• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

AMD-FX 8320 Stepping down to 1.4 Ghz while under load.

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

spikeball117

New Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
This issue didn't start until about a couple months ago. But essentially what will happen is I will start a program like handbrake and start a project and while handbrake is encoding my cpu will step down to 1.4 Ghz for a few seconds. When this started happening my cpu was overclocked to 4.2Ghz @ 1.4v. I have tried reducing the multiplier and the voltage to see if this fixes the issue but it will only reduce the frequency at which the cpu will step down to 1.4 Ghz. Now I am at stock speeds and voltages and the cpu is still stepping down and I am considering checking the vrm's for discoloration.


CPU: AMD-FX 8320
RAM: HyperX 1366 Mhz 8GBx2
Mother Board: ASRock 970 Extreme3
GPU: ASUS Stryx GTX 970
PSU: Corsair CS750M

Note: I'm using 2 monitors 1920x1080 using HDMI and 1280x800 using DVI-D or I > VGA
 

Johan45

Benching Team Leader Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
My guess is the board is throttling the CPU. That Asrock really isn't built for the 8 core CPU you have in it. You'll want to get some extra fans, one on the VRM heatsink and another behind the CPU on the back of the motherboard.
Check the BIOS for a setting called HPC and enable it if you have that also disable the APM setting. Then I would try handbrake again only this time have HWMonitor Free open and watch your temps. If the CPU (socket) gets much over 70c it's getting too warm. Package temp should be low 60c as a max
 
OP
S

spikeball117

New Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
My guess is the board is throttling the CPU. That Asrock really isn't built for the 8 core CPU you have in it. You'll want to get some extra fans, one on the VRM heatsink and another behind the CPU on the back of the motherboard.
Check the BIOS for a setting called HPC and enable it if you have that also disable the APM setting. Then I would try handbrake again only this time have HWMonitor Free open and watch your temps. If the CPU (socket) gets much over 70c it's getting too warm. Package temp should be low 60c as a max

Well one thing I forgot to mention is that I have a seidon 240m AIO liquid cooler on my cpu and socket temps rarely get above 57c. But I'm going to try resetting the bios settings and do some troubleshooting.
 

Johan45

Benching Team Leader Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
The biggest problem with these boards is not the temps so much as it is the current draw through the VRM. Look for HPC and APM
 

Buddywh

Registered
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
My guess is the board is throttling the CPU....

When my board's VRM's are over stressed it throttles the CPU back to 1.7g. I don't often run with APM disabled, though, so that doesn't happen unless I'm benching or stress testing.
 
Last edited:

2 1

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Location
Ct
Cool and quiet has to be enabled , my 8320e was doing that as well for a short time, ended up being cool and quiet enabled
 

Buddywh

Registered
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Cool and quiet has to be enabled , my 8320e was doing that as well for a short time, ended up being cool and quiet enabled

I have C&Q disabled in BIOS and it still does it. Although: I have often wondered if my board BIOS fully and correctly supports FX processors even though it identifies my 6300 at boot up. There are other quirks: like how it mixes up HTLink and NB bus. Either that or CPU-Z does, but I somehow doubt that or others would mention it.
 

2 1

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Location
Ct
CPU-Z is only used to read what hardware you have, I believe it's your board although I've never used AsRock for any of my builds. I'd say swap the Motherboard for a Asus or Msi.. Maybe someone else can shed some light onto this
 

Mr.Scott

Beamed Me Up!
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
CPU-Z is only used to read what hardware you have, I believe it's your board although I've never used AsRock for any of my builds. I'd say swap the Motherboard for a Asus or Msi.. Maybe someone else can shed some light onto this
Here's a little light, there is no MSI board out there that is fully FX capable. Asrock is the very least manufacturer I would go with and even that would be board specific. Asus has the only decent boards for FX IMO.
 

Buddywh

Registered
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
CPU-Z is only used to read what hardware you have, I believe it's your board although I've never used AsRock for any of my builds. I'd say swap the Motherboard for a Asus or Msi.. Maybe someone else can shed some light onto this

My board is Asus, an M5a88-m. Uses 880 chipset originally intended for PhenomII but was supposed to be good for the FX processors. Even though I have the latest (and last, actually) BIOS I don't think it ever fully supported FX. For instance: it THINKS an FX is like Phenom in that it assumes it can re-enable disabled cores like the you could certain Phenoms. Instead, all it does is lock up tight: I have to do a hardware CMOS reset (push the little button on the motherboard) to get it to boot up.

Yeah, I've experimented a lot with this thing! Overall, though, I'm not complaining. It's been good: just understand it's quirks.
 
Last edited:

Johan45

Benching Team Leader Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
I'm not surprised it locks up if you tried to unlock cores that aren't there.
 

Buddywh

Registered
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
I'm not surprised it locks up if you tried to unlock cores that aren't there.

I don't know: is that what happens when you try to enable Phenom/II cores that aren't there? I never played with one but I suspect not.

You'd think a BIOS that identifies an FX processor would know FX processor's don't have disabled cores (afaik) and won't offer that setting to be changed or at least fails elegantly (as I suspect it will for phenoms). This just suggests to me Asus never spent any serious time optimizing it for the processor. And that's my point.
 

Mr.Scott

Beamed Me Up!
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
I don't know: is that what happens when you try to enable Phenom/II cores that aren't there? I never played with one but I suspect not.
I have. Depending on if there is actually a core there, and how damaged it is, it can just lock up. I've had no boot situations also. They disable cores for a reason.

You'd think a BIOS that identifies an FX processor would know FX processor's don't have disabled cores (afaik) and won't offer that setting to be changed or at least fails elegantly (as I suspect it will for phenoms). This just suggests to me Asus never spent any serious time optimizing it for the processor. And that's my point.
It doesn't work like that. The bios does not 'identify' whether or not a processor has disabled cores or not. It identifies a family and string ID and that's it. Nobody's bios does what you're talking about. You would have to b1tch to AMD to make the string ID on the processor identify that, and they're not about to even think about it considering they're using chips with maimed cores to fill orders for other processor family's.

Don't blame Asus for something that YOU did. And that's MY point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Buddywh

Registered
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Don't blame Asus for something that YOU did. And that's MY point.


But that's too late, I guess.

I did what I did because I wanted to, it's no more stupid than any other overclocking experiment because that's all they are: trial and error. Try it, if it works great, proceed to benching and stressing. If not then reboot and change. So in the same sense that I'm stupid every one participating in this overclocking quirk is just as stupid.

The processor ID is used to determine what it's features and capabilities are. That's the purpose of reading the ID string: read it and enable / disable features based on it's design. FX processor do not 'feature' disabled cores, so don't enable it in BIOS, just like any other missing feature.

I can blame Asus if I want because I can be as critical as I want. But if you'd bother to read what I said, I wasn't complaining. This board has been pretty good: I just wished ASUS would have better supported FX processors in the BIOS.

You are the one who started calling names, BTW. So don't get huffy.

BTW: you're wrong. The BIOS DOES have to 'identify' whether the processor has disabled cores because not all Phenom's HAD disabled cores: only certain lots of certain models.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ShrimpBrime

~MadHatDeLidder~
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
But that's too late, I guess.

I did what I did because I wanted to, it's no more stupid than any other overclocking experiment because that's all they are: trial and error. Try it, if it works great, proceed to benching and stressing. If not then reboot and change. So in the same sense that I'm stupid every one participating in this overclocking quirk is just as stupid.
The processor ID is used to determine what it's features and capabilities are. That's the purpose of reading the ID string: read it and enable / disable features based on it's design. FX processor do not 'feature' disabled cores, so don't enable it in BIOS, just like any other missing feature.

I can blame Asus if I want because I can be as critical as I want. But if you'd bother to read what I said, I wasn't complaining. This board has been pretty good: I just wished ASUS would have better supported FX processors in the BIOS.

You are the one who started calling names, BTW. So don't get huffy.

BTW: you're wrong. The BIOS DOES have to 'identify' whether the processor has disabled cores because not all Phenom's HAD disabled cores: only certain lots of certain models.

Oh man the cores are locked hardware style on current FX processors. It stops the system.

FX cores "could" unlock in theory, but these extra cores are laser cut on x4 and x6 series chips. However once de-lidded, the die size is the same on all FX processors.

Software can no longer unlock cores because of the FX hardware lock down. You can blame AMD for this. Want 8 cores.... pay for it.

Indeed trial and error is the way of overclocking.

In reality, we should get back to the problem at hand rather than go over HW and SW abilities of the bios and CPU ID strings.

It throttles you say? Needs better cooling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WhitehawkEQ

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
1. Get a MB with 990 chipset.
2. Make sure it has 8+2 phase power.
3. It's better to over cool than not have enough cooling, get the best monster cooling you can that will fit the case.

That's the only thing that will fully support a FX CPU, to my knowledge, any MB with 970 chipset or lower does not have 8+2 phase power.
 

Mr.Scott

Beamed Me Up!
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
I object.
I was civil and the thread didn't need cleaning. He makes a stupid mistake, gets corrected, and I'M an ***?
That's bullsh1t.
Sticks and stones brah.

I did what I did because I wanted to, it's no more stupid than any other overclocking experiment because that's all they are: trial and error. Try it, if it works great, proceed to benching and stressing. If not then reboot and change. So in the same sense that I'm stupid every one participating in this overclocking quirk is just as stupid.

The processor ID is used to determine what it's features and capabilities are. That's the purpose of reading the ID string: read it and enable / disable features based on it's design. FX processor do not 'feature' disabled cores, so don't enable it in BIOS, just like any other missing feature.

I can blame Asus if I want because I can be as critical as I want. But if you'd bother to read what I said, I wasn't complaining. This board has been pretty good: I just wished ASUS would have better supported FX processors in the BIOS.

You are the one who started calling names, BTW. So don't get huffy.

BTW: you're wrong. The BIOS DOES have to 'identify' whether the processor has disabled cores because not all Phenom's HAD disabled cores: only certain lots of certain models.
Really? If the bios has to 'identify' whether a processor has disabled cores or not, then how come you were able to enable the unlocker on a cpu that has no cores to unlock? And how come every single board made by every single manufacturer does the exact same thing? I'll tell you, again, a bios cannot tell whether a processor has disabled cores or not.
Yes you can blame whoever, be as critical as what ever, and do whatever you want, that's true, but at some point in your life you'll have to grow up and take responsibility for your own actions instead of trying to pass the blame off on somebody else.
Come back when you know WTF you're talking about. Better yet, don't even bother.
Whatever. I'm out. :p
 
Last edited: