This could be considered an appraisal, but since I am not actually having my item appraised I believe this is the right section.
Quick question.
I know people search for "Golden Chips" and are willing to pay for them. What constitutes a golden chip in the FX-83xx group?
What I mean is, what speed, at what voltage would someone be willing to pay a little extra for a chip? Also, are temps factored in to the "Golden Chip" status?
And what price would you see a chip that fits the criteria listed at?
What constitutes a golden chip in the FX-83xx group?
What I mean is, what speed, at what voltage would someone be willing to pay a little extra for a chip? Also, are temps factored in to the "Golden Chip" status?
And what price would you see a chip that fits the criteria listed at?
I would say a FX-83XX chip that can run at the same speed with the same voltage as a FX-9XXX chip would be considered golden.
But as far as the price is concerned, it would still have to listed significantly less than a FX-9XXX because of the label, which would affect the resale value years later.
I would say a FX-83XX chip that can run at the same speed with the same voltage as a FX-9XXX chip would be considered golden.
But as far as the price is concerned, it would still have to listed significantly less than a FX-9XXX because of the label, which would affect the resale value years later.
A lot of 8350's can hit the 9370 clocks at 8350 stock voltage, let alone 9370 stock. I've seen very few 8350's that can't hit 4.4-4.5 GHz with little or no tweaking. It's only beyond 4.5 that things get tricky. Even the 9590 clocks aren't that tough with good cooling, considering you're at 1.5v stock on the 9590.
I would say a FX-83XX chip that can run at the same speed with the same voltage as a FX-9XXX chip would be considered golden.
But as far as the price is concerned, it would still have to listed significantly less than a FX-9XXX because of the label, which would affect the resale value years later.
A lot of 8350's can hit the 9370 clocks at 8350 stock voltage, let alone 9370 stock. I've seen very few 8350's that can't hit 4.4-4.5 GHz with little or no tweaking. It's only beyond 4.5 that things get tricky. Even the 9590 clocks aren't that tough with good cooling, considering you're at 1.5v stock on the 9590.
I think if you mention your chip is "golden" then there are gonna be other sellers who say the same thing and its gonna be a gimmick, and the buyer is gonna wonder if you fried the chip or something, you know, would you buy an overvolted chip? I've sold 4 chips online, 2 used. I think my 6300 was golden, but I sold it for 100. Consider 10 or 20 off retail. % or $
I said 8350, not 8320. An 8350 is a better-binned chip. I can't quite get to 5.0 on 1.5v, but this is an early-run 8350 that's over a year old. It can, however, make the 4.7 base/5.0 turbo settings of the 9590 at 1.48--and it's a very ordinary 8350, far from golden.
What would someone pay for a chip like what you described? Let's see here...Newegg sells the FX-9590 new for $339.99, and that's almost guaranteed to make 5.0 at 1.5v. So whatever someone would pay for an 8320 that can overclock like that, it would be limited to a figure under $339.99.
I think if you mention your chip is "golden" then there are gonna be other sellers who say the same thing and its gonna be a gimmick, and the buyer is gonna wonder if you fried the chip or something, you know, would you buy an overvolted chip? I've sold 4 chips online, 2 used. I think my 6300 was golden, but I sold it for 100. Consider 10 or 20 off retail. % or $
Well you would have a certified OC and give proof, not just stating it is a golden chip. If I was that die hard AMD and wanted a for sure 5.0ghz FX chip, and didn't have ~$300 to spend on a 9590, yeah I would buy an overvolted chip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1973
I said 8350, not 8320. An 8350 is a better-binned chip. I can't quite get to 5.0 on 1.5v, but this is an early-run 8350 that's over a year old. It can, however, make the 4.7 base/5.0 turbo settings of the 9590 at 1.48--and it's a very ordinary 8350, far from golden.
What would someone pay for a chip like what you described? Let's see here...Newegg sells the FX-9590 new for $339.99, and that's almost guaranteed to make 5.0 at 1.5v. So whatever someone would pay for an 8320 that can overclock like that, it would be limited to a figure under $339.99.
Well, every current FX 8 core is the same chip, just different quality. If an 8320 can make 9590 speeds, I wouldn't think it would be much less valuable than an 8350 than can do the same.
Well if every ordinary 8350 can make the 9590 speeds, then what would constitute a golden one?
If my chip made 9590 speeds, would $200 be too much? I was imagining it going for ~$175 max.
I suppose you could do that, like say benchmarked to 5.0 or stable at 5Ghz owned for xxx time. you know. depends where you sell. Mabey this or another forum where they will understand, or consider that they may not have the same mobo and psu as you and cannot do the OC to 5. they might get mad.
Yep. Even if it is a Golden chip, its still a USED chip after testing it. Like a car thats worth 20% less the very moment you drive it off the lot, heh.
Once you open the AMD box, the new box AMD smell is gone.
Also, lets say you were in the business of binning AMD chips for 5 ghz guaranteed. You would have to have a lot of returns based on idiots using really crappy mobos to try to achieve 5ghz.
Based on what AMD thought the max would be on 1.5 volts on air, you may have hit it. Page 19 here : http://sites.amd.com/us/Documents/AMD_FX_Performance_Tuning_Guide.pdf
Yep. Even if it is a Golden chip, its still a USED chip after testing it. Like a car thats worth 20% less the very moment you drive it off the lot, heh.
Once you open the AMD box, the new box AMD smell is gone.
Also, lets say you were in the business of binning AMD chips for 5 ghz guaranteed. You would have to have a lot of returns based on idiots using really crappy mobos to try to achieve 5ghz.
Thanks for that link. Is the current FX series under the Scorpius platform moniker? Either way, shouldn't be too much different.
I usually poke a hypodermic needle into the box and suck out the freshness for later enjoyment.
There's just something about that dustless CPU manufacturing facility smell mixed with heroin that does it for me.
I would hope someone looking for a processor that has been proven to achieve 5.0 would be smarter than that. I hope they have a nice cooling setup and motherboard for it to go into.
It's not that freaking hard! Remember, the 9590 runs at 4.7 GHz base, not 5.0. It only turbos to 5.0. The 5.0 speed that AMD claims is marketing BS. Anyone knows what they're doing and doesn't have a total dog of an 8350 can make 4.7/5.0 turbo. If you had an 8350 that could make 5.0 base at say, 1,45v, and was totally stable, that might be construed as golden. But good luck finding one.
A 9590 is a hand-picked 8350 core with higher leakage, and I suspect that AMD also tweaks the microcode for added stability. If you want to run at 5.0 all of the time, the 9590 gives you better odds if you can keep it cool. But nearly any 8350, and a lot of 8320's, can make it to 4.7 with an occasional turbo to 5.0. I presume you realize that beyond 4.7 is where Vishera starts needing a lot of pushing to reach stable overclocks. There's a huge difference between running at the 9590 clocks and running at 5 GHz all of the time.
Very true, but of course with all of the Intel fanboys on here, they'll tell you to buy an i3 instead, and nevermind when you inevitably run into something that would really like more than two cores to play with...
Very true, but of course with all of the Intel fanboys on here, they'll tell you to buy an i3 instead, and nevermind when you inevitably run into something that would really like more than two cores to play with...
Ive smelled the aroma of an I3 box, it has the aroma of dual core dead cat, heh.
I have an old bad habit of keeping an eye on the performance tab of task manager. For Windows 8, 8.1, most of windows processes seem to use 4 cores mainly, 2 of my cores stay with minimum activity most of the time. Im excited when a see a program use all 6 cores.
It's not that freaking hard! Remember, the 9590 runs at 4.7 GHz base, not 5.0. It only turbos to 5.0. The 5.0 speed that AMD claims is marketing BS. Anyone knows what they're doing and doesn't have a total dog of an 8350 can make 4.7/5.0 turbo. If you had an 8350 that could make 5.0 base at say, 1,45v, and was totally stable, that might be construed as golden. But good luck finding one.
A 9590 is a hand-picked 8350 core with higher leakage, and I suspect that AMD also tweaks the microcode for added stability. If you want to run at 5.0 all of the time, the 9590 gives you better odds if you can keep it cool. But nearly any 8350, and a lot of 8320's, can make it to 4.7 with an occasional turbo to 5.0. I presume you realize that beyond 4.7 is where Vishera starts needing a lot of pushing to reach stable overclocks. There's a huge difference between running at the 9590 clocks and running at 5 GHz all of the time.
Ahh I see, so you are saying a regular core speed of 5.0, not turbo core speed of 5.0. Gotcha
I haven't ventured past 4.5 yet, as I like being able to run 4.4 at 1.3v with max temp of 48c. It started to require more volts than was worth the heat at 4.5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpmee
That AMD new box smell is a sweet, sweet smell. It has that, je ne sais pas quoi aroma of money left in the wallet.
Haha, had to google what that meant, but I totally agree. If money wasn't an issue, I would definitely be an intel fan, but unfortunately that's not the case
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1973
Very true, but of course with all of the Intel fanboys on here, they'll tell you to buy an i3 instead, and nevermind when you inevitably run into something that would really like more than two cores to play with...
"Yeah but the per core performance of !!!!!...." that's how ever conversation goes. haha
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpmee
Ive smelled the aroma of an I3 box, it has the aroma of dual core dead cat, heh.
I have an old bad habit of keeping an eye on the performance tab of task manager. For Windows 8, 8.1, most of windows processes seem to use 4 cores mainly, 2 of my cores stay with minimum activity most of the time. Im excited when a see a program use all 6 cores.
BF3 seems to utilize my cores, I see an average of ~55% usage on all cores after playing BF3 for an hour or so. Wasn't expecting that from an older game.
Haha, had to google what that meant, but I totally agree.
Quote:
Im not French, but had 3 yrs of French in HS and 1 in college, and have pretty much totally have forgotten all of it The old saying goes, use it or lose it, heh.
But that was Pee Pee Le Pew speak for "I dont know quite what it is" or along those lines. It fits with the perfume ads, heh,
Im not French, but had 3 yrs of French in HS and 1 in college, and have pretty much totally have forgotten all of it The old saying goes, use it or lose it, heh.
But that was Pee Pee Le Pew speak for "I dont know quite what it is" or along those lines. It fits with the perfume ads, heh,
Yeah that's more or less what urban dictionary had to say on the matter. Thanks:thumb:
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.2K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!