FX 8350 temps reading help

[AnasRedfield]

I have a fx 8350 and was playing Dark Souls 3 i opened up HWMonitor and the package temperature was 60c and max was 66c.The problem is i don't which one is cpu temperature the package one or cpu one.and what is max safe temp for fx 8350

 

[weberdarren97]

They're both the CPU.

Package is the temperature of the die as a whole, while CPU is the average temp of all the cores.

 

[AnasRedfield]

They're both the CPU.

Package is the temperature of the die as a whole, while CPU is the average temp of all the cores.

so are those cpu temps safe ?

 

[weberdarren97]

Yep, temps are fine.

I ran my 8350 at a slightly lower voltage, but that's my own preference. Your voltages are okay.

 

[LeKeiser]

1) check your temps with AMD Overdrive.
2) get an i5, 8350 are no good nowawdays

 

[weberdarren97]

1) I'll agree with you there... AMD Overdrive is specifically designed for AMD CPUs. However, I've never had any problems with HWMonitor.
2) Not everybody can afford a new CPU, MOBO and RAM... But you make a good point.

I hate how AMD brands the FX 8xxx series as "8-core" when it's a quad core (by my definition) because each pair of modules share a scheduler, making it a 4-core with 8-logical processors.

I will explain...

There is only one floating point scheduler for each pair of modules which AMD is calling a core (seen on the left and right of the image). Each of these modules has its own integer scheduler, but that can only schedule as quickly as it's getting information from the fetch and decode modules... This leads to a bottleneck within the CPU where each module is not always being utilized to its full extent because it's not receiving information as quickly as it's able "process" said information. And just like the modules on the left and right, the components that do floating point operations (center) also share a scheduler, this means you really only have one floating point unit per pair of modules.

The job of the scheduler is to provide information to the modules to be processed. You can think of this like pipes. If you have a ten-inch pipe that splits into two eight-inch pipes, will you be taking full advantage of both eight-inch pipes? No. This is the same basic concept as what's going on inside the CPU.

Because of the way the architecture is designed, I define the 8xxx series as quad core CPUs with eight logical processors.

All of this information coupled with the fact that AMD FX series suffers from low IPC is why the FX series is dead.

 

[LeKeiser]

Nope. FXs have 8 cores. But one entry for 2 cores.
Very good explaination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgejkSWzvNs
Thanx to Windows and devs, AMD's architecture didn't go as planned 🙁

 

[weberdarren97]

It's worth noting that my post above was in respect to how the CPU runs windows, not necessarily its internal functions on optimized software that doesn't exist.

Science Studio basically said what I said, just in a different way... Because of the "single point of entry" as he says it, neither core is being utilized to its full potential. Note that I said "Each of these modules has its own integer scheduler, but that can only schedule as quickly as it's getting information from the fetch and decode modules." Those fetch and decode modules being said single point of entry. This was supposed to be fixed by software, but that software was never developed, released or widely integrated.

The single FPU per pair of modules is also a problem that was reliant on software to get taken care of, which never happened.

If software was developed and widely integrated, then my answer would have been different.

I will admit that my previous post was very condensed and definitely a heavy read. I should have been more specific.

 

[LeKeiser]

Just saying it has 8 real cores. But because of the architectures, they are seen as 4.

But anyway, FXs suck from low FXs to high FXs. Should be banned from existence.

 

[weberdarren97]

Yes it has eight cores, but you can't effectively use all eight of them at once on Windows.

"But anyway, FXs suck from low FXs to high FXs. Should be banned from existence." That's the best statement I've ever heard about AMD FX

 

[AnasRedfield]

Yes it has eight cores, but you can't effectively use all eight of them at once on Windows.

"But anyway, FXs suck from low FXs to high FXs. Should be banned from existence." That's the best statement I've ever heard about AMD FX

Its eight cores but they are weak and DX11 and older apis don't use more than 4 cores.I compared new Hitman DX11 and DX12 and DX12 was giving about 20-30more fps and same with Rise of Tomb Raider. Gonna try Doom someday with vulkan api even in battlefield 4 mantle gave me more fps than DX11.1 after all it all depends on optimization Rainbow six siege is pretty good optimized my cpu and gpu usage barely drop below 90 at ultra and thanks for your help guys