-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
amd fx 8350 vs 8370 any differences that matter
- Thread starter shawnmcc
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2002
I believe the 8370 is a more refined version of the 8350. As they continue to make the chips they are able to tweak the process to make a better and more stable chip out of the same piledriver silicone wafer.
from what i have seen on the net more ppl are able to get higher OC from the 8370 than the 8350. But each user is limited on cooling, mobo, ram, chip,... ect.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-8370-vs-AMD-FX-8350/2983vs1489
from what i have seen on the net more ppl are able to get higher OC from the 8370 than the 8350. But each user is limited on cooling, mobo, ram, chip,... ect.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-8370-vs-AMD-FX-8350/2983vs1489
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2012
Unless you are going to invest in a good mobo (sabertooth), cooling ( top line AIO/water) You're likely not going to see much above 4.6G which is a fine clock. In that case pretty much any of the 8xxx series will do. Most of the current chips clock higher with less voltage than the early ones. I recently had an 8320 that hit 5.0 with 1.45v stable. So to answer the question no, and you could likely save more $$$ and get a cheaper one still and get close to the same results. Just my 2cents
FX8300 $115
Having just had both a 8350 and 8370, and having them both dropped into 2 motherboards... there's not really any difference for the 2 I had. They both did/do about 4.7Ghz "easily" with 2 8GB sticks @ 1900 before it's looking like it's going to "take some work" to go higher.
RGone suggested elsewhere that the current batch of 83xx chips in the channel seem to be easy clockers up to around 4.8 where they hit a wall. Hopefully might come in here and clarify that a bit.
My uneducated guess is that it's not necessarily that the older chips were "better for higher clocks" but that now AMD bins these higher leakage/higher clock chips for the 9xxx series now, whereas before there was no 9xxx SKU so they "stayed" 83xx chips.
RGone suggested elsewhere that the current batch of 83xx chips in the channel seem to be easy clockers up to around 4.8 where they hit a wall. Hopefully might come in here and clarify that a bit.
My uneducated guess is that it's not necessarily that the older chips were "better for higher clocks" but that now AMD bins these higher leakage/higher clock chips for the 9xxx series now, whereas before there was no 9xxx SKU so they "stayed" 83xx chips.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Location
- JAX, Mississauna
"xrror", let me state what seems a trend but understand that the number of new FX 8 core users coming into the forums today is probably only 10% of the number 2 years ago. Just not as many buying AMD as previously is my guess. So the number of FX 8 cores 'seen' in here is not as great as previously.
It appears that Later (10-12Mos) FX 8 core processors will reach 4.8Ghz with lesser voltage than the FX-8xxx processors from 2 years ago. Many even seem to reach 5.0Ghz easier than 2 year old FX-8xxx processors were able to reach that plateau. BUT where most 2 year old FX-8xxx processors with good, make it very good, water cooling could reach ~5.5Ghz at least for benchmarks...the later FX-8xxx do not 'seem' to have that banzai ability, even if only stable enough for running benchmarks.
So for me that likes to "play" at some benches, I prefer the older FX-8xxx cpus but for one wishing to actually *use* his computer...it might be the later processors would reach 4.8Ghz easier than previously and on slightly less cpu voltage and that is likely why 4.8Ghz is easier in that they now seem to require a little less cpu voltage.
Now that is what I have come to believe we see as some type of trending on 6 or 8 month old FX-8xxx processors. It is not etched in concrete for sure but certainly seems trending like that from my vantage point.
One last thing. At n0 time have we seen any real awesome overclockable FX-9xxx cpus. Probably count all I really know about on less than the four fingers and thumb of one hand. At least not with the type of water cooling most of us that bench a little use. So unless something were to change, in no way would I buy an FX-9xxx cpu. And further, because the FX-9xxx cpus have a default speed that is about where most of us overclock our FX-8xxx cpus up to...the FX-9xxx processors are h0t to begin with even in default state and most have a default cpu voltage in the 1.5ish volt range. That means at stock/default speeds the FX-9xxx needs serious cooling at the outset. Plus a serious motherboard.
RGone...
It appears that Later (10-12Mos) FX 8 core processors will reach 4.8Ghz with lesser voltage than the FX-8xxx processors from 2 years ago. Many even seem to reach 5.0Ghz easier than 2 year old FX-8xxx processors were able to reach that plateau. BUT where most 2 year old FX-8xxx processors with good, make it very good, water cooling could reach ~5.5Ghz at least for benchmarks...the later FX-8xxx do not 'seem' to have that banzai ability, even if only stable enough for running benchmarks.
So for me that likes to "play" at some benches, I prefer the older FX-8xxx cpus but for one wishing to actually *use* his computer...it might be the later processors would reach 4.8Ghz easier than previously and on slightly less cpu voltage and that is likely why 4.8Ghz is easier in that they now seem to require a little less cpu voltage.
Now that is what I have come to believe we see as some type of trending on 6 or 8 month old FX-8xxx processors. It is not etched in concrete for sure but certainly seems trending like that from my vantage point.
One last thing. At n0 time have we seen any real awesome overclockable FX-9xxx cpus. Probably count all I really know about on less than the four fingers and thumb of one hand. At least not with the type of water cooling most of us that bench a little use. So unless something were to change, in no way would I buy an FX-9xxx cpu. And further, because the FX-9xxx cpus have a default speed that is about where most of us overclock our FX-8xxx cpus up to...the FX-9xxx processors are h0t to begin with even in default state and most have a default cpu voltage in the 1.5ish volt range. That means at stock/default speeds the FX-9xxx needs serious cooling at the outset. Plus a serious motherboard.
RGone...
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
I have both ...... an older FX8350 and one of the new FX8370. I have had both clocked up to 5GHZ prime stable, FX8350 @ 1.53v ish and ran my FX8350 @ 4.9GHZ at around 1.49v - 1.5v for VCore wit reasonable temps on very good watercooling which is why I was able to do so. By very good watercooling I mean at present 1 Black Ice GTX 360 + 1 Black Ice GTX 240 all 5 fans are GT Typhoons 3 GT29 (3000rpm) and 2 GT45(2100rpm I think). For all that rad I still get core temps in prime of about 58 - 60*C + depending on the ambient temps at the time. That is with CPU and a chipset block in my loop.
Now with everything being the same in my loop just switched out my FX8350 to the FX 8370 I am Prime stable 3 hours ish @ 5056MHZ - 5075MHZ with about 1.488v VCore with similar temps as I mentioned above. But if I down clock it to say 4.9GHZ it only requires about 1.475v and temps are noticeably cooler, sorry I can't remember how much right off the top of my head but a guess of about 50 - 52*C should be pretty close.
So these chips still do generate some real heat when pushed. I never really did try much benching with my FX8350 but have made some runs with the FX8370 in he overclocktigon 5.3 / 5.4GHZ on lighter load benchmarks and have pushed upwards of 5.4GHZ a couple time but that required allot more VCore the likes of witch I will not mention here. Not quite in CD's league but up there just the same.
If you are looking for a to do more work then benching or don't want to go full custom loop but still OC a bit the new FX chip is a better choice. I think you could possibly get maybe 200MHZ more on your OC depending on ambient temps and the quality of an AIO cooler, think the VERY BEST AIO cooler or go with a custom loop to really push it.
Now with everything being the same in my loop just switched out my FX8350 to the FX 8370 I am Prime stable 3 hours ish @ 5056MHZ - 5075MHZ with about 1.488v VCore with similar temps as I mentioned above. But if I down clock it to say 4.9GHZ it only requires about 1.475v and temps are noticeably cooler, sorry I can't remember how much right off the top of my head but a guess of about 50 - 52*C should be pretty close.
So these chips still do generate some real heat when pushed. I never really did try much benching with my FX8350 but have made some runs with the FX8370 in he overclocktigon 5.3 / 5.4GHZ on lighter load benchmarks and have pushed upwards of 5.4GHZ a couple time but that required allot more VCore the likes of witch I will not mention here. Not quite in CD's league but up there just the same.
If you are looking for a to do more work then benching or don't want to go full custom loop but still OC a bit the new FX chip is a better choice. I think you could possibly get maybe 200MHZ more on your OC depending on ambient temps and the quality of an AIO cooler, think the VERY BEST AIO cooler or go with a custom loop to really push it.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
just my 2 cents.
having just run some sims on software that uses all 8 cores it's really a coin flip with the 9xxx cpus right out.
what we have been seeing is what Rgone has stated, but we are also seeing is what seems to be a better memory controler in the later fx cpus.
we were limited to around 2000 speed ram and had to focus on timings at around that speed, now we see later cpus pushing 32 gigs of ram at 2400 in cfd sims, this is very nice to see if you bench and really work a system.
the cpu speed has not changed at all but the speed the little lump will hammer at it with all 8 locked is 4.6-4.8 but now is attained with a lower vcore and less heat comes with that.
4.6 seems to be the perfered clock if you lock all 8 on and have the thing loaded at 100% as you might gain 1-2% with each 100 mgz above that and a very high end cooler can deal with the heat of the 4.6 clock.
sorry, got long winded and went to 4 cents.
having just run some sims on software that uses all 8 cores it's really a coin flip with the 9xxx cpus right out.
what we have been seeing is what Rgone has stated, but we are also seeing is what seems to be a better memory controler in the later fx cpus.
we were limited to around 2000 speed ram and had to focus on timings at around that speed, now we see later cpus pushing 32 gigs of ram at 2400 in cfd sims, this is very nice to see if you bench and really work a system.
the cpu speed has not changed at all but the speed the little lump will hammer at it with all 8 locked is 4.6-4.8 but now is attained with a lower vcore and less heat comes with that.
4.6 seems to be the perfered clock if you lock all 8 on and have the thing loaded at 100% as you might gain 1-2% with each 100 mgz above that and a very high end cooler can deal with the heat of the 4.6 clock.
sorry, got long winded and went to 4 cents.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
Don't mean to dampen your spirits but from what I've been told...
4.6Ghz MAX with it maybe.
The D14 is a great cooler, but these FX chips love cold - don't forget that. The colder the better. This is where custom water comes in.
This is the reason I went with a FX 6300. My thinking is 2 less cores = less heat which might mean higher overclocks...
I can let you know once it all arrives if you'd like.
On the flip side, I'm very interested in knowing how your D14 does on a FX 8350 since I was originally going to get the 8300. Both of which are 8 cores.
I'd love to see some pics of hwmonitor and cpu-z when you get your chips and OC like mad with it!
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2012
It all depends on the chip S/P, were have seen the latter Fx chips run on significantly less voltage. Oc's in the upper 4's can be obtainable on air if the chip is a really low leakage chip. The older Fx 8xxx such as the one I have would be very difficult to get over 4.6 on Air, I've tried with mine.Don't mean to dampen your spirits but from what I've been told...
4.6Ghz MAX with it maybe.
The D14 is a great cooler, but these FX chips love cold - don't forget that. The colder the better. This is where custom water comes in.
This is the reason I went with a FX 6300. My thinking is 2 less cores = less heat which might mean higher overclocks...
I can let you know once it all arrives if you'd like.
On the flip side, I'm very interested in knowing how your D14 does on a FX 8350 since I was originally going to get the 8300. Both of which are 8 cores.
I'd love to see some pics of hwmonitor and cpu-z when you get your chips and OC like mad with it!
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
Well yeah depends on the chip..
But it'll run hotter than water
But it'll run hotter than water
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
Not that unusual ..... RGone has / had a chip that would as well as johan's 8320 and you can probably toss in my new 8370 that can/would run cooler with less volts throughout their OC. The big difference between the new and old chips if you remove the lower VCore and temps is the ability to make those kamikaze runs as RGone likes to call them. These new chips have shown a tendency to top out at some point ......
Take my 8370 as an example. I can run it up to almost 5.1GHZ Prime Stable @ 1.48v compared to my old 8350 which needed 1.53v. I am sure if I really tried to push my OC on the 8350 and add VCore like CD has a tendency to do I could get a higher Prime Stable OC if I can deal with the heat with a special loop the likes that johan is running. Now my new 8370 .... try as I might, within reason that 5.1GHZ is a very tough nut to crack I have run my VCore up close to 1.6v and still cannot get 5.2GHZ Stable. Yes I have been able to run some light benches up higher to say 5.4GHZ as I have posted in the overclocktigon but those benches were very light on the CPU. My guess if they were more CPU dependent then I would probably have topped out sooner regardless of my VCore. There in lies the biggest difference between the old and new FX8XXX chips.
- Thread Starter
- #14
This is like my current fx 4300 I cant get past 4.8 no matter what I do. It runs prime sometimes perfectly somtimes it gives errors . I found out recently my 8 pin was not working correctly because it was not tied up and the extention was being pulled out that might have had something to do with it. So before my new cpu I might try again. My current voltage is 1.68 or something. under 70c
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
That's funny, my 4300 did over 7ghz..... While 4.8ghz is a great clock speed with stability and daily use.
OK right. So take away 4 cores from that and still have heat problems.
But the best response is running cold.
Since extreme really isn't what happens at OCF, (for daily use) I find it much less common for people running single stage here. Or at least they aren't coming out of the closet much any how. But my point is that these guys running Phase change with some really nice low temps produce very nice daily numbers, many times 6ghz being of no issue.
I've found very stable usage with LN2 at 6500mhz or less running about 1.85v and we'll say closer to 6ghz and just be a happy camper while benching all 8 cores. Since it's not practical, I would like to someday try running a single stage unit daily for gaming at some big clocks. But that's hows you get big clocks. Lower temps.
I apologize, I didn't mean to imply that 9000 series chips were somehow better. Heat and power requirements aside, the (I think?) lower throttling temperature was the final "that's no fun" for me.
Plus yea, if you already have the cooling and power to push 1.5V to an FX anyway, why not juice an 83xx with a higher throttle temp? (but then there is that leakier chip theory again)
But I suppose FX-9xxx is (probably) intended for people who just want the 4.8~5.2 as something AMD will warranty, not for us joyriders
Though it is good times reading threads about joyriders with a 9xxx lol
I think OP's choice of 8350 is a good one, I hope he reports back with the results!
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Location
- JAX, Mississauna
Good luck with it SMCC and just take it easy going up. Establish a legitimate baseline at something like 4.5Ghz or maybe a little less with P95 Blend run for 2 hours. A place where you write down all settings so that when going up and falling off the cliff...well you have a known speed with settings you can easily go back to and begin upward again.
Oh and make you a signature similar to mine so we 'know' what is in your case. You have two stars under 'registered' above and need sig a good while ago. Thanks man.
RGone...ster.
Oh and make you a signature similar to mine so we 'know' what is in your case. You have two stars under 'registered' above and need sig a good while ago. Thanks man.
RGone...ster.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Location
- JAX, Mississauna
Get us all on same page in playbook...
...when we are helping to "tweak" from miles and miles away a signature is about a necessity. Thanks for using one.
Now:
Amd fx 8350 soon to come. < Need to let us know what will cool it.
Motherboard Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 < Which REVISION? There are at least 5 and is critical.
Powersupply coolermaster silent pro gold 1000 watt
Video cards 2 amd 270x < Video "cards" in way of air flow thru case and TWO of them with their heat.
memory some cheap 1300mhz 8gb sticks not sure on name < 1 Stick or 2 sticks?
case halfx with 3 Delta AFC1212D-PWM 2 240mm fans < Location in case? No room to put here but nice to know.
Lg blue ray burner
Sound card sound blaster titanium
3 hard drives one 1tb drive 1 250gb drive 1 300gb drive
Okay I think I tidied up what Sig might be more informative if updated a little further.
One last little FYI. Paste > Smaste. I have looked at tests of 20 to 30 pastes all done at one time on same setup. Max variation from one high dollar to low dollar paste; never over maybe 2 to 4 degrees difference. Not enough variance to make one paste way the h*ll better than another. I try to use those NOT known to conduct electricity and are said NOT to need a long break-in period before the claimed ability to transfer heat is reached. Of course YOUR rig and investment. YMMV.
Some of this stuff I mention, is just trying to tell it like it seems for 99% of users and something not to spend too much emphasis on. When user says they have a Giga AM3+ motherboard...well then things get to the point where we need to know every tidbit of info we can get since Giga has been a real pain to most of their users trying to overclock their cpus and especially 6 and 8 Core FX processors.
Luck man.
RGone...ster.
ADDED:
This is what we need to see for sure and a real good starting point.
Normally during setup and testing we disable C1/E, C6, Cool N Quiet, APM, TurboCore and in windows performance manager itself we set to "performance" mode. ALSO if you have HPC in bios you would ENABLE it. That way there are not "other" settings messing with the overclocking process. Some of those settings are not available on all models of cpu but where in evidence we disable for setup of overclock process.
CPU Tab in CPUz from CPUID com
Memory Tab in CPUz from CPUID com
SPD Tab in CPUz from CPUID com
And this is screen capture of HWMonitor (free version) from CPUID com
HWMonitor has been scrolled enough and large enough to show Min/Max of Voltages and includes the CPU CORE TEMPS / "package" temps fully visible. Latest versions of HWMonitor show the CPU Core Temp as " a Package Temp" and is only shown as a single temp since there were never multple, individual core temp sensors anyway.
This capture is made of HWMonitor after it has been open and running on the desktop logging Min/Max temps and voltages while Prime 95 was running Blend Mode test on all cores for at least 20 mins and then the capture of HWMonitor was made and it shows the Min/Max temps and voltages before P95 Blend was started and while running P95 Blend mode and gives much greater insight into how the system is performing without guessing.
In order to attach screenshots of INDIVIDUAL images as suggested, first crop and capture the images with Snipping Tool found in Windows Accessories or equivalent. Then click on Go Advanced, a button at the bottom of every new post window. Then click on the little paperclip tool at the top of the Advanced post window when it opens. Clicking on the paperclip tool brings up the file browser/upload tool and the rest is fairly obvious.
Step by Step HowTo Attach files to forum with pictures.
HowTo Attach Files to the forum.
...when we are helping to "tweak" from miles and miles away a signature is about a necessity. Thanks for using one.
Now:
Amd fx 8350 soon to come. < Need to let us know what will cool it.
Motherboard Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 < Which REVISION? There are at least 5 and is critical.
Powersupply coolermaster silent pro gold 1000 watt
Video cards 2 amd 270x < Video "cards" in way of air flow thru case and TWO of them with their heat.
memory some cheap 1300mhz 8gb sticks not sure on name < 1 Stick or 2 sticks?
case halfx with 3 Delta AFC1212D-PWM 2 240mm fans < Location in case? No room to put here but nice to know.
Lg blue ray burner
Sound card sound blaster titanium
3 hard drives one 1tb drive 1 250gb drive 1 300gb drive
Okay I think I tidied up what Sig might be more informative if updated a little further.
One last little FYI. Paste > Smaste. I have looked at tests of 20 to 30 pastes all done at one time on same setup. Max variation from one high dollar to low dollar paste; never over maybe 2 to 4 degrees difference. Not enough variance to make one paste way the h*ll better than another. I try to use those NOT known to conduct electricity and are said NOT to need a long break-in period before the claimed ability to transfer heat is reached. Of course YOUR rig and investment. YMMV.
Some of this stuff I mention, is just trying to tell it like it seems for 99% of users and something not to spend too much emphasis on. When user says they have a Giga AM3+ motherboard...well then things get to the point where we need to know every tidbit of info we can get since Giga has been a real pain to most of their users trying to overclock their cpus and especially 6 and 8 Core FX processors.
Luck man.
RGone...ster.
ADDED:
This is what we need to see for sure and a real good starting point.
Normally during setup and testing we disable C1/E, C6, Cool N Quiet, APM, TurboCore and in windows performance manager itself we set to "performance" mode. ALSO if you have HPC in bios you would ENABLE it. That way there are not "other" settings messing with the overclocking process. Some of those settings are not available on all models of cpu but where in evidence we disable for setup of overclock process.
CPU Tab in CPUz from CPUID com
Memory Tab in CPUz from CPUID com
SPD Tab in CPUz from CPUID com
And this is screen capture of HWMonitor (free version) from CPUID com
HWMonitor has been scrolled enough and large enough to show Min/Max of Voltages and includes the CPU CORE TEMPS / "package" temps fully visible. Latest versions of HWMonitor show the CPU Core Temp as " a Package Temp" and is only shown as a single temp since there were never multple, individual core temp sensors anyway.
This capture is made of HWMonitor after it has been open and running on the desktop logging Min/Max temps and voltages while Prime 95 was running Blend Mode test on all cores for at least 20 mins and then the capture of HWMonitor was made and it shows the Min/Max temps and voltages before P95 Blend was started and while running P95 Blend mode and gives much greater insight into how the system is performing without guessing.
In order to attach screenshots of INDIVIDUAL images as suggested, first crop and capture the images with Snipping Tool found in Windows Accessories or equivalent. Then click on Go Advanced, a button at the bottom of every new post window. Then click on the little paperclip tool at the top of the Advanced post window when it opens. Clicking on the paperclip tool brings up the file browser/upload tool and the rest is fairly obvious.
Step by Step HowTo Attach files to forum with pictures.
HowTo Attach Files to the forum.
