FX - 8350 Should I overclock.

[EarthDog]

In a rare few titles do you see that behavior... and it tends to only be at lower resolutions like 1080p on down. 2133MHz is what we all recommend on the intel platform.

Trents, AMD can't do 2133? I thought the FX could?

 

[Johan45]

FX can handle high speed ram just fine. Takes some work and the end result isn't really that much better. 1866-2133 is a good speed for FX IMO. AMD still "prefers" for lack of a better word, lower speed and tighter timings. I have a set of G.Skill 1866 9-10-9 that I use for testing and every FX I have tested so far has not had issue with them.

 

[motherboard1]

Can anyone explain why I hear so much about how most games don't use more than 3 cores, but yet ...

In Crysis 3 I'm seeing all 8 cores virtually maxed out
Rise of the Tomb Raider, all 8 cores heavily taxed, with a couple maxed out
Black Ops 3 "free weekend" all 8 cores maxed out, reading 98% total system CPU usage !


Gonna look at some more.

Borderlands 2 touches only 2 cores, one @ around max for me, the other @ 70-80%. Fair enough here.
Battlefield 4. All 8 cores @ around 70-80%

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Can anyone explain why I hear so much about how most games don't use more than 3 cores, but yet ...

In Crysis 3 I'm seeing all 8 cores virtually maxed out
Rise of the Tomb Raider, all 8 cores heavily taxed, with a couple maxed out
Black Ops 3 "free weekend" all 8 cores maxed out, reading 98% total system CPU usage !


Gonna look at some more.

Borderlands 2 touches only 2 cores, one @ around max for me, the other @ 70-80%. Fair enough here.
Battlefield 4. All 8 cores @ around 70-80%

You've named 3 top newer games out of thousands of games out there.

If you look at CSGO for example, probably one of the most popular games, it won't use all 8 cores.

So when you say MOST games use 4 cores or less, it's actually quite true as most games from the past till now where only written to use 2-4 cores. These newer games however are being written to maximize systems with more than 4 cores and hopefully the trend will continue as AI will benefit greatly from it.

I have a set of G.Skill 1866 9-10-9 that I use for testing and every FX I have tested so far has not had issue with them.

Good stuff. I usually run 2000-2200mhz on FX 9-10-9-27-36 with a couple different sets of 1866 memory. Running a Llano A4 @ 933 9-11-9-27-33 as we speak 3.5ghz O-clocked.

 

[motherboard1]

You've named 3 top newer games out of thousands of games out there.

If you look at CSGO for example, probably one of the most popular games, it won't use all 8 cores.

So when you say MOST games use 4 cores or less, it's actually quite true as most games from the past till now where only written to use 2-4 cores. These newer games however are being written to maximize systems with more than 4 cores and hopefully the trend will continue as AI will benefit greatly from it.
:

Ok. This is true. But to that I would say that only newer titles are relevant in such a conversation because ... When is it gonna be a question of 6 core vs 2 core for Counter Strike or Indie Title A-Z when the answer is basically, anything within reason will work just fine ?

Although it's still perplexing when 8 cores maxed perform worse than 2 Intel i3 Cores on basically any of these Titles

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Ok. This is true. But to that I would say that only newer titles are relevant in such a conversation because ... When is it gonna be a question of 6 core vs 2 core for Counter Strike or Indie Title A-Z when the answer is basically, anything within reason will work just fine ?

Pretty much. There's more to gaming than just a processor too! Your in a forum where a lot of people use 2 or 3 video cards, one of them cards could be used for Physx, SSD's in raid 0 for superior load times and so forth. When using multiple cards, this also taxes the CPU even more.

So in light of having more cores, it will depend on the game and total system specs and even video resolution.

 

[motherboard1]

Been thinking about this again. System is in a new case with C7 cryorig cooler and lots of case fans

The attached image is just after finished running Prime 95 running for like 15 minutes ( see max ). I know there's not much room if any to oc, But I'm curious about what experienced OC'ers see when they look at that image. Especially that TPM02 Temp. I have no idea what it is, but last week I seen it read over 100c while Package and CPU were much lower.

Also I'm seeing 4343mhz. On the cores, this is the boost doing it's thing I guess, I didn't know it was supposed to keep all 8 cores @ 4.3 , is 4.4 really suck a stretch?

Edit : In retrospect Maybe I should have started a new thread, if so sorry, wasn't really thinking about that.

 

[trents]

Since the current, max, min temps of TMPIN2 are all the same you can conclude that is a false reading. "CPU" temp is probably the socket/VRM sensor. So both their and with the cores there is not likely enough temp room for another notch of overclock, especially since this represents only 15 minutes of Prime95. They will likely go up another couple degrees with a longer test. Concerning the frequency variation of the cores, did you mess with the BCLK frequency at all?

 

[caddi daddi]

for a 4.3 clock, with cool&quiet enabled, your vcore looks a bit high.
if that's the lowest vcore you can get, it's time to start bringing up the cpu/nb.

 

[Mr.Scott]

Your temps are maxxed for your cooling solution, and that's only with 15 min. of P95, which tells me that the standard 2 hours of P95 will fail.
The difference between 4.3 and 4.4 is nothing you will notice so don't waste your time.

 

[Mandrake4565]

Definitely need a fan on the VRM heatsink, I have a similar board and the VRM section on mine gets really hot with my Fx 8350 on board!

 

[motherboard1]

for a 4.3 clock, with cool&quiet enabled, your vcore looks a bit high.
if that's the lowest vcore you can get, it's time to start bringing up the cpu/nb.

I haven't OC'ed anything yet, these are the boards Optimized Defaults. TPM is enabled.

Your saying that my Vcore looks a bit high? That might mean that if I "manually" OC I could get more mhz for the same Vcore then ?

Thanks

 

[caddi daddi]

that's the idea.
auto tends to run vcore to high.