fx 8350 still oke?????

[mastergup]

Hello guys I have a few quastions about this cpu.

I have a fx 8350 running at 4.2ghz, the quastions that i have are the following,
1 is this cpu still good enough for gaming most of the time,

2 will it bottleneck my gpu Msi R9 390

3 will it give me more performance overclocking it to 4.4ghz I mean on intel the extra 200mhz will not give me that much, is it on amd more?

i can not get higher at the moment then 4.4ghz becaus i,m cooling it with a cooler master tx 3
on a msi 970 board, with this board it needs 1.45v to run

 

[dudeman509]

1) Yes. Mostly. Some poorly optimized games struggle on FX CPUs; others run pretty well. Most newer games do alright on them.
2) Yes, depends on the game.
3) Might, probably not a huge difference though. Diminishing returns as you near 4.5. Wouldn't push it further unless that's a 970 Gaming board, and with a better cooler.

 

[mastergup]

1) Yes. Mostly. Some poorly optimized games struggle on FX CPUs; others run pretty well. Most newer games do alright on them.
2) Yes, depends on the game.
3) Might, probably not a huge difference though. Diminishing returns as you near 4.5. Wouldn't push it further unless that's a 970 Gaming board, and with a better cooler.

yes it is a msi 970 gaming board

 

[GustavoGimpel]

As surprising it can be, the FX-8350 can perform equally or even better than some newer Intel i7 chips (even the high end ones) on higher resolutions when benchmarking or gaming (1440p and mostly 4k). Since you are using or planning to use an R9 390, I suppose you won't be gaming on 1080p or 720p. But, if you want to game at 1080p or 720p, the FX-8350 will do a bit worse comparing to newer Intel chips, but not by much.

If you want to push it even further, you can overclock it with no problems, just beware that your MSI 970 Gaming is known as a bad overclocker and has VRM overheating issues when dealing with higher voltages, so you should be able to push it to 4.4, 4.5Ghz if you are lucky. Overclocking it should give you a bit more performance on games optmized for 8 cores and on higher resolutions, but it will show improvements mostly on Frame Drops, your maximum FPS shouldn't increase, if it does it'll be by 1 or 2 fps max.

Also, keep in mind that newer games tends to use more cores, so the 8350 is a good option.


Regarding the FX-8350 doing better 4k against new Intel i7 chips, check:
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/58/core-i7-4770k-vs-amd-fx-8350-with-gtx-980-vs-gtx-780-sli-at-4k/index.html
http://www.technologyx.com/featured/amd-vs-intel-our-8-core-cpu-gaming-performance-showdown/4/
If you want more proofs, just google "AMD vs Intel 4k", you'll see plenty of benchmarks proving it.

 

[Benjiwenji]

1- Fx-8350 does fine for the far majority of the games in the market. However, in Dx11, an i5, or sometimes even the i3, can outperform the Fx-8350 just by a little if you're using a top end GPU such as the 980ti / Fury X. Otherwise, the bottleneck almost always occurs on the GPU.

2- The R9-390 pairs very well with the Fx-8350. I have my Fx-6300 with a R9 290 can run on ultra 1080p/~50-60fps on games such as Fallout 4, BF 4, and witcher 3. In very specific titles your Fx-8350 will struggle, they are Total War, GTA V, Day Z, ARMA, and give or take some odd games.

3- Yes, higher overclock = better performance in games, given that you have unlimited GPU power. There isn't a diminishing return at 4.5 Ghz as claimed by dudeman. As you can see for yourself, the performance gained in overclocking on a CPU bounded title is proportional and linear. However, you do have a exponential increase in voltage, therefore, heat as well.

@Gustavo,

That's misleading, the i7 4770k is way ahead of the Fx-8350. However, what you're seeing is the lack of GPU power to sustain 4k in games at the moment, thus, games are bottlenecked by the GPU at above 1080p resolutions.

Furthermore, the MSI 970 Gaming is one of the best mobo for overclocking the Fx-8 cores out of all the 970 boards.

 

[GustavoGimpel]

@Gustavo,

That's misleading, the i7 4770k is way ahead of the Fx-8350. However, what you're seeing is the lack of GPU power to sustain 4k in games at the moment, thus, games are bottlenecked by the GPU at above 1080p resolutions.

Furthermore, the MSI 970 Gaming is one of the best mobo for overclocking the Fx-8 cores out of all the 970 boards.

I didn't say an i7 4770k is worse than an FX-8350, I just pointed out multiple tests showing that an 8350, when gaming on 1440p or 4K (not regular use) can provide equal or better results, as well as some lower results. As you can see in the links i've pointed out and others available online, they are simply comparing CPU's by using the same GPUs and swapping CPUs only, running through some benchmarks to check wheter the eg.: i7 4770k + GTX980 combo or the 8350 + GTX980 combo will achieve more FPS (considering the minFPS, maxFPS and avgFPS). It's pretty straight forward to me. Intel can perform much better on simpler tasks, day to day usage and lower resolution gaming, be more heat efficient and all but even if the GPU bottlenecks on resolutions higher than 1080p, the 8350 still manages to achieve a better performance compared to some high-end chips, like the Intel i7 5930x as shown in the 2nd link.

The MSI 970 can be the best amongst the 970's, but they aren't good performers regarding overclocking. The MSI one specifically needs attention to it's VRMs, as many people have complained about them overheating and causing instability even on small overclocks. He should, at least, set up a fan blowing on it or buy a heatsink if he needs or wants to push his vCore above, I would say, 1.45v.

About the overclocking part, I don't think it's so simple since the 9590 was binned to run at 5.0Ghz.. Comparing a stock vs overclocked CPU should show real results, not stock vs underclocked. I'm running an 8350 at 4.7Ghz on one of my desktops and it only gained 1-2 avgFPS on most games (1080p only), such as Fallout 4 and Dark Souls III. In some games, I suppose they are more CPU intensive, I've gained about 5 avgFps, but that's it. The main reason I've overclocked is for video rendering, which have shown some impressive results for a 500Mhz increase (4.2 -> 4.7).

 

[Benjiwenji]

I know, I have read the links previously. Yet, as GPUs get better, the 4770k will pull much further ahead of the Fx-8350 in 4k. Polaris and Pascal might just do the trick. Running 4k benchmarks to evaluate CPU performance is almost equivalent to running CPU benchmarks using a 750ti, where you will get the same performance between an Athlon 860k and i7-4770k because of the GPU bottleneck. It is unrealistic, too, to point to 4k gaming when making a case for the 8350, since most gamers interested in the 8350 are on a budge.

About the 970 Gaming, it is the board to get if you want to overclock an Fx-8core with any 970 boards. It's either the 970 Gaming, UD3P, or 970 pro gaming/aura. Obviously the 990 boards are ideal, but the 970 Gaming will do the trick just fine. If you disagree, then you can make your case on this thread.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2384024/motherboard-tier-list-970-chipset.html

Lastly, about overclocking CPU. You don't see the proportional increase in overclocked Fx-8350 in FPS on Fallout4 and Dark Souls is because you don't have unlimited GPU power. It is the same principle on why you get diminishing return on CPU overclock using a GTX 960. At some point, no matter how fast your CPU is, your GTX 960 just can't putout anymore. There is a reason why I said unlimited GPU power as a condition and used GTA V to represent a known CPU bottleneck scenario.

I don't mean to sound harsh as I would love to see RED team do well. I argue that there is a market for the FX CPUs on budget work stations and 1080p/60 gaming. However, I am just realistic about it. Rather than going with the 4k argument, you're better off going the Dx12 route.

http://wccftech.com/hitman-pc-directx-12-benchmarks/

 

[dudeman509]

There isn't a diminishing return at 4.5 Ghz as claimed by dudeman. As you can see for yourself, the performance gained in overclocking on a CPU bounded title is proportional and linear. However, you do have a exponential increase in voltage, therefore, heat as well.

No, but you start to need large voltage increases and begin to battle VRM + CPU heat with those higher speeds...for not much more performance. 4.5 is doable for most FX chips; each 100 MHz over that is harder to achieve without much more performance benefit.

 

[mastergup]

As surprising it can be, the FX-8350 can perform equally or even better than some newer Intel i7 chips (even the high end ones) on higher resolutions when benchmarking or gaming (1440p and mostly 4k). Since you are using or planning to use an R9 390, I suppose you won't be gaming on 1080p or 720p. But, if you want to game at 1080p or 720p, the FX-8350 will do a bit worse comparing to newer Intel chips, but not by much.

If you want to push it even further, you can overclock it with no problems, just beware that your MSI 970 Gaming is known as a bad overclocker and has VRM overheating issues when dealing with higher voltages, so you should be able to push it to 4.4, 4.5Ghz if you are lucky. Overclocking it should give you a bit more performance on games optmized for 8 cores and on higher resolutions, but it will show improvements mostly on Frame Drops, your maximum FPS shouldn't increase, if it does it'll be by 1 or 2 fps max.

Also, keep in mind that newer games tends to use more cores, so the 8350 is a good option.


Regarding the FX-8350 doing better 4k against new Intel i7 chips, check:
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/58/core-i7-4770k-vs-amd-fx-8350-with-gtx-980-vs-gtx-780-sli-at-4k/index.html
http://www.technologyx.com/featured/amd-vs-intel-our-8-core-cpu-gaming-performance-showdown/4/
If you want more proofs, just google "AMD vs Intel 4k", you'll see plenty of benchmarks proving it.

Hello thank you for your answer, and yes at the moment i play at 1080p lol.

I know the msi motherbord is not a real good overclocker, so thats why i dont feel comftarble getting it higher then 4.3/4.4
like i sad before, it needs 1.45v to get 4.4, and 1.4v to get 4.3ghz.

 

[mastergup]

There isn't a diminishing return at 4.5 Ghz as claimed by dudeman. As you can see for yourself, the performance gained in overclocking on a CPU bounded title is proportional and linear. However, you do have a exponential increase in voltage, therefore, heat as well.

No, but you start to need large voltage increases and begin to battle VRM + CPU heat with those higher speeds...for not much more performance. 4.5 is doable for most FX chips; each 100 MHz over that is harder to achieve without much more performance benefit.

and i need on this bord 1.5v i think for 4.5ghz even with a aio cooler i would not feel safe at that voltage haha Mostley had intel.

all together i think 4.3ghz will do for the moment, 1.4v and this cooler.

 

[Benjiwenji]

There isn't a diminishing return at 4.5 Ghz as claimed by dudeman. As you can see for yourself, the performance gained in overclocking on a CPU bounded title is proportional and linear. However, you do have a exponential increase in voltage, therefore, heat as well.

No, but you start to need large voltage increases and begin to battle VRM + CPU heat with those higher speeds...for not much more performance. 4.5 is doable for most FX chips; each 100 MHz over that is harder to achieve without much more performance benefit.

Hence, I have said previously "exponential increase in voltage, therefore, heat as well." These are real limitations.

If we are to be technical, there is a diminishing return in performance per watt when we keep pushing the overclock. However, that's the case for all CPUs, including AMD and Intel. If we look at performance in isolation, then actual performance increase via overclock seems to be constant at and after 4.5 ghz. Most 8350s should reach at least 4.6, while 8370/e should close to or over 5.0.

Again, MSI 970 Gaming is a good overclocking board.

AnAndTech's review on MSI 970 Gaming mobo with Fx-8320E stable at 4.7.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8907/msi-970-gaming-motherboard-review-undercutting-am3-at-100/3

HardwareCanuck's review on 970 Gaming with Fx-4590 @ 5.0.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/69124-msi-970-gaming-amd-am3-motherboard-review-12.html

PcPerspective got their's 970 Gaming + 8370 to 4.8 ghz.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Motherboards/MSI-970-Gaming-Motherboard-Review-AM3-Gets-Something-New-Change/Power-and-Overc

 

[Benjiwenji]

You'll need a Kraken x61 or equivalent for over 4.7.

A NH-D15 or R1 Ultimate from 4.5-4.7

212 Evo or H7 can get you up to 4.3-4.4 max.

 

[mastergup]

You'll need a Kraken x61 or equivalent for over 4.7.

A NH-D15 or R1 Ultimate from 4.5-4.7

212 Evo or H7 can get you up to 4.3-4.4 max.

not true, i have a tx 3 worse then a 212 evo, still 4.3 4.4 is no problem.

 

[dudeman509]

Every CPU ain't the same. Silicon lottery. Like I said, it becomes harder, with diminishing gains, to get over 4.5. Luck of the draw, and overclocking skill/cooling will determine how high you get (but for what benefit, really?).

I pushed mine to 4.7, but it needed LOTS more voltage than I was comfortable with just to reach beyond 4.5 and be stable. And I got like 1-2 FPS more in most games, slightly better performance on Handbrake...meh.

The 3.5 - 4.5 OC will bring you huge gains. Striving for the extra .1 here or there at the end...not really worth it.

 

[dudeman509]

You'll need a Kraken x61 or equivalent for over 4.7.

A NH-D15 or R1 Ultimate from 4.5-4.7

212 Evo or H7 can get you up to 4.3-4.4 max.

212 Evo will easily do 4.5-4.6 and keep it in the 130's (F).

 

[mastergup]

Every CPU ain't the same. Silicon lottery. Like I said, it becomes harder, with diminishing gains, to get over 4.5. Luck of the draw, and overclocking skill/cooling will determine how high you get (but for what benefit, really?).

I pushed mine to 4.7, but it needed LOTS more voltage than I was comfortable with just to reach beyond 4.5 and be stable. And I got like 1-2 FPS more in most games, slightly better performance on Handbrake...meh.

The 3.5 - 4.5 OC will bring you huge gains. Striving for the extra .1 here or there at the end...not really worth it.

i know on intel going from 4.3 to 4.5ghz will not give you much, but i tought it was with amd more.

so with my current cooler, what would be youre advice.

4.2ghz 1.352v while gaming bf 4 45 degrees core temp according to the program core temp.

4.3ghz 1.4v bf 4 temp 50

4.4ghz 1.45v bf 4 gaming 60 on the core

 

[dudeman509]

4.3ghz 1.4v bf 4 temp 50

4.4ghz 1.45v bf 4 gaming 60 on the core

Guess I'd keep it at 4.3 then with that cooler. 60C is on the threshold of thermal throttling, and that's not even 100% usage.

 

[mastergup]

4.3ghz 1.4v bf 4 temp 50

4.4ghz 1.45v bf 4 gaming 60 on the core

Guess I'd keep it at 4.3 then with that cooler. 60C is on the threshold of thermal throttling, and that's not even 100% usage.

mmmm that i disagree with you, getting 70 degrees celsius on the cores is no problem, the pagage temps is different, thats about 62 degrees max.

as you can see at 4.2ghz using itb it will get almost 60 degrees, i know (you have to run it longer, i did and temps stay like that)

i keep c-states and cool and quit on enabled so it will clock down.

 

[dudeman509]

4.3ghz 1.4v bf 4 temp 50

4.4ghz 1.45v bf 4 gaming 60 on the core

Guess I'd keep it at 4.3 then with that cooler. 60C is on the threshold of thermal throttling, and that's not even 100% usage.

mmmm that i disagree with you, getting 70 degrees celsius on the cores is no problem, the pagage temps is different, thats about 62 degrees max.

as you can see at 4.2ghz using itb it will get almost 60 degrees, i know (you have to run it longer, i did and temps stay like that)

i keep c-states and cool and quit on enabled so it will clock down.

AMD's recommended max core/package temp is 62C. It will start throttling shortly above that. Socket temp can get up to about 10* higher and be ok, but I still wouldn't want it that high.

Their links to the spec sheets seem to be broken on a quick Google search, but
http://www.overclock.net/t/1339236/cant-find-official-answer-fx-8350-max-temp/10

 

[mastergup]

4.3ghz 1.4v bf 4 temp 50

4.4ghz 1.45v bf 4 gaming 60 on the core

Guess I'd keep it at 4.3 then with that cooler. 60C is on the threshold of thermal throttling, and that's not even 100% usage.

mmmm that i disagree with you, getting 70 degrees celsius on the cores is no problem, the pagage temps is different, thats about 62 degrees max.

as you can see at 4.2ghz using itb it will get almost 60 degrees, i know (you have to run it longer, i did and temps stay like that)

i keep c-states and cool and quit on enabled so it will clock down.

AMD's recommended max core/package temp is 62C. It will start throttling shortly above that. Socket temp can get up to about 10* higher and be ok, but I still wouldn't want it that high.

Their links to the spec sheets seem to be broken on a quick Google search, but
http://www.overclock.net/t/1339236/cant-find-official-answer-fx-8350-max-temp/10

aha oke but we will see, cooler gets replaced tommorow with a cooler master nepton 120xl

 

[Benjiwenji]

You'll need a Kraken x61 or equivalent for over 4.7.

A NH-D15 or R1 Ultimate from 4.5-4.7

212 Evo or H7 can get you up to 4.3-4.4 max.

not true, i have a tx 3 worse then a 212 evo, still 4.3 4.4 is no problem.

You can disagree all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the Tx3 is a 130w rated cooler and was never meant for the overclocking. Therefore, the tx3 is only adequate in cooling an overclocked Fx-8350 @4.3-4.4 when it is idled or at stock/low overclock.

Run SmallFFTs, OCCT, or AIDA64, and it is toasted. Not to mention that there is the silicon lottery. Perhaps if you win the jackpot, then the Tx3 might struggle to cool an 4.4 overclock. That's an exception, not the rule. At 4.4 ghz, the 8350 should be well over 1.4v. If you think otherwise, then you're dreaming.

The Tx3 can't even keep Intel CPUs @1.4v under 70c and full load.

http://www.overclocking-tv.com/content/reviews/13393/cooler-master-cpu-cooler-fight-hyper-tx3-evo-vs-212-evo/

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/coolermaster_hyper_tx3_review,6.html

@ dudeman - The 212 is better but not by a mile. Yes, I have heard cases where the 212 evo can cool a Fx-8 core at 4.5-6, but I wouldn't call it "easily". These are exceptions, and it is not the case for the vast majority of the users. Furthermore, the Cryorig H7 is better than the 212 EVO. If you want to make the case about the overclocking ability of entry level coolers, the H7 would better fit your argument.

You're looking at an i7-4770k @ 4.2 with about half the power consumption of the Fx-8350.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/CRYORIG/H7_Universal/6.html

What I have listed are the general rules that people can safely expect to see as results. All my claims are generally backed by benchmarks by known tech sites. If you want to dispute, then I suggest using benchmarks. Otherwise, this is pointless and unicorns fart rainbows.

 

[Benjiwenji]

Furthermore, if you're going to overclock an AMD cpu, then use AOD. The thermal margins are uncontested to be the most accurate for AMD cpu temps reading under load.

C6 state and Cool n'quiet should be disabled for best results. If you need these features to keep your CPU from overheating, then you need to down clock because you are just artificially throttling your CPU and defeating the purpose of overclocking. It also means that you lack the adequate cooling solution to begin with.

 

[mastergup]

Furthermore, if you're going to overclock an AMD cpu, then use AOD. The thermal margins are uncontested to be the most accurate for AMD cpu temps reading under load.

C6 state and Cool n'quiet should be disabled for best results. If you need these features to keep your CPU from overheating, then you need to down clock because you are just artificially throttling your CPU and defeating the purpose of overclocking. It also means that you lack the adequate cooling solution to begin with.

to day i replaced my cooler, with a cooler master nepton 120xl now i,m able to reache 4,5ghz with 1.45v and temps using intelburn test settings very high is 50 degrees, with fans of cooler on quite mode

and i tested with cool and quite disabled but now i have it enabled, no harm done there, why leave it at a constant voltage of 1.45v, if i,m do nothing more than internet then

 

[Benjiwenji]

and i tested with cool and quite disabled but now i have it enabled, no harm done there, why leave it at a constant voltage of 1.45v, if i,m do nothing more than internet then

The true question is why overclock it at all if you're doing nothing more than internet browsing? Why even the Fx-8350? Strictly speaking, the A6-6400k would be just fine for browsing the web.

We overclock AMD CPU due to its weak IPC. Most programs and Dx11 only truly utilize 1-2 threads. Overclocking allows us to maximize the CPU performance in Dx11, or elsewhere, where the load of the CPU isn't proportionally distributed across all the threads that the Fx CPUs have available, which results in bottlenecking 1-2 threads and leaving the rest under utilized. Therefore, we manually set the voltage to 1.45v, or whatever it is necessary, because there is a use for it.

 

[mastergup]

and i tested with cool and quite disabled but now i have it enabled, no harm done there, why leave it at a constant voltage of 1.45v, if i,m do nothing more than internet then

The true question is why overclock it at all if you're doing nothing more than internet browsing? Why even the Fx-8350? Strictly speaking, the A6-6400k would be just fine for browsing the web.

We overclock AMD CPU due to its weak IPC. Most programs and Dx11 only truly utilize 1-2 threads. Overclocking allows us to maximize the CPU performance in Dx11, or elsewhere, where the load of the CPU isn't proportionally distributed across all the threads that the Fx CPUs have available, which results in bottlenecking 1-2 threads and leaving the rest under utilized. Therefore, we manually set the voltage to 1.45v, or whatever it is necessary, because there is a use for it.

i do not say that i only internet, is say if i internet, why should i run the cpu then a t 1.45v.

i need the full power when i game, render or stuff like that, not when i,m doing nothing.

on my intel pc, i had i left it all the time at full speed.