Trying to get 4.8 on a FX-8120. Bios shots inside.

[MentalIlness]

Here are some screenshots of my Bios. I have ran it at 4.6Ghz before stable. But I am trying to get 4.8 or more. Would rather have some tips from the "pros" before I try to push that hard.

For the last week or so, been running at 4.0Ghz.

So what would you change in these settings to try for 4.8Ghz first ? Cooled by a Corsair H80. So temps shouldn't be a problem.

Pictures were taken with a phone.

 

[Puppies04]

Cooled by a Corsair H80. So temps shouldn't be a problem.

As far as I am aware 4.8 is a top end OC on BD with ambient cooling so temps actaully could be a problem.

 

[borisvodofsky]

Everything looks good.

You can push to 4.6 easily, 4.8 is a bit of luck, because it may require what we call "mad-volts"

Either-way, go ahead and put the maximum voltage recommended through the cpu.

Then crank the multiplier to 48

If crash, put down to 47
If crash, put down to 46
.......

If it HOLDs at 48,
Try 49
If it HOLDs at 49
Try 50

ONCE you determine the highest multiplier it can hold on max voltage.

Start turning down the voltage little by little, until you crash.

Then set the voltage to the minimum.


This is the Ideal voltage multiplier procedure.

 

[Arkaign]

Your username speaks worlds of why one would buy a BD

I kid, I kid. A little

I really don't recommend upping the volts on the thing beyond a tiny spectrum. It's just extra hard on the chip and often forgotten, the motherboard itself. Boris up there has a good plan for you. To be honest, hitting 4.6 stable at near-stock volts would be the best bet. There's basically zero performance to gain from going from 4.6 to 4.8, and even if it appears stable, going for max overclock is never a great idea 24/7, because as things degrade (most likely the mobo first, but also consider the PSU and CPU), you may suddenly become unstable at an inconvenient time.

For the same reason I've found that with a moderate voltage bump I can take my 2500k to 5ghz with good temps, but I run it at 4.5 for daily use at super low temps and stock volts. I'm basically never CPU limited anyway, and by the time I am, I'll probably be on Haswell or some hypothetical AMD CPU that doesn't suck.

 

[nenforcer]

Wow is that the Sabertooth 990FX's UEFI BIOS? That thing looks like it is just a plain jane barebones reimplementation of just the regular old BIOS. (which is fine no need for a BIOS wallpaper anyways)

 

[Dravic]

Cooled by a Corsair H80. So temps shouldn't be a problem.

The h80 isn't sufficient enough to cool the 8120 or 8150 at 4.7+, the extra voltage needed to push it that high just causes massive amounts of heat that not even my H100 can pull away fast enough.

With the H100 I don't break 50c at 4.5ghz @ 1.38v, but couldn't keep core temps below ~65c at 4.7ghz @ ~1.47v. Stability test kept pushing the heat eventually to the point of computation errors.

I could juice it and live with semi stable 66c core temps at 4.7, but this chip and mobo have a second life down the road and I always back off the edge when overclocking anyway.. nothing worse than crashing in the middle of a kick ass round of BF3.

That last couple hundred mhz are just not worth the heat output IMHO.

 

[Jacky60]

Your username speaks worlds of why one would buy a BD

My thoughts exactly!

 

[MentalIlness]

My thoughts exactly!

Because at the time of purchase, the CPU cost $80.00. As long as it was purchased along with the motherboard. Any other questions ?

At my resolution, there is really no difference in a 2500K to the 8120. At least not that I have seen. My brother upgraded from a i5 750 to a 2500K. So yea....:sneaky:

 

[borisvodofsky]

Because at the time of purchase, the CPU cost $80.00. As long as it was purchased along with the motherboard. Any other questions ?

At my resolution, there is really no difference in a 2500K to the 8120. At least not that I have seen. My brother upgraded from a i5 750 to a 2500K. So yea....:sneaky:

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.... another one of these guys....

At $80, I agree that CPU is good buy. Still though, gaming is terrible on Bull-dozer, not because of the "maximum or average" fps, but "minimum" fps which are always near "HALF" of what it is on the 2500k.


You should absolutely push 4.8 because You dropped dough on the motherboard to do it. You might as well get as much out of it as possible.

 

[Arkaign]

Because at the time of purchase, the CPU cost $80.00. As long as it was purchased along with the motherboard. Any other questions ?

At my resolution, there is really no difference in a 2500K to the 8120. At least not that I have seen. My brother upgraded from a i5 750 to a 2500K. So yea....:sneaky:

Ouch. Well good luck!

 

[sequoia464]

Try over here ..http://www.overclock.net/f/10/amd-cpus

You will actually get help without the negative comments.

 

[Arkaign]

Try over here ..http://www.overclock.net/f/10/amd-cpus

You will actually get help without the negative comments.

He already got plenty of help in this thread. Not really much more to say about it, and nobody had much negative to say. BD is not a great chip, but for $80 it's pretty good really. 4.8 is doable, but the performance gain is marginal and it's a poor exchange compared to the extra voltage and strain on the components. There's probably zero times when one could tell honestly whether or not the chip was running at 4.6 vs. 4.8.

 

[Joseph F]

Hell, if I could have gotten an FX-8120 for $80, I never would have bothered with my 2500k.

 

[sequoia464]

He already got plenty of help in this thread. Not really much more to say about it, and nobody had much negative to say. BD is not a great chip, but for $80 it's pretty good really. 4.8 is doable, but the performance gain is marginal and it's a poor exchange compared to the extra voltage and strain on the components. There's probably zero times when one could tell honestly whether or not the chip was running at 4.6 vs. 4.8.

I agree mostly with what you and others have mentioned; I was using a 6100 for a while and it came to a point that the extra MHz gains wasn't worth the voltage and heat; that being said - if the OP is really looking for 4800 or beyond....

There are quite a few people over at overclockers that are actually using bulldozers, many with the same board as the OP. There are also guides there that are specific to overclocking Bulldozers, Thubans, Sandy/Ivy bridge, or probably any old Durons you might have laying around.

Most of the people here are probably comfortable with the nuances of overclocking (voltages, FSB frequencies, memory settings and so on); I'm not - I overclock infrequently and the guides over there have been valuable to me, figured they might help mental as well.

I agree with you in that if it was me, and I was hitting 4.6 at that voltage (1.38) - I would call it a day. I have to use 1.4 volts to get my Thuban to run at 3.85.

 

[Arkaign]

Sounds good to me

 

[moonbogg]

I myself don't go for the extra couple hundred Mhz at the expense of much more voltage and heat. Its just not worth it to be at the ragged edge of whats reasonable. If my 3930k @ 4.5 dips to 50fps in BF3 I wonder what a bulldozer dips to?? What are your mins like?

 

[AtenRa]

If my 3930k @ 4.5 dips to 50fps in BF3 I wonder what a bulldozer dips to?? What are your mins like?

 

[moonbogg]

The obvious issue with these results is that the GPU is playing a huge roll in the mins at those settings and res. The information is always appreciated by whoever took it, but if you add a second card to that setup i'm sure the information would be more useful regarding CPU performance.