If you happen to look at core #4 + #6 they are drastically behind the other cores in tests. I am OC to 4.2Ghz at 21x200 vcore 1.425v NB 1.20v VDDA 2.55v. Temps are fine socket/package. 57°C/49°C
If you happen to look at core #4 + #6 they are drastically behind the other cores in tests. I am OC to 4.2Ghz at 21x200 vcore 1.425v NB 1.20v VDDA 2.55v. Temps are fine socket/package. 57°C/49°C
Some of those cores are still being given something to do in the background by applications still running and not just P95 alone. This background work can slow some of the cores. That said AMD orignally brought out the ACC function to try and give a user adjustment to try and influence what might be a slightly lesser core. ACC is not applicable to FX processors.
Also the balancing of which processor core is doing what is also a "load" and can influence cores with the overhead.
Shorter answer > slow core may-might-could indicate weak core, but there is little user adjustable wise that can be done on FX processor.
RGone...
well thanks for the quick replies guys. im just glad its not my cpu going out or something bad like that. Ive seen variance before just not that bad and i saw it and got worried.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.