F5F Stay Refreshed Power Users Overclocking Help 8320 & asrock 990fx

Help 8320 & asrock 990fx

Help 8320 & asrock 990fx

S
StopBrosYT
Member
53
07-06-2016, 04:41 AM
#1
Hello, here’s your quick inquiry rephrased.
S
StopBrosYT
07-06-2016, 04:41 AM #1

Hello, here’s your quick inquiry rephrased.

K
KablooieKablam
Posting Freak
908
07-06-2016, 08:59 AM
#2
BLCK/FSB offers sufficient results now, but once MC and NB improvements become insignificant, regardless of voltage levels, the optimal performance comes from pairing Multiplier with BLCK.
K
KablooieKablam
07-06-2016, 08:59 AM #2

BLCK/FSB offers sufficient results now, but once MC and NB improvements become insignificant, regardless of voltage levels, the optimal performance comes from pairing Multiplier with BLCK.

M
MinerRune
Junior Member
20
07-13-2016, 05:13 AM
#3
any idea though about the method i'm using of lowering the northbridge freq. in order to be able to jump up the fsb value? Is this reasonable or is there something i need to know negative about it? Just asking again because i've not seen that method spoken about but granted most guides seem to be sticking to very simple methods. I just last night kicked it up to 4.8 ghz and got a cinebench score of 752 in cinebench r15 and cpumark test my score is 10067 both at 4.8 ghz. Do these seem like typical scores given the clock speed?
But mainly i'm asking about having to lower nb freq.... thanks!
M
MinerRune
07-13-2016, 05:13 AM #3

any idea though about the method i'm using of lowering the northbridge freq. in order to be able to jump up the fsb value? Is this reasonable or is there something i need to know negative about it? Just asking again because i've not seen that method spoken about but granted most guides seem to be sticking to very simple methods. I just last night kicked it up to 4.8 ghz and got a cinebench score of 752 in cinebench r15 and cpumark test my score is 10067 both at 4.8 ghz. Do these seem like typical scores given the clock speed?
But mainly i'm asking about having to lower nb freq.... thanks!

V
Velizar06
Posting Freak
865
07-14-2016, 09:26 AM
#4
My processor is an FX 6350 running at 4.8 GHz, but it feels like it's essentially the same after two cores were cut off during manufacturing. As mentioned before, the highest scores I've seen are with a multiplier and BLCK set to 205. You're getting roughly 10% or less higher scores, which is mainly because of the additional cores. Would you like to try a multiplier of 22 and check how much further BLCK can improve your score? Reducing the NB frequency seems to hurt part of the optimization.
V
Velizar06
07-14-2016, 09:26 AM #4

My processor is an FX 6350 running at 4.8 GHz, but it feels like it's essentially the same after two cores were cut off during manufacturing. As mentioned before, the highest scores I've seen are with a multiplier and BLCK set to 205. You're getting roughly 10% or less higher scores, which is mainly because of the additional cores. Would you like to try a multiplier of 22 and check how much further BLCK can improve your score? Reducing the NB frequency seems to hurt part of the optimization.

X
xCattyx
Member
196
07-14-2016, 05:52 PM
#5
get the same general results regardless, which is why I wondered if there were additional compromises that would affect the scores
X
xCattyx
07-14-2016, 05:52 PM #5

get the same general results regardless, which is why I wondered if there were additional compromises that would affect the scores

B
BisTaKe
Junior Member
1
07-14-2016, 06:47 PM
#6
actually when i performed the multiplier and slightly adjusted the FSB, my maximum score of 4.8 became 750.
B
BisTaKe
07-14-2016, 06:47 PM #6

actually when i performed the multiplier and slightly adjusted the FSB, my maximum score of 4.8 became 750.

J
JokerFame
Senior Member
670
07-14-2016, 08:40 PM
#7
These evaluations might not capture every capability of the system, requiring more comprehensive testing to fully observe any performance shifts.
J
JokerFame
07-14-2016, 08:40 PM #7

These evaluations might not capture every capability of the system, requiring more comprehensive testing to fully observe any performance shifts.

I
Ipod984
Senior Member
707
07-15-2016, 10:26 AM
#8
The evaluations might not capture every capability the system offers; more thorough testing would be required to observe all performance shifts. This is why I was seeking guidance on assessing these aspects and understanding the pros and cons of overclocking objectively. How would one anticipate results with an overclock compared to a multiplier?
I
Ipod984
07-15-2016, 10:26 AM #8

The evaluations might not capture every capability the system offers; more thorough testing would be required to observe all performance shifts. This is why I was seeking guidance on assessing these aspects and understanding the pros and cons of overclocking objectively. How would one anticipate results with an overclock compared to a multiplier?

H
Humble_Sushi
Member
119
07-16-2016, 12:35 PM
#9
Sorry, I didn't go that far but I'll try to improve it. I think the results might vary depending on the situation and the programs involved. Some require more cores, others focus heavily on memory, and different kinds of optimization could affect performance differently.
H
Humble_Sushi
07-16-2016, 12:35 PM #9

Sorry, I didn't go that far but I'll try to improve it. I think the results might vary depending on the situation and the programs involved. Some require more cores, others focus heavily on memory, and different kinds of optimization could affect performance differently.