Observations with an FX-8350

Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by Idontcare, Dec 15, 2012.

  1. bgt

    bgt Senior member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
    #401 bgt, Jan 4, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2013
  2. guskline

    guskline Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,678
    Likes Received:
    21
    bgt: Is your 8350 overclocked or stock?
     
  3. CTho9305

    CTho9305 Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2000
    Messages:
    9,214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Commenting before I've read the whole thread...

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  4. bgt

    bgt Senior member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    0
    stock
     
  5. frozentundra123456

    frozentundra123456 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    Messages:
    9,080
    Likes Received:
    44
    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"?
     
  6. Hitman928

    Hitman928 Golden Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,000
    Likes Received:
    13
    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).
     
  7. Face2Face

    Face2Face Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,706
    Likes Received:
    11
    So do the new Piledriver CPU's have faster IPC than Phenom II?
     
    #407 Face2Face, Jan 4, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2013
  8. Homeles

    Homeles Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,585
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. They won't have that until Steamroller.
     
  9. Ajay

    Ajay Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2001
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  10. Face2Face

    Face2Face Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,706
    Likes Received:
    11
    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
     
    #410 Face2Face, Jan 4, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2013
  11. AtenRa

    AtenRa Lifer

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    11,378
    Likes Received:
    117
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Hitman928

    Hitman928 Golden Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,000
    Likes Received:
    13
    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/fx-8350-vishera-review,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).
     
  13. SlowSpyder

    SlowSpyder Lifer

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    10,134
    Likes Received:
    4

    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.
     
  14. Face2Face

    Face2Face Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,706
    Likes Received:
    11
    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
     
  15. guskline

    guskline Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,678
    Likes Received:
    21
    IDC: Check your PM for the Bios setting.
     
  16. bgt

    bgt Senior member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #416 bgt, Jan 6, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2013
  17. guskline

    guskline Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,678
    Likes Received:
    21
    bgt: Thanks for the comparison of the 1090T and the 8350 as to Adobe photoshop.
     
  18. jvroig

    jvroig Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,397
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  19. SPBHM

    SPBHM Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,036
    Likes Received:
    8
    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.
     
  20. AtenRa

    AtenRa Lifer

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    11,378
    Likes Received:
    117
    Yes you are right, I always forget about the turbo at 4.2GHz. At 4GHz it produces 1.06 points
     
  21. Idontcare

    Idontcare Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    21,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?

    [​IMG]

    ^ 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 D: 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)
     
  22. 2is

    2is Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Messages:
    3,998
    Likes Received:
    12
    I have a feeling that much after 4.6GHz there's going to be a steeper voltage curve that the current graph suggests.
     
  23. guskline

    guskline Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,678
    Likes Received:
    21
    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.
     
    #423 guskline, Jan 9, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2013
  24. Idontcare

    Idontcare Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    21,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  25. guskline

    guskline Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,678
    Likes Received:
    21
    Too bad AMD didn't put more into the CPU and less into the stock HSF!
     
Loading...