-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Overclocking a FX-4350
- Thread starter Anuran
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2012
Agreed, judging by the HWmonitor pics your Cpu temps aren't a concern, the temps on the VRM section will likely be high due to the lack of heatsinks.
- Thread Starter
- #25
yup. im working on it. i try to buy http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835708011 but i have a hard time finding a retailer in germany. new egg supplies england but not germany. man, i can throw a stone to the uk..screw u newegg 
well, either i must find a middleman or find a retailer for germany.
well, either i must find a middleman or find a retailer for germany.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2012
You can always try these guys as well http://www.frozencpu.com/products/7...Heatsinks_-_65mm_x_65mm_x_12mm_-_10_Pack.html
Just so you know this is what you want to cool
Just so you know this is what you want to cool
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
If you have a spare fan with decent cfm, you may not need heat sinks on the VRMs.
- Thread Starter
- #28
yay they deliver to germany. thank you Johan45
total: 16,44€ ($21,98). still cheaper than the M5A97 EVO mobo. shipping estimated (15-30 days) lol. whatever. ordered already
edit: @ShrimpBrime i still have the stock fx-4350 fan. should be good enough, i guess.
total: 16,44€ ($21,98). still cheaper than the M5A97 EVO mobo. shipping estimated (15-30 days) lol. whatever. ordered already
edit: @ShrimpBrime i still have the stock fx-4350 fan. should be good enough, i guess.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
yay they deliver to germany. thank you Johan45
total: 16,44€ ($21,98). still cheaper than the M5A97 EVO mobo. shipping estimated (15-30 days) lol. whatever. ordered already
edit: @ShrimpBrime i still have the stock fx-4350 fan. should be good enough, i guess.
Its a start.... in the past its been found that naked chips with air flow right on them cooled just as well then if it had heat sinks. The VRMs can run a pretty high temp, hot enough to burn a finger, so any cooling is going to help.
- Thread Starter
- #30
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Location
- JAX, Mississauna
Here is going to be my problem from the beginning.
1. TDP of FX-4350 is still 125Watt. Add for overclocking.
2. CPU power connector is just 4 pin and not 8 pin as on some of he heavier boards.
3. C_D, whom I know very well has already posted on page one (1) that he had similar board and setup and FX-4170 that was okay to 4.5Ghz but a disaster after that speed. And he had very g00d water cooling not just AiO or similar.
4. People do not often respond about their accidents when have already been told of the possibility of problems, but we have had two users post up the demise of their very similar boards after a period of time with overclocked FX processors in the AMD Mobo section.
5. After almost 3 years with FX processors running in an overclocked mode, I am just not able to get onboard with overclocking even an FX-4350 on the lesser boards. When you turn off turbocore, all cores then come on and no matter what an overclock will be a load on the VRM circuit. Perhaps a more reasonable speed of 4.5Ghz as C_D suggested will survive and then maybe not. Sadly when the system fails from load on the VRMs, there is a greater possiblility of taking out more than just the board, but other parts also. Some even the video card in a few cases. Overload on power is not so good since it can have a problem where we least expect it.
6. In addition, I am still; across the net, after all this time seeing a very conservative approach to using 4+2 VRMs for overclocking FX cpu and more so since there are not heatsinks by design of the mobo maker.
Luck man.
RGone...ster.
1. TDP of FX-4350 is still 125Watt. Add for overclocking.
2. CPU power connector is just 4 pin and not 8 pin as on some of he heavier boards.
3. C_D, whom I know very well has already posted on page one (1) that he had similar board and setup and FX-4170 that was okay to 4.5Ghz but a disaster after that speed. And he had very g00d water cooling not just AiO or similar.
4. People do not often respond about their accidents when have already been told of the possibility of problems, but we have had two users post up the demise of their very similar boards after a period of time with overclocked FX processors in the AMD Mobo section.
5. After almost 3 years with FX processors running in an overclocked mode, I am just not able to get onboard with overclocking even an FX-4350 on the lesser boards. When you turn off turbocore, all cores then come on and no matter what an overclock will be a load on the VRM circuit. Perhaps a more reasonable speed of 4.5Ghz as C_D suggested will survive and then maybe not. Sadly when the system fails from load on the VRMs, there is a greater possiblility of taking out more than just the board, but other parts also. Some even the video card in a few cases. Overload on power is not so good since it can have a problem where we least expect it.
6. In addition, I am still; across the net, after all this time seeing a very conservative approach to using 4+2 VRMs for overclocking FX cpu and more so since there are not heatsinks by design of the mobo maker.
Luck man.
RGone...ster.
- Thread Starter
- #36
@RGone
1. the M5A97 LE R2.0 has a max TDP of 140watt. should be enough, isnt it?
2. whats the difference anyway?
3. im very thankful for every information u guys share with me but since Johan45 helped me out with my old mobo and cpu, which ran for almost a year without problems at very high oc, i trust him. not that i dont trust anyone else
4. ill report as soon as my mobo or cpu meets the electrical god. u have my word even if it means to revive an old thread!
5. well, lets see what the future brings. i have spare money for new parts although i dont want to use it for new parts so soon
6. see 2.
thank you very much guys!
1. the M5A97 LE R2.0 has a max TDP of 140watt. should be enough, isnt it?
2. whats the difference anyway?
3. im very thankful for every information u guys share with me but since Johan45 helped me out with my old mobo and cpu, which ran for almost a year without problems at very high oc, i trust him. not that i dont trust anyone else
4. ill report as soon as my mobo or cpu meets the electrical god. u have my word even if it means to revive an old thread!
5. well, lets see what the future brings. i have spare money for new parts although i dont want to use it for new parts so soon
6. see 2.
thank you very much guys!
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2012
RGone has a point, that 140w shold be good for an 8 core but that would just be a disaster if you tried to OC it. 4.7 is a decent clockon these cpus and another 100MHz isn't going to do much but put more strain on that power section. If I were you I would set the offset voltages and all the power savings back on. That would really be best for your situation. That allows windows to drop the core speed and voltages when you're just bumming around.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
@RGone
1. the M5A97 LE R2.0 has a max TDP of 140watt. should be enough, isnt it?
2. whats the difference anyway?
3. im very thankful for every information u guys share with me but since Johan45 helped me out with my old mobo and cpu, which ran for almost a year without problems at very high oc, i trust him. not that i dont trust anyone else
4. ill report as soon as my mobo or cpu meets the electrical god. u have my word even if it means to revive an old thread!
5. well, lets see what the future brings. i have spare money for new parts although i dont want to use it for new parts so soon
6. see 2.
thank you very much guys!
The major difference is the amount of copper. If you where an electrical engineer, you know that 8 pins has more copper on the board and therfore can carry a larger current thus adding to amount of VRMs to increase capacity and add waves. So looking at a power grid with 4 phases vs 8 phases looks different and obviously more phases, better and more stable current can be applied.
It doesn't mean that 4 phase is bad, it just means less stable current for the Cpu to draw from.
So in a board like this you may see voltage dip and dive and climb small amounts more often than you would with a larger 8 phase board.
Boards like this I believe are good for the guys that benchmark. I've frozen a couple of small end boards and got good clocks, but that was running LN2 at about -174c or so 7ghz+ on only 2 cores. I didn't get my multi meter out, but rough figures would have put me well over 350 watts at about 2.0v only 2 cores.
Also, it's not only or always watt usage in terms of use, there's a certain amount of amps that 12v rail must supply.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Location
- JAX, Mississauna
To copper or not to copper...
RGone writes >> 2. CPU power connector is just 4 pin and not 8 pin as on some of he heavier boards.
Anuran writes >> 2. whats the difference anyway?
It appears that the 4 pin ATX12V Cpu connector is rated for 192 watts and the 8 pin
EPS12V connector is rated to supply 336 watts.
So we get most of the variables out there we can find that the 4 pin Cpu power
connector maybe only rated for 155 watts and the 8 pins EPS12V maybe only rated at
235 watts. The difference being between peak rating and continuous rating as I
understand it.
In addition as I understand it, if the P/S is multi-12V railed and not single railed, then
more than one rail supplies power into the 8 pin EPS12V connector.
The above for reference.
More reference: Gigabyte was almost the first to begin to equip their 8xx chipset
motherboards with an 8 pin EPS12V input power connector at about the time of the
possible release of Thuban 6 core processors because they wanted to ensure stable
power for that coming cpu. That was before the power hungry FX processors.
Again more reference: Okay we have the Asus CHV boards. They have a VRM that can
supply some of the greatest output current to Cpu of most any motherboard. They were
after all made for serious overclocking and Asus did not let most of us down. The CHV
has great VRM power output. Here there is a caveat though and it is in the ROG
forums the majority of the time the suggestion is to 'also' input power to the additional
molex connector to ensure overall there is enough +12V supplied to the mobo overall.
And this from some of the posters that actually represent Asus.
Now we have to take some of the information in and process it.
1. As early as the 6 core Thuban processor on more overclock inclined motherboards,
the board makers used the heavier 8 pin EPS12V connectors to supply Cpu power. This
before the power hungry FX processors.
2. Come forward to today and go thru the various models of most motherboard makers
and see what is the power input connector for the Cpu. I suggest that if they only use a
4 pin ATX12V connector to input power to the motherboard, then that board is never
expected to hold up under the load of heavy duty overclocking.
3. Now I am not an engineer. No claim to such. I am just fairly good with looking for the
logical methodology. If I see a board known to do awesome overclocks do so with an
8 pin EPS12V connector, then I am suspect at the ability of motherboards only using a
4 pin ATX12V connector to input power to the cpu on an AMD AM3+ motherboard.
4. Early on some motherboards with 6 core thubans in the socket would have heating
issues at the 4 pin ATX and connector failure.
5. Their are less wires/cables carrying the cpu power if you only have a 4 pin ATX12V
connector hooked up to the cpu power input.
6. Now engineers and bean counters are often very creative. They are suspicious that
the average user is not going to be an overclocker. So why not cut back on the parts
that cost more and put those more heavy duty parts on the more expenive boards that
the majority of overclockers will use? They certainly can and do such. So in the line-up of
a companies motherboards is that cheap motherboard that seems rated for just as fast
a cpu as the more expensive and likely robust motherboards in that companies line-up.
Here is the possible fly in the ointment. The board maker expects that the 'average' user
will use the cheaper motherboard as AMD designed and intended the cpu to be utilized.
That is:
A. APM enabled to continuosly monitor load and throttle if limits are exceeded.
Some boards can disable this as APM and other brands by 'enabling' HPC.
Most of us that push very very hard, will disable this APM settng in bios.
We don't want any cpu throttling cause by high current draw for the overclocked cpu.
B. Also in the FX spec is that there will never be over one-half the cpu cores up-clocked
at any one time. When we disable TurboCore and set a multiplier, the cpu now uses all
the cores at the speed determined by user set multiplier times the HT Ref Freq. That is a
lot more load than was ever expected, if the cpu were utilized as designed by AMD.
Now there are surely much better written discussions of why I am not inclined to do any
heavy overclocking on cheaper motherboards. However I have tried to give at least a
glimpse of why those of us that do in fact push the absolute push the PEE out of our
AM3+ motherboards have all more or less tried lesser boards and moved on up the
motherboard ladder to heavier duty motherboards. Taking into account our own not
able to run WFO for benches even and the fact there appears a limit to our overall
stability when using lesser boards, we have gone with the big dogs. So far that has
kept our parts and pieces intact.
Even after all of the attention to detail as above: YMMV.
RGone...ster.
RGone writes >> 2. CPU power connector is just 4 pin and not 8 pin as on some of he heavier boards.
Anuran writes >> 2. whats the difference anyway?
It appears that the 4 pin ATX12V Cpu connector is rated for 192 watts and the 8 pin
EPS12V connector is rated to supply 336 watts.
So we get most of the variables out there we can find that the 4 pin Cpu power
connector maybe only rated for 155 watts and the 8 pins EPS12V maybe only rated at
235 watts. The difference being between peak rating and continuous rating as I
understand it.
In addition as I understand it, if the P/S is multi-12V railed and not single railed, then
more than one rail supplies power into the 8 pin EPS12V connector.
The above for reference.
More reference: Gigabyte was almost the first to begin to equip their 8xx chipset
motherboards with an 8 pin EPS12V input power connector at about the time of the
possible release of Thuban 6 core processors because they wanted to ensure stable
power for that coming cpu. That was before the power hungry FX processors.
Again more reference: Okay we have the Asus CHV boards. They have a VRM that can
supply some of the greatest output current to Cpu of most any motherboard. They were
after all made for serious overclocking and Asus did not let most of us down. The CHV
has great VRM power output. Here there is a caveat though and it is in the ROG
forums the majority of the time the suggestion is to 'also' input power to the additional
molex connector to ensure overall there is enough +12V supplied to the mobo overall.
And this from some of the posters that actually represent Asus.
Now we have to take some of the information in and process it.
1. As early as the 6 core Thuban processor on more overclock inclined motherboards,
the board makers used the heavier 8 pin EPS12V connectors to supply Cpu power. This
before the power hungry FX processors.
2. Come forward to today and go thru the various models of most motherboard makers
and see what is the power input connector for the Cpu. I suggest that if they only use a
4 pin ATX12V connector to input power to the motherboard, then that board is never
expected to hold up under the load of heavy duty overclocking.
3. Now I am not an engineer. No claim to such. I am just fairly good with looking for the
logical methodology. If I see a board known to do awesome overclocks do so with an
8 pin EPS12V connector, then I am suspect at the ability of motherboards only using a
4 pin ATX12V connector to input power to the cpu on an AMD AM3+ motherboard.
4. Early on some motherboards with 6 core thubans in the socket would have heating
issues at the 4 pin ATX and connector failure.
5. Their are less wires/cables carrying the cpu power if you only have a 4 pin ATX12V
connector hooked up to the cpu power input.
6. Now engineers and bean counters are often very creative. They are suspicious that
the average user is not going to be an overclocker. So why not cut back on the parts
that cost more and put those more heavy duty parts on the more expenive boards that
the majority of overclockers will use? They certainly can and do such. So in the line-up of
a companies motherboards is that cheap motherboard that seems rated for just as fast
a cpu as the more expensive and likely robust motherboards in that companies line-up.
Here is the possible fly in the ointment. The board maker expects that the 'average' user
will use the cheaper motherboard as AMD designed and intended the cpu to be utilized.
That is:
A. APM enabled to continuosly monitor load and throttle if limits are exceeded.
Some boards can disable this as APM and other brands by 'enabling' HPC.
Most of us that push very very hard, will disable this APM settng in bios.
We don't want any cpu throttling cause by high current draw for the overclocked cpu.
B. Also in the FX spec is that there will never be over one-half the cpu cores up-clocked
at any one time. When we disable TurboCore and set a multiplier, the cpu now uses all
the cores at the speed determined by user set multiplier times the HT Ref Freq. That is a
lot more load than was ever expected, if the cpu were utilized as designed by AMD.
Now there are surely much better written discussions of why I am not inclined to do any
heavy overclocking on cheaper motherboards. However I have tried to give at least a
glimpse of why those of us that do in fact push the absolute push the PEE out of our
AM3+ motherboards have all more or less tried lesser boards and moved on up the
motherboard ladder to heavier duty motherboards. Taking into account our own not
able to run WFO for benches even and the fact there appears a limit to our overall
stability when using lesser boards, we have gone with the big dogs. So far that has
kept our parts and pieces intact.
Even after all of the attention to detail as above: YMMV.
RGone...ster.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
Very well written, wish I had your talent for it! And some extra time might help, been busy as F lately.
I've had a few boards that displayed advertisement of heavier thicker copper layout on the box. Very good for overclocking.
I've had a few boards that displayed advertisement of heavier thicker copper layout on the box. Very good for overclocking.
