I just hit 4.92ghz on 1.55v with only 2 modules enabled and...am interested in keeping it...but it goes above 70C...probably 75C.hmm...:hmm::hmm::hmm:
Last edited:
possible that it's ok >70C AMD FX-8xxx??
- Thread starter soccerballtux
- Start date
Yuriman
Diamond Member
- Jun 25, 2004
- 5,530
- 141
- 106
Honestly I'd back off ~100mhz and lower the voltage a hair. You're probably not going to kill your chip *really* fast but I'd be surprised if you didn't have minor degradation within a year or two.
Do you frequently run programs that use 2 or fewer threads? The module penalty will probably more than offset any gains you get when working with programs that are heavy on more than 2.
Do you frequently run programs that use 2 or fewer threads? The module penalty will probably more than offset any gains you get when working with programs that are heavy on more than 2.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,339
- 10,044
- 126
You want a fast dual-core? Seriously, stop trying to F with a Bulldozer derivative. Sell it off, and get a Z97 board and a G3258. You won't be disappointed.
You are giving a SERIOUS Downgrade in virtually everything. Is a troll answer.
The correct answer is to find a Core i5 5675C or a haswell Core i5 with OC capabilities
I feel like that some people think that 2 modules = 2 threads/cores.
2 Modules = 4 threads, guys.
He didn't downgrade himself to a dual core...he downgraded himself to a quadcore. So stop suggesting that stinking' dualcore that will give you nothing but trouble...yes yes, we all know about its' superior singlethreaded power that can in theory offeset the multithread of any FX...if there wasn't horrible minimum fps, stuttering and other problems on new games due to the fact that it only got 2 threads.
TO OP:
Have you tried going the other way round? I'm not sure if your board supports it, but my board supported disabling 1 core per module. On my FX 8350 back in the day I had way better temps/voltages with that setting. (I somewhere read that the disabled modules are still powered regardless even if you disable the entire module?!? Not sure if true)
Either way, if it hits 75°C in STRESSTESTS...I would not worry. Look at the temps you get in real applications. If it stays at 68-70°C TOPS during normal games I wouldnt worry...if you literally hit above 70°C just during gaming...better cooling solution or downclocking it by 100mhz would be the better way to go.
2 Modules = 4 threads, guys.
He didn't downgrade himself to a dual core...he downgraded himself to a quadcore. So stop suggesting that stinking' dualcore that will give you nothing but trouble...yes yes, we all know about its' superior singlethreaded power that can in theory offeset the multithread of any FX...if there wasn't horrible minimum fps, stuttering and other problems on new games due to the fact that it only got 2 threads.
TO OP:
Have you tried going the other way round? I'm not sure if your board supports it, but my board supported disabling 1 core per module. On my FX 8350 back in the day I had way better temps/voltages with that setting. (I somewhere read that the disabled modules are still powered regardless even if you disable the entire module?!? Not sure if true)
Either way, if it hits 75°C in STRESSTESTS...I would not worry. Look at the temps you get in real applications. If it stays at 68-70°C TOPS during normal games I wouldnt worry...if you literally hit above 70°C just during gaming...better cooling solution or downclocking it by 100mhz would be the better way to go.
yeah, I think I had issues like with 8 cores/4 modules enabled in keeping them nicely synchronized.
lol in real applications it's hitting 70C all the time lol just to render chrome pages lol
Depends on what you are measuring. All lidded AMD CPU hit Tctl_max at 70 (not degrees, but the arbitrary number 70 as AMD measures and calibrates it).
yeah, I think I had issues like with 8 cores/4 modules enabled in keeping them nicely synchronized.
lol in real applications it's hitting 70C all the time lol just to render chrome pages lol
Chrome pages? Yea...no. Get a stronger cooler...and if that's not an option try to downclock by 100 Mhz to bump the voltage down a tiny bit.
If he's planning to run it using 2 modules (4 threads) a Haswell Pentium is EASILY the better option.
You are really forcing the AM3+ infra with those temps. I would go back a bit and consider the backside fan as I mentioned in your other thread.
I know, if it had hyper threading it would be competing with the full 4 modules enabled
Especially in your case. The fact that you're willing to sacrifice half your multithreading capacity for clock speeds tells me that faster single threaded performance is what you're after, in which case it really is a no brainer. Haswell Pentium is easily and without question going to be the better option.yeah, it may be. starting to see that, and questioning why I keep AMD system when could have faster Intel hm.. :hmm:I know, if it had hyper threading it would be competing with the full 4 modules enabled
I still like having 8 cores/threads and to get that is much more expensive so...
Then buy a 5820K. Will obliterate anything FX and six cores with six threads is an OK compromise.
Yep, you want "no compromise" you gotta pay for it. Your pocket book being the actual compromise. Or you can just get a 4790k. A compromise compared to a 5820k but not one compared to any FX there ever was and probably ever will be.
bigboxes
Lifer
- Apr 6, 2002
- 38,592
- 11,976
- 146
Just stop. Seriously, you're turning into a meme. This can't be your answer to everything.
Q: How do I speed up WinRAR?
escrow4: Buy a 5820K!
Q: My mp3 player is stuttering. What can I do to fix this?
escrow4: Buy a 5820K!
Q: Firefox is slow to load additional tabs.
escrow4: Buy a 5820K!
This HSF upgrade will probably be good enough, or I might go to an 8370e which would be able to get me 5ghz
You're going to buy a new HSF and a new processor for 400mhz? Doesn't seem worth it.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,339
- 10,044
- 126
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,339
- 10,044
- 126
I know, if it had hyper threading it would be competing with the full 4 modules enabled
I'm still voting for this option. Or maybe an i3-4160/4170 if you play games on your PC. But if you don't do much multitasking (VMs, video editing, etc.), and you want high single-threaded performance (fast snappy web browsing), then the Pentium G3258 is your ticket. But if you really want to clock it, it appears that you need a Z97 board too.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter