Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, Thresher
just brew it! wrote:Yeats wrote:I think if AMD has its way, eventually software would seamlessly use the more effective path, "GPU" or "CPU", except the line between the two would be blurred.
That's a really huge "if" there. With x86-64 being the one notable exception, AMD doesn't get to drive new software technologies into the x86 space. And x86-64 only gained a foothold because Intel made a conscious decision not to make a 64-bit version of x86 due to worries about it potentially cannibalizing sales of Itanium.
Airmantharp wrote:I'm with JBI- it's a HUGE 'if'.
Deanjo wrote:AM3+ is a dead end. The perfect indication of that is AMD canceled their successor chipset for the platform (1090FX). I'm afraid native PCI-e 3.0 and native USB 3 will never see the light of day on AM3+.
Chrispy_ wrote:For that reason, I find it annoying/shortsighted that FM1, FM2 and FM2+ have a history of dual-cores (or four-module) at best.
Yeats wrote:Anyway, I've had positive experiences with FX-8350's. My own is clocked at 5 ghz across all 8 cores @ 1.52v. My brother's is at 4.8 ghz @ 1.5v, and my g/f's is at 4.5 ghz @ default voltage. Everything runs swimmingly on all 3 systems, but of course your computing needs will be different and possibly more demanding than mine.
Chrispy_ wrote:...it looks like AMD's SMT is worth far more than Intel's HT.
jihadjoe wrote:Well technically it's not SMT because AMD does actually have 8 physical integer cores in the FX.
Well technically it's not SMT because AMD does actually have 8 physical integer cores in the FX.
jihadjoe wrote:Yeats wrote:Anyway, I've had positive experiences with FX-8350's. My own is clocked at 5 ghz across all 8 cores @ 1.52v. My brother's is at 4.8 ghz @ 1.5v, and my g/f's is at 4.5 ghz @ default voltage. Everything runs swimmingly on all 3 systems, but of course your computing needs will be different and possibly more demanding than mine.
I take that to means said systems are under water?
vargis14 wrote:Amazon has the FX-9370 for $237.99 and from the reviews it holds 4.7ghz with a good cooler. I am sure a fx-8350 will hit 4.7ghz with a healthy overclock along with a good cooler also. But you are not guaranteed 4700mhz with the 200$ FX-8350, plus I would think the 9370 would have a bit more headroom then the 8350 when it come to the highest OC between the 2 chips and for $38 more if I was going to stay on the AMD train for a little longer I would probably spend the extra $38.
Flying Fox wrote:Answer to the question?
Meadows wrote:Curious. For some reason I seemed to recall that the factory voltage of the FX 8350 was 1.4 V, but mine shipped with 1.375 V as the default, so I guess I was wrong. So far it looks good and runs slightly cooler than my previous CPU.
So far I've decreased the voltage to 1.3625 V, turned off Turbo, bumped up the CPU to 4100 MHz, and increased the NB speed to 2400 MHz (from 2200 MHz, which is ridiculous in the year 2013). A cursory stress test indicates these settings are stable. The CPU looks great to me overall. I'll see what else I can do with it later on, I have no patience to continue through the night right now.
One thing is for certain. It's already paying dividends, because my DAW projects no longer underrun (skip, break up and/or crackle) due to insufficient CPU resources.
Flying Fox wrote:Well, you can always Prime95/IntelBurnTest/OCCT overnight.
Meadows wrote:One thing is for certain. It's already paying dividends, because my DAW projects no longer underrun (skip, break up and/or crackle) due to insufficient CPU resources.
just brew it! wrote:Are you using the stock HSF?