Originally Posted by JerDerv
Yeah, i mean i know nothings a guarantee with "overclockabuility". I just assumed that the 8370E was probably one of the better overclocking fx chips. I did research for a good 3-4 weeks before buying it and it seemed like most people could get 5ghz with less voltage and a lower temp than the typical FX-8350. Im still not sure if i just struck out on the chip or if something else is going on.
EDIT: Examples... http://www.overclock.net/t/1531498/fx-8370e-4-8ghz-at-1-38-vcore-this-thing-is-a-beast-pushing-further
"4.8ghz @ 1.38v"
"4.9ghz @ 1.44v"
"4,7Ghz with 1,325 vcore
4,9Ghz with 1,39 vcore
5,0 with 1,425 vcore"
"5.1ghz at 1.40"
"5ghz at 1.42"
So when im sitting at 4.8ghz at 1.5v(bios) 1.46v load its kinda frustrating....
Those are some seriously low voltages. If truly stable, that is definitely a lottery winner. I believe general consensus is that the 8370 (non-e) is almost guaranteed to be the best binned silicon, even over the 9370 and 9590. The Stilt has provided much evidence that it not only clocks extremely high, but it clocks high with lower vcore.
As for your UD3, I've found both the 970 and 990 versions to be lacking in fine tune control of voltage. The boards get very hot, very easily, and without the ability to enforce fine gradient voltage control, you end up missing out on the last 200-250 MHz that a chip might have to offer on a higher end board. I do not have great in depth experience with either the UD5 or UD7, but know they are improvements over the UD3.