X99S SLI Plus - Corsair H100i - 16gb Crucial 2133mhz DDR4 - Gigabyte R9 290 Windforce - 2x PNY Optima 240gb in RAID 0 - 3TB Seagate 7200.14 - Asus Xonar DGX - NZXT Hale82 850w PSU - CM Storm Stryker

Last edited by Rvenger; 11-14-2012 at 03:30 PM.
Rvenger is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 03:36 PM   #57
Skurge
Diamond Member
 
Skurge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Namibia
Posts: 4,940
Default

The FX8320/50 Generally clock higher than the Intel chips especially IB. When both are OC'd, they still win and lose at the same things.
__________________
Intel Core i5-4670K |MSI Z97-Gaming 5|32GB DDR3-1600|Gigabyte R9 290 Windforce CF [stock]|Samsung SSD 840 Evo 500GB|Corsair AX860 PSU|Corsair 750D|Windows 8.1 Pro|Samsung U28D590D|Logitech G27 Racing Wheel|Nexus 5 32GB
Skurge is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 03:53 PM   #58
wenboy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 12
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowSpyder View Post
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the 8350 is better than a 2500K, or most certainly not an i7. But in the places where the eight cores to in fact get used, I don't think the extra percentage of overclocking a 2500K can achieve is going to change things most of the time.

But my point really wasn't about which chip is better. The point I was trying to make is that I don't feel like those who post positively about the current FX line up do so while overlooking the Intel K chips ability to overclock. I feel the FX 6300 is actually a better choice than the i3, as long as you can live with the potentially higher power draw. I think the 8350 *may* be a better choice than the 2500K for some people depending on what they are aiming to do with the computer. I don't think overclocking those chips or not overclocking changes that, generally speaking.

Or the short version, when someone recommends an AMD part, I don't think it means that they are necessarily ignoring the fact that Intel can overclock.
I always thought 4300 is priced similiar to I3, but I was wrong. I found that 6300 is priced in the similar I3 range ...
wenboy is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 03:58 PM   #59
mrmt
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,485
Default

http://premium.investorvillage.com/m...0782&showall=1

Just have a look at their ASP numbers for Q2: $48 per CPU.
mrmt is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 04:38 PM   #60
Puppies04
Diamond Member
 
Puppies04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowSpyder View Post
I think the majority of benches that an 8350 beats a 2500K at factory clocks, it'll also beat it when both are overclocked. The 2500K may catch in in a few, but overall I doubt the picture changes much, both will win and lose in most of the same places. I'll agree that the 2500K probably catches up as it can overclock to a higher percentage vs. its factory clock.
Anything that the 8350 is better at with stock clocks is blatantly highly multi-threaded as we all know what AMDs single threaded performance is like. At the same time anything highly multi-threaded forces the 2500K (or any other intel chip with turbo enabled) to run at its slowest possible turbo frequency, 3.4ghz?. The fact you can spend 5 minutes in the bios and add 30% to this speed with a $20 aftermarket cooler is the reason the intel chip will come top in more benchmarks once both chips are overclocked.

P.S I have owned 3 2500Ks and built 5 more rigs with them and the 30% overclock I mention above is the minimum I have attained, every chip has easily hit 40%+ but when considering heat, power draw and longevity some have been left at a 30% overclock
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonbogg View Post
If you have kids, you need to kill them
My weddding pic http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/d...ps224f2a90.png
Puppies04 is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 04:55 PM   #61
Yuriman
Platinum Member
 
Yuriman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowSpyder View Post
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the 8350 is better than a 2500K, or most certainly not an i7. But in the places where the eight cores to in fact get used, I don't think the extra percentage of overclocking a 2500K can achieve is going to change things most of the time.

But my point really wasn't about which chip is better. The point I was trying to make is that I don't feel like those who post positively about the current FX line up do so while overlooking the Intel K chips ability to overclock. I feel the FX 6300 is actually a better choice than the i3, as long as you can live with the potentially higher power draw. I think the 8350 *may* be a better choice than the 2500K for some people depending on what they are aiming to do with the computer. I don't think overclocking those chips or not overclocking changes that, generally speaking.

Or the short version, when someone recommends an AMD part, I don't think it means that they are necessarily ignoring the fact that Intel can overclock.
I can pretty much get behind this. 9 cases out of 10 I'd recommend an i5 over an FX-83xx but there are scenarios where an FX isn't a bad choice. Since an i3 is multiplier locked, I'd say it's disadvantaged to an FX-63xx more often than not, assuming you're going to overclock it. I'd still probably go with an i3 if I built my father a PC but for enthusiasts perhaps not.
__________________
3570K @ 4.6GHz 1.29v | ASRock Z77 Extreme4 | Gigabyte HD7850 2GB @ 1125/1575 | 2x 4GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3 1600 1.25v | OCZ Agility 3 240GB | WD Green 1.5GB | BFG LS 680w | Skyhawk MSR-4610
Yuriman is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 05:06 PM   #62
soccerballtux
Lifer
 
soccerballtux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eternalone View Post
before my time, context please?
__________________
HOW TO nested quote
Install this into Firefox then click this, then click "quote" as usual, then click "Nested Quote" to the right of the title bar.
4.0Ghz&2.6Ghz-CPU-NB Ph2-965BE || GA790X-UD4P 8GB DDR800 || Gigabyte GTX670 || Soyo 24" PMVA Heatware
soccerballtux is online now  
Old 11-14-2012, 05:08 PM   #63
Arkaign
Lifer
 
Arkaign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19,249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soccerballtux View Post
before my time, context please?
When the US Invaded Iraq in 2003, and was steamrolling the crap out of the Iraqi military (US is good at that, terrible at actual occupation duty), we were in Baghdad pressing into the city, and the Iraqi Information Minister kept saying 'everything is ok, no US people here, we are driving them out'. Lol. I think they kept broadcasting those messages even after Baghdad was lost.

It's the epitome of denial.
__________________
Death is the answer.
Arkaign is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 05:26 PM   #64
Ferzerp
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 5,276
Default

Baghdad Bob...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
On April 7, 2003, two days before Baghdad fell to US forces, al-Sahhaf claimed that there were no American troops in Baghdad, and that the Americans were committing suicide by the hundreds at the city's gates. He made this statement while standing on the east bank of the Dijli (Tigris) River in the center of Baghdad. His back was to the river and reporters could see two American Army M1 Abrams tanks behind him on a road on the far side of the river. His last public appearance as Information Minister was on April 8, 2003, when he said that the Americans "are going to surrender or be burned in their tanks. They will surrender, it is they who will surrender".
Ferzerp is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 05:26 PM   #65
Arkaign
Lifer
 
Arkaign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19,249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rvenger View Post
That was more valid maybe with the 8150, not Vishera.


Plus a member on OCN has an 8320 @ 5.3ghz

http://www.overclock.net/t/1318995/o...ra-owners-club
There are tons of members out there of various sites with SB and even IB at a good bit past 5Ghz+, but I don't count them, as they are either running unsafe volts and/or extreme cooling + suicide run.

Also, have you seen the power usage start to explode on 8350 past 4.5Ghz? It goes up really fast really high. At 5.3Ghz it would probably be way over 300W for CPU alone, maybe even closing on 400W. Regardless, 4.8-4.9 seems to be the high end of air overclock with good cooling for 8350, and even at there it sucks a TON of juice.
__________________
Death is the answer.
Arkaign is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 06:49 PM   #66
Smartazz
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkaign View Post
There are tons of members out there of various sites with SB and even IB at a good bit past 5Ghz+, but I don't count them, as they are either running unsafe volts and/or extreme cooling + suicide run.

Also, have you seen the power usage start to explode on 8350 past 4.5Ghz? It goes up really fast really high. At 5.3Ghz it would probably be way over 300W for CPU alone, maybe even closing on 400W. Regardless, 4.8-4.9 seems to be the high end of air overclock with good cooling for 8350, and even at there it sucks a TON of juice.
Why is it that a lot of people can care less with their graphics cards use a ton of power. This 7950 uses a ton of power but I don't really mind.
__________________
i5 2500K@4.6GHz, 16GB G.SKILL 1600MHz, R9 290x, Seasonic X850, X-Fi Fatal1ty, Samsung 830 and 840 with Antec 1200.
Retina MacBook Pro 15", 2.6GHz, 16GB, 512GB SSD
Achieva Shimian, Das Keyboard, Logitech G400 and Razer Scarab.
Smartazz is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 07:02 PM   #67
Arkaign
Lifer
 
Arkaign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19,249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartazz View Post
Why is it that a lot of people can care less with their graphics cards use a ton of power. This 7950 uses a ton of power but I don't really mind.
It really has to do with what the competition is like. An Nvidia card capable of performing like your 7950 uses not much of a different power profile. That's a giant contrast to say 2500k @ 4.8 vs. 8350 @ 4.8. When you're talking well over 100W difference or more, that begins to demand not only a more expensive cooler to maintain, but a more expensive power supply as well. And if you're cutting it close, then you have to be more careful with GPU options.
__________________
Death is the answer.
Arkaign is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 07:06 PM   #68
Arkaign
Lifer
 
Arkaign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19,249
Default

At 4.8Ghz, an 8350 used 364W (!!!), contrast that to 3770K @ 4.8ghz using only 244W. That eats a lot of potential wattage you could use for GPUs. (per Bit-Tech).

I will admit handily that the 8350 is a huge improvement over 8150 in that regard though!
__________________
Death is the answer.
Arkaign is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 07:10 PM   #69
frozentundra123456
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,448
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartazz View Post
Why is it that a lot of people can care less with their graphics cards use a ton of power. This 7950 uses a ton of power but I don't really mind.
It is not just the power, it is the performance you get for that power. If it were faster in the wide majority of apps, I dont think so many people would criticize AMDs power usage. The problem is that in most apps it is slower and uses more power as well.

To phrase it in terms of a graphics card, more power used gets more performance. Not necessarily so with Bulldozer.
frozentundra123456 is online now  
Old 11-14-2012, 08:59 PM   #70
Rifter
Diamond Member
 
Rifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 8,501
Default

They are never going to be competative with intel till they cut their power useage in half.

More than in half when taking OCing into account, these chips are not worth bothering with to OC due to the absurd power useage numbers.
__________________
i7 930 @ 4.2Ghz 1.35V -- Asus P6X58D-E -- Noctua NH-D14 -- Corsair XMS3 6GB 1600Mhz
SLI GTX 460 860Mhz -- Intel 120GB G2 SSD -- 2 x 1TB Seagate 7200.12 1TB in RAID 0
Corsair 850w TX PSU -- Corsair 600T case -- WD Green 2TB -- Seagate LP 2TB

Oppan Gangnam style all up in this mother!
Rifter is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 09:15 PM   #71
SlowSpyder
Diamond Member
 
SlowSpyder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rifter View Post
They are never going to be competative with intel till they cut their power useage in half.

More than in half when taking OCing into account, these chips are not worth bothering with to OC due to the absurd power useage numbers.

Some might say the same about an i7 930 @ 4.2GHz and 1.35 volts.

For the record I pretty much agree with you, AMD's power consumption is the biggest problem in my opinion. More so than overall performance.
__________________
Steve
FX 9370 / 7970 / ASRock 990FX Extreme 9
GO PACKERS!
SlowSpyder is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 09:18 PM   #72
Rifter
Diamond Member
 
Rifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 8,501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowSpyder View Post
Some might say the same about an i7 930 @ 4.2GHz and 1.35 volts.

For the record I pretty much agree with you, AMD's power consumption is the biggest problem in my opinion. More so than overall performance.
I am aware my 930@1.35v is sucking back the juice, but so was everything else 3-4 years ago We aint talking about 3-4 year old tech anymore though AMD has to get with the times.
__________________
i7 930 @ 4.2Ghz 1.35V -- Asus P6X58D-E -- Noctua NH-D14 -- Corsair XMS3 6GB 1600Mhz
SLI GTX 460 860Mhz -- Intel 120GB G2 SSD -- 2 x 1TB Seagate 7200.12 1TB in RAID 0
Corsair 850w TX PSU -- Corsair 600T case -- WD Green 2TB -- Seagate LP 2TB

Oppan Gangnam style all up in this mother!
Rifter is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 09:18 PM   #73
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,479
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rifter View Post
They are never going to be competative with intel till they cut their power useage in half.
AMD resigned themselves to having virtually no control over their fate in terms of power-consumption characteristics of the future nodes with which they aim to leverage in competing against Intel when they elected to spin out their fabs.

Once they did that they basically limited themselves to competing only with other fabless companies (like Nvidia and Qualcomm, but not Intel).

That was the decision - buy ATI and sell-off the fabs, or invest $5.4B into the future of process technology. Intel decided to go with the process technology choice and it shows.
Idontcare is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 09:26 PM   #74
SlowSpyder
Diamond Member
 
SlowSpyder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rifter View Post
I am aware my 930@1.35v is sucking back the juice, but so was everything else 3-4 years ago We aint talking about 3-4 year old tech anymore though AMD has to get with the times.

My Thuban agrees with you.
__________________
Steve
FX 9370 / 7970 / ASRock 990FX Extreme 9
GO PACKERS!
SlowSpyder is offline  
Old 11-15-2012, 04:30 AM   #75
mrmt
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,485
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
That was the decision - buy ATI and sell-off the fabs, or invest $5.4B into the future of process technology. Intel decided to go with the process technology choice and it shows.
Do you really think that AMD the smallest idea they were making that trade off? The ATI decision predates Conroe, and the GLF deal three years after was simply rushed. I think AMD management weren't ready for Conroe, which wiped them out of the high end market, but more important, they weren't ready for tick-tock, which placed a competitive pressure that AMD could not bear.
mrmt is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.