FX-8320 problems over 4.4ghz

johnrob

Honorable
Nov 22, 2014
100
2
10,695
I've got my fx-8320 to 4.4 ghz and I'm currently using 3dmark11 Sky Diver for benchmarking.

If I try to push it any higher than that I get a CTD, app hang, or BSOD. I think it's voltage related.

Here's my specs, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's my mobo holding me back here, but advice on how to test that would be appreciated.

OS: Win7 pro 64bit
mobo: MSI 970A-G43
CPU: FX-8320 BE (3.5ghz)
GPU: MSI twinfrozr HD7850 2g (stock core clock 900mhz OC'd to 1050mhz in afterburner)
RAM: 2x4gb Corsair Vengeance blue@1600 9-9-9-24
PSU: Corsair CX-750 builder series 80+ bronze cert.
Storage: WD blue 1tb sata 6gb/s

I ran the CPU at 4.5 ghz and started the Sky diver test, it made it through both graphics tests but failed in the physics test resulting in a hang. I noticed right before the hang my voltage dropped in CPU-Z and HWiNFO64 from 1.392 to 1.336 or so, then got stuck.

I have disabled CPU Smart protection as well as Cool'n Quiet.

Edit: I forgot to mention temps. I have a CM 212 evo cooling my CPU, temps are around 18c idle and 35c under load. The GPU is around 33C idle 40-45C under load. (Fans go to 100% at 45c)
 
Solution
That motherboard is something a lot of people don't recommend for the AMD 8-cores, let alone overclocking. Even if they are not overheating, 4+1 phases is not much contain the needs of the 8-cores.
I tried putting voltage to 1.5 but immediately got a blue screen. Is it weird that I can't seem to get voltage over 1.4 with turbo boost off but with it on there's no problem running at 1.425?
 
My FX-8320 reached 4.5 GHz at 1.4v with the same cooler. My problem is the thermal wall, otherwise I could go higher.

It definitely seems to be a motherboard limit in your case. Maybe the Turbo options allows for more current by the motherboard, since they are only given in short burts, and the motherboard protects itself from too high currents if it's disabled. If I'm not mistaken, your VRMs are not heatsinked on that motherboard. I wouldn't try pushing the CPU too hard on such a board. You really don't want to fry your VRMs.

Why don't you use Prime95 with the smallFFT test for determining stability?
 


You are correct there are no heatsinks on the VRMS. I've got a CM 912 HAF case with exhaust fans on the top and back right by the vrms tho, they get plenty of air flow and seem to stay around 40-50c

I'm using the 3dmark tests because I have them really. I also got an evaluation copy of passmarks's BurnInTest. If you think it's absolutely necessary I can get p95 when I'm ready to stability test something. If I can't run for the 5 mins it takes to run the 3dmark test then I don't see the point in trying p95. plus b.i.t. seems like a pretty good stability test.
 


I tried playing FC4 and it's unplayable IMO. My goal was to see if it's possible in this set up but I'm thinking no.

Even on the lowest settings I'm only getting 40 fps, which on a 120hz monitor is way too choppy. I've got a gtx 970 on the way, I just decided to try to max my CPU to keep it viable until I can save up for a Haswell chip. (and mobo)
 
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/11/07/far-cry-4-system-requirements-revealed

Your cpu is meeting optimal requirements in this case and will in just about any new game because the load will be spread out more.
As for the gpu.. it is well over minimum so I think this is just on ubisoft witch is no surprise especially with a AMD gpu but you can certainly expect a large performance increase with the gtx 970 as am I am sure you know.