There is a lot of similar threads in the AMD section and people are still buying FX CPUs just to have the same issues.
Sorry for off topic but I just can't get that, especially that almost everyday someone new is repeating the same questions and others give the same answers.
It would be nice to have a thread with test results based on 3-4 popular benchmarks and games so all could compare results on both Intel and AMD platforms and pick something optimal for their needs without being a fanboy for any side. And I mean in all CPU lines , not only top series as to be honest, no one needs 8 core CPUs for games but many users just can't realize that ...
Agreed Woomack, especially the "no one needs 8 core CPUs for games but many users just can't realize that ". When we recommend people get the 6 core over the 8 the answer is always, "isn't an 8 core better then the 6". Same goes for the 4770k vs the 4670k. As you know they're only better if the game will utilize all the cores/threads. Most un-informed people do not know this.
I'm sure that 2 cores will be good enough for most games but we have not enough results to show any proof for most configs. Open thread with benchmarks based on games could be good and I mean something like 3-4 popular games that already have built-in benchmarks. Not too many so it will be easier to manage.
Also results from all forum users as we have no chance to test every available CPU/GPU config.
Max benchmark results is one thing that is good for benching section but ranking with more regular hardware overclocked ( stable ) or on stock would be good to show general performance and could help many users to pick optimal hardware for their needs.
Again sorry for off topic
I don't care what or how much data you give the un-initiated, there is always a problem with comprehension.
Time after time we see the post that says >> I have ordered (already ordered) X, Y and Z and now we are asked what do we think? Wowee. Is that good timing or what?
Lately there are new users entering the AMD forum sections (mobo/cpu) with newly bought FX-9xxx processors and they are faced immediately with some sort of issue and it seems mostly heat related. Brand new, shiney, quiet cases in hand. It is time to duck. Stuff is going to be hitting the fan.
For the better part of nearly 2.5 years we have been saying the FX processors and certainly the 6 and 8 core FX processors run HOT. So it actually should be no surprise when AMD sells a factory PRE-overclocked FX 8 core processor, that it is a for sure thing that it will run HOT.
If I have overlooked that part of the equation for success, then I get me a case that majors on saying it is quiet. Humh? How do we get a quiet computer case? Correct me if I am wrong in my old age, but quiet cpu cases normally are quiet because they don't have a tornado of air flowing thru them. Just the opposite of what is needed for a heat monster cpu, even at its default speed which is actually a factory PRE-overclocked speed.
Some would have you believe that realistic information is not available. I say bull-hockey. People only read to find statistics that generally backup their choices. No one wants to read that their pet situation may well suck overall or give problems without further attention to detail. That is nothing but human nature 101.
We have available in the AMD Cpu Forum section, some of the best AMD overclocking tutorials around. However the forum is full of people that say they don't understand what the tutorial is saying. What?
The situation surrounding a tutorial is that one must read and DO. Instead we get, I don't know how. Read and d0. It really is that simple.
Okay that is enough of that genre.
FYI about manufacturer spec'd temps for their cpus. It took me less than 30 seconds to find this information that I modded slightly for emphasis.
Let us compare how much more heat AMD believes will accompany the use of their FX-9370 8 core over their FX-8350 8 core cpu. Not a doubliing of the heat to rid the cpu and computer case of but a whopping difference for sure.
Alright since it is suggested that there be some sort of avenue for Brand decision making and this thread here is actually seeming to revolve around a temperature issue put off by the cpu and the subsequent need to remove heat from Cpu and Case. I will put below the cpu makers spec'd TDP between two popular cpus. At least a cpu involved in this thread and another brand with similar muscles.
Now I rather firmly believe that X vs Y should be kept to a general thread, the situation was brought up here in this users thread and not in general cpu thread. Point being that relevant information for making cpu choices abound on the net. However one must use the information to make prudent choices in buying of parts and pieces.
Oh, and by the way, I like my overclocked FX-8350 at 4.8Ghz on air, very well. I use it for video editting rather frequently and it is a beast in that regard and will not be replaced any time soon.
RGone...ster.
I actually see it like AMD are not running so hot ( working temps are up to 70*C ) ... they generate too much heat that has to be taken away so simply their efficiency is low. Eh, my English isn't good enough but I think you understand what I mean.
The same haswell is generating more heat than this 84W TDP is saying. Older 125W chips need similar cooling to keep them at reasonable temps. Also haswells can be still stable at 90*C what AMD can't.
I agree that any AMD/Intel comparisons should be in general section.
I'm not saying that AMD is evil and all should get Intels but it's just not CPU for average user. At least that I see browsing forums and reading about various issues with CPUs and boards.
First of all, i thank you all from helping me out, each of you for your time and attitude. I will follow your advise to change my case and use watercooling. To be honestly, i want to stick with this 9370 because it didn't crash or freeze since yesterday. I know my settings are not optimal, but when nothing goes wrong then nothing to complain.
Just one thing, i am a newbie, but my intention was not to get an overclocked cpu. I find myself here because i couldn't figure it myself out. And that's why newbies (like me) are asking the same questions, and you see the repeated questions over and over again, which may irritates so now and then. But anyway you all helped me out and greet you all.
It's not a problem really bb5, and if you intend to go forward with this we'll still help out willingly. If you want advice on buying parts or anything. Help with getting it up and running just post here again and someone will help. That's why we're here.
Additionally we have all been in your shoes bb5 at one time or another. I have learned most of what I know about overclocking and running a high end Pc through the people in this forum.
Sure BB5, I do agree wiht "johan" and "manny", that if you seem to want to proceed with your current processor then we will help with as accurate advice as we can pro-offer.
I was pretty confident that there had to be a thread somewhere with helps just for the FD cases and I found it. The first couple of pages are very good. Then the same old crap about Postive pressure vs Negative pressure arises and the same stuff I have heard for 15 years comes up. Oh well.
There are some specific fan suggestions and what to do about that air flow resister of an HDD mounting area. Like said it is a pretty good read if looking specifically at the FD case since that is what the thread is mostly about. Starts Sept of 2013.
I would pull those drive cages for better airflow. I also would make sure you have two 140 mm fans in the front. I would put a fan in the bottom and you have room for two 140 mm fans on the top. I have three Arc Midi R2's. I also would throw a small fan behind the cpu socket. It is easy using double sided tape. Also................ that case has ample area to run your cables through the grommets to where they need to go. You can make that case have really decent airflow with a few more fans and some work.
Check that the voltage setting in BIOS is what the PC Health Status reads, that can cause some of your problems, I had same problem on a GA-990FXA-UD5 R3.0, ram was 1.5V ram, BIOS setting 1.5V, read at 1.46V, so I uped it to 1.55V for a reading of 1.53V. I also have the Sabertooth 990FX R1.0.
From now on I don't trust VRM's
Whitehawk the pic that RGone posted is a little confusing. The arrow up and down is only showing the difference. The 125 on the 8350 is the TDP not the difference as well as the 84w on the 4770k. That said the 8350 is only a 125w chip if left at default settings and even so I do not believe it only draws 125w. Once overclocked they start consuming a ton of wattage, equal to the 93xx chips. I did a test on mine a while back. I had the 8350 at 5.2 and my GTX 580 overclocked as far as I could get it. Then ran Prime and Heaven at the same time, with my Kill O Watt meter hooked up. I was drawing 832w from the wall, now the Kill O Watt isn't 100% accurate and you have to figure in the Efficiency of the PSU but still that's a whole heaping of heat that one needs to deal with.
Yeah thinking back and looking back at the drawings I guess I could or should have moved the power rating for each of the colored blocks so that no number appeared "under" the line or close to the arrow. NO they the arrow I inserted does not indicate a numerical difference. The number shown was associated with the block indicating power of each block descriptor. Forken me running.
The entire TDP thing is fuzzy math to begin with not just my slight of hand in the drawings. Just as "manny" says, none of us believe that the FX-8350 draws so little as 125Watts and certainly not overclocked.
What in heck is TDP which is what those numbers indicate in W anyway. Well the best, concise defintion I get is this >> Both Intel and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) have defined TDP as the maximum heat generation for thermally significant periods, while running worst-case non-synthetic workloads; thus, TDP is not reflecting the actual maximum power of the processor.
Do what? TDP as shown as "W" is heat and not even the actual maximum heat generated by the processor. Not even the max? Ruh Roh. Over time after reading definitions of TDP and seeing that both Intel and AMD neither say that number is max, has led me to recognize TDP as HEAT to be removed. They can express it in W if they want to but it is still an indicator of heat needing to get the heck away from the cpu and no matter what that number is still not the max number to be dealt with. Then for AMD you have to realize that there max cpu speed will nOt have all the cores on at any time with the max cpu speed BUT enter us as overclockers and we turn on ALL the cores and then jump the cpu speed up and for all practical purposes, we can forget any number the companies have written as their determined TDP.
Now, with ALL cores enabled and overclocked, we have the HEAT those of us that push FX processors all experience and why we seldom use anything but heavy duty water cooling systems to get rid of that TDP that is really HEAT and a lot of it compared to the TDP numbers handed us by the manufacturers as we are way out of company specs.
RGone...ster.
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.
