Alaric
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Location
- Satan's Colon, US
CPU-Z gives you a whole slew of chips in their benchmark. 
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
AMD FX 8300 overclocking troubles.
- Thread starter trickson69
- Start date
OP
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2018
- Location
- Right here.
- Thread Starter
- #62
That is even WORSE yet! CPU-Z tweak the RAM and get a better score lol. There are more than just one factor for a benchmark to be accurate, Factors like RAM , MB , video, PSU to give an arbitrary number too, And long behold Intel always takes the crown! It is the Gold standard of all benchmarks! OMG Benchmarks are for at best a kind of might get if you have all this kinda thing. Too many variables makes it hard to gauge. and If all you show me is Intel for your baseline that makes things even more complicated. CPU-Z , Cinabench all good for one thing to test stability and novelty fun runs and epeen showing. I do not think they in any way represent real world performance as there are too many things that can change a "score" like how many background programs are running what services are running, hardware settings, hardware other than CPU and if you have 12 browser windows open or one big thing it seems is if you get ANYTHING AMD! Even there video cards are the low-end? I am not so sure..
But yeah they are fun to play with and show off your epeen nothing else really.
But yeah they are fun to play with and show off your epeen nothing else really.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
VRM heat.
It's still producing a whole lot of heat Kenrou. These Fx 8xxx chips just need a whole heaping of power when Oced. I know when I take my chips cold with Dry Ice the amount of DICE I go though using the FX 8xxx Vs my I7 6700k or 4770k is significantly more. I actually ran a test once with the 8350 @ 5.2 ghz and my GTX 580 Lightning Gpu on board. I ran 3D mark Vantage and was pulling 821 w from the wall for the system.
Still don't know what you mean kind sirs, my VRM section doesn't hit 60c unless i torture it during Winter to keep the room warm
The Asus software (and if i'm not mistaken HWinfo64) reads VRM temps (at least on my saber) and i kept an eye on it while i was figuring out my OC points. Good thing about living in the UK ? it's always cold ! add 3x140mm as intake and 2x140mm on a NH-D15 and its winter all year round. My top fan is always blowing cold air and my back fan is at most tepid while gaming. Seriously you lot should move here
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2012
I'm talking heat as a whole setup, Kenrou, the Fx 8xxx draws a whole heaping of power and produces a whole lot of heat whether it's coming off the heatsink on the Cpu or the VRM/Nb section, that's what my point was.
You Scotty, are you forgetting where you live, all it does is snow, so you must be?!?
Lol.
CB15 and x265 are about as close to real world as you get.
Have to move to E_D's table because clueless is rampant in you. Chow.
OP
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2018
- Location
- Right here.
- Thread Starter
- #66
No benchmark is real world it is synthetic and in no way reflects real world performance! Sorry you are wrong. They are there just for epeen's and to see how big yours is.
Fact is unless the engineers use that particular benchmark as there gauge then it's really not a gauge or guide.
Performance Equation
The total amount of time (t) required to execute a particular benchmark program is
t = N ∗ C / f {\displaystyle t=N*C/f} t=N*C/f , or equivalently
P = I ∗ f / N {\displaystyle P=I*f/N} P=I*f/N[8]
where
P = 1/t is "the performance" in terms of time-to-execute
N is the number of instructions actually executed (the instruction path length). The code density of the instruction set strongly affects N. The value of N can either be determined exactly by using an instruction set simulator (if available) or by estimation—itself based partly on estimated or actual frequency distribution of input variables and by examining generated machine code from an HLL compiler. It cannot be determined from the number of lines of HLL source code. N is not affected by other processes running on the same processor. The significant point here is that hardware normally does not keep track of (or at least make easily available) a value of N for executed programs. The value can therefore only be accurately determined by instruction set simulation, which is rarely practiced.
f is the clock frequency in cycles per second.
C= 1 / I {\displaystyle 1/I} 1/I is the average cycles per instruction (CPI) for this benchmark.
I= 1 / C {\displaystyle 1/C} 1/C is the average instructions per cycle (IPC) for this benchmark.
Even on one machine, a different compiler or the same compiler with different compiler optimization switches can change N and CPI—the benchmark executes faster if the new compiler can improve N or C without making the other worse, but often there is a trade-off between them—is it better, for example, to use a few complicated instructions that take a long time to execute, or to use instructions that execute very quickly, although it takes more of them to execute the benchmark?
A CPU designer is often required to implement a particular instruction set, and so cannot change N. Sometimes a designer focuses on improving performance by making significant improvements in f (with techniques such as deeper pipelines and faster caches), while (hopefully) not sacrificing too much C—leading to a speed-demon CPU design. Sometimes a designer focuses on improving performance by making significant improvements in CPI (with techniques such as out-of-order execution, superscalar CPUs, larger caches, caches with improved hit rates, improved branch prediction, speculative execution, etc.), while (hopefully) not sacrificing too much clock frequency—leading to a brainiac CPU design.[9] For a given instruction set (and therefore fixed N) and semiconductor process, the maximum single-thread performance (1/t) requires a balance between brainiac techniques and speedracer techniques.[8]
Fact is unless the engineers use that particular benchmark as there gauge then it's really not a gauge or guide.
Performance Equation
The total amount of time (t) required to execute a particular benchmark program is
t = N ∗ C / f {\displaystyle t=N*C/f} t=N*C/f , or equivalently
P = I ∗ f / N {\displaystyle P=I*f/N} P=I*f/N[8]
where
P = 1/t is "the performance" in terms of time-to-execute
N is the number of instructions actually executed (the instruction path length). The code density of the instruction set strongly affects N. The value of N can either be determined exactly by using an instruction set simulator (if available) or by estimation—itself based partly on estimated or actual frequency distribution of input variables and by examining generated machine code from an HLL compiler. It cannot be determined from the number of lines of HLL source code. N is not affected by other processes running on the same processor. The significant point here is that hardware normally does not keep track of (or at least make easily available) a value of N for executed programs. The value can therefore only be accurately determined by instruction set simulation, which is rarely practiced.
f is the clock frequency in cycles per second.
C= 1 / I {\displaystyle 1/I} 1/I is the average cycles per instruction (CPI) for this benchmark.
I= 1 / C {\displaystyle 1/C} 1/C is the average instructions per cycle (IPC) for this benchmark.
Even on one machine, a different compiler or the same compiler with different compiler optimization switches can change N and CPI—the benchmark executes faster if the new compiler can improve N or C without making the other worse, but often there is a trade-off between them—is it better, for example, to use a few complicated instructions that take a long time to execute, or to use instructions that execute very quickly, although it takes more of them to execute the benchmark?
A CPU designer is often required to implement a particular instruction set, and so cannot change N. Sometimes a designer focuses on improving performance by making significant improvements in f (with techniques such as deeper pipelines and faster caches), while (hopefully) not sacrificing too much C—leading to a speed-demon CPU design. Sometimes a designer focuses on improving performance by making significant improvements in CPI (with techniques such as out-of-order execution, superscalar CPUs, larger caches, caches with improved hit rates, improved branch prediction, speculative execution, etc.), while (hopefully) not sacrificing too much clock frequency—leading to a brainiac CPU design.[9] For a given instruction set (and therefore fixed N) and semiconductor process, the maximum single-thread performance (1/t) requires a balance between brainiac techniques and speedracer techniques.[8]
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2012
The conspiracy days are over, Intel got caught and promised to be good. Like I said earlier, AMD took a gamble on FX and it kind of flopped. The only advantage they could leverage was the extra cores for a much lower price point. Their iPC was in the toilet, even worse than their previous generation of Phenom IIs could still well out pace an FX clock per clock. Before you start to think I'm biased, I'm not I like AMD and have owned at least a dozen FX CPUs and benched the crap out of them. Once AMD launched Ryzen, they kind of surprised everyone with the gains they made but their weakness is speed. Once you fire it up and freeze it though it wiped the floor with Intel and I still believe it has slightly better IPC when using SMT because SMT is more efficient that Intels HT. Case in point this is my 1700X on the top of that CB15 list and was beating every Intel until they launched the SkylakeX CPUs. The fact here is that even on the same"biased" benchmark to use your words AMD was winning. But the caveat was you had to use LN2 to do it.
OP
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2018
- Location
- Right here.
- Thread Starter
- #68
I use 2 different screens and maybe taking a hit in performance but one thing is for sure I do like the FX chip and LOVE the Ryzen!
Alaric
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Location
- Satan's Colon, US
AMD has had the inside track on multi threading. Drop an Intel's speed to match Bulldozer's IPC and the FX can MT like a beast in comparison. Problem there is, there is no reason to make the Intel slower in real life. Ryzen is on the edge of not needing that crutch, and still has a tick and a tock coming while Team Blue is looking at a speed wall. Good times ahead for AMD fans, good times.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
UT, I don't think that has been a particular problem with Ryzen like it was with FX. Ryzen is much better about power consumption that was FX. And we don't know for sure how or if that equation will change with Ryzen 2 but I imagine what we will see is the need to give a little more consideration to the motherboard chosen, at least on the bigger gun Ryzen IIs. The bottom feeder motherboards will likely not suffice for overclocking the upper end Ryzen IIs but I don't think it will be the issue it was with FX 8 core overclocking.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2017
Thank you, sir. I read amd has better HT performance clock for clock compared to amd, but it just won't clock higher? Sorry if it doesn't make much sense I'm in a room with people talking.
I really want one now! Many say it's fun to clock them and having great HT performance is a plus because I do like video every once in a while. If I was getting one right now, I'd just bite the bullet and get the best Mobo, because it'll either make or break your cousin with regards to ivercloxking and features.
I really want one now! Many say it's fun to clock them and having great HT performance is a plus because I do like video every once in a while. If I was getting one right now, I'd just bite the bullet and get the best Mobo, because it'll either make or break your cousin with regards to ivercloxking and features.
OP
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2018
- Location
- Right here.
- Thread Starter
- #74
I can tell you this the Ryzen CPU is a MONSTER! This is the one that is going to give Intel a run for the money. My R3 is so fast I mean amazingly fast! I just wished I had some real money for video cards!
I plan to do soon is get both systems with 2 cards each not sure but I think I want crossfire for the FX8300 and SLI the Ryzen just for comparison.
I plan to do soon is get both systems with 2 cards each not sure but I think I want crossfire for the FX8300 and SLI the Ryzen just for comparison.
Alaric
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Location
- Satan's Colon, US
The bottom feeder boards don't OC anyway, do they? Don't you have to have a B350 or better (I think) before you can OC a Ryzen?
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
The FX Series has allot of potential for those that like to tweak their OC ....... Their big drawback has been their power consumption requiring one of the better Motherboards to handle the power draw and big cooling to handle the heat generated. Simply put the more you try to OC your FX Chip the more expensive it will get. Most boards can OC to 4.3 / 4.4 GHZ if you have adequate cooling but to really put the screws to the chip and get those big numbers you need to spend some big bucks on cooling. Yes Kenrou there are a few exceptions out there but they are just that .... exceptions. Here is a thread I did when FX first came out on what exactly I went through trying to cool an FX8150 to 5GHZ ......
http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php/715371-Build-FX-Tamer-Water-Cooled-Upgrade
You don't need to spend big to OC ..... here's another example of 4.7 Gig on a budget ..... but you won't get much beyond this without some bigger upgrades in cooling and most likely motherboard.
http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php/741239-FX-8-Core-with-Gigabyte-GA-990FXA-UD3(REV4)
There are plenty of examples of builds out there to look for we had allot of people come in over the last 5 years or so looking for help with their rigs OC ...... they all came down to heat / poor cooling or poor choice of a motherboard. If you decide to get an FX system take your time, figure out your expectations first and do it right the first time. I'm a good example of this ..... I had roughly $1000 Canadian in my cooling (that includes shipping and duty charges) to run 5.1GHZ 24/7 on my FX8370 with max temps on Prime 6hours + of mid 50*C ....... I would have to go look though backup drives to find my old results and frankly I have too much to do right now for that.
Good luck UT if you decide to do an FX build ..... ask some questions there as there are more then a few guys here that will help.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2012
Wow I can't believe it's been that long since you started those threads BN.
Similar threads
