OEM FX 8120 95 watt CPU overclocking

[kuraiskrap]

anyways, my main question is it the fact its the 95 watt sku of the FX 8120, and would impact overclocking performance
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8120 FD8120WMW8KGU.html 95 watt

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8120.html 120 watt

the 120watt on CPU-world and Cnet both list its thermal specification as 61C but my 95watt its 70, which seems weird to me

im also not sure of what the difference is between the 2 models they mostly show the same information on both product pages.

if for whatever reason mines a power efficient version shouldn't that give me more overclocking room due to temps? (i dont think it is)

looking online i cant really seem to find the 95 watt version listed unless i search by Sku which gets me a few sites listing the same specs or non mainstream sites selling it with very little information

me and a friend were talking and we basically figured its exactly the same but for the OEMs they made the thermal specification higher so that OEMs could use crappier heatsinks and save money to keep them happy since AMD had such low market share, since the heatsink it came with was garbage (hunk of aluminum) and i was basically running at 70C all the time. (95watt TDP for typical operation, which wouldn't be full load)

the CPU is in a 970 pro aura ASUS board
https://www.asus.com/ca-en/Motherboards/970-PRO-GAMING-AURA/

and i'm using a 212 for cooling, my only previous experience overclocking was with a Q9400.

ive disabled some power settings and ive got the speed up to 4.2ghz off multiplier (4.3 very unstable)
bios Vcore is 1.3 but CPU Z shows 1.344 under load, LLC is highest settings as is phases

looking for advice on what temps are safe, what kinda voltages should be ok with my heatsink
and what kinda speed/voltage should i expect with my 212
and what the difference is between the 2 models

 

[bassnut]

Here's a couple good threads ...... Allot of information in those two. Take a good read and sk all the questions you like. With Ryzen launching soon there is allot of the AMD guys kicking around to help.

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/...ormance-Scaling-Charts-max-OCs)LN2-Results-co

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/...s-gt-gt-Using-the-AMD-FX-Bulldozer-Piledriver

 

[Mr.Scott]

anyways, my main question is it the fact its the 95 watt sku of the FX 8120, and would impact overclocking performance
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8120 FD8120WMW8KGU.html 95 watt

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8120.html 120 watt

the 120watt on CPU-world and Cnet both list its thermal specification as 61C but my 95watt its 70, which seems weird to me

im also not sure of what the difference is between the 2 models they mostly show the same information on both product pages.

if for whatever reason mines a power efficient version shouldn't that give me more overclocking room due to temps? (i dont think it is)


and what the difference is between the 2 models

There is no difference between these models other than one came with optional liquid cooling and is not as energy efficient.
There is no difference in overclocking potential.
Keep the temp under 60c.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/611/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8120_vs_AMD_FX-Series_FX-8120_(95W).html