Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › [OFFICIAL] FX-8320/FX-8350 Vishera Owners Club
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[OFFICIAL] FX-8320/FX-8350 Vishera Owners Club - Page 6159

post #61581 of 67694
You'd see it more in rendering than gaming. IMO 4.6-4.7 seem to be the sweet spot performance wise on these CPUs. After that it usually takes more investment than the return is worth.
Bench
(9 items)
 
Intel Bench
(8 items)
 
DVD Player
(5 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 9370,FX 8350, FX 6350, PII X4 965 ASUS Crosshair V Formula z, ASUS Sabertooth 990... 2x ASUS GTX580 DCUII, ASUS HD 6970 G.Skill Flare 1800, Pi Black 2000 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Kingston Hyperx 3K Phobya Supernova 1260 Koolance 380a Win7 Pro 64 Leadex SuperFlower 1K 
Case
Banchetto 101 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Evga GTX 980Ti K|NGP|N G.Skill TridentZ 3600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Samsung 850 Pro Dragon Extreme F1 Windows 7 / Vista /XP Superflower Leadex 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 5 1600x MSI x370 Titanium ASUS GTX980 DCII G.Skill Trident Z RGB  
Case
Phanteks Enthoo Luxe 
  hide details  
Reply
Bench
(9 items)
 
Intel Bench
(8 items)
 
DVD Player
(5 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 9370,FX 8350, FX 6350, PII X4 965 ASUS Crosshair V Formula z, ASUS Sabertooth 990... 2x ASUS GTX580 DCUII, ASUS HD 6970 G.Skill Flare 1800, Pi Black 2000 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Kingston Hyperx 3K Phobya Supernova 1260 Koolance 380a Win7 Pro 64 Leadex SuperFlower 1K 
Case
Banchetto 101 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Evga GTX 980Ti K|NGP|N G.Skill TridentZ 3600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Samsung 850 Pro Dragon Extreme F1 Windows 7 / Vista /XP Superflower Leadex 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 5 1600x MSI x370 Titanium ASUS GTX980 DCII G.Skill Trident Z RGB  
Case
Phanteks Enthoo Luxe 
  hide details  
Reply
post #61582 of 67694
Quote:
Originally Posted by mus1mus View Post

Aside from the minimums, they are the same. Just a polling error.

Besides, you can test it with yours. Look for the lower temp between the two at Idle. It will always be the Core.

I agree. I had some problems getting correct reading with HWINFO64 with the previous version. It reported that my core clock was only 1.4GHz at a certain point which is obviously incorrect. I also seen temps as high as 100c on the core lol.

I updated HWINFO64 and everything is working well again.
hurricane
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD RYZEN 1600 Asus Crosshair hero 6 MSI GTX 970 gaming 4G G.Skill F4-3200C14D-16GFX 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 950 pro, 256 GB Alphacool Eisbaer 360 Windows 10 Pro Asus VG248Q 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G910 Cooler Master V850 Phanteks Enthoo Luxe tempered glass Logitech G502 
Audio
logitech Z-2300 
  hide details  
Reply
hurricane
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD RYZEN 1600 Asus Crosshair hero 6 MSI GTX 970 gaming 4G G.Skill F4-3200C14D-16GFX 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 950 pro, 256 GB Alphacool Eisbaer 360 Windows 10 Pro Asus VG248Q 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G910 Cooler Master V850 Phanteks Enthoo Luxe tempered glass Logitech G502 
Audio
logitech Z-2300 
  hide details  
Reply
post #61583 of 67694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johan45 View Post

That's what I thought, so I am reading the SW correctly. Like I said earlier the only times I've really seen the core higher than socket was with good(water) cooling on the VRM. Or not so good CPU cooling. Which isn't ht case here

I can only explain by taking into account the kind of load the CPU is in to.

By now you might already have an idea. thumb.gif

IBT AVX is a high current load.
High Current = high Socket temps.

X264 Video Encoding is a low current load. (Intel guys love this)
Low Current = lower Socket Temps.

You don't need to encode with Premiere Pro to do and test this. Realbeanch is an example. So are X264 and HWBot X265 Benchmark.

thumb.gif

Matter of fact, X264 and X265 Video Encoding will give you higher core temps than IBt AVX. Cinebench too IIRC.
Edited by mus1mus - 7/28/16 at 8:11am
post #61584 of 67694
Can anyone help me with speedfan, the other day it was working perfectly, I installed Rust (game) and now the fans bounce from 0% speed to where I set the fan curve in speedfan, but they won't stay at there, they ramp up and down.
Kraken
(5 items)
 
500R Chernobyl
(11 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670k Asus Maximus VII Ranger MSI GTX 970 Hyper X Savage  
Cooling
Custom Loop 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX8350 Asus Sabretooth 990FX R2.0 EVGA GTX970 FTW Hyper x HX324C11SRK2/16 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EK AMD LTX XSPC Nylon Dual 5.25 Reservoir Inc Laing D5  Coolgate Triple HD360 Alphacool NexXxoS XT45 Full Copper 240mm 
OSMonitorCase
Windows 7 Ultimate Samsung SyncMaster 2032BW Carbide Series® 500R White Mid-Tower Case 
  hide details  
Reply
Kraken
(5 items)
 
500R Chernobyl
(11 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670k Asus Maximus VII Ranger MSI GTX 970 Hyper X Savage  
Cooling
Custom Loop 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX8350 Asus Sabretooth 990FX R2.0 EVGA GTX970 FTW Hyper x HX324C11SRK2/16 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EK AMD LTX XSPC Nylon Dual 5.25 Reservoir Inc Laing D5  Coolgate Triple HD360 Alphacool NexXxoS XT45 Full Copper 240mm 
OSMonitorCase
Windows 7 Ultimate Samsung SyncMaster 2032BW Carbide Series® 500R White Mid-Tower Case 
  hide details  
Reply
post #61585 of 67694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdourado View Post

Hello,
I need some information on relative performance.
How does a Vishera AMD CPU compare to an Intel 980X?
With both of them Overclocked.
The Vishera can probably do an easy 4.6 ghz and probably so can the 980X.
How do they compare in gaming?
In both single core performance, IPC and multi core performance?

Thanks.
Cheers!

Sorry for bumping this...
But anyone has info on this comparison?

Found this thread:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1372621/i7-980x-ram-or-fx-8350/90

But the replies end in 2013.
That thread saw lots of members say the 980x was way better than the 8350...
Is this still the case today?
In current games and with current graphics cards,modes a x58 setup with a 980x still does better than a vishera?

Cheers!
post #61586 of 67694
I want to question you guys about what i was thinking when i first started OC-ing this FX 8350

Now reading the current discussion i am wondering if my decision was correct.

Johan45 is stating a "sweet spot" for performance at 4.6 - 4.7 mhz.

My decision was to do a minior OC + add a bigger Boost in order to get higher single threaded performance when DX11 requires it while keeping low temperature. I am thinking that the overall performance for everyday tasks and DX12 should be more than enough for this CPU but the only lacking part is DX11 single threaded needs.

So i did what is 4.2 clock that with boost runs steady at 4.3 under heavy load and target boost of 4.85 mhz (stage 2 boost) for a single core.
In tests this neted me standar performance increase of 4.3 mhz OC but also neted single threaded increase of a 1780 score compared to 1514 (in passmark) that i was getting when boost was set to 4.2

Would you say i am correct to think that i am getting good enough single threaded performance for a small overall OC or am i lying to myself thinking that and in fact Boost isn't rly that good of a feature.

Also does that boost kick in in time to negate "spike" or in other words "minimum frame rates" while gaming ?

i am happy with the performance so far just my current GPU is not sufficient enough to test if this is true. When/IF i upgrade it as planned i could ofc run some tests with the OC and with Stock to check out if all this is true biggrin.gif But before i can do that it will be at least a month and i am wondering every day about the results.
Hence asking about it.
Home PC
(8 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8350  M5A99FX PRO R2.0 GTX 650 2x4GB DDR3 2400 mhz 11-13-13-35 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Several Thermalright Inferno IFX-14 + 2x ML 120's + 2x... Windows 10 Cooler Master B700 v.2 
  hide details  
Reply
Home PC
(8 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8350  M5A99FX PRO R2.0 GTX 650 2x4GB DDR3 2400 mhz 11-13-13-35 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Several Thermalright Inferno IFX-14 + 2x ML 120's + 2x... Windows 10 Cooler Master B700 v.2 
  hide details  
Reply
post #61587 of 67694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdourado View Post

Sorry for bumping this...
But anyone has info on this comparison?

Found this thread:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1372621/i7-980x-ram-or-fx-8350/90

But the replies end in 2013.
That thread saw lots of members say the 980x was way better than the 8350...
Is this still the case today?
In current games and with current graphics cards,modes a x58 setup with a 980x still does better than a vishera?

Cheers!

While i dont have a definitive answer for you my guess from a logical stand point would be that just like in 2013 the 980x would win in single threaded loads handily while the FX would admiralbly outpace it in multithreaded loads.

Todays software has a lot more multithreading than before and it only promises to get more so as time goes on. That being said poorly threaded ot only moderatly threaded software is still very prevelant. It will likely be a case by case basis when pushing both to their hardware limits of their age. Ie best memory, mobo, OCing practices available for each.

That probably not much help but maybe it will get your poat more attention ;-)
post #61588 of 67694
Quote:
Originally Posted by slavovid View Post

I want to question you guys about what i was thinking when i first started OC-ing this FX 8350

Now reading the current discussion i am wondering if my decision was correct.

Johan45 is stating a "sweet spot" for performance at 4.6 - 4.7 mhz.

My decision was to do a minior OC + add a bigger Boost in order to get higher single threaded performance when DX11 requires it while keeping low temperature. I am thinking that the overall performance for everyday tasks and DX12 should be more than enough for this CPU but the only lacking part is DX11 single threaded needs.

So i did what is 4.2 clock that with boost runs steady at 4.3 under heavy load and target boost of 4.85 mhz (stage 2 boost) for a single core.
In tests this neted me standar performance increase of 4.3 mhz OC but also neted single threaded increase of a 1780 score compared to 1514 (in passmark) that i was getting when boost was set to 4.2

Would you say i am correct to think that i am getting good enough single threaded performance for a small overall OC or am i lying to myself thinking that and in fact Boost isn't rly that good of a feature.

Also does that boost kick in in time to negate "spike" or in other words "minimum frame rates" while gaming ?

i am happy with the performance so far just my current GPU is not sufficient enough to test if this is true. When/IF i upgrade it as planned i could ofc run some tests with the OC and with Stock to check out if all this is true biggrin.gif But before i can do that it will be at least a month and i am wondering every day about the results.
Hence asking about it.

Hey salv...did you end up using AMD Overdrive to get your turbo boost to work or some other tool/Bios feature?
post #61589 of 67694
The 980x was 6 c 12t CPU I'm sure it would hold it's own if not outpace the FX in single or multi. If I were building something now it would be skylake TBH for a general gamer home PC. Good X58 board and a 980x will still run $500+

@slavovid
I've never been a fan of AMD turbo function. I would just go for a max clock. If runningg games that need more single thread I have cut cores to 4 and upped the clock to thermal limits. Basically two profiles in BIOS. That's if I was temp limited on that system.
Bench
(9 items)
 
Intel Bench
(8 items)
 
DVD Player
(5 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 9370,FX 8350, FX 6350, PII X4 965 ASUS Crosshair V Formula z, ASUS Sabertooth 990... 2x ASUS GTX580 DCUII, ASUS HD 6970 G.Skill Flare 1800, Pi Black 2000 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Kingston Hyperx 3K Phobya Supernova 1260 Koolance 380a Win7 Pro 64 Leadex SuperFlower 1K 
Case
Banchetto 101 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Evga GTX 980Ti K|NGP|N G.Skill TridentZ 3600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Samsung 850 Pro Dragon Extreme F1 Windows 7 / Vista /XP Superflower Leadex 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 5 1600x MSI x370 Titanium ASUS GTX980 DCII G.Skill Trident Z RGB  
Case
Phanteks Enthoo Luxe 
  hide details  
Reply
Bench
(9 items)
 
Intel Bench
(8 items)
 
DVD Player
(5 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 9370,FX 8350, FX 6350, PII X4 965 ASUS Crosshair V Formula z, ASUS Sabertooth 990... 2x ASUS GTX580 DCUII, ASUS HD 6970 G.Skill Flare 1800, Pi Black 2000 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Kingston Hyperx 3K Phobya Supernova 1260 Koolance 380a Win7 Pro 64 Leadex SuperFlower 1K 
Case
Banchetto 101 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Evga GTX 980Ti K|NGP|N G.Skill TridentZ 3600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Samsung 850 Pro Dragon Extreme F1 Windows 7 / Vista /XP Superflower Leadex 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 5 1600x MSI x370 Titanium ASUS GTX980 DCII G.Skill Trident Z RGB  
Case
Phanteks Enthoo Luxe 
  hide details  
Reply
post #61590 of 67694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johan45 View Post

The 980x was 6 c 12t CPU I'm sure it would hold it's own if not outpace the FX in single or multi. If I were building something now it would be skylake TBH for a general gamer home PC. Good X58 board and a 980x will still run $500+

@slavovid
I've never been a fan of AMD turbo function. I would just go for a max clock. If runningg games that need more single thread I have cut cores to 4 and upped the clock to thermal limits. Basically two profiles in BIOS. That's if I was temp limited on that system.

My mistake i should have looked it up before commenting. Confused it with something else.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › [OFFICIAL] FX-8320/FX-8350 Vishera Owners Club