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
· Home and Garden
· 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
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-04-2013, 09:03 AM   #401
bgt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 561
Default

changed my fans for the noiseblocker B12-2/3. The 3 is on the CPU. They are really quiet and powerfull. Temp dus not get over 55C with prime95@full speed(fans). Speedfan is 75% max on the two case fans and 50% for the cpu fan. I let it get to 62C for less revs.

__________________
Asrock Z87M-Extreme4/i7-4770K/8Gb1600/SSD128Gb+960Gb/IGP
Asrock H81M-HDS/i3-4130/4Gb1600/SSD128Gb+HDD2Tb/IGP
HTPC:Asus H81T/i3-4130T/4Gb1600/SSD256Gb/IGP/Akasa Euler Housing
HTPC:Asrock H81M-ITX/G3220/4Gb1333/SSD256Gb/IGP
OS=Win8.1.1 X64 PRO(UEFI mode) SSD = Crucial MX100 and (some) 840EVO/M500.

Last edited by bgt; 01-04-2013 at 09:09 AM.
bgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 09:12 AM   #402
guskline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lebanon, PA
Posts: 3,121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgt View Post
changed my fans for the noiseblocker B12-2/3. The 3 is on the CPU. They are really quiet and powerfull. Temp dus not get over 55C with prime95@full speed(fans). Speedfan is 75% max on the two case fans and 50% for the cpu fan. I let it get to 62C for less revs.

bgt: Is your 8350 overclocked or stock?
__________________
3930k @ 4.6 -Asus SbTh X79 - Custom WC - MO-RA3 Pro-420 + RX 360+XSPC-2 Sapphire Tri X OC R9-290s-CF with EK blocks/bridge -16G (4x4 quad)DDR3-2133 - Intel 530 SSD - Win 8.1 - PC P&C 1200W Silencer Mk III - BenQ BL3200PT
guskline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 10:13 AM   #403
CTho9305
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 9,214
Default

Commenting before I've read the whole thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferzerp View Post
Actually, that graph is extremely telling in regards to the claims that a module is a full 2 cores. I don't believe I've ever seen that particular set of data before.
This is a special case though - we know the FPUs are shared, and LINPACK is about as pure-FP as you can get. I see IDC posted some cinebench and maxwell scaling numbers that show much better scaling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
Do you happen to know anything official regarding TJmax for the FX-8350? Know anyone that would know?
When you posted your 200 watt results I searched a bit - AMD used to publish thermal and electrical specifications that could list absolute maximums, but I couldn't find specs for anything more recent than 65nm parts. Disappointing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
I have no issue believing this to be the case, but damn, that had to save them how much die-area? Maybe 0.1mm^2? The x87 instruction set itself is rather darn small, so small in fact that even back in the time of 486 processors it was viable to incorporate it onto the die.

Removing it now has got to be the equivalent of writing this post but leaving off the period at the end of the sentence just for the sake of saving the effort of pressing one more key



If it is then that is some darn impressive emulation considering performance is just lowly, not miserable or abysmal.
It wouldn't be a matter of just die area - it would be a matter of complexity and performance. Arithmetic units scale noticeably with operand size, and critical paths also scale. That said, I have no idea whether that actually changed here and wlee15 seems pretty sure it wasn't this.
__________________
*Not speaking for any company
CTho9305 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 10:54 AM   #404
bgt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 561
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guskline View Post
bgt: Is your 8350 overclocked or stock?
stock
__________________
Asrock Z87M-Extreme4/i7-4770K/8Gb1600/SSD128Gb+960Gb/IGP
Asrock H81M-HDS/i3-4130/4Gb1600/SSD128Gb+HDD2Tb/IGP
HTPC:Asus H81T/i3-4130T/4Gb1600/SSD256Gb/IGP/Akasa Euler Housing
HTPC:Asrock H81M-ITX/G3220/4Gb1333/SSD256Gb/IGP
OS=Win8.1.1 X64 PRO(UEFI mode) SSD = Crucial MX100 and (some) 840EVO/M500.
bgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 11:02 AM   #405
frozentundra123456
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHT View Post
Wheres the cherry picking? Piledrivers architecture was clearly designed for MT apps in mind and it succeded there, the FX-8350 is a stronger chip than Intels quadcores, it stays in Core i7 class in the most heavy multithreaded apps and usage, case closed. Lets move on.
Hmm, equal or slower, or in a few isolated cases, slightly faster, means "stronger"... interesting concept.

I am comparing to i7 since that is a quad core, and you are claiming 8350 is stronger than intel quads.

And BTW isnt considering only one type of app the very definition of "cherry picking"?
frozentundra123456 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 11:25 AM   #406
Hitman928
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: AZ
Posts: 423
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRyuu View Post
I'm not so sure this is true (as others I think have pointed out already).

The FPU throughput should remain unchanged from previous generations. The only reason it would perform slower than a 6-core phenom is because the phenom can execute 50% more FP instructions (since the FPU is shared in a module on bulldozer).

And even using SSE2 for floating point math doesn't make bulldozer any faster.
That wouldn't explain why then Bulldozer is significantly slower in pure single threaded x87, like super-pi or why specific x87 instructions saw a large increase in latency through the core. No CMT tax in super-pi, but still much slower. In other SSE2+ benchmarks, the first gen Bulldozers were equal to a little slower than their phenom counterparts. So, there's other things going on, but x87 definitely took the biggest hit in fpu performance (20%+ slower than phenoms for x87 versus 5-8% slower for sse).
Hitman928 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 11:29 AM   #407
Face2Face
Diamond Member
 
Face2Face's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: AnandTech
Posts: 3,074
Default

So do the new Piledriver CPU's have faster IPC than Phenom II?
__________________
3570K @ 4.8GHz - Z77X-UD4H - 16GB Samsung 1866MHz - GTX 780 Lightning + NZXT Kraken G10 - QX2710 1440p @ 96Hz

Last edited by Face2Face; 01-04-2013 at 11:34 AM.
Face2Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:26 PM   #408
Homeles
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face2Face View Post
So do the new Piledriver CPU's have faster IPC than Phenom II?
No. They won't have that until Steamroller.
Homeles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:41 PM   #409
Ajay
Platinum Member
 
Ajay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NH, USA
Posts: 2,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeles View Post
No. They won't have that until Steamroller.
2014 is a long way off for AMD at this point. We'll just have to wait and see if the 'big core' group still exists in 2014.
__________________
Asus P6T V2 Deluxe Ci7 970 @ 4.2GHz w/HT, Corsair H100i, 2x240GB SanDisk Extreme RAID0, 2x WD VR 300GB RAID0, MSI GTX 680 PE @ 1110MHz, 12GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 1600, Corair 850HX, Corsair 800D case. Win7 x64 Ultimate. Dell U2412M.
Heatware
Ajay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:46 PM   #410
Face2Face
Diamond Member
 
Face2Face's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: AnandTech
Posts: 3,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeles View Post
No. They won't have that until Steamroller.
So for gaming a 8320 would be a downgrade from the Phenom II I have and draw a lot more power at the same time?

So a Phenom II @ 4.0Ghz is equal to a 8320 @ _Ghz? IPC only
__________________
3570K @ 4.8GHz - Z77X-UD4H - 16GB Samsung 1866MHz - GTX 780 Lightning + NZXT Kraken G10 - QX2710 1440p @ 96Hz

Last edited by Face2Face; 01-04-2013 at 01:48 PM.
Face2Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 02:15 PM   #411
AtenRa
Diamond Member
 
AtenRa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Athens Greece
Posts: 6,792
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face2Face View Post
So for gaming a 8320 would be a downgrade from the Phenom II I have and draw a lot more power at the same time?

So a Phenom II @ 4.0Ghz is equal to a 8320 @ _Ghz? IPC only
FX8350(4GHz) has the same Single Thread performance as 3.7GHz Phenom II in Cinebench 11.5.
I will say that at 4.3GHz it will be in par with your Phenom II @ 4GHz.
As for the power, at idle the FX will have lower consumption. It will only have higher consumption when all cores are active but then it will have double the performance than your quad core Phenom, meaning it will consume the same.

AtenRa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 02:34 PM   #412
Hitman928
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: AZ
Posts: 423
Default

Actually, gaming (in general) is one area where the Piledriver cores match or are faster clock for clock over the Phenom's. It's probably not a big enough jump though to justify the upgrade price from an oc'd Phenom X4. Other workloads, the Piledriver cores roughly match a Phenom. Sometimes their a little faster clock for clock, a little more often they are a slightly slower.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...w,3328-15.html
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/186?vs=699

(remember those games that use 1-2 cores, piledriver will have a turbo advantage as well, but even when clocked the same, PD typically does better than x4 phenoms).
Hitman928 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 03:31 PM   #413
SlowSpyder
Diamond Member
 
SlowSpyder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face2Face View Post
So for gaming a 8320 would be a downgrade from the Phenom II I have and draw a lot more power at the same time?

So a Phenom II @ 4.0Ghz is equal to a 8320 @ _Ghz? IPC only

A while back I remember someone posting an article or thread on PD single threaded performance. If I remember correctly, PD was ~7% slower in single threaded performance. Since Vishera can typically easily clock well over 7% more than your average overclocked PhII, you should expect better overall performance. That, and up to eight threads, if you need them.

I think a lot of us wish AMD would have had something better than ~7% less IPC combined with 15% higher clocks three years after PhenomII launched, though. But in the end, performance should be faster with Vishera. If my motherboard would have been AM3+, I'd buy one.
__________________
Steve
FX 9370 / 7970 / ASRock 990FX Extreme 9
GO PACKERS!
SlowSpyder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 04:13 PM   #414
Face2Face
Diamond Member
 
Face2Face's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: AnandTech
Posts: 3,074
Default

Good info guys thanks. I was just curious, I am pretty sure I am going Intel next round.. Believe it or not, I am still pretty happy with the performance of the 4.0 Ghz PHII
__________________
3570K @ 4.8GHz - Z77X-UD4H - 16GB Samsung 1866MHz - GTX 780 Lightning + NZXT Kraken G10 - QX2710 1440p @ 96Hz
Face2Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 10:17 PM   #415
guskline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lebanon, PA
Posts: 3,121
Default

IDC: Check your PM for the Bios setting.
__________________
3930k @ 4.6 -Asus SbTh X79 - Custom WC - MO-RA3 Pro-420 + RX 360+XSPC-2 Sapphire Tri X OC R9-290s-CF with EK blocks/bridge -16G (4x4 quad)DDR3-2133 - Intel 530 SSD - Win 8.1 - PC P&C 1200W Silencer Mk III - BenQ BL3200PT
guskline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 05:54 AM   #416
bgt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 561
Default

My sons pc has a 1090T@stock with a 880chipset with an Asus mb but really is no match with the 8350. We tested it with Adobe photoshop, he is a web designer. The FX really runs circles around it even if we clock it down to 3.2Ghz.
He also wants to upgrade his pc so we are testing a lot of stuff on the 2500K and the FX CPU.

PS does the 3770 still gets very hot when under full load? I've read something about the heatspreader not being optimal or is this cured now? Thinking of buying 1 to test.
__________________
Asrock Z87M-Extreme4/i7-4770K/8Gb1600/SSD128Gb+960Gb/IGP
Asrock H81M-HDS/i3-4130/4Gb1600/SSD128Gb+HDD2Tb/IGP
HTPC:Asus H81T/i3-4130T/4Gb1600/SSD256Gb/IGP/Akasa Euler Housing
HTPC:Asrock H81M-ITX/G3220/4Gb1333/SSD256Gb/IGP
OS=Win8.1.1 X64 PRO(UEFI mode) SSD = Crucial MX100 and (some) 840EVO/M500.

Last edited by bgt; 01-06-2013 at 06:00 AM.
bgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 07:36 AM   #417
guskline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lebanon, PA
Posts: 3,121
Default

bgt: Thanks for the comparison of the 1090T and the 8350 as to Adobe photoshop.
__________________
3930k @ 4.6 -Asus SbTh X79 - Custom WC - MO-RA3 Pro-420 + RX 360+XSPC-2 Sapphire Tri X OC R9-290s-CF with EK blocks/bridge -16G (4x4 quad)DDR3-2133 - Intel 530 SSD - Win 8.1 - PC P&C 1200W Silencer Mk III - BenQ BL3200PT
guskline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 01:56 AM   #418
jvroig
Super Moderator
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtenRa View Post
FX8350(4GHz) has the same Single Thread performance as 3.7GHz Phenom II in Cinebench 11.5.
Don't you mean 4.2Ghz since I assume TurboCore has been left on?

Deneb X4 980, 3.7GHz: 1.1
Thuban 1100T, 3.3GHz (but turbos to 3.7): 1.1
FX3850 (4Ghz, but turbos to 4.2): 1.1

Given the data points above from the chart (I added the turbo speeds myself, however), it makes sense to conclude that TurboCore was left on, otherwise there is a huge discrepancy in the Thuban and Deneb scores if Turbo was off.
jvroig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 02:01 AM   #419
SPBHM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgt View Post

PS does the 3770 still gets very hot when under full load? I've read something about the heatspreader not being optimal or is this cured now? Thinking of buying 1 to test.
as far as I know nothing has changed, but it's not really a problem since the CPU can work at some pretty high temperatures...

also you shouldn't really compare temperature readings from different CPUs/sensors like the FX and your i5... I think the only way would be using an external sensor (the same) for both.
SPBHM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 03:34 AM   #420
AtenRa
Diamond Member
 
AtenRa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Athens Greece
Posts: 6,792
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvroig View Post
Don't you mean 4.2Ghz since I assume TurboCore has been left on?

Deneb X4 980, 3.7GHz: 1.1
Thuban 1100T, 3.3GHz (but turbos to 3.7): 1.1
FX3850 (4Ghz, but turbos to 4.2): 1.1

Given the data points above from the chart (I added the turbo speeds myself, however), it makes sense to conclude that TurboCore was left on, otherwise there is a huge discrepancy in the Thuban and Deneb scores if Turbo was off.
Yes you are right, I always forget about the turbo at 4.2GHz. At 4GHz it produces 1.06 points
AtenRa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 05:58 PM   #421
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,560
Default

I am getting started on the OC'ing fun, but I don't want to burn this chip up while still using stock HSF and stock TIM.

I know I asked earlier, but I cannot seem to find the response (thread is unwieldly) but what is the safe voltage for these pilderiver chips? We know AMD knows but isn't telling, but what is the general concensus?

Is 1.5V safe? What about 1.6V?



^ the red dots are data for my chip, optimized Vcore as needed to remain stable while running at least 5 passes of LinX.

The extrapolation to 4.5GHz reads out at 1.49V, and 1.68V for 5GHz Are those considered silly stupid voltage for a 32nm AMD chip, or is that "safe and reasonable"?

(by comparison I had no qualms over shoveling 1.5V into my 32nm 2600K and running it at 93C with LinX...perhaps arguably "silly stupid" of me, but that is my threshold as a baseline in answering my question above)
Idontcare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 06:45 PM   #422
2is
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,717
Default

I have a feeling that much after 4.6GHz there's going to be a steeper voltage curve that the current graph suggests.
__________________
Intel i7 3770K|240GB Intel SSD 520|Asus P8Z77-V Pro|2x GTX 680 SLI (2GB)|180GB Corsair Force SSD|Corsair TX750|2x8GB DDR3 1600 (1.35v)
2is is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 06:50 PM   #423
guskline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lebanon, PA
Posts: 3,121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
I am getting started on the OC'ing fun, but I don't want to burn this chip up while still using stock HSF and stock TIM.

I know I asked earlier, but I cannot seem to find the response (thread is unwieldly) but what is the safe voltage for these pilderiver chips? We know AMD knows but isn't telling, but what is the general concensus?

Is 1.5V safe? What about 1.6V?



^ the red dots are data for my chip, optimized Vcore as needed to remain stable while running at least 5 passes of LinX.

The extrapolation to 4.5GHz reads out at 1.49V, and 1.68V for 5GHz Are those considered silly stupid voltage for a 32nm AMD chip, or is that "safe and reasonable"?

(by comparison I had no qualms over shoveling 1.5V into my 32nm 2600K and running it at 93C with LinX...perhaps arguably "silly stupid" of me, but that is my threshold as a baseline in answering my question above)
From the digging I've done on the forums voltages up to 1.5 V are probably safe. HOWEVER, the stock HSF is not up to the job of taking away all the heat as you go much over 4.3-4.5 Ghz. Have a Corsair H100 with 4 fans makes a BIG difference along with excellent cooling on the VRM area. The stock HSF is adequate for defaults but run a benchmark on OC mode and even the PileDriver temps can shoot way up. You've got to dissipate the heat quickly.
__________________
3930k @ 4.6 -Asus SbTh X79 - Custom WC - MO-RA3 Pro-420 + RX 360+XSPC-2 Sapphire Tri X OC R9-290s-CF with EK blocks/bridge -16G (4x4 quad)DDR3-2133 - Intel 530 SSD - Win 8.1 - PC P&C 1200W Silencer Mk III - BenQ BL3200PT

Last edited by guskline; 01-09-2013 at 06:52 PM.
guskline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 07:03 PM   #424
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guskline View Post
From the digging I've done on the forums voltages up to 1.5 V are probably safe. HOWEVER, the stock HSF is not up to the job of taking away all the heat as you go much over 4.3-4.5 Ghz. Have a Corsair H100 with 4 fans makes a BIG difference along with excellent cooling on the VRM area. The stock HSF is adequate for defaults but run a benchmark on OC mode and even the PileDriver temps can shoot way up. You've got to dissipate the heat quickly.
Yeah I have an H100 but first I wanted to flesh out the OC capabilities of the processor at stock (without the aid of a $100 3rd party cooler ).

AMD's stock HSF is heads-and-shoulders above Intel's stock HSF and the max OC's with stock show that. I can't take my 3770K above 4.2GHz with the stock HSF (it starts thermal throttling), likewise I can't take my 2600K above 4GHz with its stock HSF.

But I have been running benchmarks at 4.5GHz with the piledriver on a stock HSF. Granted I didn't test for LinX stability, that is coming up, but still, pretty good for a HSF that comes with the CPU.
Idontcare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 07:18 PM   #425
guskline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lebanon, PA
Posts: 3,121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
Yeah I have an H100 but first I wanted to flesh out the OC capabilities of the processor at stock (without the aid of a $100 3rd party cooler ).

AMD's stock HSF is heads-and-shoulders above Intel's stock HSF and the max OC's with stock show that. I can't take my 3770K above 4.2GHz with the stock HSF (it starts thermal throttling), likewise I can't take my 2600K above 4GHz with its stock HSF.

But I have been running benchmarks at 4.5GHz with the piledriver on a stock HSF. Granted I didn't test for LinX stability, that is coming up, but still, pretty good for a HSF that comes with the CPU.
Too bad AMD didn't put more into the CPU and less into the stock HSF!
__________________
3930k @ 4.6 -Asus SbTh X79 - Custom WC - MO-RA3 Pro-420 + RX 360+XSPC-2 Sapphire Tri X OC R9-290s-CF with EK blocks/bridge -16G (4x4 quad)DDR3-2133 - Intel 530 SSD - Win 8.1 - PC P&C 1200W Silencer Mk III - BenQ BL3200PT
guskline is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 08:45 AM.


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