FEATURED Info & Tips >> Using the AMD FX Bulldozer/Piledriver...

RGone · Aug 22, 2014

I was advised that a number of links in this thread were no longer valid. I have gone thru this #1 Post and tested every link and RE-arranged as necessary.
2:51AM Nov 5, 2015. RGone...

Been thinking about this for a few months and tonight, I am beginning to go thru and sort some of my saved text files with the information I have learned about and use to answer many posts in the AMD Cpu Forum section and here in the AMD Mobo Forum section.

I am going to set aside at least 7 reserved pages so I can have room to break out the various bits of information I have that can be posted in this one place.

As time goes on and I get it better worked up, I will try and make Links to the other pages by their particular point of emphasis. Sadly I have not got "my" AMD STUFF folder synched across 4 computers in at least 2 locations. That I am going to have to do as well.

If I remember from my previous forum ADMIN days there are certain things that are not available to an average poster. Arrangement of certain features are harder to do in a regular user post.

So I am resorting to the use of the spoiler as "ssjwizard" was so kind to explain to me a few years ago. Thanks ssjwizard. I will try to give a good clue or hint as to what is inside the spoiler so one can see if it is perhaps worth opening the spoiler to see if there are any goodies inside. Will try for decent hints. RGone...
RGone...

#1 > What Does AMD SAY???

#2 > MISCELLANEOUS Stuff

#3 > Temps. Are you sure??

#4 > Motherboards. Oh really!!

#5 > A look at Cooling the CPU.

#6 > Some Overclocking Outlook

#7 > Non-Board Specific FX-Series CPU Overclocking IN PROGRESS

#8 > Cpu Cooling Mild to Wild...Maybe Even Outrageous W/Cooling

So you think you want to know about AMD's Bulldozer and
Piledriver architecture. Well here it goes.

Understanding Bulldozer architecture through Linpack benchmark
By [email][email protected][/email]

NOTE: >> Going to say a thing. This is a thread and has subjects from all over the internet. I read/studied/inspected articles and ideas from all over the net. Well as many as I felt were not blowing my shirt-tail up over my head. Which does happen. Hype like we got for a year before the late release of the AMD FX Bulldozer is easy to find about the net and in many sites and forums. Much of what is presented here is not do A and B and go gaming. Plenty is informational and for one's research for understanding. Sorry but that is just the ole faht me.

For everyone of the 'spoilers" in this thread, I am making a true/real and dedicated effort to have the red text above the 'spoiler' to be indicative of what is 'inside' the spoiler. The better I can do this job the easier it will be to go down the list and not even open a spoiler that does not appear of interest to oneself. I am trying dang it. Hehehe. RGone...ster.

..................

....................

Heads up Ladies and Gents. See article below by our own ShrlmpBrime.
ShrimpBrime on the FX-9590. You better read before falling into the HEAT.

RGone...Again.

Heads up again for update to thread. SEE link below.
RGone...Again.
UPDATE July 2015.

Doing another update to a couple of things already covered to some extent but in this update I have made every effort to the clearest I can be to date.
RGone...Again.
SEE LINK BELOW.
AMD FX APM and HPC again. July 2015

July 2015. I was going to put this under the "motherboard" section but I thought it so astounding to see the actual power thru the VRMs that I am putting information here.
RGone...
Advise for FX-9590/9370 (Centurian) users on C5F-Z/Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 AMD has validated the Crosshair V and Sabertooth 990FX as for use with its new FX 9590 and 9370 CPUs, however there is some advise we'd like to add for users upgrading (or even users running their FX-8350s at ~5GHz frequencies).

RGone · Aug 22, 2014

Okay what does AMD themselves say???

I was advised that a number of links in this thread were no longer valid. I have gone thru this #2 Post and tested every link and RE-arranged as necessary.
2:32AM Nov 5, 2015. RGone...

AMD FX Performance Tuning Guide in PDF file format.

There are many points that are of value in that guide. I as most of us that have overclocked for a long time...do not use software for our overclocking. I want my system able to boot to windows with the settings I choose and overclocking from within windows does not guarantee that situation at all. So I disregard AMD AOD or software provided by the various manufacturers. IMO.

Description of the voltages in Glossary is a very worthwhile read for rememberance.

I have broken out some images from within that PDF file with graphic editting for more clarity in some instances.

Okay we make an effort to get everyone on the same page when answering questions about AMD overclocking. What is shown in the image below is a "part" of what I write in my "Let's all get on the same page post". This directly from AMD's PDF.

Updated TurboCore/APM and HPC.
Latest APM and HPC

This next image with information from AMD FX OC Guide. Interesting description of TurboCore and what may or may not need to be done about it.
AMD has not revised this PDF just for Piledriver over the Bulldozer, they are too close to each other to need a rewrite.

In that wording is a mini-description of the newer APM setting which is Application Power Management

Okay some chipset buss information in image format from PDF.
There are a couple of voltages of some of the busses that we never seem to think of but it is in the AMD information.

AMD talks about Ram. Good information when studied closely and then questions are answered by that study.

Okay this is a graphic I captured from the AMD OC FX GUIDE and I made edits for what I hope is greater clarity.
I am NoT going back and add DICE where I have LN2 nor HE2 or Cascade cooling. Just know it is much more cooling than air or straight air to water cooling for sure. COLD not CooL

PDF file that says ACP - The truth about power consumption starts here.

43761C_ACP_WP_EE.pdf
Is a PDF file that says ACP - The truth about power consumption starts here.

File Link >> View attachment 43761C_ACP_WP_EE.pdf

The 9xx series of chipset was released by AMD for the FX-series of processors. Within the spoiler below is link to AMD's own 9xx chipset descriptions.

Also within the spoiler is a block diagram of the 990FX chipset and its connections.

990FX/990X/970 Databook >> If you want to know about the 9xx chipset as AMD describes the chipsets...well here is 'their' PDF file link.

990FX Chipset Block Diagram. Other 9xx chipsets are similar with the number of PCI-e lanes being one major difference with the lesser chipset and the 990FX chipset is designed to connect to the other busses at a 'slightly' faster speed.

RGone...

RGone · Aug 22, 2014

Some Misc Stuff...I think.

I was advised that a number of links in this thread were no longer valid. I have gone thru this #3 Post and tested every link and RE-arranged as necessary.
2:25AM Nov 5, 2015. RGone...

Going to say a thing again. This has become a MISCELLANEOUS 'post' within this thread and has subjects from all over the internet. I read/studied/inspected articles and ideas from all over the net. Well as many as I felt were not blowing my shirt-tail up over my head. Which does happen. Hype like we got for a year before the late release of the AMD FX Bulldozer is easy to find about the net and in many sites and forums. Much of what is presented here is not do A and B and go gaming. Plenty is informational and for ones research for understanding. Sorry but that is just the ole faht me.

For everyone of the 'spoilers" here, I am making a true/real and dedicated effort to have the red text above the 'spoiler' to be indicative of what is 'inside' the spoiler. The better I can do this job the easier it will be to go down the list and not even opena spoiler that does not appear of interest to oneself. I am trying dang it. Hehehe. RGone...ster.

When I stop and think of the various major settings and how they react; I can remember this since it was what I first cut my teeth on.
NOTE: when you see FSB inside spoiler it maybe called HT Reference Frequency in some brand of mobo bios. Also shortened to HT Ref Freq = FSB when seen inside.

NOTE: when you see FSB below it maybe called HT Reference Frequency in some brand of mobo bios. Also shortened to HT Ref Freq = FSB when seen below.
NOTE: Multi is equal to the word multiplier.

This may help:
(CPU Multi) * (FSB) = (CPU Freq)
(CPU Multi) / (Memory Divider) = (Divisor Ratio)
(CPU Freq) / (Divisor Ratio) = (RAM MHz) (* 2 = DDR MHz)
(CPU_NB Multi) * (FSB) = (CPU_NB Freq)
(HT Multi) * (FSB) = (HT Freq) **
**note: the HT Multiplier is usually shown as a MHz option rather than a multiplier of the FSB, but in fact, it is a default of 10X times the FSB.

2600 MHz 16-bit HyperTransport link is the default HT Link speed for "ALL" FX cpus since their release. No matter if early bioses might have had the HT Link Speed set by default to 2200Mhz. Most later bioses seem to have finally set the AMD HT Link spec of 2600Mhz.

A try for real clarity if you did not get it above. You have to have these numbers in mind when dealing with overclocking FX cpus. What four speeds are influenced by raising the FSB which today is known as HT Reference Frequency (clock)

HT Ref clock x CPU multi = CPU speed
HT Ref clock x HT multi = HT Link frequency
HT Ref clock x Memory multi = Memory speed
HT Ref clock x CPU-NB multi = CPU-NB speed

The standard/stock/default HT Ref Clock is 200 for FX processors. If you raise the HT Ref Freq above the stock 200 the cpu speed rises, the HT Link Speed/Freq rises, the Memory speed rises and the CPU_NB rises also.

Because this seems to have become the MISC. thread, this is for some with early boards with NO APM = Enable/Disable.
Using AMDMsrTweaker to disable APM when not shown in bios.

Not sure where AMDMsrTweaker.zip can be found for download.

Just follow what this users tells you to do and your throttling days are over.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I use a batch file in auto start to get that done. As an example, i use it to turn off APM, and looks something like this:
start /d "c:\AmdMsrTweaker\x64\" AmdMsrTweaker.exe APM=0

Simple but gets the job done
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what you do is download this program. make a note of where you download it too
such as C:\users\yourusername\downloads then open notepad.
type this

Start /d C:\users\yourusername\downloads\AMDMsrTweaker\x64\ "AmdMsrTweaker.exe APM=0

save this as Throttlingoff.bat or whatever you want to call it, just make sure you make it a .bat file. also chage file type to all files and not.txt place this .bat file in your startup folder.

so Start > All Programs > startup> copy .bat file there. now restart.

If you have done it correctly you should see a CMD windows flash up at startup and no error message. you now have a non throttling AMD FX CPU.. enjoy..

If you get an error about not finding the file you have copied the location address inccorectly. Hope this helps

Not sure where AMDMsrTweaker.zip can be found for download.

Updated TurboCore/APM and HPC.
Latest APM and HPC
Cpu Throttling for seemingly unknown reason. APM & HPC

HPC Mode (High Performance Computer) ENABLED can prevent the CPU from lowering its clock rate under load and is being used in some motherboard bioses.

APM (Application Power Management) should be DISABLED. It is new with AMD FX processors and is used in conjunction with C6 and TurboCore.

So if your bios has HPC it should be enabled.

So if your bios has APM it should be disabled.

Making these two bios settings helps to stop cpu throttling when there is a heavy load on the VRMs and your throttling does not seem to be temperature related.

Most ram is shown when bought with the first four timings listed as outlined below.

Most ram is shown when bought with the first four timings listed as outlined below. CPUz normally shows the first four timings in order down the page and adds one more which is tREF and has the CMD rate listed lastly most of the time.

The operations that these numbers indicate are the following: CL-tRCD-tRP-tRAS-CMD. To understand them, bear in mind that the memory is internally organized as a matrix, where the data are stored at the intersection of the lines and columns.

For instance 8, 8, 8, 24, 2T >> CL-tRCD-tRP-tRAS-CMD.

CL: CAS Latency. The time it takes between a command having been sent to the memory and when it begins to reply to it. It is the time it takes between the processor asking for some data from the memory and then returning it.

tRCD: RAS to CAS Delay. The time it takes between the activation of the line (RAS) and the column (CAS) where the data are stored in the matrix.

tRP: RAS Precharge. The time it takes between disabling the access to a line of data and the beginning of the access to another line of data.

tRAS: Active to Precharge Delay. How long the memory has to wait until the next access to the memory can be initiated.

CMD: Command Rate. The time it takes between the memory chip having been activated and when the first command may be sent to the memory. Sometimes this value is not announced. It usually is T1 (1 clock cycle) or T2
(2 clock cycles).

This is shown about RAM dividers in a graphic image in the What Does AMD Say? in that section.
However that may not be easily seen within the smaller print of the image.Here it is again. With a Note below.

Memory clock speed is tied to HT ref. clock with certain ratios. The following Memory clock modes are available on the AMD “Scorpius” platform technology with AM3+ socket and DDR3 support:
· DDR3-800 (400MHz) – 2:1 ratio
· DDR3-1066 (533MHz) – 8:3 ratio
· DDR3-1333 (667MHz) – 10:3 ratio
· DDR2-1600 (800MHz) – 4:1 ratio
· DDR3-1866 (933MHz) – 14:3 ratio
· DDR3-2133 (1066MHz) – 16:3 ratio *
· DDR3-2400 (1200MHz) – 6:1 ratio *
(* = not an officially supported memory clock mode)

NOTE: not personally tested but I get it on good advice that the 8:3 ratio for the ram is more powerful than the 4:1 ram ratio. In order to run in that manner you would have to lower the multiplier and ram divider and push the PEE out of the FSB/HT Ref Frequency to again have decent high ram speed. You would also need to ensure that the CPU_NB and HT Link speed stayed manageable as well. FYI, maximum power is hardly if ever reached with settings on AuTo. Test and Tune and Trial and Error are the order of the day to reach max performance results.
RGone...ster.

How and Why I use OFFSET VCORE on my CHV non-Z with FX-8350. The principle is the same for any motherboard.

I am linking to my second or so attempt at clarifying Offset Vcore setup which those of us that do push the PEE out of FX processors finally come to use since our daily overclock is pretty high and using Offset Vcore is a good way to keep our cool. Hehehe.

Offset Vcore setup allows my 4.8Ghz to drop to about 1.6Ghz at idle and my Vcore drops from 1.375V to less than 1.0V again at idle and no heavy use of CPU. However as soon as heavy loading occurs, the CPU jumps to 4.8Ghz with ALL 8 cores on with my FX-8350 and the Vcore again is quickly raised to 1.375V.

Offset Vcore has allowed me to run 4.8Ghz P95 Blend stable using an Xigmatec Aiger Air Cooler with Push/Pull fans.

Offset Vcore use has also allowed me to run will a lesser CPU_LLC and has made my settings much more finite.

Link to my second or so attempt at clarifying Offset Vcore setup for AMD FX processor on 9xx chipset mobo. A really good mobo can be a huge plus.
RGone...ster.

In the OFFSET Vcore discussion I make mention of Windows Power Management. Once settled in on 24/7 overclock, I setup Offset Vcore and also go into Windows Power Management and setup WPM to idle at 15% instead of the normal 5%. This keeps the idle cpu speed from being "so far" from Max cpu speed. This makes going to WFO smoother and hassle free for me. I also set Max Mode in WPM to 100% of course since that is the idea to be running WFO.

FYI >> What Is Minimum And Maximum Processor State In Windows 7 Power Management?

Copied from link above.
The number of P-states supported varies by processor, but is usually around 5-10.

Since Windows allows a total of 100 different values for the processor state, this means that not every value will result in a different P-state being used. In other words, going from 100% to 99% or even 90% might have no effect whatsoever on the clock speed.

Also, depending on which P-states are supported, the actual clock speed might differ considerably from what you might expect from the percentage; specifying 50% in Windows power options doesn't necessarily mean that your processor will run at 50% clock speed. For instance, on my Core 2 Duo T9550 with a nominal clock speed of 2.66 GHz, setting the processor state to 50% doesn't give a clock speed of 1.33 GHz, as might be expected.

APM (Application Power Management) = You need to DISABLE is what I do. When APM is enabled even with all of the other green stuff off and HW thermal control disabled, and windows on high performance it can STILL throttle the FX CPUs under any significant load which can happen at stock speeds as well.

High Performance Computing HPC: = ENABLED is what I do.
"There is an option called HPC Mode that prevents the CPU from lowering its clock rate under load."

Caddi Daddi does the down and dirty AOD to set CPU Frequency.

As posted by Caddi Daddi.
ok, you are using amd overdrive?
1, set your clocks
2, click the apply button
3, click the preferences button in the upper right, click settings
4, click save as and name the file and save it
5, check the apply my last settings when system boots checkbox and then click ok
6, click the green dot in the upper right of overdrive to invoke the red ring.
7 click ok and you are done.

I knew "tungureanu" had made a thread about his problems with the Giga UD3 Rev 3.0

Move to Giga 990FXA UD3 Rev 3.0 with FX=8350. Thread is three pages long.

I knew "tungureanu" had made a thread about his problems with the Giga UD3 Rev 3.0 but I had forgotten it began with his Asus EVO water leak problem. Anyway I finally found the thread and it it he lists 9 problems with his Rev 3.0 motherboard and then adds issue #10 before he finishes the thread. A pretty fair description of the issues we have seen with users and the Giga UD3 Rev 3.0 motherboards.

In another thread "tungureanu" makes a note and download location for the Giga 990FXA UD3 Rev 3.0 board and a beta bios that has the option in it to Disable APM and he says it works since he uses it on his own Giga 990FXA UD3 Rev 3.0 board.

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=733867
990FXA UD3 R3 users rejoice I have played around the interweb and found a bios for the UD3 R3 that has APM option present.

Bios in attachment and do not forget this is BETA, but it`s better than nothing, and it needs to be flashed with Q-Flash from the BIOS.

Since this is MISC Post and I am going into my SAVED Tips and INFO...here is tip to finding if you have GPU/CPU Bottle-Neck.

Link to > About Bottle-Necking.
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33760885 take a game, turn everything to full.

Then bench it at

640*480
800*600
1024*768
1240*1024

If the fps are all pretty much the same, you are cpu limited.

If the fps are varying widely, you are gpu limited
(in your case its probably a bit of both)
but you would see an increase either way you go.

Another Link about Bottle-Necking.
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1942569

Long and short of it boils down to this - A CPU bottleneck can be seen when, for example, you play CSS or TF2, you get, say, 120fps @1080P. Now, if you lower res, or ingame setting like AA and such, and still get ~120fps, this can be said to be a CPU bottleneck as the GPU can do higher res and in game setting w/o a FR hit. The limiting factor in this case is the CPU which can do the AI and physics work to give ~120fps. Adjusting vid setting results in negligible FR
differences.

Now, in the case of a GPU bottleneck, it's just the opposite. For example, @1080P w/o AA, you get ~60fps with Crysis at max ingame setting. Enabling 2xAA results in a noticeable FR hit can be said to be a GPU bottleneck. In this case, the CPU can do more work, but has to 'wait' for the GPU to finish rendering.....hope you get what I mean. This is a very simplistic explanation from what I've gleaned from the net over the years (but hey, IF I'm wrong....well, c'est la vie)

If reducing graphics settings does not improve framerate then the CPU's bogged.

If lowering settings does improve performance then the GPU's hitting its ceiling.

I have seen this in a number of variations that can cause a problem. My tip-off was what the heck the bios said was the recognized location of my drives. In no way did they match up to the silk-screening on the motherboard itself or the manual. I took a black magic marker and made the 'correct' annotations on the drive connections at the motherboard.

Now this is my FYI here: The real last sata ports on the 950 portion of the chipset are for the "burners/opticals". Some say that the extra drive controller on the mobo will not handle opticals but I have found that mostly 'not' true and where it works...you will find my opticals over on the add-in drive controller and reserve the AMD sata ports for HDDs and SSDs since the AMD chipset is generally faster. YMMV. RGone...ster.

Link Location >>
http://www.overclock.net/t/1129060/solved-amd-sb950-raid-0-poor-performance-solved Thanks everybody for Your help and ideas!

I solved the problem last night ... or was it this morning already ??? :>

First thing I did was install the newest unofficial BIOS by Kingpin - 0909 I believe it is.

Then I remembered, what RaidXpert and Raid BIOS itself told me, that my SSDs are connected to SATA Port 1 & 3, and the other 2 Caviars in another Raid0 array to ports 2 & 4. I double checked the fine print on the board as well as in MoBo documentation to make sure which port is what number. Sure enough according to that I had my SSDs on port 1 & 2 and the other array on ports 3 & 4. I thought I'll give it a test and try switching the cables.

Now that's what the manual tells You:

1---3---5
|==|==|==|
|==|==|==| *|==| - Sata port
2---4---6

Clearly that's not what the raid config says.
I switched the cables. Checked if now in Raid BIOS my SSDs are number 1 & 2 and other array 3 & 4 - in fact they were - and resumed to windows for benchmark.

Voila! Now I get 890MB/sec writes and pass 930MB/sec in reads!
It's still not as good as Intel controller that beats 1GB/sec reads, but good enough for me to sleep better

I might try to unhook the 2 HDDs from the RAID, since they might be stealing some bandwich from the SSD array and see if that improves the results any. But if not, I hope some future driver upgrades will make the performance close up on the Intel controller and beat the 1GB/s mark.

So here we have it. When You decide to Raid your SSDs or HDDs using AMD MoBo, pay attention to the right cable routing. Obviously, the Crosshair V manual is missleading in this case. The correct SATA port arrangement is:

1---2---5
|==|==|==|
|==|==|==| *|==| - Sata port
3---4---6

Connect the Raid array's disks to ports 1&2 (or 1,2,3 and then 4 - depending on number of disks). Obviously when I had my 2 SSDs on ports 1 & 3 it limited the performance drasticaly.

Hope that helps!

Cheers !

So you are hearing about High and Low Leakage cpus. Well to get to a point other than just He said, they said...well you have to do some serious study. Just about every bit of the directions spoken of in these links inside are in practice today. The scope of what is leakage and why it is not so good is discussed more than a little bit. My head blew-up. RGone...ster.

LINK >

The Quest for More Processing Power, Part One: "Is the single core CPU doomed?"

www.anandtech.com

Anandtech low leakage high leakage cpu. This is the first article of multiple by Johan De Gelas on February 8, 2005 4:00 PM EST

LINK >
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.12.1881&rep=rep1&type=pdf
High-performance, Low-power, and Leakage-tolerance Challenges for Sub-70nm Microprocessor Circuits

This is a good read and why most are not suggesting upgrading to FX cpu unless just a must. A couple of guys started to compete against each other with at least one FX-6100, but the whole thing got out of hand as many things often do. Just like what trying to do this thread has become. You must remember I said I was pulling my 'saved' tips/info and am going thru my own saved text saves for input into this long but hopefullly informative thread.

LINK >

Epic AMD CPU Grudge Match....AMD Slug It Out-orama 2012!!
Long but worth it and at the beginning they have performance charts. You say oh it is dated since it began in May of 2012. BS! Not a lot has changed about the actual power of the AMD FX series of processors. IN fact unless overclocked to hale and back: core for core the FX processor cannot whup AMDs own earlier Phenom2 and Thuban cpus.

I use an FX-8350 clocked to 4.8Ghz with 16gigs of G Skill Ares series ram @ about DDR3-1980. I am well pleased with how my setup does heavy video editting. The 8 cores are used and useful. The FX cpu is easier to get ram nearly to DDR3-2000,easier than doing such with earlier AMD type processors.

So you pick your battles and use what is found to do very well. You cannot just throw parts at a problem. Well you can but the results maybe rather iffy.

TDP and maybe all I never cared to know about.

Thermal Design Power (TDP) @ http://www.cpu-world.com/Glossary/T/Thermal_Design_Power_(TDP).html
The Thermal Design Power (TDP) is theaverage maximum power a
processor can dissipate while running commercially available software. TDP is primarily used as a guideline for manufacturers of thermal solutions (heatsinks/fans, etc) which tells them how much heat their solution should dissipate. TDP is not the maximum power the CPU may generate - there may be periods of time when the CPU dissipates more power than designed, in which case either the CPU temperature will rise closer to the maximum, or special CPU circuitry will activate and add idle cycles or reduce CPU frequency with the intent of reducing the amount of generated power.

TDP is usually 20% - 30% lower than the CPU than the shown CPU TDP rating, because of HOW TDP is defined and measured. TDP not calculated at full load.

Average Maximum ?? I thought Max was Max. How can one average a max? Every cpu would have to be tested in order to get average of a Max. Probably some sort of word playing.

So TDP is n0t a theoretical max power. Nor by those definitions is TDP the worst case scenario.

Both AMD and Intel have sort of played a little loose and free with how they define TDP. Get the white papers out and you can read for yourselves.

Now for power consumption pointers; AMD is trying to use ACP (Average CPU Power) which none of the big guys use. Instead, the big industry players like Intel, Sun, HP and IBM have settled on the suite of SPECpower benchmarks run by a committee of industry players hailing from all those firms and even AMD. This, for the most part, promotes TDP (Thermal Design Power), a measurement Intel favours and which AMD considers inherently biased.

If you have not spent nearly 2.5 years with the 8 core FX processors thru Bulldozer and Piledriver and run them on something less than DICE, LN2 or LHE, then it is hard to really have experienced the power the 8 core processors (actually all FX cpus) can consume and throw off the resultant heat at higher constant frequencies. 4.8Ghz and beyond is a load on the cooling system and motherboard VRMs. In truth, I doubt many people benching for points that are not in the top 10 around the world, give a hoot what AMD says about power consumed or heat generated anymore.

At least not in the discrete cpu market place. Gamers are interested in IPC and that falls to Intel to lead currently. AMD has stated time and then time again that they have no interest in competing in the upper tier of discrete cpu performance. They completely stamped this as TRUE when they did not bring a "steamroller" variation to us discrete cpu users.

AMD gave us "consumers" nearly 11.5 months of HYPE before releasing the Bulldozer onto the consumer. When they sent the first Bulldozer Review packs out to the review sites they had probably the best mobo packed with the cpu (CHV with correct bios) and the AMD water cooler and a special review package for monitoring from CPUID.

By this manner of bet hedging, the average consumer had no idea what they would face when they turned ALL the cores on and began to overclock as most of us do with BIG WATER on a "hefty" VRM circuited mother board. The review sites wanting to continue to receive test parts and pieces; fell right into step and only said the FX cpus did not bench equal to Intel at relative speeds. Again a gap in real information to the amd buyers.

Not the first bit of this has any real meaning to 98% of the computer buying market. There are only a small segment of users that hinge their next drawn breath on the performance of their computer in benches and how far can they overclock their cpu. Just a small segment of the computer market place.

Now AMD execs are leaking more hypeage about something for x86 again in 2016. Hold your breath.

Just an FYI. I have a good FX-8350 used for home video editting. It literally lifts the front end and totes the mail down the track for me in that usage. I like it. But I do not appreciate the hypeage that makes most of us that do the helping in the cpu forum section 95% of the time; feel like mobo police from users coming in wanting to overclock with entry level mobos that are not up to the task of ALL cpu cores turned on while overclocking, which is necessary if you want an FX to finish just behind an Intel cpu clocked at a lesser speed.

Long live those whom can put up with the stress of "mobo policing".
RGone...ster.

Cold Boot vs Warm Boot of computer.

Cold boot vs warm reboot (you can g00gle for more information since there are varied viewpoints by manufacturer)

Cold boot may also be called cold boot, hard reboot or hard boot.

Warm reboot may also be called warm restart or soft boot or warm reboot.

Nailing down fully what each engineering sector is calling the REboots is difficult. And somewhat difficult in determining what actually happens. A warm reboot used to be described by M$ as a restart thru the 19h interrupt and is of course not the same as a Cold boot which is begun from power supply off then on and the start button pressed to begin the boot process.

In general it is considered best to troubleshoot (especially hardware) by beginning boot process from power supply off, then on and begin boot process. This process does n0t skip part of the bios booting process which a warm reboot/restart always seems to skip a portion of the booting checks and process.

You might want to check with your motherboard manufacturer to see if there is some idea in the boot vs reboot process that is not fully evident or manufacturer specific.

It is generally understood that a cold boot process almost always takes longer than a warm reboot/restart takes because of steps skipped in the warm restart process.
RGone...

C_D and learning about what changing the FSB does with AMD.

C_D and FSB understanding.

RGone...

RGone · Aug 22, 2014

Temps. Are your sure??

I was advised that a number of links in this thread were no longer valid. I have gone thru this #4 Post and tested every link and RE-arranged as necessary.
2:35AM Nov 5, 2015. RGone...

Something about the temps and what we usually use to monitor discrete AM3+ FX processor temps.

Let us just say a couple of things about AMD cpu temps. It is best to read what is said here and not what you think or supposed or something you heard, that is rumored.

1. They are not calculated/measured/derived the same as Intel cpus.

2. The 'closer' you get to a real AMD cpu temperature, the 'closer' you get to proprietary/make that secret information that will NOT be released to the general public. Period. This non-release of information includes 3rd party program writers. In the end they too have to make a highly educated guess at how AMD is measuing/reporting temperatures of their AMD processors.

3. Any piece of software has a learning curve. M$ Office, Win 7, Adobe products etc are all installed and at some point you will have learn how that piece of software will do what you want it to do within the designs of the software itself. Someone super skilled in WordPerfect is not going to be able to tell you as much about M$ Office as someone that is skilled in M$ Office. The certainly should make sense.

4. So based on the logic of #3 above, users that you see actually 'helping' AMD people most of the time have programs/applications that THEY are MOST familiar with. In the AMD sections where you see people, helping out ALL THE TIME; HWMonitor (FREE) by CPUID dot com is used. Most committed helpers do not use What's My TemP, How's My CPU doing now?, CoreTemp or anything else but HWMonitor (FREE) by CPUID dot com. So get in step with the software most of us are used to dealing with. That is really where you need to be if going to ask us for help. We don't use other temp/mobo monitors.

5. Then if YOU want to learn another temp/mobo monitoring software, you can do it at your own leisure, because in general we who try to help are not off somewhere with different software.

6. I hope that makes the situation a little more clear. In general we use HWMonitor (FREE} and have learned HOW IT works more, make that much more, often than not.

Almost sounds like political-speak about temp stuff. Why we stick with one software monitoring software.

AMD customer care says >> Either way, TCase is supposed to be the physical temperature of the inside-top of the CPU

AMD customer care says >> I was able to get a little more info from the embedded team into borderline-proprietary information, >> and >> TCase for AMD processors comes from a few thermistors (not one, apparently, just found that out) inside the processor case (at the bottom, where the pins are), connecting down to the CPU via the Junction. >> and >> the TCase temperature is determined by averaging those values out, done by the processor.

AMD customer care says >> TJunction is the temperature where the pins hit the board, and is usually a couple degrees cooler as all 940/941 pins aren't all firing at the same exact time, and not always evenly distributed when only 400 are on at one time.
[Need to be careful with this one since this is and AMD cpu an not Intel]

AMD customer care says >> TCore is actually mathematically guessed based on the varying TCase values, as there is no way to get a diode on top of the cores inside the processor, and putting it underneath the cores (between the bottom of the case and the bottom of the cores, which hover on a little silicon platform) would yield an inaccurate reading. As such, optimizing the core space on the wafers by keeping thermistors off, they just mathematically extrapolate the core temperature from the TCase values, based on core location on the processor and the values retrieved in that general area, plus some mathematical calculations.

AMD customer care says >> TJunction is still a diode on the board, under the processor, which most boards still have.

Now almost 3 years after the release of the discrete AM3+ FX processors we have come to find and recommend that the CPU/Socket Temp be equal to or less than 70c as viewed in the same page HWMonitor (FREE) monitoring software. IF you think to go higher, then pick the sack up and put it on your own shoulders and go for iT. It is up to you.

Now almost 3 years after the release of the discrete AM3+ FX processors we have come to find and recommend that the Package/Core Temp be equal to or less than 62c as viewed in the same page HWMonitor (FREE) monitoring software. IF you think to go higher, then pick the sack up and put it on your own shoulders and go for iT. It is up to you.
_________________________________________ ____________________________

Forum member here makes contact with AMD support about FX temperatures. If you can wade thru the AMD replies...well you are better than me for sure. My head blew-up. Hehehe RGone...

About FX temps. The short version.

About FX temps. The longer version.

RGone...

RGone · Aug 22, 2014

Something about the motherboards for FX processor

I was advised that a number of links in this thread were no longer valid. I have gone thru this #5 Post and tested every link and RE-arranged as necessary.
2:39AM Nov 5, 2015. RGone...

Okay this is not going into a spoiler since I wish it to be more visisble. Today is June 22, 2015 and quite sometime has passed since I originally started this thread. But as time goes on, I find items that should be of interest (were to me) and I come back in and update the thread.

There are interesting points to be gained from component datasheets. For instance the ISL6336 is a 6-Phase PWM Controller. From its datasheet you can glean the importance of ambient temperature upon the workload of the VRMs. It becomes apparent how crucial temperatures are to the VRMs. About one-fifth of a VRM is devoted just to temperature compensation, and higher temps increase it's workload exponentially,

Well crap RGone what in the world could "exponential" mean. Well for me it means that I had no idea how much an increase in one item would act upon another item by an amount greater than I expected. An easy example of an exponential increase that I have remembered for years is basic power to defeat aerodynamic drag as speed increases. It works out to something like this: A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph could require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag. However that same car at 100 mph requires 80 hp (60 kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples. Now that is exponential growth. For real.

So if the workload on a VRM increases exponentially with an increase in temperature, then the increase in work load for temp is not to be just casually considered. It is this increase in workload that has caused us over time to suggest as well as we can that 8 Core FX processors and even 6 core FX processors need motherboards with very HEFTY VRM circuits. And more so when any plans to overclock enter into the situation.

Now have a look at this link for some idea of how increasing CPU Speed and increasing the cpu voltage to support that increase actually seemed to figure out for increased power draw, for some previously well known processors. That increase in power for the cpu has to be supported by the VRM circuit on the motherboard.

LINKY >>
CPU Overclocking vs. Power Consumption

I am going to try and use the 'spoiler' feature some since it can help speed up browsing a thread. I will do the best I can at giving a real 'hint' at what is inside the spoiler.

There's only one true AM3+ chipset, and that's the 9XX series.

There's only one true AM3+ chipset, and that's that 9XX series. The 8XX series boards that support AM3+ only do so because they have a modified BIOS, not because they were meant to support it to begin with. The 9XX boards also use a different system for power regulation, so if you're planning on overclocking, the 8XX boards may not take kindly to it. The 9XX chipset also features a faster HyperTransport, 3.1 vs 3.0.

As for a breakdown of the chipset, it goes like this:
Chipsets with no designation do not supposrt Crosfire or SLI.

G chipsets have onboard graphics, typically featuring a PCI-e x16 slot.

M chipsets have onboard graphics, typically featuring a PCI-e x16 slot. These are designed for mobile processors

GX chipsets have onboard graphics, typically featuring a PCI-e x16 slot. Supports Crossfire by also utilizing onboard graphics.

X chipsets also have PCI-e x16 slots, but typically feature two of them. Supports Crossfire. (usually x8 / x8)

FX chipsets also have PCI-e x16 slots, but typically feature four of them. Supports Crossfire. Also the only chipset that supports quad graphics. (usually x16 / x16 with only two graphics cards in correct slots; up to 4 video cards at x8 / x8 / x8 & x8)

http://www.asrock.com/news/events/2011AM3+/

The AM3+ Socket specification contains a few noteworthy design changes over its AM3 predecessor. The 942-pin socket count for the AM3+ is an increase of one over the AM3 Socket's 941-pin socket layout.
[9] The AM3+ Socket has larger pin socket diameter of 51 mm compared to 45 mm with the AM3 Socket. There is a faster serial link of 3400 MHz from the CPU to the power controller, compared to 400 MHz. The AM3+ Socket offers improved power regulation and power quality specifications, including an increased maximum current support of 145 A versus 110 A. There is also a redesigned CPU cooler retention harness allowing for slightly better airflow for CPU cooling, while retaining cooler backward compatibility.

[10]Some manufacturers have brought AM3+ support to some of their AM3 motherboards via a simple BIOS upgrade.[11] Mechanical compatibility has been confirmed and it's possible for AM3+ CPUs to fit in AM3 boards, provided they can supply enough peak current. Another issue is the use of the sideband temperature sensor interface for reading the temperature from the CPU. Therefore, some CPU PWM fan pins may only run at full speed. Also, certain power-saving features may not work, due to lack of support for rapid VCore switching.[12] Note that use of AM3+ CPUs in AM3 boards is not officially supported by AMD.

Having followed the early AM3+ chipset hoopla; there's only one true AM3+ chipset, and that's that 9XX series. The 8XX series boards that support AM3+ only do so because they have a modified BIOS, not really because they were meant to support it to begin with. The 9XX boards also use a different system for power regulation, so if you're planning on overclocking, the 8XX boards may not take kindly to it. AMD3+ spec calls for 145Amp power circuit instead of the earlier 110Amp power circuit. The 9XX chipset also features a faster HyperTransport, 3.1 vs 3.0. In addition the 990x and 990FX have support for SLI with Nvidia cards. In addition AM3+ CPUs in AM3 boards is not officially supported by AMD as far as I can determine.

I see many cobbled together groups of components to create mATX AM3+ motherboards and give onboard graphics to the cheaper motherboards including black AM3+ sockets, but have such boards been really RE-engineered for the AM3+ FX processors? Personally I would have my doubts. Collectively, most of us know that it takes a motherboard up and beyond entry level to really handle a heavily overclocked FX series processor and especially so the 8 core FX procesor series and probably the 6 core FX procesors when overclocked.

We have a number now and have had users with these pieced together boards rated to run FX processors that are just not up to the task by the time the user gets into an "overclocking forum" and want more speed since that is the major claim to fame of the AM3+ processors. Generally they must be heavily overclocked to run with the Intel crowd and especially so when gaming is the major concern of the DIY system configurator.

So I guess I could have said no AM3+ motherboard with an actual AM3+ chipset; that would be the 9xx chipset series, supports onboard graphics. There, now I have said it the way I actually believe it. If I were going to utilize an FX-8350 cpu as the OP said he wanted to do and overclock it with efficiency, I see no motherboards that seem to be capable of such operation with onboard video.

LINK >>
So your looking for an AMD FX motherboard, things you need to know.
Originally posted >> 02-19-13, 04:26 PM >> There is an updatelater in the thread.
You NEED to READ his notes as there is much to know within them. Be sure you follow on to read his notes. RGone...

I had seen this about how much power FX-9xxx cpus could draw and lost the link. Found today looking for FX-9370 information. July 2015.

Advise for FX-9590/9370 (Centurian) users on C5F-Z/Sabertooth 990FX R2.0
AMD has validated the Crosshair V and Sabertooth 990FX as for use with its new FX 9590 and 9370 CPUs, however there is some advise we'd like to add for users upgrading (or even users running their FX-8350s at ~5GHz frequencies).

I got this information from one of the news sites back in Sept of 2013. You can see how few boards were actually suggested for FX-9xxx back then. AMD recommendations were noted as well for power supply sizing and cooling.

Taipei, Taiwan (2 September, 2013)
The ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z, Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 and M5A99FX Pro R2.0 motherboards all feature AM3+ Socket with full support for AMD’s extreme-performance FX-9370 and FX-9590 processors. With eight-cores and unlocked clock speeds up to 5GHz, the FX-9000 Series requires incredible amounts of power and generates considerable heat — AMD recommends a 1200W power supply and liquid processor cooling.

The ASRock 990FX Extreme9 motherboard is one example, as long as it runs the BIOS P1.40 version.

Gigabyte has the GA-990FXA-UD3 (rev. 4.0) and GA-990FXA-UD7 (rev. 3.0) motherboards.

POWER to the Motherboard. We all want POWer.

.
.
From post in AMD CPU Forum Section: The image above was posted by one of our members for reference. Thanks "johan45"

RGone writes >> 2. CPU power connector is just 4 pin and not 8 pin as on some of the 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 Cpun 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 an 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 user 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.

Have I ever considered what might be important factors when I purchase my motherboard? Well here are a few considerations when buying a motherboard.

1. Does the motherboard have the standard ATX form factor, since they generally are less crowded due the larger board size and greater real estate can equal better cooling and room for heftier components and more of them.

2. Does the motherboard have enough built on features that will hold me over for a couple yrs minimum? The prospective buyer needs to decide what he really needs in a motherboard.

3. Does it have enough PCI slots and the right style for future pci card installation if I need any PCI slots at all?

4. Does it use the correct expandable video card technology that i want? Do I intend to use more than one video card. I might add right here is onboard video good enough for me or am I only going to use a stand-alone video card?

5. Does the mobo support the same socket processor socket that i want?

6. Does the mobo support at least the maximum amount of memory i want to use?

7. Does the mobo support memory that is cheaper in price than other mobos if that is my preference for saving money?

8. Speaking of onboard features- does the mobo support onboard SATA or SATAII or SATAlll and how many EIDE slots if i want any does it have? The same could be said for Usb 2.0/3.0 and even eSata ports thru the rear of the motherboard.

9. Is the mobo jumperfree? (This really is referring to jumpers for cpu or ram speed and not just a board with a CmOs jumper whicheven that jumper is replaced with a button type switch often now.)

10. What type of features does this mobo support that will allow me to overclock safely without damage or features that can allow the overall system to function safer\faster\durable\and any unique features that make it stand out from the rest? (In todays market
that could refer to #1 above and it could refer to the cooling for VRMs/chipset as well as to say the mobo having a UEFI bios.)

11. How long is the warranty and what does it cover?
Is this manufacturer reputable with good overall ratings from other customers? Are RMA depot locations represented in the same country as you live?

12. In the design of the motherboard, is the layout of the design well spaced to allow installation of a heavy duty heatsink if required and\or the installation of dual video cards without cooling issues? (See #1.)

13. Lastly that I would research the chipset that the mobo uses and determine if there are any negative comments found in your research and determine if that may affect your decision for a particular mobo. (In this situation you will really have to do your
legwork/homework. Just about ANY chipset has problems or bugs. Reading many many user problem threads/posts will reveal the chipset problems. How does any particular brand or model within a brand handle those issues. Some mobo companies manage to work-around many of the problems that afflict a particular chipset.)

14. Am I even interested in the processor/chipset that I first had in mind. There maybe other cpus/chipsets that are more easily overclocked and just plain easier to use day to day. I have often come to this situation after doing a lot of homework. I have looked at HWBot and looked at the rigs that are used to post up the big scores. Sometimes it seems one combination is just walking the dog over everything else. I know these guys would use 'anything' they wished and yet they are using a particular combination. This
often gives me cause to look long and hard at what I really want to do. To do in the long run day in and day out.

15. Then I guess after looking at every angle I can think of; I look to see which boards are favored by what forums. I need to get a board that is thought well of and supported by a forum I enjoy being a part of if I want to communicate for help or for just plain old
comradrie.

I went back over many threads and places of long term motherboard use and have come up with a list of AMD AM3+ mobos that should perform quite well in an overclocked
state 24/7 with all other overclocking parameters being met.

Okay, have tried to be pretty informational using what other people have
said and done and made suggestion about. Understand I will go anywhere looking for information and especially in forums that have long running threads (some for years) about specific boards and models and REVs of various models. Okay, we got that now.

I am just before posting what seems to be the latest motherboards that if used within the limits set forth by text in images of the motherboards, are boards that generally those of us that "help" in the AMD Cpu and AMD Mobo forum sections would have few reservations about recommending. Please read what I wrote. What do I mean?

I mean that collectively those of us that tender free help to users about AMD boards and Cpus has seen AT LEAST a few of them come thru the forum and users stay long enough to give positive or negative user experience information.

What else do I mean by recommended? Most users want just a down and dirty overclock and be able to get on with gaming or whatever and are not died in the wool overclockers. Many wish for just 'what' to enter into their bios and low and behold they can claim they have overclocked. Many new boards have options to AuTo overclock and if that is what they want...go for it. We don't even need to know about it. However the boards that you will see here have had 'eyes' on them by helpers in the AMD forum sections.
We expect recommended boards to be able to run 8 core or less processors in an overclocked state for 24/7 use with stability for the foreseeable future.

There are two motherboards that show in text under the image that they are probably okay at <4.5Ghz with 8 core. If you miss that, it is your fault for not reading or looking fully. What that caveat is saying is that at probably 4.5Ghz or less the board can handle
an 8 core FX processor in an overclocked mode that will run ALL cores ON while in an overclocked state. This is n0t how AMD designed the FX processor to run but is how most of us run our FX processors...ALL cores on AND overclocked.

Poor power supplies, crappy case air flow, less than g00d cooling and just a crappy luck of the draw or roll of the dice when your cpu came to you can have a huge influence on your personal overclocking journey; even after getting a g00d motherboard
It is best to have a g00d motherboard of course, but even a mobo cannot overcome other crappy parts and conditions.

The boards will be listed by Manufacturer first. Within the manufacturer spoilers will be the motherboards listed first recommended down to last recommended. I will say this.
The top two motherboards within the Asus mobo spoiler have prove for those of us that stay here and help AMD users everyday; to be our better choices when we step on the loud-pedal and push the PEE out of FX processors.

Of course it is your money. It is your choice of what parts you purchase. Consider that we who help cannot own every motherboard or know the oddities and quirks of every motherboard. If you come into an AMD forum section with an Echo 990FX Super Goober OC model mobo...good luck, we have no idea what in hale it will do. Blaze your own trail.

And one last thought has occurred to me. This list of recommendations is for the average user that wants a stable overclock with pretty darn good cooling and then to be able
to use his rig 24/7 in a stable overclocked condition. I know about using Cpu cooling so strong that the VRMs are cooled and the onboard NB as well and this can often allow use of very cheap motherboard for benching. This list of recommended boards is
not for that use at all. I have used many cheap boards under 'super-cold' before. I am not speaking to that condition of use at all.
Here goes.

The ASUS goodie box.

The ASROCK goodie box.

The GIGABYTE goodie box.

NOTE:
From the Gigabyte website itself:
Now the GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD7 and the GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD5 are said in REV 3.0. That REV 3.0 was a disaster for most buyers of the GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3. That said I have seen NONE of the newer UD7/UD5 in REV3.0 so they will not be on this recommended list. FYI.

RGone...

RGone · Aug 22, 2014

Cooling? What about some cooling?

I was advised that a number of links in this thread were no longer valid. I have gone thru this #6 Post and tested every link and RE-arranged as necessary.
2:40AM Nov 5, 2015. RGone...

If I remember correctly I captured this chart from FrostyTech com about a month ago. This being close to the end of Aug 2014. This is testing for AMD cpus and n0t the same coolers mounted on top of Intel cpus as the rankings do change between cpu branding.

I have no intention of running an AiO W/Cooling setup but they have also now tested some number of them and they are now in the Air Cooler list also.

LINK >>
FrostyTech Mk.II Synthetic Thermal Test Platforms << This is V2 of FrostyTech's
testing of various cpu coolers. How it is done. What I like is that it is not dependent
on various platforms and room conditions and they do them time and again.

Should get it correct for comparison purpose within the list of those tested.

A pretty much up to date AIR COOLER ranking chart.

Manufacturer:> Model No.: > *Fan Speed:> 125W Thermal Test (°C) > Noise Level (dBA)

ECT..... Prometeia Mach2 GT.......... -49.8..... 49.1...Phase Change
Coolermaster..... Nepton 280L ..... high....... 6.1....... 58.8...W/Cooling
Coolermaster..... Nepton 140XL.... high....... 7.1....... 59.6...W/Cooling
Coolermaster..... Seidon 240M..... high....... 7.7........ 55.6...W/Cooling
Silverstone..... Tundra TD02....... high....... . 8.1........ 53.0...W/Cooling ?
Coolermaster..... Glacer 240L....... high....... 8.5........ 52.5...W/Cooling
NZXT................. Kraken X60......... high....... 8.8....... 60.7...W/Cooling
Spire Thermax... Eclipse II (2-fan).... high.....10.2.....56.9
Silverstone...... Tundra TD03........ high...... 10.4...... 58.1...W/Cooling
Evercool HPJ-12025 Transformer 4 (2010) high.... 10.5..... 55.4
Corsair ............ Hydro H80i........... high..... 10.6.. 64.0...W/Cooling
Corsair.......... Hydro H100i...... high... 10.8.....59.4....W/Cooling
Noctua............. NH-D15...... high..... 10.9...... 49.8
Coolermaster....... Eisberg 240L..... high..... 11.0....... 50.5...W/Cooling
Xigmatek......... SD128264 Aegir..... high..... 11.0...... 49.1
Thermaltake............ Frio....... high..... 11.1...... 62.6
Noctua............. NH-D14..... ... high..... 11.2...... 48.1
3Rsystem.... iceage 120 Boss II high... 11.2... 49.9
Coolermaster........... Seidon 120V...... high .... 11.3.... 54.3
Noctua .................... NH-U14S high..... 11.3.... 47.3
Phanteks.......... PH-TC14PE ............. high...... 11.3 .... 49.2
X2 Products..... Eclipse IV ................. high...... 11.6..... 57.4
Corsair ............. Hydro H100.............. high ..... 11.6.... 59.2...W/Cooling
Zalman............. LQ320..................... high... 11.7.... 50.2...W/Cooling
AMD ...................FX Series Liquid Cooler...... high ... 11.7... 62.8...W/Cooling
Silverstone......... Heligon HE01............... high ... 11.8... 60.1
Coolermaster....... TPC-812.................... high ... 11.9... 52.4
Zalman............ CNPS10X Extreme....... high ... 12.0... 58.2
NZXT............. Kraken X40................. high... 12.2 ... 59.4
Thermaltake........ Frio Extreme............... high.... 12.2 .... 58.2
Thermalright........ Silver Arrow................ high.... 12.2 .... 43.4
Zalman............. LQ310..................... high... 12.3.... 52.7
Tuniq.............. Tower 120 Extreme........ high... 12.3 ... 43.5
Thermalright... Ultra-120 ............... ........ high.... 12.4 53.7
Zalman... ......... CNPS9900 Max ........ high .... 12.5... 54.5
Thermaltake........... Water 2.0 Pro............ high..... 12.6 ... 53.3...W/Cooling
Corsair.............. Hydro H80 ............... high..... 12.6.... 58.8...W/Cooling
Zaward............ Vapor 120 ............... high.... 12.6 ... 51.6
Prolimatech........... Megahalems (80CFM)..... high.... 12.7 .... 53.0
Zalman............. CNPS10X Flex (80CFM).. high.... 12.7... 51.2
Coolermaster......... Hyper 212 Evo.......... high.... 12.8...... 47.1
The Hyper212 EVO just above is about as cheap/best air cooler that
we recommend. If your air cooler lies below...just look at how many there are that
are tested better

I am tired fo trying to line the numbers up.
It is Manufacturer >> Model >> Fan Speed >> 125Watt Test >> Noise in dB.

Noctua... NH-C14 high 12.9 46.6
Zalman... CNPS10X Quiet high 12.9 46.8
Spire... Thermax II (SP67951) high 12.9 57.8
Zalman... CNPS11X Extreme high 13.1 50.5
Glacialtech... Igloo H58 high 13.2 46.4
Titan... TTC-NC15TZ high 13.2 50.0
Sunbeamtech... Core-Contact Freezer high 13.2 51.3
Raijintek ... Themis high 13.3 52.8
Silverstone... Argon AR01 high 13.4 53.0
Zalman... CNPS12X high 13.4 46.0
Coolermaster... V8 high 13.4 52.6
BeQuiet... Dark Rock 3 high 13.6 41.8
Scythe.... Mugen 4 high 13.6 41.9
DeepCool... IceBlade Pro V2.0 high 13.6 45.7
Coolermaster... Hyper 612 high 13.6 50.7
BeQuiet ... Dark Rock Pro 3 high 13.7 43.7
Xigmatek... SD1283 Night Hawk Ed. high 13.7 53.0
SilenX ... EFZ-120HA4 high 13.7 48.7
DeepCool ... Ice Blade Pro high 13.7 46.1
Sunbeamtech ... Twister 120 high 13.8 51.2
Akasa ... Venom high 13.8 54.1
Xigmatek... DK-S1283 high 13.8 49.6
Zalman ... CNPS10X Optima high 13.9 49.9
Titan.... TTC-NK85TZ high 14.0 58.6
Thermolab.... BARAM 14.0 53.0
Thermolab .... BARAM 2010 (80CFM) high 14.0 51.3
Raijintek Ereboss high 14.1 49.7
SilenX iXtrema IXC-120HA2 high 14.1 52.9
Zalman Reserator 3 Max high 14.2 58.9
DeepCool IceWind Pro high 14.2 45.7
Scythe SCRT-1000 Rasetsu high 14.2 59.5
Coolink Corator DS high 14.2 54.9
Xigmatek HDT-S1283 high 14.2 50.7
Noctua NH-U12S 14.3 46.2
Zalman LQ315 high 14.4 50.8
Thermaltake Contac 29 high 14.4 48.2
Prolimatech Megahalems (50CFM) high 14.4 45.1
Coolermaster Hyper 212 Plus high 14.4 50.1
Xigmatek HDT-S1284EE high 14.4 44.2
Glacialtech Igloo H46 high 14.5 44.8
Scythe Ashura Shadow (SCASR-1000SE) high 14.6 51.4
DeepCool Frostwin high 14.6 50.2
Titan Siberia TTC-NC55TZ high 14.6 52.5
DeepCool GamerStorm high 14.6 44.5
Danamics LMX Extreme high 14.6 55.4
Zalman CNPS10X Flex (50CFM) 14.6 45.4
Coolermaster V8 GTS high 14.7 59.7
Evercool Venti HPQ-12025 high 14.7 56.0
Thermolab Trinity high 14.7 50.6
Evercool HPJ-12025 Transformer 4 14.7 38.9
Kingwin XT-1264 high 14.7 45.5
CoolIT Domino ALC high 14.7 60.2
Thermaltake Water 2.0 Performer high 14.8 52.9
BeQuiet Shadow Rock Slim high 14.9 40.4
Zerotherm ZT-10D Premium high 14.9 45.3
DeepCool Killer Whale Premium high 14.9 52.5
Zalman CNPS14X high 15.0 48.7
Xigmatek SD963 Loki high 15.0 53.2
Thermolab BADA high 15.0 54.0
Akasa Nero AK967 high 15.0 39.3
Raijintek Nemesis high 15.1 47.8
NZXT Respire T40 high 15.1 46.5
Scythe KAMA Angle high 15.1 43.3
Coolermaster Hyper Z600 15.1 47.7
Raijintek Aidos high 15.2 55.6
DeepCool Gammaxx 400 high 15.2 48.0
Xigmatek SD1283 Gaia high 15.2 44.1
Coolink Silentator high 15.2 41.2
DeepCool Killer Whale high 15.3 53.5
Vantec VAF-1225 Aeroflow FX 120 high 15.3 54.2
Scythe Mugen 15.3 46.0
Raijintek Pallas high 15.4 43.2
Thermaltake BigTyp 14Pro high 15.4 59.7
Silverstone NT06-P high 15.5 51.6
DeepCool Neptwin high 15.5 47.7
Zalman CNPS9900DF high 15.5 48.1
SilenX EFZ-120HA5 high 15.5 45.8
Coolage X120TF 15.5 53.0
Zerotherm FZ120 high 15.5 47.6
Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme 15.5 44.5
Akasa Venom Nano high 15.7 57.5
OCZ Vendetta 2 high 15.7 41.9
BeQuiet Shadow Rock 2 high 15.8 43.3

When I studied the article linked inside the spoiler, it made me really stop and think about the part the case 'has to' play in cooling.
If I have crappy case...I will likely windup with crappy cooling. Just an FYI.

Case design and postive vs negative pressure is spoken about. Regardless of the
title of the article and intent of the article...this should get you thinking about the
case as the first step toward good cooling.

RGone...

RGone · Aug 22, 2014

Some Overclocking Outlook.

I was advised that a number of links in this thread were no longer valid. I have gone thru this #7 Post and tested every link and RE-arranged as necessary.
2:43AM Nov 5, 2015. RGone...

Inquiring minds want to know about overclocking. So begin at the beginning.

Inquiring minds want to know about overclocking. So begin at the beginning.
What's the limit? Too much Heat or Lost Stabilty?

Is my OC limited by my patience to find the stabilizing combination or is it the heat?

Now sure those two questions are accurate. You first and foremost want stability
of your system or should. Having Stability is a condition. Heat is not a condition but a factor to be considered when overclocking with stability.

Overclocking is raising the speed of components beyond their specifications. To do so you generally will have to add voltage at some point to support an increase in speed and still remain stable. A result of additional speed by increasing voltage is increased heat. Generally you reach a point where more voltage does not give more speed but certainly more heat. In this balancing act of added voltage for more speed and "handle" the heat with better cooling to the point you reach the end of that add voltage for more speed process.

During this add voltage, increase speed and handle heat you will reach the place where stability suffers because the added voltage is overcome by heat and then stability is out the window. The processor can no longer do the calculations in order without failing to maintain accuracy.

So a stable computer is a major requirement otherwise it is useless. Balance out the increase beyond spec speed with voltage to maintain stability and you must keep the heat from reducing the added voltage's effectiveness. That is the process of pushing your parts and pieces beyond spec, that we generally call overclocking. I speak this way because I intend to use my computer to do work with applications. Not just do moonshots while benchmarking with no regard for stability at the time.

Well in the spoiler above we spoke of Stability.
Three Levels of Stability Testing Methodology - What is stable? How do you find out?

Follow the link inside the spoiler.

LINK >>
Three Levels of Stability Methodolgy?

Some of the likely more respected members of this forum posted within the thread
about Stability testing. A few posters stipulated next to zero testing, but most believed in some manner of testing and stressing to determine some form of stability. Some very good ideas within the thread for sure. Food for thought at minimum. Just keeping up with the thread back then made me assess my own thoughts concerning stability.

The thread was started in the fall of 2011 and had some more input in early 2013. Over the course of time and the cpu nm's dropping, it has come that in the AMD Cpu Forum Section we expect Stability be assessed by 2 hours of P95 Blend mode passing without problems.

Now I go further than that for myself. But the 2 hours of P95 Blend have over time
proved out pretty well as an assessor of Stability. One must remember here that all of this info/tips, whatever, is about AMD processors and i am not in anyway concerned about an Intel cpu at this time.
RGone...ster.

Pretty good read by one of our own at OCF. Thorough testing
procedures are pretty much timeless in scope.

Guidelines for Thorough Stability Testing by "felinusz"

I have decided that the more information I can read thru, the more likely I am to find my best method of stability testing as time goes on.
Down and dirty use of P95.

http://www.overclock.net/t/838244/prime95-a-quick-dirty-guide-to-the-custom-settings
Down and dirty use of P95. Well maybe not so much dirty, but surely down with pretty
good information.

This overclocking guide for AMD Bulldozer/Pilerdriver is linked from right here in our own forum. Is a pretty good
read and often recommended as good reading in the AMD CPU Forum Section.

Bulldozer OC Guide!
Everything you need to overclock bulldozer properly.
And to make things current, there are no real differences in how-to overclock
a Piledriver cpu that came after the Bulldozer.

RGone...

RGone · Aug 23, 2014

Can a generic FX-series overclock guide be done??

I was advised that a number of links in this thread were no longer valid. I have gone thru this #8 Post and tested every link and RE-arranged as necessary.
2:50AM Nov 5, 2015. RGone...

There is a post above with other links to Overclocking and they have their place in the community for sure. I spoke below about making a more generic overclocking guide since TOO many think because a guide is done with X brand motherboard that the guide cannot be for them and their Y brand motherboard. BS.

It is my intention not to use any specific brand of motherboard when speaking to overclocking, but rather to try and identify some of the varied terms applied to exactly the same bios parameter. Probably in an effort to 'seem' different, the various brands of motherboard have often used different appearing names for the same dang voltage or speed. I am going to make this effort so that there is information in one place and the prospective overclocker of the AMD FX-series can do his OWN homework and get as much of the various terminology used, cross-referenced to the name given by AMD to a voltage or speed etc.

I am beginning to asssemble my thoughts inside the spoiler below.

Let us get straight to the point here. Just because the FX-8150 appears multiple times as the CPU referenced below; that does not mean that the same information does not apply to all the Zambezi/Bulldozer CPUs and it applies also to the later Vishera/Piledriver CPUs. So there is NO reason to panic and say oh my gawd, this is not referring to my FX-4100 or my FX-6350. You can swap out the FX-8150 in the text below for YOUR particular FX-series processor in any aspect except the speed of the processor itself as set forth by AMD specification.

Glossary of Terms

HyperTransport™ Reference Clock (HT ref. clk) aKa FSB by many of the older overclockers:
The base clock for various clock domains on the AMD “Scorpius” platform technology. HT ref. clock is 200MHz by default. CPU, CPU_NB, HT Link and Memory clocks/speeds are all linked to HT ref. clock. HT ref. clock adjustment is a good tool for fine tuning the various clocks to optimal values. The HT ref. clock value itself doesn’t have any impact on performance but it surely jacks with CPU Speed, CPU_NB speed, HT Link Speed and with the Ram Speed. Because the HT Ref Clk/Freq also adjusts, changes or jacks with more than one speed...we often suggest beginning to overclock with the CPU multipier first since raising or lowering the CPU multiplier does NOT jack with anything but the CPU speed itself. Go look up and determine the stock/default/base multiplier for YOUR own CPU.

CPU:
Central Processing Unit – the engine of the AMD “Scorpius” platform technology. CPU core clock frequency has the biggest impact on overall performance of the system. It’s the primary target of tuning. Holy carp, this is the thing we been losing sleep about how in hale to overclock this mysterious thing. Only mysterious if you don't do homework and study up on what you have in your computer case.

CPU_NB:
CPU NorthBridge (should not be confused with NorthBridge chipset, such as the AMD 990FX chipset)– part of the CPU that has its own clock domain and voltage plane. CPU NB clock frequency determines the Memory controller and L3 cache speed. CPU NB has a notable impact on overall system performance. I write this myself time and time again as CPU_NB so I don't confuse myself or the issue of what I am dealing with.

FID >> We are going to see the abbreviation FID a couple of times now and thus what the heck does FID generally stand for when we are talking about AMD cpus? FID in general stands for Factory ID (identifier) or I like Frequency ID (identifier). Because it is an IDentifier, the board uses that number to adjust the defaults of the motherboard. Now go on to the next two items below.

CPU FID:
CPU Core Clock MULTIPLIER. In the case of the FX-8150 CPU, the default, base-level CPU multiplier is x18 (18x200MHz = 3600MHz). The CPU Multiplier is unlocked on all of the AMD FX-series CPUs. You can check and see what YOUR default FID aka Multiplier is on the internet. You can insert CPU multiplier into your mindset here.

CPU_NB FID:
CPU_NB Clock MULTIPLIER. Determines the CPU_NB frequency. In the case of the AMD FX-8150 CPU, the default value is x11 (11x200MHz = 2200MHz). Can be adjusted in steps of x1. Note that CPU_NB clock should be 2x Memory clock or higher (e.g. DDR3-2400 (1200MHz) would require at least 2400MHz CPU NB clock). CPU_NB Multiplier is unlocked on all of the AMD FX-series CPUs. You can insert CPU_NB multiplier into your mindset here.

HT Link Multiplier:
This multiplier determines the clock speed of the HT Link. In the case of the AMD FX- 8150 CPU, the default value is x13 (13x200MHz = 2600MHz). The maximum value of HT Link Multiplier is x13. HT Link Multiplier is unlocked on all of the AMD FX-series CPUs.

CPU VID:
CPU Voltage Identification Digital – a register value that programs the motherboard voltage regulator (VR) to a specific value. In short, the CPU VID determines the CPU Core Voltage level. In the case of the AMD FX-8150BE CPU, the default CPU base clock VID is usually from 1.250V to 1.350V. The Maximum CPU VID value is 1.550V.
NOTE: VID value may not always equal to the actual voltage level (see “Voltage OFFSET”).
NOTE: Later CPUs may well have a HIGHER CPU VID. My very good FX-8350 has this
P-State at 4.0Ghz or the Default speed of the FX-8350.
P-State FID 0x18 - VID 0x0F - IDD 12 (20.00x - 1.362 V). My CPU VID is 1.362V and not
within that 1.250V to 1.350V as listed above. Don't get hung up on oh my gawd my
CPU takes a different voltage. It certainly has varied over time as the CPUs have been in manufacture.

NOTE: Other possible names seen in bios for CPU VID > CPU VDD > CPU Voltage > CPU Vcore > Processor Voltage. Depending on the brand of motherboard, any of those terms may refer to the Voltage given to the CPU.

CPU NB VID:
CPU Voltage Identification Digital – a register value that programs the motherboard voltage regulator (VR) to a specific value. In short, the CPU_NB VID determines the CPU_ NB Core Voltage level. In the case of the AMD FX-8150BE CPU the default CPU_NB VID is usually 1.100V. The Maximum CPU NB VID value is 1.550V.
NOTE: VID value may not always equal to the actual voltage level
(see “Voltage OFFSET”).

NOTE: Other possible names seen in bios for CPU_NB VID > CPU_NB VDD > CPU_NB Voltage. Depending on the brand of motherboard, any of those terms may refer to the Voltage given to the CPU_NB.

Additional NOTE: Most motherboards with FX processor in the socket seem to set CPU_NB by default to about 1.18V or very
close to that voltage. That is one way to know that you are 'really' dealing with CPU_NB which is the voltage we most often
suggest to raise to 1.25V in an attempt to gain some more stability. The CPU_NB voltage is used by the CPU IMC (intergrated memory controller) and the L3 cache for sure. I do believe that CPU_NB voltage also serves the HyperTransport controller.

CPU / CPU NB Voltage OFFSET:
Most AMD “Scorpius” platform technology motherboards have a BIOS option
that allows Voltage adjustments beyond the CPU VID Voltage range. This voltage offset is added on top of the VID value. Voltage offset could be negative or positive. Actual voltage level = CPU or CPU NB VID + OFFSET.
Example: VID 1.350V + 0.100V OFFSET = 1.450V actual voltage level.
One of the following options will be available in the BIOS menu (depending on motherboard model):

•“CPU Voltage” and “CPU_NB Voltage” item that includes both VID and OFFSET values merged into one voltage adjustment item (the range can go to over 2.0V).

•Separate items for CPU VID and CPU Voltage – here the “CPU Voltage” value starts from the VID value and then adds Offset on top of the VID.

•CPU and CPU NB “OFFSET” items that control the amount of Voltage offset.

AMD Turbo Core Technology:
AMD Turbo Core Technology and Application Power Management (APM) allow
the CPU cores to run above the CPU Base clock value as long as the CPU remains within the thermal and power limits. As an example the AMD FX-8150 CPU has a base clock of 3600MHz but it can run at 3900MHz when up to 8 cores are active and at 4200MHz when up to 4 cores are active assuming it stays within the power and thermal limits. Under very heavy workloads the CPU will return to the base clock – 3600MHz in the case of AMD FX-8150 CPU.

Since APM sets a predefined TDP limit it is usually recommended to disable both AMD Turbo Core Technology and APM features when increasing the CPU frequency and voltage above the default levels. The AMD TurboCore Technology and APM can be disabled via AMD OverDrive utility or from the motherboard BIOS menu of a good, well-optioned motherboard bios. IF you have an earlier, cheaper mobo without the option to Disable APM, then earlier in another section it is shown how to use AMDMsrTweaker to Disable APM.

Each manufacturer has its' own proprietary bios setup and various settings that can in conjunction with APM, cause CPU speed throttling under heavy load. This particular throttling seems completely unrelated to the temps we see but just happens. On some boards this might happen though when CPU Socket temp gets near 62c but it may not. This is a situation where APM is most likely needing to be Disabled.

Again here based on mobo brand, you may have option in bios to Enable HPC (High Performance Computer). Enable it for the same reason you would Disable APM (New Application Power Management). Enable HPC in order to reduce or stop unknown CPU throttling that is responding to proprietary APM settings.

Another general NOTE: C6 is required to operate TurboCore and since we have Disabled TurboCore to begin the Overclocking process...you might as well Disable C6 in bios also.

Have not come back into this particular post and done a writeup on how it is I might overclock, but I ran into serious, well sort of serious, issues when setting up my latest CHV mobo and newest FX-8350 cpu for a video editting system.

I was without my normal pretty stout W/Cooling so getting to nearly 4.6Ghz took some effort and thought along with testing and results from apps like HWMonitor to keep me on track.

In this post I described what it took to overclock to at least my hoped for 4.5Ghz CPU speed.

RGone...ster.

RGone · Aug 23, 2014

Mild to Wild Cooling is my thinking now...

I was advised that a number of links in this thread were no longer valid. I have gone thru this #9 Post and tested every link and RE-arranged as necessary.
2:AM Nov 5, 2015. RGone...

I am un-used to the willingness of some in this forum to share tips and tricks or what have you.
Well maybe they do in the overclocking area if you are "in" there. Am not so don't know. However there are a number of people who have sent me graphic images to share with the newbie to RCBoyz. I am going to use this post area #9 to graphically display whatever from mild to wild images of some systems.

A BIG Thank You to those that are participating in any manner. RGone...ster.

Johan45 lets us get a glimpse of mid-ways in his cooling journey to clock ^up^ his stuff. Thanks man.

Look close as I am going to let the images and edits speak for themselves.

This goes to our own forum member 'bassnut' and his original taming of his FX 8 core processor. Look at the cpu speed he is able to run daily. See what he went thru and sorted to get his system cool and FAST.

Build FX Tamer - Water Cooled Upgrade by 'bassnut' who helps out in the AMD CPU Forum section. THIS is his first iteration. He has gone further and way more artistic since then. Will try to find that iteration and let you see it's beauty and worth as well.

RGone...

RGone · Aug 23, 2014

A Rig Like Many Build...Need 4.5Ghz Minimum.

I was advised that a number of links in this thread were no longer valid. I have gone thru this #10 Post and tested every link and RE-arranged as necessary.
2:46AM Nov 5, 2015. RGone...

Had no idea I would be doing this but rounded up a case I bought about 5 years ago and some drives and new power supply I had and going to assemble a computer with a CHV mobo with FX-8350 and using a C-Type Air cooler to see what will happen.

I want to see if I can get to at least 4.5Ghz OR the thing will be slower than I want for editting the videos of my Dad's funeral. That Video is the reason I am putting rig together so I can try a few things I have found about a rig FOR video editting. Or close to it. Hehehe.

Cooling is going to be the prime concern am sure. I have gone ahead and cut mobo tray to get to rear of cpu with other case side off. Can cut that case side for fan if need be now. Yes I do have a water setup that I will go to IF need be and likely will but i am going to see if I run into the same issues most run into because they don't have nearly enough COOLING for 8 cores on ALL the time and pushed. Hehehe. We shall see what we shall see.

Now that I think about it...as I go toward completion with whatever overclock I can sustain; I will try and explain and give pics of the overclock. This my after-thought.
RGone...ster.

Some beginning pics in the spoiler.
Spoiler #1

Added a pic as I have it together enough to Fully Erase all the hard drives and the SSD.

Forgot how many hours it takes to fully erase a HDD. Glad I don't have any 2 or 3TB ones. Hehehe.

4.0Ghz with side off and only the cooler fan and rear fan are running and no matter how fast I enter the bios it still shows only 31c. I am waiting until i get winders installed and then see what the heck the temp really is. I "might" make 4.5Ghz yet.
RGone...ster.

Spoiler #2

Now have Win7 installed and CPUz, HWMonitor and OCCT and just established my 4.0Ghz speed with my air cooler. Problem is I need at least 4.5Ghz or more to do my Video Editting without knowing I am 'working slow'. Hehehe.

I have captured my FULL Extreme Tweaker Bios menu so that my settings are displayed. I also captured my DIGI-VRM menu of settngs since I am not prone to do a bunch of adjusting at that menu. At least not like most do. Hehehe. The captures show what I am seting; not what you guess I might be using for settings. CHV mobo with the last supported bios version 1703 with FX-8350 with ALL cores toting the mail.

Captures are in the Spoiler below.
RGone...ster.

Spoiler #3

Okay shett and wowee. I got my 4.3Ghz really without breaking a sweat. BUT shett far, I got started on trying for 4.6Ghz and was then going to waltz over to this puter and post up the images for 4.3Ghz. Wanted to get my 4.6Ghz started since it would run for 2 hours for testng.

"johan" was busy putting the hoodoo on me in posts on page two suggesting I go ahead and drag out the bigger rad. Secretly I was laughing up my sleeve looking at my 4.3Ghz temps. Never laugh too loudly up your sleeve since it could blow your shirt off and I feel like someone has been dragging me around by my blowed up shirt tail. Not Hehehe. Make that more like the evil peerats har har har.

I am going to go ahead and put the 4.3Ghz images inside the spoiler and then I am going to do a little of that how to overclock I mention eslewhere. Put it after this spoiler, while it is fresh on my mind.

Spoiler #4

I had neglected to talk about how I overclock as I had hoped to do earlier. But now without my good cooling and a new cpu and motherboard...well as I said this might be an exercise in futility without g00d cooling. 4.0Ghz and 4.3Ghz were to me like falling off a log even with newer cpu and another CHV with a much later bios on it than I am used to and so far...have not been able to revert the bios as I often have. Forken me running.

1. > When a speed seems too easy...it is probably telliing you something about the future. Hehehe.

2. > With super cooling I have found that at the seeming steps of an FX cpu as you move up in speed, there are general amounts of Vcore that are needed for the next 200Mhz or so. On good water that Vcore add was usually about 0.02V. When I put my bench CHV and my original FX-8350 on BiG Air, It took right at 0.04 for each of those Vcore jumps with 200Mhz or so jump in cpu speed. This is until I got a different CHV and the latest bios available for it.

3. > I knew that there was a problem with this cpu when I had to begin increasing the Vcore in an effort to get 4.6Ghz stable and when I reached 1.49Vcore which is a LOT for an FX 8350 at only 4.6Ghz...well I knew I was in trouble. That Vcore that was nearly 0.1 over the Vcore for 4.3Ghz was a big arse clue that something else besides just ramming voltage at the cpu was necessary.

4. > From above and paying attention to others setups and my extensive log of cpus I have tested, it came to me that it was time to drop the multiplier and bring my speed up by upping the FSB/HT REF FREQ. This sort of tactic has been said to maybe get a little more cpu speed without upping the Vcore. Since i was fairly sure this Air Cooling experiment was going to dead-end at about 4.6Ghz; it was surely time to employ the drop multiplier and up FSB tactic. So I did.

5. > I dropped the multiplier by one full number and added enough FSB to bring me back to 4.6Ghz. I had to monitor ram speed and CPU_NB, and HT Link speed and reduce them as necessary to keep them within supposed safe speeds. Around 2600Mhz on CPU_NB and HT Link Speed and of course ram close to its' rating. Well just shett if it did not fail faster in OCCT.

6, > Fail faster? What changed. Okay I wound up with a slightly faster CPU_NB speed. HT Link Speed can make a differnce but not as much as dorked CPU_NB and Overclocked ram can make trouble. However the full multipliers for Ram, CPU_NB and HT Link Speed would not allow me to set those three busses at the speed I desired so I lowered the multiplier some more and banged up the FSB some more. Well this allowed me to have a lower CPU_NB and underclocked ram and OCCT seemed to run a little longer before failing. WTFO?

7. Okay now stop and think Think on what has been seen with some FX cpus. Then it was a bolt of lightning or similar. Some of these FX processors just don't seem to be able to run high CPU_NB speed without a LOT of CPU_NB voltage and I am trying to keep the temps down on this Air Cooled exercise. So I am loathe to try more than about 1.27V on the CPU_NB.

8. > So what is the next logical step? REduce the CPU_NB speed. Drop it one multiplier below the speed of the HT Link Speed. I don't want more heat and I do want CPU Speed. When all else fails...get cpu speed. Hehehe.

9. > So I dropped the CPU_NB by one multiplier making it less in speed than the HT Link Speed. Shett shett. Staying with my moves and keeping them in logical order seems to have won the day. I had to stop and think about what can happen with a particular FX if you don't get one that is super or not even as good as a previous one that was used. You have to stop and realize that more voltage is not helping and then think. That is why I keep logs of the most important things I have come across. I did not have to make a post asking for help. Thinking and moving steadily in a direction until I see it is not going to succeed. I do nOt go to thrashing around changing this or that or the other so that I am lost. That is why I made a baseline test to begin with. I had an idea how the cpu was actiing from that baseline test.

10. > So now with the CPU_NB lagging the HT Link Speed and enough FSB to bring the ram back up to its' speed rating and without having to add anymore CPU_NB Voltage and with lowered Vcore...I am now running OCCT at 4.558Ghz and for 1hr 20mins without failure. If I had listened to everything that says CPU_NB and HT Link Speed must be the same, I would still be failing. This cpu seems not to have such a good IMC. I had to pursue the raised Vcore until I just said, crap I am not adding anymore just to get hotter and still fail OCCT testing.

11. > You must make decisions that are for the best as CPU Speed is King. Surely I would love more CPU_NB as it helps performance but I am not willing or able with current cooling to just keep upping the CPU_NB voltage to try and raise the CPU_NB speed. Now that I have diagnosed this particular CPU as not having as good an IMC as my other one AND being on a different CHV, I am guessing that I might n fact reach my 4.6Ghz target speed. But it is just that; a target speed. 40 more Mhz is not going to do all that much and I am not going to let 40Mhz put a bad taste in my mouth. I am not depending on what somebody else has done but on what living and learning with my current setup has shown to be realistic and also real.

12. > I had temps in reason and had reached the point where Vcore was not bringing an improvement so it was time to check all the other bus speeds and adjust according to how some few of the lesser FX processors might and can act. I feel am learning more as I have to try weak air and a cpu that is not but about 70% as good as the one I have used up to now. I resisted the urge to go with some water and it has showed me once again that the whole seup thiing is a trade-off of speeds and voltages. Briing them all within the range of a particular cpu and things get more fun and less time consuming. The jump from 4.3Ghz to nearly 4.6Ghz has taken at least 1.5hours of methodical testing, but the results and feel of the results are a good thing.

Luck to all that get down to tweaking their own rigs. Nothing like that feeling of accomplishment when the computer world gets righted on its' axis again.
RGone...ster.

PsumS: now 1hr 40mins of OCCT at 4.55Ghz.

I did get the two hours of OCCT P95 Blend menu completed after going thru testing and thinking about what to do next and at 4.56Ghz which is close to my REvamped hoped for clock up to 4.6Ghz. My original thought was 4.5Ghz since seems to be a nearly etched in stone limit on most air cooling. I do have an air cooler (Xigmatec Aegir) with push-pull fans and heavy duty mounting brackets that will do 4.8Ghz stable but at the cost of just a shade over $105.00 Usd. The C-Type cooler (Enzotech Ultra) I am using was about $40.00 Usd if I remember accurately and has only one 120mm fan that runs at Max 2400 RPM.

I believe that the C-Type cooler is operating without a lot of drama is because it is blowing down on the mobo and is not having its' air-flow messed with as badly as an upright air cooler might have with side mounted fans etc. The side mounted fan is about 240mm and the top fan is pulling out at 120mm and the rear fan is 120mm and drawing out. Of course so far the side mounted fan blows nearly 'into' the C-Type air cooler and that seems better than blowing down across the air path of a stand-up air cooler. It is my current thinking based on what I see.

In keeping with what I went thru as described in the 12 points up above...there is nothing that can take the place of establishing a baseline overclock that makes sense. Keeping logs/record of my own CPU performance helps keep me headed the correct direction when I get into a fight with a new CPU which seems less than my other FX-8350. A situation that is little surprising since CPUs can vary greatly in their overclocking ability.

So having taken the time, all of the time, necessary to get my head back on straight...I can now tidy up other equally important points to declare this a workable Video Editting system for my home use.

There are a couple of other things that come to mind as I write this. We are always having to ask for a capture of HWMonitor that was open and running during stress testing. Because I had HWMonitor open during OCCT stressing, I could look at the Max Voltages and Temps and 'know' a few important points for reference.
1. > The faster the cpu went the closer the Cpu Temp was to the Core/Package temp. Yet the Cpu Temp was still a good distance from the Max for that temp we use. That told me the Air Cooler was reaching its' limit. The air blowing down from the C-Type cooler was able to keep the VRMs and socket cool but the Cooler itself was reaching a limit in removing heat from the guts of the cpu itself..

2. > Then the Max Vcore (cpu voltage) was used to know how much of a Voltage Offset I was going to have to add to attempt stability. Without knowing what was previous cpu speed's max cpu voltage, I would be 'just' guessing what to use as the amount of offset cpu voltage to add. Guessing would be pretty silly since HWMonitor can help give good pointers for voltages to cpu.

3. > Glancing at the HDD temp also told me that the inside of the case was fairly cool. EVEN without the hard drive fan being hooked up yet since I was testing all fan configurations along the way to ~4.6Ghz.

4. > There is one other thing that I think was in my favor since my main purpose currently is to Edit and then Render Video, and that is I do not have a monster heat producing video card in the video card slot. Every little thing can lend to or hinder an overclock. Knowing or stopping to try and know what is goiing on will almost always produce the ability to diagnose why and what has brought one to a point in and overclock.

Stop and study to understand where and how it is you want to go with an overclock. We have many threads of obtainable overclocks in the AMD sections of this forum. Use the hoped for signature of those running about where you want to overclock up to and pay serious attention to the caliber of mobo and other parts in use. Saves wear and tear on the mind.

Well that is most of what comes to mind for now. I tried to outline just what it is I do when overclocking. I could go further with a g00d water cooling setup but this experiment forced me to do and use logical procedures that most of us have formulated over the time we have been gaining experience.

Pics of 4.56Ghz bios setup that I used are in the spoiler below.
Good luck and have some fun with your computering
RGone...ster.

Spoiler #5

I am still completely hacked that I cannot get Win 7 to take any form of raid driver so I could use Raid 0 for my 'scratch' drive when video editting since that is the main purpose for this build.

However I went ahead after completely pulling everything apart to the bare metal shell and swapping to another motherboard and seeing about Raid 0. Fork me running no luck. Still Win 7 says I must have signed Raid Driver. Getting behind so I left the Raid 0 for another day and finished putting it together and bumping on up to 4.6Ghz stable with a dated Cpu Air Cooler.

Pics in Spoiler below. RGone...ster.

Spoiler #6

RGone...sterskizzzzzzzzz

RGone · Aug 23, 2014

Reserved Post #11
RGone...

RGone · Aug 23, 2014

Reserved Post #12
RGone...

RGone · Aug 23, 2014

Okay, here is what happened.

I hate to bump my own thread so am just saying here that what is below was accurate. What has been added to the thread just in the last few hours (2:32AM CST Aug 25,2014) is considerable. The weekend is about over and I see it may easily take me until next weekend to begin to finish up. But I will be doing something in the thead every day. RGone...ster.

Numb nuttz me did not reserve enough space. I talked to C_D and he said we knew all the posters in the thread and all would agree to delete their posts so I could get to my last post and reserve some more room. C_D deleted his post immediately and upon talking to E_D, he said he could delete all those after me since we are all wanting to see the thread work out. He deleted all the posts and I REserved the extra space for pics and overclocking stuff that I had not even gotten to.

Thanks and many thanks to you guys for understanding. Now I feel relieved to have the room I am sure it seems destined to take.
Those that understood and had given me support already:
Blaylock,
C_D
E_D
"johan"
"manny"
Silver Pharoah
Believe those were the ones that bit the dust in order to easily get in and get some more room.

EarthDog man, many thanks to you kind sir.

Now to get back to work.

If you looked thru the thread yesterday afternoon late...you are behind. I have just spent 2.5 hours adding to the
miscellaneous post area.I was fearful of having to REDO too much if I could not get added space but got it. So have been working.
Hehehe.

Post #9 area now contains the beginning of cooling mild to well...wild water.
RGone...ster.

bassnut · Aug 24, 2014

WOW ...... someone had some free time on his hands. Well done RGone ......... :shock:

Blaylock · Aug 25, 2014

Re-subbed....and implementing this HUGELY vast knowledge. I feel indebted to YOU and ALL here on the forums for sharing your decades of knowledge.

ShrimpBrime · Aug 26, 2014

Blaylock said:
Re-subbed....and implementing this HUGELY vast knowledge. I feel indebted to YOU and ALL here on the forums for sharing your decades of knowledge.

You say such nice things!

Good read Rgone. Keep up the excellent research for these guys!

RGone · Aug 26, 2014

Probably nearly 3/4's to 7/8s done...

...I can barely remember what I added today except for the very last add which was a list of AM3+ motherboards in the motherboard area. That took awhile since I had to journey out and about and look for changed indicators. But the list is up.

I have some more cooling pics to get visible.

I have been debating for about 1.5 years in trying to write a 'generic' overclocking guide for the FX processor. So dang many users seeking help seem unable to transpose from an Asus guide to a Gigabyte overclock guide and vice versa. Why is a real mystery to me. I guess they have not looked in manual and bios much.

Anyway for a good while i have been considering a generic OC guide for FX. It is my last big part of this project as I see it now. Stay tuned.

By the way if you see a huge TyPo or such...gimme a shout. I may lay back a day or so and give my mind time to clear, because this effort has been pretty far-reaching and I don't want to miss something I have at one time set aside.

Luck men.
RGone...ster.

Johan45 · Aug 26, 2014

Hey bud, I did notice a few in the section of my wild cooling. In the captions under the pics. Man this thing is getting huge. I haven't even read a 1/4 of what you have up there to date. You spoke of Mobos and I wondered if this link might be handy for you or maybe you already have it.

Motherboard Phasing list It might need a bit of updating soon but so far it covers just about all the AM3+ board.

Keep on keepin on man this thread is awsome.

bassnut · Aug 26, 2014

I never did post many pics on here for my last build. I do have some will see what I can put together for you RGONE, glad to help you if I can.

Silver_Pharaoh · Sep 1, 2014

Posting to re-sub

I have no issues with posts being deleted to make a great guide on all the tips to the FX. :thup:

FEATURED Info & Tips >> Using the AMD FX Bulldozer/Piledriver...

Senior DFI Staff

Senior DFI Staff

Senior DFI Staff

Senior DFI Staff

Senior DFI Staff

Senior DFI Staff

Senior DFI Staff

Senior DFI Staff

Senior DFI Staff

Senior DFI Staff

Senior DFI Staff

Senior DFI Staff

Senior DFI Staff

Premium Member

"That Backfired" Senior Member

~MadHatDeLidder~

Senior DFI Staff

Benching Team Leader Super Moderator

Premium Member

Likes the big ones n00b Member

Similar threads