http://s17.postimg.org/qo1wio40v/image.jpg
Printable View
Fat ladies generally don't sing. Something to do with a lack of lung capacity :p:
Something to do with this though?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis..._Revealed.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...rocessors.html
I beg to differ. Most sing opera which requires incredible lung capacity.
I spy a trackball ;)
The 8320E 95w chip looks interesting at it's pricing point?
:) Chew!
yes, I think, he know soemthing in backround of shadows :)....
Uff, I want the 8370E!
Oh, a trackball! Good to see that again! :)
:shocked::shocked::shocked::shocked::shocked::shoc ked::shocked::shocked::shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
I may be "retired" but all that matters is that the trackball lives. That's what's really important here.
Stay tuned.
How many guys is here. So seems it could be right fun in next weeks :)
sup chew:up:
oh look there is chew ;-)
http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/...ps4a8ed5a1.jpg
nice good job, nice world record!
we want some cool pics and OC data on these new chips!
Chew made it on another site: http://wccftech.com/amd-announces-x8...0e-processors/
Looking forward to more OCing excitement from CHEW..
Grats, good to see you having fun being the rock star.
Charles
You leave the door open and look who crawls in! :D
Hey Brian, give me a buzz sometime!
Hope the memory helped out Brian ;)
'Sup Chew*... :D
Since you seem to be "back in the game" (to some extent).
Just thought I'd ask an honest question....
My 9370 is stable at ~4.8Ghz. Are there any real benefits to these new chips?
The 95w 8370E seems interesting, but I'm sure it's a low leakage chip, which isn't always good when it comes to OC'ing. :p:
The upcoming price drop on the 9590 to $199 is somewhat tempting!
I may be a D*ck, but I'm not really seeing anything new here (Maybe some process tweaks)?, but I'm not sure they're worth my hard earned cash... :rolleyes:
You think a high-end water cooling guy could benefit from these new SKU's, or would I just be looking @ minimal gains...
Glad to see ya around again Brotha!
Dave
I had an 8370e on a bundle watercooler doing 5.0 cinebench loops at 1.46 v. Only tested 1 chip. No good for ln2 though. Avg 8370 on ln2 did 8 gig. I tested 7 only due to lack of time. This was a short notice trip. I had 12 hours to prep and test chips after 3 years of no overclocking. I was supposed to use a formula z but used my old ch5 formula as I was familiar with it.
I think amd is sending me a few things if that includes cpu's ill dust off my single stage phase change unit and compare to my old bd chips.
That's a very good result, considering it was done on bundle liquid cooling! It's nice to see you again in the forums chew :up:
If you beat my FX-9590, you win my mouse :D (no more trackball :-) )
There is only my FX-9370 example:
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5576/...d5680226_c.jpg
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5595/...59a740b4_c.jpg
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3905/...8e24421f_c.jpg
Dave: Im ready for FX-8370 and 8370E :D
Good to see you back Brian :) - just when I am dusting off OC stuff as well :)
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5586/...dc60a9dd_c.jpg
from stream of AMD celebrating - info about Photoshop testing :)
Nice seeing you back Brian :)
Reppin the USA ftw!
TBH Sami was supposed to do this event. Complications that I'm not at liberty to discuss came into play. I had very short notice went 36 hours no sleep before I arrived and then crammed in 12 hours of testing. Considering the circumstances AMD appeared to be satisfied with what I accomplished. I on the other hand know I can do better.
Anyway as I said when I left I will always be there for AMD. They have always treated me good and this time was no exception. Every trip I have been treated as part of the team. Thanks again AMD. Special thanks to James,Matt,Sami,Chris just to name a few.
So, back in the game for some time :-)? I hope u will be in sometimes. Looking forward for results aster Nda (soon)
By the way, welcome back Brian! :)
Uh o Dave's trying to call me. Edits phone# a?d msid real quick. Hah my phone no worka now. Dave what's your cell #? Ill borrow yours and interupt your service for a little while. :p::rofl: Many ear drums will be spared during his downtime. :cool::up:
I use a landline pal..None of that new fangled tech stuff for me! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by chew*
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...f_Georgia.jpeg
#kg
#Alphabet
;)
Seems good this :D. Few days.
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
:D
Jeebus. What's the power draw on that thing?
They asked me how i got into ocing. Quake engine helped out quite a bit. It was preety demanding at the time. I couldn't link them to this due to content however.
From a clan match before i joined the clan bloodline and made it to quakecon and won.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jAOCMcmbDZA
OOoooOOOoOooOOoooooOOkay.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt
I want proof of all 8 cores at 8.7 GHz or I think ASUS should fix the misleading article.
Cpu-z = 8 cores enabled. Cheers.
Asus source = AMD = Sami/Stilt
Gonna call someone out better make sure before you speak.
I really don't think you read what I said the right way or misread my tone or something. Maybe I forgot you like to fire shots just because don't like me since I remind you of your son?Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
8 cores enabled doesn't mean 8 cores are running the validated frequency, and I wasn't calling bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: on the result.
I wasn't "calling anybody out", I was saying that the article seemed to imply that all 8 cores were running at validation frequency and everybody knows it's rather improbable that all 8 cores were idle at 8.72 GHz, no?
Slightly misleading, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by rog.asus.com
I don't really understand the harshness of your tone every time you reply to me. It's been a few years, and I'm not a retard, Brian.
its not bug. But yes, its different way. Im Asus enthusiast, so 90% of my boards are Asus (and not for sale :D ).
You can still shutdown the modules as you can. It can help you a bit. But ussually Im lazy and finding the best module with PScheck. I have active all cores, but they are at lower P-state (exmaple I leave it at around 3-5 GHz with LN2). The others two are at validation frequency.
PS: nice, not only me is playing Quake :-). Im still more or less active in Quakelive game :)
Well it kind of seems this go around you are questioning the record just to do so. Im not saying thats what you ARE doing, just how you come off ATM.
Exactly. To do so against individuals with some of the highest credibility in the game is rather insulting. My 2 cents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace123
Afaik all 8 were @ 8.7. Fwiw they have bench scores all cores ;)
Congratulations Mr. The Stilt! Very impressive indeed!
#1 :up:
EDIT: Now can I de-lid it for you?? :rofl:
<yawn> just got up and on first cup of coffee... looks around
I know sometimes text or form posts can be read the wrong way, or sound like something that was not intended. If we can try and keep things civil in this that would be great.
Carry on and be respectful :)
I know. Sometimes its better to just talk it out and explain to a guy what things look like from a 3rd person view. Its amazing what a first person shooter can look like if one can zoom out and see the entire battle for what it is.
... great, now I want to play some Quake 3 lol
join to me :D
http://www.quakelive.com/#!profile/s...lankeeeeeeeeer
No comment to ninja edits.:shakes:
Now how about that quake engine!!!:D
But I wasn't, so don't say I was? Though I'm sorry if it looked that way to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
If you knew me, you know I wouldn't question any of those guys about legitimacy of results. It's just that the way the ASUS article was written, it was centered around a CPU-Z valid and we all know how CPU-Z works.
The number of cores enabled do not matter for this argument as far as CPU-Z goes. 8 cores could be enabled, but for the valid, hell, 6 of them could have been running 1800 MHz. The ASUS article made it seem like all were 8.7 which goes against normal procedure when highest frequency is only necessary on 1(2) cores...It's not rocket science, the valid is taken on whatever core you choose to take it on regardless of how many cores are actually running...Having bench scores on all cores is one thing. Pushing for max CPU-Z (and I'm sure there are backups?) usually all cores obviously wouldn't be "pushed" like the article said...
What I really meant was that the article seemed to make it look like all the cores were at 8.7 (or close), which makes zero sense for a CPU-Z valid. That's why I called the article misleading. When I asked for "proof", it was a lighthearted question, not really to make anyone butthurt or claim the 8.7 was bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:. There wasn't even anything to claim against, a CPU-Z valid is a CPU-Z valid... and I know quite well what The Stilt and Macci are capable of, obviously. I'm not stupid.
There was never any intent to cause so much drama and if you thought I was calling them out, you should know I would never do such a thing. And if the CPU is capable of 8.7 on all cores, I hope it lives forever and spawns many nice results. :rolleyes:
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
This is usually what occurs, no?
The ASUS article seemed to claim this wasn't happening (ie. All cores "pushed") where there was nothing to base the info off of due to the nature of CPU-Z's validation process.
If it wasn't, that's cool! 8.7 on 8 cores is really cool! What a freak CPU... I just wanted to see that, or maybe ASUS should re-word their article to be less confusing or misleading.
All of which has nothing to do with calling out the actual result.
I think if you look at the article I was questioning and the wording of said article combined with the fact that the article is centered around a CPU-Z validation you'll see that I'm not questioning the record at all. 8 cores enabled with 2 cores pushed and 8 cores pushed to validated frequency are two different things. Normal benching logic would say the first case occurred hence why I called the article misleading. If the second case occurred, then it's a monster of a CPU and the guys should be really happy and proud, but I wasn't questioning any record, that's silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace123
Context matters.
Beep: the same you can do with some Intel CPUs, you jump only the ebst core with others core active. But still is harder to get 4CU/8C to some validation process than 1CU/2C BIOS settings.
Btw, noone know if Stilt did it with all cores or with the best CU. Look at this monster, this CPU has cores very balanced, difference between cores is only around 40 MHz.
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2913/...f9bc6497_z.jpg
And sometimes you have chips, where are big differences. Example my dead FX-9590. With ln2 almost 1 GHz between cores, not good chip for hard test because the weakest module was crap. Moreovber, the CPUZ validation process is different than year before. Now you must hold the frequency around 4s without crash otherwise your validation file will be not fine for valdiation.
i don't know how this ended up being taken so personal. i have tons of respect for beep and chew, but for chew to think, beep, the one he taught.. would call him out on a fake result in a thread..i don't really know what to think of it, take your results seriously, but don't take questions/suggestions personally.
I was there that day and all cores were at not only the amount submitted for the WR but for 8522 or 8528MHz. This I saw with my own eyes and grabbed a pic of the monitor with my camera,
If needed I will dig it up and post it here. End of argument. :D
Please post it, this thread needs less arguing and more pics! ;)
OK, let me see if I can find it.. I know I kept it even though AMD didn't want it seen because that number was gotten after most of the press left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don_Dan
I stayed an extra day and they only wanted to submit what had been seen by the 25 press guys that were there at the time.
What I said wasn't even about questioning a result, it was about the way a stupid article was written.Quote:
Originally Posted by i found nemo
Like I said, the article was centered around a CPU-Z valid and basically there are 3 steps to CPU-Z...
1. Find best cores
2. Clock down other cores (send those into lower p-state), then push best core(s)
3. Validate highest frequency on said core(s).
The article, which was centered around a CPU-Z validation, was written as if all 8 cores were being pushed to or near the validation frequency. That usually doesn't make sense, so I asked for "proof". I meant that lightheartedly, as long as you understand the context around which I was asking. I know that most people that would be gunning for a frequency record, would be pushing hard on that one CU / 2 cores and not on the others. Typically also would be doing extra things to cool the CPU further like leaving it in a low p-state and low voltage until it was time to really push.
8 cores enabled makes it harder due to increased heat, I knew that already and I've done this before. And it doesn't take much more than a set of eyes to see that all 8 cores were enabled in the validation like chew* thought he was so gloriously pointing out to me.
But I wasn't questioning if 8 cores were enabled, or anything about the result, because you can't tell from the validation submission what cores were at what frequency.
IMHO, chew* just found it a great time to act like I was calling someone out and make me look like a retard...and while chew* taught me a lot, I also taught myself a lot, especially after he "retired". I haven't gone out and bought a ton of Vishera CPUs but I most definitely have enough experience on all of these platforms to know better than he is thinking.
I also have more respect for The Stilt than most anyone else here, and he knows himself how much respect I have for him so this whole thing is silly.
There seems to be plenty of misunderstanding around the 8.722GHz run on FX-8370.
Unlike some of the news falsely claim not all of the 4 compute units (8 cores) were operating at the frequency of 8.722GHz.
I have never claimed otherwise and honestly no one except Christian Ney even bothered to ask me.
The other compute units were clocked down to a lower PState, yet they were neither clock or power gated but in full power state (effectively C0 state).
Clock and / or power gating the other compute units or cores is quite common now days but thats not something I do.
Just as shutting down 3/4 of the compute units of the processor is just not my thing.
The way I currently do it mimics the normal behavior of Turbo Core. During low loads the idling cores will be clocked down.
ps. Some of you wondered how much power the chip draws at that voltage and frequency.
Based on the data measured previously the calculated power draw peaks at <140W immediately after the launch and then tapers down to 110W.
I'm far from what I would call a "good" overclocker but I am a pretty good judge of people and have been following the exploits of yourself and others since 2005 when I came here.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt
You get a feel for people's character. Something I developed in over 45 years in the business world and when it comes from your mouth I take it as gospel truth and I don't feel that way about everyone.
There are people and some of them have been at XS over the years that in the pursuit of records forgot about the most important thing.
"It isn't if you win or lose but how you play the game."
Too many I have seen forgot that in their pursuit of records.
I think, the OC is (for me most about have to fun :) together with Movieman sentence "It isn't if you win or lose but how you play the game." :).
Im looking forward for all new FX results. So just relax guys. Nothing bad happens :)
So it is finally the second of September...
So far I have posted a picture of a crown (which once belonged king George XII of Georgia) and hashtags #kg & #Alphabet...
#kg which stands for Kilogram
#Alphabet... "Kilo" stands for "K" in the phonetic alphabet
So what is this all about?
Everything below is highly unofficial of course as is everything else I write here.
Piledriver module based Vishera die has been mass-produced in two different die revisions since the prototyping phase.
While all of the revisions have the same major die version (OR-C0), the minor revision has changed.
Initially the first mass-produced die revision was "India" (OR-C0i, prototype and ES only), the second revision was and still is "Juliett" (OR-C0j, retail) and now finally...
The "Kilo" revision (OR-C0k) a.k.a "King Vishera" a.k.a "Vishera Type-K" has arrived.
The "King Vishera" is initially only available in the new models, FX-8370E & FX-8370.
This is most likely the case with FX-8320E also, however I have not been able to test one of them personally.
The new version is likely to be phased-in at least in the other high-end models such as FX-9590 and at some point in all of the remaining models also.
The alledged metal tapeout of the new revision (alledgedly) occured in the beginning of July. So the only way to get a newer revision part is to get one of the new models, atleast in the beginning.
The differences?
- On average 18% less leakage*1 (0-38%) for FX-8370
- On average 53% less leakage*1 (14-106%) for FX-8370E
- Up to 300MHz higher overclocking margin *12
- 100mV less voltage required for the same clocks on average *1
*1 - Compared to an average FX-8320 or FX-8350 CPU
*2 - When not restricted by the cooling or the motherboard (VRM)
The E-version is the best choice for air or water cooling thanks to the ultra low leakage characteristics.
The non E-version does the same clocks however it might require use of a higher end motherboard (with better VRM) and high-performance cooling.
The non E-version has significantly better overclockability under sub-zero temperatures (phase, LN2) since the leakage levels of the E-version are too low for the purpose.
Having an ultra low leakage characteristics is great under normal conditions however under sub-zero temperatures the voltage requirements become a issue.
Basically the low leakage part exhaust the usable range of supply voltage prior reaching it's maximum frequency.
Based on my own tests, I would estimate that >95% of FX-8370 & FX-8370E parts will reach 4.8GHz frequency in 24/7 without a custom watercooling or a ultra high-end motherboard being a requirement.
As long as the temperature (see below) stays =<65 degree C or 149 degree F and the motherboard has even remotely a sufficient VRM you'll be fine.
On a high-end motherboard and a custom watercooling 5.0G - 5.2GHz+ should be doable in 24/7 use with a good specimen.
These chips still draws a vast amount of power when overclocked so the final overclocking potential is basically just the matter of cooling.
The maximum recommended temperature during the worst case stress is 65?C tCase.
Officially the maximum tCase temperature for the various FX models is specified to:
Infra A - FR (125W TDP) - 61.1 degree C
Infra B - WM (95W TDP) - 70.5 degree C
Infra C - OL (65W TDP) - 70.3 degree C
Infra D - HO (45W TDP) - 69.1 degree C
Infra E - SJ (25W TDP) - 70.0 degree C
Infra F - FH (220W TDP) - 57.0 degree C
The tCase temperature must not be mixed with the tCTL control value sometimes dubbed as the "package temperature".
The tCase temperature is also calculated and it represents the simulated case temperature, measured from the very center of the heatspreader (see the illustration).
Neither tCase or tCTL is the actual die temperature. The actual die temperature information is not directly available on these processors. The actual die temperature is significantly higher
than the tCase or the tCTL control value indicates.
http://imageshack.com/a/img673/8183/PUCTha.jpg
The maximum tCTL control value on all of the FX-series processors is 70 units.
When that value is reached the processor HTC logic engages and starts to reduce the power consumption and dissipation by throttling.
Some of the motherboard manufacturers (such as ASUS) alter the limit manually to reduce the chance for throttling.
So when you are talking about the temperature always use the tCase temperature instead of the tCTL control value.
Here is the examples of the wrong and right values in various monitoring softwares.
Red = Wrong (tCTL)
Green = Right (tCase)
http://imageshack.com/a/img909/1337/dSysCY.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img743/1213/jYnmnH.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img745/3534/NCoLgh.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img661/6515/vIKbQc.jpg
The AOD picture also explains the value dubbed as "Thermal Margin".
Also here is a reminder why Prime95 should not be used as a reference for stability when overclocked. It results significantly higher power draw and emitted thermal than any of the most stressful real world applications.If you still find it absolutely necessary to use Prime95 for stability testing please do it this way:
Run it on only two compute units at once (set the thread count to 4 and affinity accordingly) and decrease the cooling to simulate higher power dissipation.
Only the relative Stock or OC results are comparable.
http://imageshack.com/a/img674/7820/i0RJWA.jpg
That's some great info, The Stilt! And congrats on the world record :clap:
So, it seems that we'll still be getting some "new" toys to play with until the next iteration. Time to sell my procs and buy one of these new kings :D
I'm curious - how do you test stability? Do you use the Prime95 + 2 compute + lowered cooling thing or something else ?
nice article man. Its as I thought, the Coretemp temps+15 C is around the real temp in chip?
Btw, can you post some OC result please :rolleyes::up:
I usually set the voltage and clocks to the intended level an start encoding a MKV with X264 (which is the most stressful real world workload).Quote:
Originally Posted by chinook
After around 15 minutes of encoding I check where the temperatures have peaked.
Once I have the temperature information available I start Prime95 Large FFT and set the thread count to four.
Before starting the torture test I set the affinity to the compute units I am going to test during the run (i.e. cores 0-3 = CU0 & CU1).
After starting the test I start reducing the fan rpm until the temperatures reach the same peak level they did during the X264 encode.
After you?re confident that the CPU is stable, repeat the procedure for CU2 & CU3 (cores 4-7).
It takes twice the time the normal method does, but it won't molest your motherboard or CPU beyond the potential breaking point.
Depending on the load line configuration I would recommend that you reduce the core voltage by 6.25 - 12.5mV during the test.
Thats just to compensate the difference in load line effect (droop) you will have from the reduced load from running two compute units instead of all four at once.
CoreTemp is tCTL only.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
It does not support any of the external LPC/IO sensors (AFAIK) which are used to read the tCase (SB-TSI).
Some results inbound later today.
I am just waiting some water cooling components to arrive to dig in properly ;)
First of all, thank you.So much good and concrete information.So it IS a new revision, albeit minor one.Thats a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt
On the prime95 thing, problem is, it IS a real world piece of software that does actually SOMETHING of use and is not a real power virus, you can join the community and help in Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search.So im not fully with you on that, although im more of a realist, so if your method will net me a 100% stable PC im all for it, until now only when i was prime 95 blend AND large stable none of my software hanged sooner or later, sometimes it could take 12h of encoding while doing another work but it would freeze/hang/quit the encoder.
Another thing is, there are 2 ways to set up an overclock at least on my mainboard, 1.APM ON i get turbo but fluctuating CPU clocks, when set at 4ghz they hover between 3.7 and 4 ,this results in lower power consumption also. or 2.APM OFF, i get no turbo rock stable 4ghz and higher power consumption.
So ,not everyones results are comparable :-/.Disabling APM is also a part of official AMD perf tuning guide here:
http://sites.amd.com/us/Documents/AM...ning_Guide.pdf
Anyhow, awaiting your results and a question, could you test NB clocking in this revision ? anything upwards 2400-2500 is really hard to get fully stable on mine.
Thank you again for loads of info.
I don't think the normal use of Prime95 result as high power draw as the torture test, or does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by vario
AMD has some specially developed power viruses created to simulate worst case (unrealistic) workloads and these softwares result lower power consumption than the most recent version of Prime95 LargeFFT torture test.
The trouble with Prime95 is that the stress it creates can actually damage the CPU, the motherboard or even both.
The CPU package current rating is exceeded as are the ratings of all of the other VRM related components.
Even the EPS12V connector and cables, in case you don't have the ATX12V connector to share the load is at melting point.
Even if you don't manage to burn the VRM for example you will be putting out a lot of extra heat.
If your CPU pulls 220W during Prime95 the VRM alone is dissipating 55W of power.
In overload conditions the VRM efficiency drop to ~ 80% or even below.
Regarding the CNB I haven't tested it at all, only on LN2.
For me it doesn't matter much as long as it is able to do syncronous with 2x8GB DDR-2400 memory.
Regarding Apm(Master): When enabled the Apm estimates the power consumption of the CPU and modulates the clocks in case the TDP limit is reached. Turbo requires Apm as otherwise it doesn't know the power consumption and when to engage or disengage the Turbo Boost. Since the highest boost is only available when half of the CUs are gated the C6 must be enabled in order to make Turbo Core boost work as it should.
You can actually have all of the above without having any TDP restrictions, however thats one of the tricks in my sleeve ("Infinite Turbo").
HPC is actually quite a bogus feature as it's only purpose is to fool to Apm / Turbo.
When the TDP limit is reached the Apm will shuffle down the PStates until the power consumption drops below the TDP limit.
Enabling HPC disables all of the PStates between the Pb0, Pb1, P0 and the throttling PState so that Apm cannot shuffle them down.
That way the CPU frequency stays at P0 (minimum) unless the thermal throttling limits are reached.
btw. The clocks for FX-8370 models:
FX-8370E = 3.3GHz (Base), 3.6GHz (Boost, 4CUs active), 4.3GHz (Boost, 2CUs active, 2CUs gated)
FX-8370 = 4.0GHz (Base), 4.1GHz (Boost, 4CUs active), 4.3GHz (Boost, 2CUs active, 2CUs gated)
Well that explains the TDP gap , thanks again.On the Prime95 normal/torture test, i really dont know, i only read that its essentially the same thing, but you're right, that needs to be tested.Another thing is i never actually destroyed anything using prime95, but the test needs to be supervised thats for sure, and beyond aircooling it certainly can be dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt
As for the APM, thats pretty much what i observed and was pretty disappointed :-/ and you come here and say there is a WAY to get the best of both worlds and wont tell anyone :P.I guess the best way would be to change the TDP limit ,that way power consumption would be configurable as just it is on newer AMD GFX cards.
I dont much beleive PRIME from two experience.
1) with i7-2600K, PRIME 1h stable without error. But after I was in idle and got sometimes BSOD :)
2) FX-8150 time, I tried PRIME and got error after few seconds, wtf? Good board (C5F), good cooling (allinone liquid), awesome PSU (gold 1200W AX1200 Corsair) for it.
Flanker, did you consider maybe that your FX8150 just wasnt stable at stock ?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Cause i know mine wasnt, at first when i had build this FX8320 it WAS NOT stable ta stock, as it turned out after a while, mainboard and its bios was to blame.It is stable now.
As for the idle not stable, i've encountered it also, on different setups, it has mostly to do with quick change of voltage and power states, its also mainly bios problem from what i gather...
Theres also 3) for you, it allows you to brag about higher clocks :-) .Stilt`s way of testing is certainly interesting, it is however complicated to a degree.Im probably gonna do a split testing now, run x264 at 2 modules and 2 with prime, then change the modules, it should still lower power consumption and heat somewhat but maybe i dont have to do the fan speed adjustments which just doesnt work on my board with 2 fan setup on radiator.
EDIT
Hey, STILT, is there a way of enforcing 9590 power consumption (220W)ceiling for a 120W cpu ?
A short answer would be no, however it can be done with a proper knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by vario
The value is fused so altering it requires using either JTAG or a password protected index register.
It is easier just to disable the TDP limit completely.
In practice you would never even reach the 220W limit on non 9590 grade CPU.
A normal chip would crash due overheating before that.
Frankly I can't see any reason for Turbo being enabled when you overclock.
For me the C6 requirement is the deal breaker as I cannot stand the coil-whine it causes.
So what do you use to define fully stability? Are you thoughts the same on other torture test software? (IE OCCT, LinPack, Intel Burn In and Aida)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt
I guess he gave you his method earlier:Quote:
Originally Posted by filmbot
I guess the key here is to get the temperature of 8 core load without the 8 core load.Quote:
I usually set the voltage and clocks to the intended level an start encoding a MKV with X264 (which is the most stressful real world workload).
After around 15 minutes of encoding I check where the temperatures have peaked.
Once I have the temperature information available I start Prime95 Large FFT and set the thread count to four.
Before starting the torture test I set the affinity to the compute units I am going to test during the run (i.e. cores 0-3 = CU0 & CU1).
After starting the test I start reducing the fan rpm until the temperatures reach the same peak level they did during the X264 encode.
After you?re confident that the CPU is stable, repeat the procedure for CU2 & CU3 (cores 4-7).
It takes twice the time the normal method does, but it won't molest your motherboard or CPU beyond the potential breaking point.
Depending on the load line configuration I would recommend that you reduce the core voltage by 6.25 - 12.5mV during the test.
Thats just to compensate the difference in load line effect (droop) you will have from the reduced load from running two compute units instead of all four at once.
EDIT
I conected to PrimeNET as a worker ,so real world usage ,power consumption is the same as torture Large at least at my current settings (4.0/4.2T APM ON), 252W for whole system in both instances, 100W IDLE (not total idle tho, some tasks running in background as torrent sharing on AES drives).
Reviews FX-8370/8370E around the web:
http://www.computerbase.de/2014-09/a...8370e-im-test/
-OC 5 GHz
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8427/a...ew-vishera-95w
-OC nedělali
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages..._review,1.html
-OC 4.7 GHz
http://ht4u.net/reviews/2014/amd_fx-8370e_im_test/
-no OC
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-F...e-CPU-Reviews/
-bez OC
http://techreport.com/review/26996/a...essor-reviewed
-no OC
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Process...X-8370e-Review
- FX-9590 5.1 GHz, FX-8370 4.8 GHz with 0.07V offset, FX-8370E 4.5 GHz with 0.06V ofset
http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...370__fx8370be/
-OC 4990 FX-8370E, 5015 MHz FX-8370
http://benchmarkreviews.com/19942/am...rmance-review/
-no OC
Thanks, I must of overlooked that post. Seems quite interesting way to test but does make some natural sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by vario
Linpack <> IBT, OCCT (Small Data Size) are around 90% of the stress that the most recent Prime95 V28.5 LargeFFT torture test generates.
Running any of these, including Prime torture test at stock or even with light overclock is just fine.
However the additional <20% of power consumption at high overclocks is the thing that is dangerous.
I personally don't feel comfortable running any of the software listed above (or any kind of burn-in tests) at settings which result current draw excess 140A.
The high current levels are fine as long as your CPU and motherboard (VRM) are properly cooled. The small stock heatsink installed on the VRM, especially without any proper and direct airflow just won't cut it at these current levels.
On heavily overclocked systems additional, direct airflow to the VRM is mandatory no matter what motherboard you are using. Especially the guys using AIOs should pay special attention to that.
Cooling down the VRM properly will not only increase realiablity and stability but also reduces the CPU temperature and total system power consumption by boosting the VRM efficiency.
The CPU is directly connected to the VRM with a very large amount of copper, which conducts the heat pretty damn well between the two. So improving the cooling on either will reduce the temperature on the other also.
For example the OnSemi 4955N mosfet (which is quite a common low-side fet on AM3r2 motherboards): At 25 degree C it is rated for 48A continuous current while at 130 degree C it is derated to 19A.
Basically your VRM requires (additional) 1/5th of the cooling capacity your CPU has.
i.e. At 200W CPU power draw the VRM cooling needs to handle 30-40W of power.
When I am talking about CPU power consumption I mean the actual amount of power the CPU draws.
The CPU VRM efficiency is around 80-85% and the PSU efficiency can vary from 80% to 94% or so.
So even in the most optimal case where the VRM efficiency would be 85% and the PSU efficiency would be 94%, the power consumption measured from the wall is 250W when the CPU itself draws 200W.
Did some additional test on one of the FX-8370E.
Obviously I have done some binning but these are the same chips that are shipping to OEMs and reviewers.
So the only sorting has been done by me.
This is also one of the highest leaking FX-8370E I've got, yet it has 40% lower leakage than an average older Vishera.
The clock scaling is following:
3.6GHz - 1.092V
4.2GHz - 1.212V (SW1)
4.4GHz - 1.260V
4.6GHz - 1.308V (SWC)
4.8GHz - 1.380V
4.9GHz - 1.410V
5.0GHz - 1.440V
5.1GHz - 1.472V
SW1 = Linear switching point 1 (uarch / process)
SWC = Linear switching point critical (uarch / process)
All of the frequencies above are initially Prime95 stable and have been tested on Cryorig R1 Ultimate, which is capable to ~ 0.189C/W performance at 210W.
Starting from 4.9GHz the CPU becomes temperature limited on air so Prime95 cannot be tested with the conventional method.
In this case I dropped the rpm of the fans until the temperatures peaked at 62 degree C.
At 5.1GHz / 1.472V the CPU consumes & dissipates 246.9W of power during Prime95 LFFT so either the cooler should be changed to one with <0.162C/W @ 250W performance or the ambient temperature should be lowered from 25 degree C to 18 degree C in order to keep the tCase temperature below 65 degree C.
So basically anything above 5GHz belong to custom water cooling. No AIO come close to the C/W requirement of 0.162 or below.
Did a quick test on the NB too.
With 1.275V the system boots right up at 2800MHz NCLK however the first L3 subcache seems to be worse than the rest of them.
It fails pretty quickly no matter how much voltage is being fed to it. All of them do 2700MHz at 1.25V thou (yes... Odd NCLK ratios are available too ;))
So there definitely seems to be some improvement on the NB too from the last time I tested.
Thank you for the clarification. This is pretty much exactly what I thought was happening. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt
Also, thank you for your contributions to the community and your research. The information you're providing about the new Vishera models is quite intriguing... I think I may just buy one! :up:
EDIT:
I'd like to add also that overclocking is a hobby for me and it's something I always look at with a light heart. I congratulate great talent and results and whenever I come up short I'm still proud that I accomplished something. I surely don't care if I'm 1st or 120th in some HWBOT ranking because I really only compete against myself. I wish all overclockers looked at it this way. Like Movieman said, it's how you play the game that matters the most...
Hey Stilt....
As usual you offer some of the best AMD info on XS! :up:
I'm no dummy, and I know there aren't any really good options on the AMD side of things.
My current chip is a 9370 that's stable @ 4.8Ghz/1.488v. MicroCenter has lowered the 9590 to $220...
I'm jonesing for a new AMD chip to play with, and since you mentioned that the 8370 has some (minor) revisions, do you think I'd be better off to wait until they have an 8370, or just go ahead and purchase the 9590 @ $220?
I'm a decent OC'er, but not a hardcore (HWBot/sub zero) guy. Either way, I know it's kind of silly and I'll be paying close to $1 per Mhz but I really need something new to play with! :rolleyes:
If I could get 5ghz stable (on my serious) custom water, do you think I'd have a better chance with the 8370 or the 9590?
Maybe the 8370E would be the best option considering my cooling?
I know it's all luck of the draw bro... Just wondered what you would choose in my situation... :yepp:
My cooling specs are slightly improved from whats in my sig, but it's pretty close.
Thanks Bud!
Dave
Dave, my personal preference is: FX-8370E > FX-8370 > FX-8350 > FX-8320 > FX-9370 > FX-9590.
The FX-8320E would probably go right after the FX-8370 models, however I cannot comment about it since I have not tested one personally.
Go for the FX-8370E if you have air or AIO cooling.
Thats the best model to do some tinkering with too ;)
@STILT
I know its kinda OTm but as you seem to know alot, any idea if better VRM efficiency is doable ? Or mainboard manufacturers just dont care because none seems interested in this parts effciency.I have platinum PSU and i find it weird that VRM in these days are so inefficient :-/.Are any manufacturers better than others ? Or one solution is better than other, what i am looking for when buying mobo to get decent vrm efficiency ?
Also, thank you for the NB tests, 2700 is more than any stable result on air ive seen really .Mine does 2600 but im not 100% sure about stability and run it day to day at 2400, also what test is best for NB stability ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vario
The ODMs are most definitely interested in improving the efficiency, however they are still far more interested in reducing the cost.
The motherboard industry is rather unhealthy in terms of competition so everyone is trying to save every single penny possible.
And that means the newest and more advanced parts will not be implemented in the designs immediately.
This doesn't mean that there is no progress what so ever.
ASUS, Gigabyte and MSI have recently started to implement more advanced and efficient components in the VRM of their high-end boards.
ASUS has used fully digital VRMs even in their mainstream boards for couple years now and the other ODMs are following.
Gigabyte was the first one to use the state of the art IRF PowIRStage modules which combine all of the essential components to a single package (high & low fets + gate driver).
These solutions are highly efficient and with proper tuning can achieve efficiency up to 95%. ASUS and MSI have used the same modules in some of their ultra high-end designs.
Recently ASUS has used Texas Instruments PowerBlocks in their high-end designs. The PowerBlocks contain both high and low fets in the same package and can reach up to 93% efficiency.
Each PowerBlock cost around three times a traditional n-channel mosfet, however since each PowerBlock replaces three traditional mosfets (high + 2x low) the BOM will remain nearly the same.
I am sure the PowerBlocks will be used in most of the new designs regardless the targeted market segment.
ASUS has made some efforts in reducing the core loss of the inductors. The new ASUS BlackWing inductors along with the Trio "knuckle" inductors increase the overall efficiency by having lower core loss but they also
have higher maximum and saturation current ratings.
The area of peak efficiency of a traditional switching buck VRM circuit is rather narrow.
Usually the peak efficiency is achieved at 80-90% of the maximum load, while anything higher or lower results anything between little to significantly worse efficiency.
Because of this it is important to use the phase control features available on the advanced controllers. When the phase-shedding is enabled the unneeded phases will be disengaged
and only the required phases will remain active. This allows the VRM to have higher efficiency at low loads when all of the enabled phases are operating at their optimal load / efficiency region.
E.G.
Your motherboard has six phases, each designed to deliver up to 25A of current.
Your CPU consumes 155W of power when fully loaded but requires only 25W in idle with all of the power saving features enabled.
Lets say the core voltage is static 1.2V in both cases
Phase-shedding disabled
Load:
VRM TDC: 6 * 25 = 150A
Active phases: 6 (150A)
CPU PMax: 155W
CPU VDD: 1.2V
CPU IMax: 129A
VRM Load: 129 / 150 = 86% >> Peak efficiency
Idle:
VRM TDC: 6 * 25 = 150A
Active phases: 6 (150A)
CPU PMax: 25W
CPU VDD: 1.2V
CPU IMax: 20.8A
VRM Load: 20.8 / 150 = 13.9% >> Poor efficiency
Phase-shedding enabled
Load:
VRM TDC: 6 * 25 = 150A
Active phases: 6 (150A)
CPU PMax: 155W
CPU VDD: 1.2V
CPU IMax: 129A
VRM Load: 129 / 150 = 86% >> Peak efficiency
Idle:
VRM TDC: 6 * 25 = 150A
Active phases: 1 (25A)
CPU PMax: 25W
CPU VDD: 1.2V
CPU IMax: 20.8A
VRM Load: 20.8 / 25 = 83.2% >> Peak efficiency
So the short answer is: The efficiency can be improved significantly, it is only matter of cost the customers are willing to pay.
Now Im busy, so not much comments from me today...So thanks Stilt for all information and I would kindly ask you, if you cna post some srenshots of results (air or liquid)? Did you tried with 837 superpi 1/32M with LN2?
Hm, first test with review CPU. Only quick for today. 4800+ MHz R11.5 is benchable with 1.37x V (load), after I tried quick validation with 1.415V over 5300 MHz so easy. 5400 BSOD, more juice please :). If Stilt has right, Im still in safe temps zone :).
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5571/...c1bc2e22_z.jpg
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3836/...61ef4f95_z.jpg
That looks like it might make a good cheap upgrade from my 6300, any idea when these go on sale?
that voltage!!! what? you got a golden chipQuote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Im not sure now, its beginning and I have FX-9370 with similar voltage scaling. This 9370 is Ok up to 4900 MHZ with very low voltage, after dont more scaling. Now Im tetsing stability in AOD for 30 minutes, 4700 MHz (4800 MHz HW error), 1.392 V
Thanks for the advice Stilt... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt
Between your preferences and what Flank3r has shown from the 8370E it's making my 9370 look weak! :rolleyes:
My water cooling is quite a bit better than an AIO, so I'll be on the lookout for an 8370...
As much as I want something new to play with, this new revision looks really good, so I'll hold off on the reduced price 9590.
I've been so desperate for a new toy that I've pulled out an old X2 550 and my Crosshair 4 just to have something to play with. :shakes:
It was an extra nice chip (in it's day) and was fully unlockable. Even though I've been loose with the V's, I still haven't been able to get it over 4.1 stable in 2X mode, so it's not filling my need for speed...
Thanks Again,
Dave
there is my FX-9370: scaling better with lower voltage, but over 49xx MHz its hard get more without juice. Look into the album 9370 (Cinebenchs results with voltage)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/206989...7646803492191/
30 minutes OC stability test FX-8370E done: 4716 MHz with 1.4 V, now Im testing 4762 MHz with same voltage...
edit: 4762 MHz test pass:up:
Still Im in tetsing phase. I have bad feeling, this chip has not good all modules because crash in AOD with HW failure, but at CU0 and Superpi much higher or valdiation its without problems. We will see tomorow...There is validation for Friday night :). nothing special, but not bad too.
http://valid.canardpc.com/2twssm
http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/screenshot/2twssm.png
Honestly I think they're all the same chip. Towards the end of production they have unused stock they want to get rid of, and they have both high-leakage and low-leakage wafers. I bet xxxxEs are OEM stock.
I've been using these settings for two days now.
I have been playing some Arma 3, encoding some Blu-ray episodes to MKV with X264, doing some general browsing, watching Youtube and all the other regular stuff... without a single issue.
The only thing I cannot do is the burn-in tests such as Prime95 or Linpack.
The power dissipation they result is just too much for the cooling I am using.
Everything is fine until the temperature (tCase) reaches 64 degree celsius, at that temperature either the weakest CU produce errors or the system simply crashes.
During X264 or Blender the temperature peaks at 60-62 degree celsius so there is plenty room to spare ;)
During Arma 3 or Hitman Absolution the temperature go no higher than 56 degree or so.
I'm running on Cryorig R1 Ultimate, with no other mods than an additional 80mm fan blowing directly to the VRM heatsink.
The VRM is operating at fully stock & efficient settings, only load-line has been adjusted to 0.000325ohms (-75%).
Must admit that I am quite impressed about the Cryorig.
They came basically from no-where and yet they immediately deliver a heatsink that is able to do 0.188C/W with 1300rpm fans attached :O
The chip draws 202W (DCR) during X264 for example.
The NB behaves quite differently compared to the older revision.
At stock voltage it can't do even 2400/2400MHz (NCLK/MEMCLK), and increasing the voltage by 50mV does absolutely nothing about that.
However when you ram up the voltage up to 100mV (= 1.275V) it starts flying. 2700/2400MHz is not a problem.
The problem appears to be the first L3 subcache (CU0) which requires the additional voltage but also prevents it from going higher than 2700MHz stable.
I'm not going to "double time" you, this is a cherry picked part (yet likely not the best).
I had several target characteristics for the screening, however the silicon itself is the very same as available in retail.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640...746/yVqiLC.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640...661/PnwKpg.jpg
I'm running my 8350 like this 24/7 and it never failed on me for the tasks I do, but it does not pass Prime95. One of the CUs is weaker and stops short after starting P95.
It's a 8.2+GHz valid chip, but nothing close to your chip.
However it never failed on whatever game and bench I throw at it. I also compile under linux x64 on all cores and it passes that test as well.
However, I'm with a full-cover block for the mobo and a custom water-cooling setup with a triple PA140.3 rad with low rpm silent fans. One of the best (if not the best) triple radiators.
http://i.imgur.com/AKIzJ7s.jpg
My sample is second best from my FX colection. In validation. In all stress is similar as my 8200 MHz 8350s and as 9590. Maybe slightly better, but not better than 9590 ES. This one is still +200 MHz better. But its diferent story.
There is yesterday validation at CU2 (other cores are at lower p-state)
http://valid.canardpc.com/kfb2jp
http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/screenshot/kfb2jp.png
It's only a question of luck. I don't think you are better of with the 8370E for overclocking than any other sharing the same number of cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveburt714
I bought a FX 8320 and it ended up being a good overclocker. I only need 1.4625v for it to be rock stable @ 5ghz for 8hrs OCCT with high summer temps.
So my advice would be, go for the least expensive and cross your fingers :)
Ironballs, tell more about your chip, this could be monster. What is your max Cinebench run?:)
My review of FX-8370E, great OC :)
FX-8370E, good 95 W Vishera
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ikony/30888_velka.img
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...370/slajd6.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...runcherres.png
more in review :)
Well my chip scales really well until 5 ghz. I can get 5.1 ghz 1 hour OCCT stable @ 1.5125v but everything above will give me less stability. Dont know if it is the chip, my psu or something else " causing this wall " . Even with 1.575v I cant run Cinebench higher than 5.3 ghz. Perhaps with better temps ( I mean in winter with room temps of around 18-20 C ) or with more powerful psu.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Max validation :
http://valid.x86.fr/mpzrd1
5418 Mhz @ 1.55v
Higher voltage results in an instant freeze. With a few tweaking, lowering NB, I could probably get 5.5 ghz validation. Room temperature is 23-24C. Do not know if FX scales good with lower temps ...
Wow, those are impressive clocks using an FX chip and a CH4F board Ivan... :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by I.nfraR.ed
I've sold a bunch of my test gear, including an ASRock-EX9, so now my test rig is limited to a CH4F.
Good to know it's capable of hitting nice clocks with FX chips!
It may seem a little "shady", but my local MicroCenter has the 8320E (and the 9590) in stock.
I'm seriously considering picking up the 8320E, testing it, and if it doesn't clock well returning it for the 9590...
I've spent tons of money there, and they have a 14 day return policy.
Normally, I don't return stuff, but I really need a new AMD chip to tinker with!
If the 8320E doesn't clock that well, they might have an 8370E in stock before the 14 days are up... :rolleyes:
I know it's a pretty cra*py thing to do, but I really need a new FX chip to play with, and they've gotten ALOT of my money over the years!
I may have 2'nd thoughts and change my mind... But right now I'm seriously considering picking up an 8320E tomorrow... :yepp: