• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Just Putzen Round

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Doing a little "putzen" today...

I saw that ShrimpBrime" posted up his P-State info for his FX-9590 chip in another thread here in the AMD CPU section and it got me thinking about applying some FX "high" leakage binned voltage settings and trying them out on my "lower" leakage binned FX-8370 sample?

ShrimpBrime said:
OK for reference and a tad bit of correction and comparison info for OP.

Here's 5ghz set manually via bios. 1.525v.

My P-state info. (yours should look really close to this)

P-State FID 0x22 - VID 0x02 - IDD 18 (25.00x - 1.525 V)
P-State FID 0x1D - VID 0x02 - IDD 18 (22.50x - 1.525 V)
P-State FID 0x18 - VID 0x0B - IDD 14 (20.00x - 1.412 V)
P-State FID 0x12 - VID 0x15 - IDD 11 (17.00x - 1.287 V)
P-State FID 0x8 - VID 0x25 - IDD 7 (12.00x - 1.087 V)
P-State FID 0x10C - VID 0x35 - IDD 4 (7.00x - 0.887 V)

underlined is the one chosen to run for this screen shot.
Click to expand...

Here is my sample FX-8370 (stock) P-State info:

# of P-States 7
P-State FID 0x1B - VID 0x0A - IDD 13 (21.50x - 1.425 V)
P-State FID 0x19 - VID 0x0F - IDD 13 (20.50x - 1.362 V)
P-State FID 0x18 - VID 0x15 - IDD 12 (20.00x - 1.287 V)
P-State FID 0x12 - VID 0x1D - IDD 9 (17.00x - 1.188 V)
P-State FID 0xC - VID 0x25 - IDD 7 (14.00x - 1.087 V)
P-State FID 0x5 - VID 0x2E - IDD 5 (10.50x - 0.975 V)
P-State FID 0x10C - VID 0x38 - IDD 4 (7.00x - 0.850 V)


I've got my board manually set in BIOS to 1.525v vcore (LLC@high) and CPU_NB with 1.2875v while running full bank 4x4GB DDR3-2133C9. I've opened my window slightly/cracked to allow some cooler air to flow across the motherboard and to keep ambient temps down... :thup:

5.2GHz running Rosetta @ load:
FX-8370 @5.2GHz DDR3-2133C9 Rosetta load..PNG
P1040165.JPG
 
You were asking about the "freezing" Roger. I just wondered if you have noticed the same thing? I didn't really notice it until I got to higher clocks with a heavy workload like CineR15 and high volts.
 
Johan45 said:
You were asking about the "freezing" Roger. I just wondered if you have noticed the same thing? I didn't really notice it until I got to higher clocks with a heavy workload like CineR15 and high volts.
Click to expand...

My former 8370E seemed to exhibit the freeze/hang issue with much more prevalence and at lower clocks then this one. This particular sample is just an all around better clocker with a noticeably higher (~300MHz/400Mhz) ceiling.

It ran most of the day "crunching" Rosetta and I've now closed the cracked-open window... Hopefully it will continue to run okay with higher ambient temps.

The cpu socket temp has reached a peak 59C. but the average socket temps are still hovering around ~51C.
 
PolRoger said:
My former 8370E seemed to exhibit the freeze/hang issue with much more prevalence and at lower clocks then this one. This particular sample is just an all around better clocker with a noticeably higher (~300MHz/400Mhz) ceiling.

It ran most of the day "crunching" Rosetta and I've now closed the cracked-open window... Hopefully it will continue to run okay with higher ambient temps.

The cpu socket temp has reached a peak 59C. but the average socket temps are still hovering around ~51C.
Click to expand...
just stick the rad outside and close the window Pol :thup: make sure you have antifreeze if temps outside are low though.
 
PolRoger said:
My former 8370E seemed to exhibit the freeze/hang issue with much more prevalence and at lower clocks then this one. This particular sample is just an all around better clocker with a noticeably higher (~300MHz/400Mhz) ceiling.
Click to expand...

Looks pretty accurate, decent clock.

I can and will mention --->>

Have OCed. FX- 8320, 8350, 9590 x2 and 8300 all respectively overclocked and with really nice stability at 5200mhz.

I'd suspect cooling to be an issue to ensure any kind of stability.

Also in regards to leakage, it seems not only to be on core basis but even more so on Module basis (per 2 cores each) while lower power consumption, downing 4 cores or two of the modules seems to really help with heat, but Core #0 is and will always be most important. It runs bios. If this single core or even the module itself has high leakage, you'll be stuck at the same overclock even with a lot lower temperature at core and cpu socket.

Most of my biggest experiments was how cold effected overclocking. I did do this testing with TEC, liqquid and air. Not to mention doing runs with LN2 or Dice on several FX processors including and not limited to 4 6 and 8 core FX 81 and 83 series.

At the most extreme temps on average non cherry picked processors bought even from different regions on USA, 6500mhz to 7000mhz on DICE/LN2 cooling, bench marking was pretty average. and consistent.

So in a nut shell, 5400mhz seems to be the ceiling for any kind of "true" stability, while we may see and experience a 100mhz perhaps 200mhz difference. I don't see much more than that for any normal liquid cooling to obtain stable clocks beyond this frequency.

Simply, want a 5ghz cpu, the FX-9590 is now in a really decent price range as I've purchased a second one after killing the first HAHA.

In the end, the temps MUST be in control. Since most people have varied temps throughout the day month and year, it's hard to say that your stable clocks today will be the same tomorrow. Overclocking and stability will be a year round adventure especially for those that experience seasons like we do in Chicago.

Personally, the FX-9590 is a no brainer if you can cool the SOB. Lower temps will almost always bring lower volts.

My favorite FX processor so far to overclock as far as sheer percentages goes would be my recent FX-8300 purchase. A super cool running chip that seemed to "ceiling" at the very similar clocks as the FX-9590. Both capable of a liquid cooled max cpu-z of roughly Fifty seven hundred megahertz and stability up to about Fifty four hundred megahertz or less.

If you look for maximum percentage OC, by the lowest binned FX 8 core you can find. It'll clock about the same. If we look at a 100mhz difference, it barely changes any kind of benchmark score for an average user and certainly doesn't greatly improve gaming frame rates as the GPU handles 80% or more of graphics throughput.

My experiences above may or may not reflect that of the entire OC community, just what I've happened to notice. FX-8300 = 60 - 70% overclock with ease while FX-9590 may be more like 12 - 15% OC and both just as stable at say 5000mhz.
 
ShrimpBrime said:
Looks pretty accurate, decent clock.

I can and will mention --->>

Have OCed. FX- 8320, 8350, 9590 x2 and 8300 all respectively overclocked and with really nice stability at 5200mhz.

I'd suspect cooling to be an issue to ensure any kind of stability.

Also in regards to leakage, it seems not only to be on core basis but even more so on Module basis (per 2 cores each) while lower power consumption, downing 4 cores or two of the modules seems to really help with heat, but Core #0 is and will always be most important. It runs bios. If this single core or even the module itself has high leakage, you'll be stuck at the same overclock even with a lot lower temperature at core and cpu socket.

Most of my biggest experiments was how cold effected overclocking. I did do this testing with TEC, liqquid and air. Not to mention doing runs with LN2 or Dice on several FX processors including and not limited to 4 6 and 8 core FX 81 and 83 series.

At the most extreme temps on average non cherry picked processors bought even from different regions on USA, 6500mhz to 7000mhz on DICE/LN2 cooling, bench marking was pretty average. and consistent.

So in a nut shell, 5400mhz seems to be the ceiling for any kind of "true" stability, while we may see and experience a 100mhz perhaps 200mhz difference. I don't see much more than that for any normal liquid cooling to obtain stable clocks beyond this frequency.

Simply, want a 5ghz cpu, the FX-9590 is now in a really decent price range as I've purchased a second one after killing the first HAHA.

In the end, the temps MUST be in control. Since most people have varied temps throughout the day month and year, it's hard to say that your stable clocks today will be the same tomorrow. Overclocking and stability will be a year round adventure especially for those that experience seasons like we do in Chicago.

Personally, the FX-9590 is a no brainer if you can cool the SOB. Lower temps will almost always bring lower volts.

My favorite FX processor so far to overclock as far as sheer percentages goes would be my recent FX-8300 purchase. A super cool running chip that seemed to "ceiling" at the very similar clocks as the FX-9590. Both capable of a liquid cooled max cpu-z of roughly Fifty seven hundred megahertz and stability up to about Fifty four hundred megahertz or less.

If you look for maximum percentage OC, by the lowest binned FX 8 core you can find. It'll clock about the same. If we look at a 100mhz difference, it barely changes any kind of benchmark score for an average user and certainly doesn't greatly improve gaming frame rates as the GPU handles 80% or more of graphics throughput.

My experiences above may or may not reflect that of the entire OC community, just what I've happened to notice. FX-8300 = 60 - 70% overclock with ease while FX-9590 may be more like 12 - 15% OC and both just as stable at say 5000mhz.
Click to expand...

You'd almost think they were the same chip. :shrug::rofl:

Seriously though nice write up S_B and very consistent with what I have been seeing. Aside from the 8320 which would run fast with low volts but seemed to have a hard time taking them and being stableish over 5.1 and couldn't run Cinebench R15 over 5.5, so IMO the lower the leakeage I feel the sooner the CPU will top out. Also out of all that I have tested it seemed to be exceptionally hard on the power system. More so than the others. Even at lower speeds with conventional cooling, I could run at 4.8 with 1.4 volts but the darn thing was on fire. Where the 9370 at the same clock take 1.476v but is much easier to control.
 
I still don't know what he's going to do once he gets to the car but hey, he'll be able to look at it. Maybe rev the engine a bit.
 
We did this once when I was a kid. He'll need to be careful once it starts to warm up cuz eventually the tunnel will collapse. Almost lost a friend back then. Good thing we were all there to dig him out in time.
 
Yeah that happens Blaylock. I think he'd like to get that out before spring though. Haha
 
You get a thaw going and that will collapse on you in no time, its just pure luck its holding up as it is!!

Ajay.
 
You'd be surprised how solid it can get Ajay. Eskimos make houses out of it.
 
Johan45 said:
You'd almost think they were the same chip. :shrug::rofl:

Seriously though nice write up S_B Thanks! and very consistent with what I have been seeing. Aside from the 8320 which would run fast with low volts This would be a common occurrence with All processors really. There's always one that can do this XX over the norm. but seemed to have a hard time taking them and being stableish over 5.1 and couldn't run Cinebench R15 over 5.5, so IMO the lower the leakeage I feel the sooner the CPU will top out. Here is just a matter of chilling or lack there of. One LN2 you'd get the average chips give or take 6500mhz on all 8 benching all cores. IE WPrime. CineB ect. Also out of all that I have tested it seemed to be exceptionally hard on the power system. More so than the others. Even at lower speeds with conventional cooling, I could run at 4.8 with 1.4 volts but the darn thing was on fire. Where the 9370 at the same clock take 1.476v but is much easier to control. Some just need more juices. After all your talking fast with low volts, but then a MAJOR jump after wards.
Click to expand...

I treat the FX core which is based on any other X86 design. More voltage. I've seen a great handful of processors take on 1.65v and thoroughly enjoy it.

Do you have any idea how cool these may be run if L3 cache was disable able? Much much cooler. Just because the core voltage is X.xx doesn't mean we have control over cache power consumption. Nor the heat it puts out. This is why Cinebench gets hot. It uses lots of cpu cache and at high cpu speeds, that cache is being accessed pretty quickly.

The 8300 stock is 3.3ghz 1.1v runs super cool Pull 10.5 sec Wprimes. For 105 bucks, it OC's fine. easy to chill. Max P-state 4.2ghz 1.35600v is plenty for having sum fum gaming and stuff. Goes really nice with lower end boards especially because of that low stock v-core. I think the boost p-state on one of the boards (4 pwrphase) was only 3600mhz and 1.23500v. Which is pretty good as the H80i kept up pretty well. (yea I went there lol) :bang head
 
ShrimpBrime said:
but seemed to have a hard time taking them and being stableish over 5.1 and couldn't run Cinebench R15 over 5.5, so IMO the lower the leakeage I feel the sooner the CPU will top out. Here is just a matter of chilling or lack there of. One LN2 you'd get the average chips give or take 6500mhz on all 8 benching all cores. IE WPrime. CineB ect.
Click to expand...

That was with LN2 S_B. The CPU topped out at 6.66 and I couldn't run Cine 15 over 5.5, 11.5 topped at 5.9. Most everything ele would run at near max clocks but anytime I tried to make it "work" at high speeds the damn thing would lock up instantly above a certain voltage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wipeout
Sleeping Dog Tips
Replies
2
Views
7K
Wipeout
Wipeout
S
G1.Sniper 3 Review (PLX8747vsNF200, Circuit Analysis, LN2OC, Core3D...)
Replies
6
Views
10K
(Clanger)(DOA)
(Clanger)(DOA)
S
General Silencing Info
2
Replies
34
Views
40K
hollywood96
H
Back