F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Unable to reduce CPU or NB voltage levels.

Unable to reduce CPU or NB voltage levels.

Unable to reduce CPU or NB voltage levels.

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next
A
AncientTech
Junior Member
16
12-02-2016, 10:27 PM
#11
What are you doing? Are you testing at 1600MHz for performance?
A
AncientTech
12-02-2016, 10:27 PM #11

What are you doing? Are you testing at 1600MHz for performance?

B
BionicPandas
Member
50
12-08-2016, 10:33 AM
#12
For this setup, the SuperPi achieved a 32M score of 9 minutes 50 seconds and 938 milliseconds. The FX-8350 didn't perform as expected, so I adjusted the settings accordingly. Check out the CPU-NB speed I was using. It seems accurate; some later AM3 boards supported AM3+, but I'm not sure if they reached beyond the first generation of Bulldozer chips. No board available to verify this here.
B
BionicPandas
12-08-2016, 10:33 AM #12

For this setup, the SuperPi achieved a 32M score of 9 minutes 50 seconds and 938 milliseconds. The FX-8350 didn't perform as expected, so I adjusted the settings accordingly. Check out the CPU-NB speed I was using. It seems accurate; some later AM3 boards supported AM3+, but I'm not sure if they reached beyond the first generation of Bulldozer chips. No board available to verify this here.

I
iron_finder1
Posting Freak
750
12-16-2016, 03:16 AM
#13
That's the North Bridge (uncore) frequency. That has it's own voltage. On some boards called chipset voltage on others NB voltage while the CPU/NB was the memory controller. Please verify I have that correct. It's been a couple of years. But in other words, I don't know why the CPU/NB voltage would need to be that high to push the NB core. I guess I never experimented with NB frequency, but I killed the IMC that Mac's got from the comp he won, FX9590. That one boinked out at 4.2ghz HT frequency on liquid. I should had done that on LN I suppose. Nice clocks btw. Edited April 23, 2021 by ShrimpBrime Additional Comment:
I
iron_finder1
12-16-2016, 03:16 AM #13

That's the North Bridge (uncore) frequency. That has it's own voltage. On some boards called chipset voltage on others NB voltage while the CPU/NB was the memory controller. Please verify I have that correct. It's been a couple of years. But in other words, I don't know why the CPU/NB voltage would need to be that high to push the NB core. I guess I never experimented with NB frequency, but I killed the IMC that Mac's got from the comp he won, FX9590. That one boinked out at 4.2ghz HT frequency on liquid. I should had done that on LN I suppose. Nice clocks btw. Edited April 23, 2021 by ShrimpBrime Additional Comment:

B
Brushfire11
Junior Member
22
12-16-2016, 10:44 AM
#14
It's amazing! Usually I'd need to run water to achieve that high stable score, but this one is great!
B
Brushfire11
12-16-2016, 10:44 AM #14

It's amazing! Usually I'd need to run water to achieve that high stable score, but this one is great!

F
flyer78
Senior Member
425
12-31-2016, 10:44 PM
#15
I believe I had the "E" variant of that chip. It performed well at lower voltages compared to most other FX chips I owned, except perhaps the 8300. Clocking it was also quite enjoyable.
F
flyer78
12-31-2016, 10:44 PM #15

I believe I had the "E" variant of that chip. It performed well at lower voltages compared to most other FX chips I owned, except perhaps the 8300. Clocking it was also quite enjoyable.

M
MU1499
Member
109
01-01-2017, 10:57 PM
#16
They performed worse when using the same clock speeds. The FX compensates with its higher MHz, but you need to rely on them to notice the difference.
M
MU1499
01-01-2017, 10:57 PM #16

They performed worse when using the same clock speeds. The FX compensates with its higher MHz, but you need to rely on them to notice the difference.

O
OmqDace
Posting Freak
798
01-01-2017, 11:46 PM
#17
The failure points were found at the core transistor level. The FX 8 core chips matched the FX II 1090T in transistor count. They were affordable, which made them appealing. Most of the FX chips I bought cost under $100, so I could afford 6 to 8 units alongside a high-end i7. I used them for benchmarking and cooling experiments. A $50 motherboard helped reach 7600mhz performance.
O
OmqDace
01-01-2017, 11:46 PM #17

The failure points were found at the core transistor level. The FX 8 core chips matched the FX II 1090T in transistor count. They were affordable, which made them appealing. Most of the FX chips I bought cost under $100, so I could afford 6 to 8 units alongside a high-end i7. I used them for benchmarking and cooling experiments. A $50 motherboard helped reach 7600mhz performance.

O
oRancid
Junior Member
7
01-13-2017, 02:38 AM
#18
O
oRancid
01-13-2017, 02:38 AM #18

K
Keeszz
Junior Member
11
01-13-2017, 01:53 PM
#19
I didn't bother at all honestly. AMD could take my small change. They needed it and deserved it. No one wanted to support them since Intel was faster. Now the situation has shifted. The same individuals who opposed AMD are now using main systems with AMD. Two tough guys.
K
Keeszz
01-13-2017, 01:53 PM #19

I didn't bother at all honestly. AMD could take my small change. They needed it and deserved it. No one wanted to support them since Intel was faster. Now the situation has shifted. The same individuals who opposed AMD are now using main systems with AMD. Two tough guys.

C
colinbenecki
Junior Member
1
01-16-2017, 11:21 AM
#20
It might not be worth it. The recovery bios likely won't work with the FX chip. You may need an Athlon or similar just in case.
C
colinbenecki
01-16-2017, 11:21 AM #20

It might not be worth it. The recovery bios likely won't work with the FX chip. You may need an Athlon or similar just in case.

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next