Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
silentvoices wrote:The trade off here seems to be the motherboard, and cooling.Better quality is needed.I'm using a 6300 at 95 Watts, but If I jump to a 8350, I'm looking at 125 watts.Something a found out about power comsumption.TDP is not the maximum that the cpu can consume in watts. Not even close if you read how the TDP is figured.The max current that the cpu can consume even in a stock condition is much less when overclocked. The TDP is the low, not on the high side, for sure in relation to actual watts pulled thru the VRM circuit. TDP is a calculated amount of heat to be put off by the cpu, and removed when loaded to a certain level, and that level is not a 100% load. That is why the users with cheap boards, and 125W TDP cpus have run into issues with the FX processors.
silentvoices wrote:TDP is not the max current draw of the cpu. It is only relative.Overclocking a 8 / 6 core fx processor 24/7 is why some boards fail. Not enough real beans in the VRM circuit of most boards. Especially the entry level boards.
silentvoices wrote:Intel has better choices, and more diversity in motherboards imo.The power requirements are not like fx cpus.Look at the choices on the 1155 socket.
silentvoices wrote:I will always run an amd system. I love overclocking amd's.Great for multi-tasking too!
silentvoices wrote:I plan to build a gaming rig on the Intel platform.
silentvoices wrote:Don't count amd out.Once the new gen consoles arrive, games will transfer much better to amd cpu's.
silentvoices wrote:The FX 8350 is a great deal for 200 dollars.It has many other uses beside gaming.
silentvoices wrote:Then again it can hold its own in most games.
silentvoices wrote:The future will tell.AMD needs to step up to the plate and release Streamroller.Look like that is not the game plan for 2014.It all in the mobile sector.I agree those APUs are a great bang for your dollar.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Does hyper-threading provide $90 worth of benefit?
just brew it! wrote:Off-topic: Most people put a space after the period at the end of a sentence.
DPete27 wrote:just brew it! wrote:Off-topic: Most people put a space after the period at the end of a sentence.
2 spaces actually.
silentvoices wrote:
NOT a SINGLE FX processor is designed to run with all cores on, and in WFO mode for any length of time, and yet we adjust the FX processor to run just that way and call it merely overclocking. It is far away from just a plain overspeeding of the cpu, it is hammering the cpu and circuits with ALL cores on all the time. NO wonder the entry level boards cannot push the high overclocks with ALL the cores on, and completely out of the design parameters of the FX processor.
silentvoices wrote:ronch wrote:silentvoices wrote:
NOT a SINGLE FX processor is designed to run with all cores on, and in WFO mode for any length of time, and yet we adjust the FX processor to run just that way and call it merely overclocking. It is far away from just a plain overspeeding of the cpu, it is hammering the cpu and circuits with ALL cores on all the time. NO wonder the entry level boards cannot push the high overclocks with ALL the cores on, and completely out of the design parameters of the FX processor.
I'm not sure what you mean. I have an FX-8350 and I sometimes do a lot of transcoding which maxes out the cores to something like 90% of each core's capacity (so the total is still around 90% for the whole CPU). Now I even undervolt this CPU and when I go down too low on the volts the PC hangs up when it's real busy, so I stay a notch above the voltage where the CPU hangs up at full/near full load. Running the CPU at stock settings will most likely not impact reliability as well as long as you have a good cooler.
I meant when your running higher overclocks with no power saving features on. Many people just turn off all the green and oc. Someone I know is using a Asus Crosshair V Formula with a 8350 @ 4.7g. For 24/7 usage he has cool and quiet and the other "green" power saving features in use. Therefore the cpu will jump to 4.7 @ 1.46 cpu v when a task needs it, and will drop to 1400 mhz @ 1.0 cpu v when just browsing.
Lets take my GA-970-UD3 board. It has a 8+2 power phase, but its still a 100 dollar board. When I use the power saving features on this board on 4.4g overclock it works fine, except for one major problem. The vrm fluctuates like a multimeter that cant adjust. I know this by looking at CPUz's, and see the voltage jump back in forth in real time. So whats the difference here. My guess. Cheaper vrm control, smaller heatsinks, and using a 970 chipset vs the 990. I never used any power saving features in the bios because I was afraid of it messing up my overclock. That's not a good Idea for a pc that's running 24/7. Those are my power saving feature results. Then I set up 2 profiles. One for gaming, on my overclock settings, and the other on stock speeds, on lower constant voltage @ 1.27v. I still see a v-droop, but having LLC set to extreme picks up the slack. On my everyday profile, I run at a constant 1.27v on the v-core at stock speeds. No more jumps with the vrm circuit. Even running prime stable for 2 hours it never hits over 32C. My 4.4g @ 1.35v prime results never exceed 42C. Now I found a happy medium using 2 profiles on a cheaper board. Next move. Quality AMD board. Then Quality Intel Board. Last. Pray everything works correct.
silentvoices wrote:I have been a AMD fan for years. The price performance ratio is always a good value.
morphine wrote:silentvoices wrote:I have been a AMD fan for years. The price performance ratio is always a good value.
You mean, "was" good value. That's almost entirely gone now, to everyone's sadness.
silentvoices wrote:Go asked anyone in Europe what prices are for amd vs Intel.Its savings in the US, but even more abroad.
silentvoices wrote:All data are meaningless to the fanatic. Sane people believe in facts.Benchmarks are meaningless.
JustAnEngineer wrote:silentvoices wrote:All data are meaningless to the fanatic. Sane people believe in facts.Benchmarks are meaningless.
http://techreport.com/review/24954/amd- ... reviewed/7
silentvoices wrote:In my own personal experience I never have any problems with my FX 6300 @ 4.4g and My GTX 660 SC. I laugh when people say how much Intel stomps AMD. All the haters can dog AMD out as much as they want.It does not lessen my enjoyment in game play. I can play most games on Ultra except for a few.Is there frame latencies. Yes! To bad I cant tell because don't get any stuttering, and game play is smooth.The general rule of is 30 fps is the maximum limitation of the human eye, so if I'm only getting 50 fps on very taxing games with no micro stutter, benchmarks are meaningless.How many of those benchmarks are testing at stock speeds.
Battlefield 3 AMD FX 6300
Multiplayer-Campaign Montage
Ultra settings Full HD 1920x1080
Fps on top right
He is only using stock speed at 3.5g OC that puppy to 4.5g and see even bigger improvement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wao_4end-KE
Prestige Worldwide wrote:silentvoices wrote:In my own personal experience I never have any problems with my FX 6300 @ 4.4g and My GTX 660 SC. I laugh when people say how much Intel stomps AMD. All the haters can dog AMD out as much as they want.It does not lessen my enjoyment in game play. I can play most games on Ultra except for a few.Is there frame latencies. Yes! To bad I cant tell because don't get any stuttering, and game play is smooth.The general rule of is 30 fps is the maximum limitation of the human eye, so if I'm only getting 50 fps on very taxing games with no micro stutter, benchmarks are meaningless.How many of those benchmarks are testing at stock speeds.
Battlefield 3 AMD FX 6300
Multiplayer-Campaign Montage
Ultra settings Full HD 1920x1080
Fps on top right
He is only using stock speed at 3.5g OC that puppy to 4.5g and see even bigger improvement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wao_4end-KE
I would consider 30 and 50fps to be unplayable in a multiplayer game, but hey, to each their own.
That general rule of the human eye's 30fps limit is bollocks, BTW.