Observations with an FX-8350

[Burpo]

I have no hate for AMD Products, am thinking of getting a G6 Laptop used off ebay because I liked the last one I had very much. I simply don't like how YOU run around spreading your own FUD. I will no longer address any post by you..

Set_Ignore=Abwx

YOU Necro'd the thread..
Buh-Bye

 

[Abwx]

I have no hate for AMD Products, am thinking of getting a G6 Laptop used off ebay because I liked the last one I had very much. I simply don't like how YOU run around spreading your own FUD. I will no longer address any post by you..

Set_Ignore=Abwx

Great because you re actualy adressing nothing and just doing ad hominems, you think that the post below is worthy of being posted in a tech site :

Really.. No wonder his 5000+ posts running around crapping on threads like some Caped Crusader for AMD..
So pas·sé..

Yet you talk of FUD and spreading FUD, now it s you the victim and me that was talking of everything but the thread subject, LAWL...

 

[SlowSpyder]

Wow, coming to the defense of AMD with a two year old necro.

I don't believe IDC is a viral marketer. But, I'd much rather see what Abwx posted get looked at by others and confirmed as a real possibility that was overlooked and can explain why IDC saw higher power use than expected. Or debunk it. Really that simple.

 

[Phynaz]

I don't believe IDC is a viral marketer. But, I'd much rather see what Abwx posted get looked at by others and confirmed as a real possibility that was overlooked and can explain why IDC saw higher power use than expected. Or debunk it. Really that simple.

Then ABWX needs to post evidence, not made up numbers pulled out of thin air.

But come on, this is Bulldozer we are talking about, it's not only discontinued, it's the CPU even motherboard vendors had to throttle due to power consumption.

ABWX craps everywhere these days. He pollutes every discussion with his shilling.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Then ABWX needs to post evidence, not made up numbers pulled out of thin air.

But come on, this is Bulldozer we are talking about, it's not only discontinued, it's the CPU even motherboard vendors had to throttle due to power consumption.

ABWX craps everywhere these days. He pollutes every discussion with his shilling.

I saw this post yesterday by Abwx. I think that's why this was bumped. I agree, his posts can be over the top pro-AMD and worth questioning. But, that doesn't mean what he posted is incorrect (or correct, I really don't know). That's why I'd rather see what he posted confirmed as possible or debunked, I'm honestly curious about if the numbers could be off. I get decent power consumption at <1.35v with a pump and 4 x 200mm fans, an FX 9370, and a 1300 watt power supply. I'd rather see good information come out of this regardless if it shows the FX in a good light or bad light, that's all.

 

[Phynaz]

You could run the tests yourself. Do you have a kill-o-watt?

 

[SlowSpyder]

You could run the tests yourself. Do you have a kill-o-watt?

I do! I've run some power tests and posted the results before. My system is quite a bit different than the OP's, but I can get set the clocks to FX 8350 levels as well as the voltage and test. IDC is quite thorough and knows his stuff, so I tend to believe him. But, if Abwx caught something that may of been overlooked, it is worth investigating. If I can tonight or this weekend, I'll be happy to add my numbers.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I do! I've run some power tests and posted the results before. My system is quite a bit different than the OP's, but I can get set the clocks to FX 8350 levels as well as the voltage and test. IDC is quite thorough and knows his stuff, so I tend to believe him. But, if Abwx caught something that may of been overlooked, it is worth investigating. If I can tonight or this weekend, I'll be happy to add my numbers.

Please do!

 

[SlowSpyder]

Please do!

I will. My numbers in the Cinebench scores show 120 - 170 watts used, depending on the voltage, and at 4.4GHz. I have gotten my CPU to use over 400 watts by itself at 5.35Ghz and 1.6v+. I've also gotten it down to ~120 watts at 4.4GHz by undervolting. Anyway, I'll try and mimic the tests in the OP and see where things land.

 

[jhu]

I will. My numbers in the Cinebench scores show 120 - 170 watts used, depending on the voltage, and at 4.4GHz. I have gotten my CPU to use over 400 watts by itself at 5.35Ghz and 1.6v+. I've also gotten it down to ~120 watts at 4.4GHz by undervolting. Anyway, I'll try and mimic the tests in the OP and see where things land.

Careful there. Our friend Abwx will claim that as platform consumption and not just CPU power consumption. And while technically correct, the point is moot since we pay for electricity pulled from the wall and not just at the CPU.

 

[Abwx]

You would need a FX8350 set at default, the 9570 has its own voltage/frequency curve that is undoubtly better than the one of the early 8350, Hardware.fr 2012 review on the other hand used a quite mediocre sample according to their own words, their results are more representative, as shown by their review the VID is 1.3375 but the probed voltage was 1.24V, using a more recent MB in 2014 but the same sample they got 1.27V for the same 1.3375 VID, that is the voltage is set by the regulation loop unless you want to tweak, in wich case the optimum voltage wont be used since the user is the one that define the voltage and its management, first step is the extreme setting for wich the voltage will be sustained even if not needed as it allows to pump higher peak currents in case of overclocking, and so on....

 

[railven]

Did I just read someone accusing IDC of being a viral marketer? Holy crap!

If you want to address something, be reasonable, don't automatically jump to malice. IDC is a prolific poster here (and I'm pretty sure he's still working in the field).

Terrible form, why no one likes Pro-AMD guys (and I'm pro AMD GPUs) around here. Chips too big on their shoulders.

 

[Phynaz]

I do! I've run some power tests and posted the results before. My system is quite a bit different than the OP's, but I can get set the clocks to FX 8350 levels as well as the voltage and test. IDC is quite thorough and knows his stuff, so I tend to believe him. But, if Abwx caught something that may of been overlooked, it is worth investigating. If I can tonight or this weekend, I'll be happy to add my numbers.

That would be cool, thanks.

ABWX could learn a few things from your posting methods.

 

[Phynaz]

You would need a FX8350 set at default, the 9570 has its own voltage/frequency curve that is undoubtly better than the one of the early 8350, Hardware.fr 2012 review on the other hand used a quite mediocre sample according to their own words, their results are more representative, as shown by their review the VID is 1.3375 but the probed voltage was 1.24V, using a more recent MB in 2014 but the same sample they got 1.27V for the same 1.3375 VID, that is the voltage is set by the regulation loop unless you want to tweak, in wich case the optimum voltage wont be used since the user is the one that define the voltage and its management, first step is the extreme setting for wich the voltage will be sustained even if not needed as it allows to pump higher peak currents in case of overclocking, and so on....

So when you babble on about Haswell efficiency are you using tweaked voltages? Or does that only apply to AMD?

 

[railven]

Tinfoil hat too tight.

EDIT: Clarification - my tinfoil hat is on too tight!

 

[crashtech]

IDC's testing was as rigorous as any in the enthusiast realm, and was being vetted on the fly by many other users. Even Abwx was participating, but he never mentioned any voltage problem that I can recall. The posts speak for themselves, the accusation of FUD is completely without merit.

 

[Abwx]

So when you babble on about Haswell efficiency are you using tweaked voltages? Or does that only apply to AMD?

You are the one babbling, i used published numbers by sites, that means stock settings, although i dont see the relevancy with the FX.

The subject is the FX and not Haswell, stop thread crapping with non related subjects.

 

[railven]

IDC's testing was as rigorous as any in the enthusiast realm, and was being vetted on the fly by many other users. Even Abwx was participating, but he never mentioned any voltage problem that I can recall. The posts speak for themselves, the accusation of FUD is completely without merit.

Heck didn't even have to dig deep, it was discussed:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34387518&postcount=77
IDC muses if LLCC is auto off on his board (keep this mind).

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34389779&postcount=92
Atenra validates IDC's finding, makes note of HPC mode.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34390159&postcount=95
Jvroig responds to inf64 who still thinks something is funny, aggain HPC/LLCC mode is discussed.

From these posts it just seems that HPC mode is the governor and it's a fair conclusion that a high end board IDC used, has it default on.

So much for incompetence and viral marketing. Someone owes IDC an apology.

What caught my attention is that the probed voltage is exactly equal to the VID, wich is rarely the case, unless one remove the LLCC automatic setting and goes fully manual, in wich case the CPU can no more set the voltage to the optimal number since in this case the user is the one that decide of what is the optimal level.

By removing the automated regulation the OP, deliberatly or not, forced the CPU to eventualy work out of specs, in this case the CPU was overvolted from 1.24V up to a forced voltage of 1.377 wich is the value of the VID wich is forced as default value since the automation is removed.

 

[Abwx]

IDC's testing was as rigorous as any in the enthusiast realm, and was being vetted on the fly by many other users. Even Abwx was participating, but he never mentioned any voltage problem that I can recall. The posts speak for themselves, the accusation of FUD is completely without merit.

The FX was new, there was no precise knowledge of its power management, what pointed me in the good direction is Hardware.fr 2012 review since they published both VIDs and probed voltage, at stock settings and for their ocking needs.

Both the Asus boards they used at a 2 year distance to test the same 2012 FX8350 show the same behaviour, either you put the voltage management LLCC on auto and the chip will work at optimal voltage, 1.24-1.27V at 4GHz for a FX8350 circa october 2012.

Or you can tweak the thing by forcing out of specs voltages for overclocking stability needs, on setting "LLCC high" the board will force a voltage that is 0.04V below the VID, on "LLCC extreme" the board will force a voltage 0.05V above the VID, the forced increased voltage will compensate for the increased voltages losses when ocking as the currents running from the VRMs to the socket will be often out of specs in this case.

In the case that interest us the VID was set as 1.3375 and the probed voltage was 1.377, this say that LLCC was forced to a setting between "high" and "extreme" resulting in the CPU being fed a forced voltage equal to the VID.

 

[railven]

The FX was new, there was no precise knowledge of its power management, what pointed me in the good direction is Hardware.fr 2012 review since they published both VIDs and probed voltage, at stock settings and for their ocking needs.

Both the Asus boards they used at a 2 year distance to test the same 2012 FX8350 show the same behaviour, either you put the voltage management LLCC on auto and the chip will work at optimal voltage, 1.24-1.27V at 4GHz for a FX8350 circa october 2012.

Or you can tweak the thing by forcing out of specs voltages for overclocking stability needs, on setting "LLCC high" the board will force a voltage that is 0.04V below the VID, on "LLCC extreme" the board will force a voltage 0.05V above the VID, the forced increased voltage will compensate for the increased voltages losses when ocking as the currents running from the VRMs to the socket will be often out of specs in this case.

In the case that interest us the VID was set as 1.3375 and the probed voltage was 1.377, this say that LLCC was forced to a setting between "high" and "extreme" resulting in the CPU being fed a voltage equal to the VID.

So you waited over a year to spring this info while accusing IDC of being viral/incompetent?

You participated in the thread in 2013, yet didn't mention any of this info. So you learned this AFTER your participation and instead of being civil "hey guys, new info I discovered" you auto attack IDC?

 

[Abwx]

So you waited over a year to spring this info while accusing IDC of being viral/incompetent?

You participated in the thread in 2013, yet didn't mention any of this info. So you learned this AFTER your participation and instead of being civil "hey guys, new info I discovered" you auto attack IDC?

Read my post above, IDC made its review when the 8350 was launched and there are very few, if any, sites that publish infos about voltages values and managements, now you can always try to negate my technical claims with technical arguments, any other kind of critics would be aknowledgment that you are clueless and just reacting emotionaly.

Edit : For the time i estimate that all this was due to ignorance of the FX and incompetence when it comes to do a clear review, is that clear..?.

So much for incompetence and viral marketing. Someone owes IDC an apology.

An apology is indeed owed, to AMD.

 

[railven]

Read my post above, IDC made its review when the 8350 was launched and there are very few, if any, sites that publish infos about voltages values and managements, now you can always try to negate my technical claims with technical arguments, any other kind of critics would be aknowledgment that you are clueless and just reacting emotionaly.

Edit : For the time i estimate that all this was due to ignorance of the FX and incompetence when it comes to do a clear review, is that clear..?.

So basically:
"We didn't know this then, we do now, therefore IDC was viral marketing, incompetent to do a complete a review and has done great harm to the AMD brand."

Gotcha. And now you seem annoyed that I defended IDC. We must all be taking the same payola. Right?

EDIT: To your EDIT:


:awe:

 

[SlowSpyder]

I think the FX's have matured somewhat like Fermi did in it's day. The early ones being hotter and more power hungry than CPU's manufactured more recently. I doubt AMD could have launched a 4.7GHz / 5GHz turbo CPU when the FX 8350 originally launched, even at the bumped voltage. With time the process has matured and I think the new CPU's behave a bit better. I'm at work now, but will run some tests. I lapped my CPU a bit, but have some pictures of it before I did so. I think it should have a code for when it was manufactured.

 

[Abwx]

So basically:
"We didn't know this then, we do now, therefore IDC was viral marketing, incompetent to do a complete a review and has done great harm to the AMD brand."

It s the truth, a lot of people took his review at face value, but now explain me why there is not a single site that measured this power draw, including when using Prime 95, wich is more a power hog than IBT..?..

People came here and thought that the FX8350 was too power consuming, allegedly 20% more than the official 125W, and this influenced quite a lot of people, that s why i said that retrospectively it acted as viral marketing, and saying otherwise is negating that IDC has some authority here and that his saying, wrong or right, would be assumed as being right, prove is that you re still taking his review as if it was a gospel while ther s not a single review in the net that correlate his numbers...

Gotcha. And now you seem annoyed that I defended IDC. We must all be taking the same payola. Right?

EDIT: To your EDIT:


:awe:

You can defend him all the way you want, what i see is that you re relying to some ad hominem to compensate the vaccum when it comes to technical arguments, that is, there s nothing else than personal attacks in your posts, and thread crapping by the way..

 

[railven]

It s the truth, a lot of people took his review at face value, but now explain me why there is not a single site that measured this power draw, including when using Prime 95, wich is more a power hog than IBT..?..

People came here and thought that the FX8350 was too power consuming, allegedly 20% more than the official 125W, and this influenced quite a lot of people, that s why i said that retrospectively it acted as viral marketing, and saying otherwise is negating that IDC has some authority here and that his saying, wrong or right, would be assumed as being right, prove is that you re still taking his review as if it was a gospel while ther s not a single review in the net that correlate his numbers...

And you didn't mention this at all during the course of the original thread?

You can defend him all the way you want, what i see is that you re relying to some ad hominem to compensate the vaccum when it comes to technical arguments, that is, there s nothing else than personal attacks in your posts, and thread crapping by the way..

Thanks for your permission in allowing me to defend a poster I find credible. It means a lot.

There really isn't anything for me to post. The issue you presented was discussed by the posters. They even came to a conclusion. It's there for you to read.