[SOLVED] Advice on small overclock

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jay.archard

Commendable
Nov 3, 2017
62
0
1,530
0
I've set this back to stock settings now, 4.4mhz isn't stable under Prime95 small fft's with all AVX disabled. But it is under AIDA. Workers fail under P95. Also, the thermal margin in AOD is less than 10, but in Coretemp is more than 10, so I am now nervous to push the voltage any higher, 4.4mhz was seemingly stable at 1.35V but I am testing under P95 and its up to 1.39V and workers fail using the other test. I think Overclocking might not be an option for me.
 

jay.archard

Commendable
Nov 3, 2017
62
0
1,530
0
I am actually video rendering right now, and the thermal margin is 2 , I am assuming now the CPU thermal paste has broken down, or something isnt right, i've reset the BIOS back, but its running way too hot, been rendering for about 2 hours now. Im going to reseat the heatsink, but no way is that right for the CPU. I wish i'd never OC'd now.
 

jay.archard

Commendable
Nov 3, 2017
62
0
1,530
0
For some reason, my BIOS thinks that stock CPU VCore is 1.412 which is insanely high for 4mhz, Now that has changed since I started OC'ing. I am lost as to how the BIOS "AUTO" sets it so high, so I manually set it at 1.375V and my thermal margin is back to 50 degrees.

FX chips are not fun to OC, and tbh, I can see why AIDA was a better choice for stress testing (In a real world) but the Prime95 stress test was more accurate for the torture test which really is stability. BUT, what i've learned is that there is no gold standard for OC'ing. And it's a lot of research and testing to get where you need to be. I don't need to reseat my CPU as it was the the now "borked" BIOS defaults that were cooking it.

I assume AMD Overdrive is to blame, the turbo core controls are not working right, and no wonder they dumped it when Ryzen arrived. . .

This has been an enlightening experience. And I feel better served now for dealing with this next time I think about OC'ing. Thank you.
 

CompuTronix

Intel Master
Moderator
jay.archard and MeanMachine41, and for the benefit of our other forum members and visiting readers, as my esteemed colleague, Darkbreeze, has already pointed out, Prime95 Small FFTs is a steady-state workload which is ideally suited for testing thermal performance. Without AVX, Small FFTs is a 100% TDP workload. With respect to TDP, which is a separate and controversial topic, TDP is typically only achieved by "Flagship" processors. Lesser variants with lower frequencies or with certain features disabled can't reach or exceed TDP unless overclocked.

However, to be very specific and clear, when any AVX test selections are enabled for mainstream processors, Prime95 Small FFTs will impose up to a 130% workload, which is a brutal and completely unrealistic workload. Such extreme workloads can adversely affect stability and severely overload your CPU.

Earlier processors, as well as low-end variants don't have any AVX Instruction Sets, so they're not affected. Mainstream processors which are more contemporary have either one or two AVX Instruction Sets, while high-end variants have a 3rd AVX Instruction Set.

AVX Instruction Sets have been implemented over the past 9 years beginning with the original AVX, followed by AVX2, then more recently, AVX-512. Each implementation is progressively more demanding on a processor's ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit) or FPU (Floating Point Unit), which are the number crunching elements within the processor's silicon Die. This is why AVX Instruction Sets increase power consumption and Core temperatures.

As the FX-8350 has the original AVX Instruction Set, it is thermally affected. Since jay.archard uses his rig for rendering, which uses AVX, Core temperatures will accordingly be higher. Comparatively, with the exception of a few utilities and specialized computational apps, the AVX code in real-world apps (rendering / transcoding) and recent games is less intensive than Prime95's Small FFTs workload without AVX.

There is much misinformation and confusion concerning "stress" testing, because the vast majority of users do not provide the details of their test conditions. Consequently, numbers get flung around like gorilla poo in a cage. Without knowing critical baseline values such as ambient temperature and the precise workload, thermal performance numbers are reduced to apples and oranges thermal fruit salad in a blender.

"Full load" is a popular but non-specific user term which could mean anything, so it's important to be very specific. “Stress” tests vary widely and can be characterized into two categories; stability tests which are fluctuating workloads, and thermal tests which are steady workloads.

Utilities that don't overload or underload your processor will give you a valid thermal baseline. Darkbreeze provided the scale from my Guide on the previous page, but here it is again; a comparison of utilities grouped as thermal and stability tests according to % of TDP, averaged across six processor Generations at stock settings rounded to the nearest 5%:


Although these tests range from 70% to 130% TDP workload, Windows Task Manager interprets every test as 100% CPU Utilization, which is processor resource activity, not actual workload. Core temperatures respond directly to Power consumption (Watts), which is driven by workload. Prime95 Small FFTs (AVX disabled) provides the correct workload for testing thermal performance. If Core temperatures don't exceed 80°C, your CPU should run the most demanding real-world workloads without overheating.

As is the case for jay.archard, if you use an overclocked rig for rendering / transcoding, then you may need to dial back your frequency and Vcore to keep Core temperatures in check. In more recent years, motherboards provide AVX Offset adjustments (downclock) in BIOS. When rendering, -3 (300 MHz) or more may be needed to limit Core temperatures. High-end processors with AVX-512 Instruction Sets may require a deeper AVX-512 Offset.

I know of Computronics from Swaziland. A private company with vested interest and opinions.
MeanMachine41, although I've been on the African continent, I've never been to Swaziland, nor am I affiliated with any company or individual using the name "Computronics". My username here at Tom's Hardware has instead always been "CompuTronix" since I became a Member in 2006. You've been here since 2014 and we've encountered one another on many occasions, so this should come as no surprise to you.

Moreover, the %TDP values in the above scale were found and verified by running each utility (and many less popular utilities not included in the scale) for numerous iterations using a consistent methodology. A variety of utilities and test equipment were used to meticulously monitor both numerical values and graphical waveform signatures for system performance parameters. This includes ambient temperature, case intake temperature, case internal temperature, case exhaust temperatures, Core temperatures and Vcore, as well as CPU power consumption (Watts) and total computer power consumption at the wall socket.

The results were averaged across six processor generations at stock settings rounded to the nearest 5%. My research and testing has been ongoing since 2006. The scale is intended to illustrate and give perspective as to how dramatically different "stress test" can be; a fact of which many lesser experienced or knowledgeable users and first-time overclockers are often unaware.

The problem with AIDA64 is that it has 4 CPU related stress test selections (CPU, FPU, Cache, Memory) which have 15 possible combinations that yield 15 different workloads and 15 possible sets of Core temperatures. Unless users provide screenshots, they seldom state exactly which test(s) they ran. The individual FPU test is about 115% TDP workload, the CPU/FPU combination is about 90%, all 4 tests combined is about 80% and the individual CPU test is only about 70%. All other AIDA64 test selections are fluctuating workloads which are suitable for stability testing, but not for thermal testing.

As jay.archard ran all 4 test simultaneously which is a fluctuating workload at about 80%, this is why his Core temperatures were higher running Prime95 Small FFTs without AVX due to its steady-state 100% workload, as well as when he was rendering. You are correct that Prime95 can impose torturous workloads. Nevertheless, as Darkbreeze pointed out, when the correct test and options are selected, Prime95 Small FFTs without AVX / AVX2 / AVX-512 is the correct utility and test for accurately determining thermal performance.

If a user only games or never runs heavy CPU demanding workloads such as for rendering / transcoding, then CPU-Z>Bench>Stress CPU is better suited for testing thermal performance due to its steady-state workload at about 80%, which approximates the heaviest gaming workloads. So if you don't need to be AVX stable, then there's no point in configuring a lower overclock to accommodate it, or test for it.

CT :sol:
 
[B]CompuTronix[/B] thank you for the read which I'm sure provides clarification to some.

Wow, What an incredible response and I do feel honored however, I also feel I have stirred a hornets nest LOL.
I don't remember our last or any encounter so you would have to enlighten me. As an avid AMD fan is that how I came to your attention?
I am also aware of your contribution and have read your article regarding the Intel CPU temperature guide. I can also now understand why so many advocate the use of P95 especially here at Tom's so should I feel I need to be careful in what I say.?

It is as you should agree ones prerogative to use what one sees fit to determine stability. I have during the many years of Overclocking and building systems encountered many third party apps and have tried or tested most. Some are dangerous rubbish and some proved their worth becoming Gold standards in their field. The beneficial and successful ones are updated over time with improved capability and P95 is no exception.

My beef or objective criticism with the product is It's misuse by those with little experience and I have to ask the question, Does stability depend on CPU thermal alone ? or are there other factors involved, and the answer is YES.

I have on occasion run P95 for short periods as a quick test for thermals and what seemed stable, resulted in a crash when a heavy load was applied. So all that did was indicate, Oh the Cooler is insufficient so fix that and move on.

Yes I'm an advocate of using AIDA64 which I feel is more comprehensive and less harsh and I also use several other benchmarks and stress testing apps.

One aspect I fail to understand is P95s reliance on Small FFTs AVX instruction to determine %TDP thermal MAX yet without AVX that determination seems irrelevant yet every advocate of the product says to run P95 with AVX disabled.

Your thermal indicator chart seems to dispute Darkbreeze theory that Aida64 is nearly useless however using FPU to stress test implies a different understanding to me.

As we are on the subject. I would like to ask your opinion on the relevance of P95 on stress testing AMDs current high end multi core CPUs with multiple threads? for example: Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX.

I responded to jay.archard in an attempt to help him Overclock his FX CPU however my methods were countermanded and he was swayed to use P95 and has not achieved any success whatsoever. I feel I could have achieved at least some improvement in his performance. He chose another approach so I sincerely hope Darkbreeze guidance will help him.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
I think you are still confusing thermal compliance and stability testing, which are clearly delineated, different things.

Does stability depend on CPU thermal alone ? or are there other factors involved, and the answer is YES.

I have on occasion run P95 for short periods as a quick test for thermals and what seemed stable, resulted in a crash when a heavy load was applied. So all that did was indicate, Oh the Cooler is insufficient so fix that and move on.
That IS the whole point, and the ONLY point, of using Prime Small FFT non-AVX steady state workload, is for determining whether or not there are cooling issues or if cooling IS in fact sufficient. That's it. It has literally nothing to do, for our purposes anyhow, with testing stability. Stability itself does not require a steady state workload. A fluctuating workload is or can be, a perfectly acceptable metric for stability testing. Realbench, Prime Blend and some custom configurations of Prime95, among many others INCLUDING Aida64 (Depending on which test is used) are all acceptable for stability testing. In fact, even the H.264 testing is useful, very useful in some cases, for testing stability. Testing stability is a whole other beast from testing thermal compliance, at least, it is in my opinion.

Obviously, not everybody has a shared opinion of everything and just because I offer an opinion of my own along with some evidence that would seem to be contrary to what you or anybody else has deemed useful for their purposes, doesn't mean I ever am trying to say somebody is "dumb" or "is doing it wrong" or "lacks understanding". It might, in some cases, but it might only be that I am offering my OWN insights on the subject, which can be taken or left as anybody sees fit to do. I can only offer suggestions and insights. I can't change anybody's mind or make anybody do anything they don't want to do AND I've learned more in the past ten years than in the previous twenty, so I'm fully aware that I'm not always right and when we're not willing to at least LOOK at an consider alternative points of view or insights then we run the risk of missing out on the opportunity to learn new ideas or ways of doing things. So, my apologies if you felt I was disparaging you in any way. That was not my intent.
 
Reactions: Crosslhs82x2

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
For the sake of reference, here are the most recent screenshots of a 4.5Ghz overclock from an 8320 I have, and if I can achieve that with an 8320 that is a lesser binned version of the 8350, and has a lower clock configuration than the 8350, then somebody with an 8350 should be able to easily achieve the same with similar settings unless they have a really crappy motherboard, cooling that isn't up to the task or fantastically bad luck in the silicon lottery, none of which I think are the case in THIS case.

Obviously, not all of your settings will be the same, as every CPU is different AND my ASUS Sabertooth board may use SOME nomenclature or naming for certain things that might be named differently in your Gigabyte BIOS, but mostly the important configuration details should be similar.








I didn't get a screenshot of the load line calibration settings, but that should probably set somewhere in the middle, whether that means the "high setting, or the number 5, or whatever is basically middle of the road for the LLC setting in YOUR specific BIOS. That's where I would recommend putting it, at least to start anyhow.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
Ok. 🙃

Edit: By the way, I really don't "rant". If I say something, it's because there is some meaning behind it that needs to be shared or expressed. But, we can certainly agree to disagree. Happens a lot in life.
 
Last edited:

jay.archard

Commendable
Nov 3, 2017
62
0
1,530
0
OK Guys, lets get back on track here OK, I wasn't convinced to try something different by using P95, I started with it, and was going to run AIDA afterwards to see the results on both. I couldn't get a stable result on P95 anyway, so I decided to go back to stock, but that now has caused me even more issues. For some reason my BIOS thinks stock VCORE is 1.41V which is far too high, stock for a FX 8350 is 1.37V IIRC. And it's stable now i've set it at that. But this Turbocore setting is boosting it to 1.41 when Pushing the clock to 4.2 . I am going to reseat the heatsink to see if something has gone wrong there, as the thermal margins were far too small when rendering that video yesterday. 3 degrees thermal margin on AOD was worrying. It's never been that high before. But as I tried to explain there is a disparity between Coretemps distance to tjmax and AOD's thermal margin. the AOD is using 70 degrees as the ceiling, Coretemp 80. FX8350 seems to have a ceiling of 70 so I am more inclined to believe AOD. So 3 degrees of thermal margin is way too close for comfort.

I am tempted to just use a 4.5 or 4.4 overclock and turn off this turbocore boost, that seems to be causing the problems. But I cannot get a stable P95 Small FFT (No AVX) test without workers failing. But for now, I think using it a bit less intensely and getting the CPU and heatsink reseated is more important. I can't do that until Wednesday, as I don't know if I even have any paste and stuff to clean off the old paste...
 
jay.archard

Like you said you could not obtain a stable Overclock using P95 and I also had issues with it when Overclocking an FX-9590 which was a beast to Overclock. I managed an all core 5.2 GHz stable overclock without boost using AIDA64 and HWMonitor but was never successful stress testing with P95 and constantly had workers stopping and not knowing why even if my temps were acceptable.
I had thermal issues because of the 220W TDP draw which was overcome using a 120mm twin rad, correct fan curve in Bios and a small fan mounted on the back panel to help dissipate the heat.

I was criticized then for not having proper stability till I proved it and managed to complete many benchmarks including Realbench. It could be the single Core boost that creates the instability or some other hardware is letting you down or your lack of experience in using your Bios.

Pro Overclockers will tell you that you can't go Gung Ho when Overclocking. You have to also consider other factors. I was maybe lucky to have a decent silicon chip and started my Overclocking the CPU once I knew the rest of my system was100% stable.
It is ofc your decision to continue with an alternate method so I can't help further.
If you can't overclock with a core voltage of MAX 1.375-1.400V then you don't unfortunately have a chip worthy of even the smallest of Overclocks.

I would replace your TIM with AS5, MX4 or Thermal grizzly and clean off the existing paste with Isopropyl Alcohol 95%.

Good Luck MM
 
Last edited:

jay.archard

Commendable
Nov 3, 2017
62
0
1,530
0
jay.archard

Like you said you could not obtain a stable Overclock using P95 and I also had issues with it when Overclocking an FX-9590 which was a beast to Overclock. I managed an all core 5.2 GHz stable overclock without boost using AIDA64 and HWMonitor but was never successful stress testing with P95 and constantly had workers stopping and not knowing why even if my temps were acceptable.
I had thermal issues because of the 220W TDP draw which was overcome using a 120mm twin rad, correct fan curve in Bios and a small fan mounted on the back panel to help dissipate the heat.

I was criticized then for not having proper stability till I proved it and managed to complete many benchmarks including Realbench. It could be the single Core boost that creates the instability or some other hardware is letting you down or your lack of experience in using your Bios.

Pro Overclockers will tell you that you can't go Gung Ho when Overclocking. You have to also consider other factors. I was maybe lucky to have a decent silicon chip and started my Overclocking the CPU once I knew the rest of my system was100% stable.
It is ofc your decision to continue with an alternate method so I can't help further.
If you can't overclock with a core voltage of MAX 1.375-1.400V then you don't unfortunately have a chip worthy of even the smallest of Overclocks.

I would replace your TIM with AS5, MX4 or Thermal grizzly and clean off the existing paste with Isopropyl Alcohol 95%.

Good Luck MM
Well I have ordered Thermal Grizzy Kyronaut 1g and some alcohol wipes to clean off the paste. I have a H75 not H70 like I thought, and I used the paste that was already pre applied to the heatsink. So reseating it will hopefully help give me a bit less temps. It was running too hot rendering that video. I want temperatures down even on stock settings before I try any OC'ing again tbh. Not happy with it as it is.
 
Hi
My wifes old system was a ga-970 sli and a fx 6300 cooled by a H100iv2 with Noctua IPPC's 3000 rpm fans so
Cooling it was never an issue.
But for some reason it would Not let me do a normal overclock with it's offset voltage as it's only choice in bios to change voltage.
But it would let me change the Turbo boost clock with very little offset voltage increase and would regularly boost up 4.7ghz.
It ran that way for a very long time till she used my r5 3600x for week.
When the issue was fixed that was unrelated to any bios settings I was told
( I can't go back ) LOL she liked mine that much.
So mite try that with upping the turbo boost multiplier and see how it does rendering.
Good luck
 
Reactions: MeanMachine41

jay.archard

Commendable
Nov 3, 2017
62
0
1,530
0
Hi
My wifes old system was a ga-970 sli and a fx 6300 cooled by a H100iv2 with Noctua IPPC's 3000 rpm fans so
Cooling it was never an issue.
But for some reason it would Not let me do a normal overclock with it's offset voltage as it's only choice in bios to change voltage.
But it would let me change the Turbo boost clock with very little offset voltage increase and would regularly boost up 4.7ghz.
It ran that way for a very long time till she used my r5 3600x for week.
When the issue was fixed that was unrelated to any bios settings I was told
( I can't go back ) LOL she liked mine that much.
So mite try that with upping the turbo boost multiplier and see how it does rendering.
Good luck
As far as I know there is no option to adjust the turbo core speed in the BIOS only AMD Overdrive ?
 
Hi
My wifes old system was a ga-970 sli and a fx 6300 cooled by a H100iv2 with Noctua IPPC's 3000 rpm fans so
Cooling it was never an issue.
But for some reason it would Not let me do a normal overclock with it's offset voltage as it's only choice in bios to change voltage.
But it would let me change the Turbo boost clock with very little offset voltage increase and would regularly boost up 4.7ghz.
It ran that way for a very long time till she used my r5 3600x for week.
When the issue was fixed that was unrelated to any bios settings I was told
( I can't go back ) LOL she liked mine that much.
So mite try that with upping the turbo boost multiplier and see how it does rendering.
Good luck
I liked your post cause of the inference and hidden message. One to never let your wife get her hands on your own system. And the message is, Update your system to Ryzen for much improved performance. Your FX has had it's day.
 
I wasn't trying to have a hidden message just that a normal oc wouldn't run on her board but the turbo multiplier did.

I was finally able to convince her to let me upgrade hers.
I gave her a choice ( my old system ) ga-990fxa-ud3 / 8350 @4.7 ghz or the upgrade she chose the upgrade after using mine.

On her old mobo it didn't really like a 8350 on it at stock settings little alone a 6300 trying to be oc'd.

His is reminding me of my son's old Asrock 970 with the 8350 anything over 4.4ghz p95 workers stopped and finally left it @ 4.4ghz.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
As far as I know there is no option to adjust the turbo core speed in the BIOS only AMD Overdrive ?
There is. It's right there in the screenshots I posted on my ASUS board, and I know for a fact that it's a standard setting on 990fx and I'm pretty sure it's there on 970 chipset boards as well. The "AMD turbo core technology" setting will enable or disable it and the multiplier setting will set the maximum boost setting IF AMD turbo core technology is enabled. If you disable the AMD turbo core technology setting, it should stop those problems, which are not uncommon if your multi is set higher than the stock all core boost would normally be. Auto-ANYTHING is almost always higher than what we'd set things to manually, so it's not surprising to see a high boost voltage if AMD boost is still enabled and you have the multi set higher than the stock boost. Setting should be there somewhere.

I do have an AM3+ 970 chipset board here something and another FX CPU that I could probably slap together just to find the setting, but I'm sure you can find it if you dig for it.

Seen above on my screenshot on the AI Tweaker tab.

Seen here on ASRock 970 Extreme3 board on the OC tweaker tab, so the setting is clearly there for 970 chipset boards, but I'm not sure where EXACTLY it is on your board. I would think it could possibly be found in the sub menu of the advanced CPU core features setting, but I just don't remember on this platform for Gigabyte, for sure, where it is at.

 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
What BIOS version are you on?

How many DIMMs are you running AND what slots are they installed in?

If you have access to a volt meter, pull the CMOS battery and check the voltage. Your board is easily old enough to have a need to replace the CMOS battery by now. If it is ANYTHING less than 3v, it needs replace. Every AM3+ board I've checked in the last year or so has needed the battery replaced because they were down around 2.6-2.8v and were acting flaky. Worth checking for sure. A CR 2032 battery is only a few bucks and make sure you check the voltage of the new batteries as well because I've found a bunch of off the shelf stock that was too old as well.
 

jay.archard

Commendable
Nov 3, 2017
62
0
1,530
0
I am on BIOS fdA the latest, I believe, and its not that old, it's about 4 years old, I had to replace my previous one. And the CMOS battery was changed less than 8 months ago. I cannot see anything for adjusting the Turbo core frequency, just the CPU multiplier (Non turbo Core) but in AMD Overdrive you can set the turbo core separately to the normal multiplier. But tbh , the AMD overdrive program doesn't work properly anyway, I just use it as a temp censor.

I am going to reseat the CPU with better thermal paste on Wednesday, and then check temperatures. If its' fine at stock, I will try the OC again, to get it to 4.4 or 4.5 but tbh I am getting confused now with the settings for other BIOS functions, such as Cool n Quiet, HPC, APM, Turbo Boost. Voltages are not going too high, as the temps were way too high using P95 no AVX.
 

jay.archard

Commendable
Nov 3, 2017
62
0
1,530
0
I think this board is not very good for overclocking tbh, I just setup a small 4.2 overclock, VCore 1.36 and it cannot handle that, P95 failed within 3 minutes, a worker gave up, yet now when I set it all back to stock, with turbo boost it sets the Vcore at 1.4125V and I get the same thermal margin ..... Am I missing something here ? This makes no sense at all tbh .
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
The BIOS for the 970-Gaming SLI is what you might expect from a sub-$100 motherboard. It is nothing crazy, in fact, it looks like GIGABYTE's first generation UEFI from years past on the Intel side. It has all the settings you might need to tune the system, including overclocking settings, but I would not attempt to overclock a 125W CPU because the motherboard is not designed for heavy overclocking.

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7795/gigabyte-970-gaming-sli-amd-motherboard-review/index.html
THAT, is a board not very good for overclocking. Yours, is an EXCELLENT motherboard, whether overclocking or not. Granted, it's not a 990/990fx chipset board, but for a 970 chipset board it's one of the best you can get. Your problem is not WHAT board you have, it's something else.


Tier One-Class A: Very High quality. Great boards for OCing, have optional SLI capability but more importantly can OC FX 8 well, if you have to get a 970 chipset board, these will be your top choice. High quality, and no overheating issues.


No SLI capabability:

GA-970A-UD3P
M5A97 or EVO or PRO (R.2 as well)
GA-970A-UD3


SLI capable:

970 GAMING
970A SLI Krait (USB 3.1 supported)



Tier One-Class B: High quality. Good board for OCing FX 6, fine for mild OC on FX 8, don't expect extreme OC due to moderate power phases design, but is a good overall board quality wise, better than any Tier Two board.

Extreme 3 R2.0

NOTE: Regardless of SLI capability, all MoBos are fit for OCing FX 8. All MoBos from here in this chipset can only contain FX 8 on stock speeds or are good for upto FX 6.

__

Tier Two: Good quality
. These MoBos are NOT FIT to be paired with FX 8, with OCing in mind. And if a Motherboard is not good enough for OCing a particular CPU, is always good to NOT get that MoBo for that CPU. But besides that, they’re fine for FX 6 or lower. Quality is decent, a couple MoBos have some issues, so be careful and look around for labels.

Not SLI capable:

970 Extreme3
M5A97 LE R2.0
970 Pro3 (R2.0 as well, this MoBo is good for OCing FX 6)
970A-G43 (See NOTE1 below)
GA-970A-DS3P
GA-970A-DS3
GA-970A-D3 (See NOTE2 below)
GA-970A-D3P

SLI capable:

970A-G46 (See NOTE3 below)
970 EXTREME4 (See NOTE3 below)


NOTE1: G43 is known to NOT OC FX 6 well, due to no heatsinks on VRM and known overheating issues. Avoiding this board is HIGHLY recommended.


NOTE2: D3 (r1.0/1.1/1.2) do NOT have heatsinks on VRM so they should be avoided for OCing FX 6. R1.3 and 1.4 are heatsinked so they’re fine for OCing FX 6.


NOTE3: G46 and EXTREME4 are known to have overheated VRMs with 125W CPUs, so do not expect high OC with FX6 on these boards. 970 GAMING is a much better option in this regard.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: jay.archard

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS