All new build or drop in FX8350?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,066
418
126
Durvelle27 said:
For all the HSF talk. Both the 8350 & 8320 come with the same stock cooler unless you get the one bundled with the AIO. The 8320 would be a great choice but if ocing I wouldnt recommend stock cooling I would recommend at least a hyper 212+ or better. It should hit 4.5GHz pretty easily.
Click to expand...


can't you hit 4-4.2GHz with the stock cooler? that's not to far from the 4.5GHz
 
guskline

guskline

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2006
5,338
476
126
Hitting 4.4, 4.5 etc is NOT the issue with these chips. I own BOTH a 8350 and a 8320. Bought both retail from newegg. I bought the 8350 first and later when building a third rig with a refurbed Asus Sabertooth 990FX rev2 mb I opted for the 8320 to save a few $$. The 8350 is in a rev 1 Asus Sabertooth 990 FX. I found this mb to be a decent OCer and built like a tank to take the increased voltage the 8300 series likes. The rev1 mb started with a 1100T, then a 8150 and finally a 8350.

IDC, who does excellent and thorough testing, makes a valid point about the HS. I opted to use AIO water cooling to allow OCing and decent heat dissipation.

While a 4.4 to 4.5 Ghz OC on the 8350 is not far above spec (4.0 all cores, 4.2 turbo), achieving the same with the 8320 is asking much more (3.5 all cores, 4.0 turbo). Right now at newegg the 8350 is $199 and the 8320 is $159.

I have the 8350 OC'd to 4.6 ghz (21 x 219 1.462 vcore) and cooled by a Corsair H100. It has passed every stress test I can throw at it with flying colors. I have the 8350 OC'd to 4.3 ghz (21 x 209 1.42 vcore) and cooled by a Thermaltake water 2.0 Pro. Same results on stress testing. Be careful of posters who claim the 8320 will OC "easily" to 4.4-4.5. Perhaps the machine will boot into Windows and run but when put to stress tests it either BSOD or the temps go through the roof. On my 8320 it was amazing to get a solid 4.3 Ghz with 1.42 vcore.

I found my Vishera chips to be "tough hombres" but crank up the vcore too much and temps really climb.

Coming from a 965BE at 4.1Ghz you obviously know how to OC. Wait until the 8350 goes on sale ( it happens now and then) and snag it. Try to find a higher end AIO cooler and then blast away.
 
Last edited:
F

Face2Face

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2001
4,100
215
106
Hey Vic,

I would do some research to see if your particular motherboard has an issue with throttling before you jump on the FX 8 core and start overclocking. I have a Asus 890FX with a 8320 and it throttles at any speed past 3.5Ghz. This only happens when all cores are loaded 100% and it's not a CPU temp problem, it seems like a limitation of the motherboard. I don't know what the long term effects of CPU throttling are? Maybe someone can answer that question?
 
Last edited:
jacktesterson

jacktesterson

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
5,493
3
81
Vic Vega said:
Good post, thanks for the info. I think I am leaning more toward the 8350 now.

My biggest thing is ease of use. I don't like having to "fiddle" after I get something dialed in. I don't want something flakey either, so if the 8320 at those speeds will be flaky in any sense, I don't want it.
Click to expand...


I have a 8320 that hit 4.7 GHz for overclocking - I run it here 24/7

From all the reading I've done, it seems the Majority of folks can hit 4.4 or 4.5 GHz with either chip, with the 8350 usually able to go a little higher after that point in comparison. To be honest, once you're past 4.4-4.5 GHz you see a big spike in energy consumption, so it's not worth it venturing into those waters anyways for most. My chip is pretty good though.

I was on the other side of it before, had a 2500k @ 4.5 GHz that ran at higher voltage than average just to be stable.... others were running at 4.7 or 4.8 at same voltage. Either way - The difference was not that noticeable.

Not worth $50 + Tax for me. Still voting for the 8320.
 
Last edited:
Durvelle27

Durvelle27

Diamond Member
Jun 3, 2012
4,102
0
0
guskline said:
Hitting 4.4, 4.5 etc is NOT the issue with these chips. I own BOTH a 8350 and a 8320. Bought both retail from newegg. I bought the 8350 first and later when building a third rig with a refurbed Asus Sabertooth 990FX rev2 mb I opted for the 8320 to save a few $$. The 8350 is in a rev 1 Asus Sabertooth 990 FX. I found this mb to be a decent OCer and built like a tank to take the increased voltage the 8300 series likes. The rev1 mb started with a 1100T, then a 8150 and finally a 8350.

IDC, who does excellent and thorough testing, makes a valid point about the HS. I opted to use AIO water cooling to allow OCing and decent heat dissipation.

While a 4.4 to 4.5 Ghz OC on the 8350 is not far above spec (4.0 all cores, 4.2 turbo), achieving the same with the 8320 is asking much more (3.5 all cores, 4.0 turbo). Right now at newegg the 8350 is $199 and the 8320 is $159.

I have the 8350 OC'd to 4.6 ghz (21 x 219 1.462 vcore) and cooled by a Corsair H100. It has passed every stress test I can throw at it with flying colors. I have the 8350 OC'd to 4.3 ghz (21 x 209 1.42 vcore) and cooled by a Thermaltake water 2.0 Pro. Same results on stress testing. Be careful of posters who claim the 8320 will OC "easily" to 4.4-4.5. Perhaps the machine will boot into Windows and run but when put to stress tests it either BSOD or the temps go through the roof. On my 8320 it was amazing to get a solid 4.3 Ghz with 1.42 vcore.

I found my Vishera chips to be "tough hombres" but crank up the vcore too much and temps really climb.

Coming from a 965BE at 4.1Ghz you obviously know how to OC. Wait until the 8350 goes on sale ( it happens now and then) and snag it. Try to find a higher end AIO cooler and then blast away.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying this isn't true because every chip OC's a little different but wow that's all it can get is 4.3. My chip is at 4.5 w/1.42v and is stable. Tested with Prime95 & OCCT.


but i think a lot of use haven't thought about if his motherboard can even handle OCing a FX 8 core
 
Arkaign

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Durvelle27 said:
I'm not saying this isn't true because every chip OC's a little different but wow that's all it can get is 4.3. My chip is at 4.5 w/1.42v and is stable. Tested with Prime95 & OCCT.


but i think a lot of use haven't thought about if his motherboard can even handle OCing a FX 8 core
Click to expand...

This I think has been glossed over.

His board's VRM and power delivery components have had years of hard use already. The difference between 'stock' 8320 and 8350 are 125W and 140W respectively IIRC. The 8320 is validated for the board, the 8350 is not. The only reason I could think of would be that 140W+ is too much to push through the board reliably.

Ironically I'm helping an old friend today with his FX8150 build, it cooked his mobo (Micro Center combo with a midrange Asus mobo) after about 4 months. That was in combo with a GTX465 and a Corsair 750HX power supply. System was not overclocked in any way, but given that the board pooped its pants, I'm guessing power delivery wasn't up to snuff.

Once you're dealing with the kind of power necessary to feed these beasts (check IDC's testing of the 8350!), I wouldn't personally recommend pushing either the 8320 or 8350 on such a board without being well prepared to pop it and then spend $150+ getting a really sturdy board if OC is a goal. This is not the same world Intel users have been used to with 32nm in any way at all. Heck even Intel 45nm was cake on a mobo by comparison. I have a mid 3Ghz E5200 that's been on a $50 G31 board for I think at least 3 years now, maybe closer to 4.

That's just my take, but I think it's just something that bears consideration. Who knows, it may work great in that board at 4.5Ghz for years (!!). I think the 4.5Ghz factor would be more bragging rights than practicality though. CF 5850 + stock 8320 is more than enough to game very well at 1080p/1200p settings.
 
sm625

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
You got a hell of a overclock on that thing. I'd be really surprised if you can even get an 8350 to go that much higher, and even if it did your single thread performance would suffer. Some things would be noticably slower. Basic things like waiting for a page to laod. I would be extremely disappointed if I spent money only to have worse performance in any way.
 
F

Face2Face

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2001
4,100
215
106
Face2Face said:
Hey Vic,

I would do some research to see if your particular motherboard has an issue with throttling before you jump on the FX 8 core and start overclocking. I have a Asus 890FX with a 8320 and it throttles at any speed past 3.5Ghz. This only happens when all cores are loaded 100% and it's not a CPU temp problem, it seems like a limitation of the motherboard. I don't know what the long term effects of CPU throttling are? Maybe someone can answer that question?
Click to expand...

Going back to my last post. I looked at the Phase design of your MSI board and it's a 4+1 design. By comparison my Asus M4A89TD PRO/USB3 has a 6+2 phase design. As I stated, my CPU throttles like crazy when under 100% load. If you do some research online, you will see some users are reporting throttling is due to needing a bios update, changing power settings or CPU/Mosfet overheating. The latter seems to be the most common, especially on older chipsets. Kingfatty on here runs a similar board as me, the M4A89GTD PRO/USB3 with a FX 6300 OC to 4.6 I believe. He can only run it that high with a fan directly blowing on the mosfets to keep it from throttling, and keep in mind his board is an 8+2 Phase Design vs. My 6+2 and your 4+1. I think a 8320 would work in your board, but I wouldn't expect and overclock out of it or even enabling turbo for that matter.

EDIT: I take that back - Your MSI board uses a 4+1 design, but the Drmos 4+1 design is equivalent to a 16+4 phase design in comparison to the other boards. So you "should" be ok for overclocking a 8320 or 8350. I guess the only way to know is to do more research or try it out for yourself.
 
Last edited:
Arkaign

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
sm625 said:
You got a hell of a overclock on that thing. I'd be really surprised if you can even get an 8350 to go that much higher, and even if it did your single thread performance would suffer. Some things would be noticably slower. Basic things like waiting for a page to laod. I would be extremely disappointed if I spent money only to have worse performance in any way.
Click to expand...

??

I have a 5Ghz 2700, IB i5 17" Notebook and a stock 1090t, both with 840 Pro ssds (the laptop is 840 non-pro) on 75mbit Fios, and all of them browse identically.
 
Durvelle27

Durvelle27

Diamond Member
Jun 3, 2012
4,102
0
0
sm625 said:
You got a hell of a overclock on that thing. I'd be really surprised if you can even get an 8350 to go that much higher, and even if it did your single thread performance would suffer. Some things would be noticably slower. Basic things like waiting for a page to laod. I would be extremely disappointed if I spent money only to have worse performance in any way.
Click to expand...

what a load of BS. :mad:

Single thread performance would indeed be much better and no way in *** would browsing the net be slower it will be almost exactly the same.
 
Durvelle27

Durvelle27

Diamond Member
Jun 3, 2012
4,102
0
0
sm625 said:
An 8350 at 4.5GHz would not be faster than a 965 at 4.1GHz for most web browsing. Pages like ebay searches, yahoo finance would be slower due to heavy use of javascript. Flash games would run slower.

This page has a chart of over 20 gaming benchmarks: http://alienbabeltech.com/main/amds-fx-8150-vs-core-i7-phenom-ii-bulldozer-arrives/8/

You're just not getting anything from the upgrade, nothing that even remotely justifies $200.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahaha

First you spit a load of BS then link an old benchmark using an Bulldozer

:colbert:



Please stop trolling before you get this thread closed
 
Arkaign

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
OP said:
Intended uses are "work", more SSH and remote sessions than you can shake a stick at, typically 3-4 VMs running at any given time, gaming, Netflix and web crap.
Click to expand...

Yes, a move to 8320 would benefit him. Even at stock it's a better if not mindblowing upgrade. 8120/8150 would be a little murkier, but 8320 is a pretty easy bet when considering the resale of his old CPU. I still wouldn't recommend OC'ing it much if at all on that board given the weak AND heavily used nature of it.
 
inf64

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,884
4,692
136
Page loads would be slow on OCed FX ? This is a nominee for Darwin award on AT for year 2013 :D
 
Arkaign

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
inf64 said:
Page loads would be slow on OCed FX ? This is a nominee for Darwin award on AT for year 2013 :D
Click to expand...

Page loads wouldn't be slow on a stock or even moderately underclocked FX either. Web performance doesn't really start to suffer until you get down to the pretty garbage CPUs like Atom/Zacate. Pentium Dual-Core, Athlon II, Trinity, etc, all this low to low-midrange stuff can browse like a boss without issues provided you feed it the ram and don't hobble it with a slow HDD.
 
inf64

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,884
4,692
136
Arkaign said:
Page loads wouldn't be slow on a stock or even moderately underclocked FX either. Web performance doesn't really start to suffer until you get down to the pretty garbage CPUs like Atom/Zacate. Pentium Dual-Core, Athlon II, Trinity, etc, all this low to low-midrange stuff can browse like a boss without issues provided you feed it the ram and don't hobble it with a slow HDD.
Click to expand...

Yes I know that :), I was just amazed by what that guy posted. I still am :D
 
Maximilian

Maximilian

Lifer
Feb 8, 2004
12,604
15
81
sm625 said:
An 8350 at 4.5GHz would not be faster than a 965 at 4.1GHz for most web browsing. Pages like ebay searches, yahoo finance would be slower due to heavy use of javascript. Flash games would run slower.

This page has a chart of over 20 gaming benchmarks: http://alienbabeltech.com/main/amds-fx-8150-vs-core-i7-phenom-ii-bulldozer-arrives/8/

You're just not getting anything from the upgrade, nothing that even remotely justifies $200.
Click to expand...

That page just wont load.... *sigh* I need a better CPU this 3930k isnt cutting it! :mad: So slow at page loading... SO SLOW!
 
NTMBK

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,448
5,829
136
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom