# Just got an FX8300 Black edition today.



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

Supper excited today! I finally have the FX 8300!
Got to say really disappointed at the HSF they put with this CPU. tiny and very ineffective at cooling the CPU.
The CPU is awsome this is what I am able to get with stock cooling. Can't wait to get that after market cooler on it. Should be able to get 4.2Ghz and better. Need RAM now and LOTS of it. 4GB is NOT enough for anything!

Jesus just look at that 658C!!!
Is this thing cooking a pizza? WTF? Hey AMD did you guys test that cooler at 4.2GHz? Or was you just blown smoke up our azzez?
There is NO way this CPU can reach the stated Turbo speed of 4.2GHz on this stock cooler NO WAY AMD!

Sucks this Chip is FAST and I mean wow FAST!

I can hardly wait to UN-Lock this Black edition CPU.
There is something very wrong with cinabench it is only reading 4 of my cores? This sucks! WTH?! 4 cores 8 threads WTF?!!!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 10, 2018)

trickson said:


> Supper excited today! I finally have the FX 8300!
> Got to say really disappointed at the HSF they put with this CPU. tiny and very ineffective at cooling the CPU.
> The CPU is awsome this is what I am able to get with stock cooling. Can't wait to get that after market cooler on it. Should be able to get 4.2Ghz and better. Need RAM now and LOTS of it. 4GB is NOT enough for anything!
> 
> ...


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture)


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

eidairaman1 said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture)


Ok not sure what that was for but thanks?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 10, 2018)

trickson said:


> Ok not sure what that was for but thanks?



Youve been out of the loop, read that for how FX parts are layed out, they are 4 module 8 core parts, in each module is 2 cores that share certain resources, on that these parts are CMT units too


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

eidairaman1 said:


> Youve been out of the loop, read that for how FX parts are layed out, they are 4 module 8 core parts, in each module is 2 cores that share certain resources, on that these parts are CMT units too


I maybe out of the loop but 8 cores is 8 cores if you falsely say that you have 8 cores when you only have 4 real cores that is false advertising.
Now that said, Why does cinabench only see 4 cores? That is NOT right. That has nothing to do with the CPU architecture. 
But I do thank you kind human.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 10, 2018)

trickson said:


> I maybe out of the loop but 8 cores is 8 cores if you falsely say that you have 8 cores when you only have 4 real cores that is false advertising.
> Now that said, Why does cinabench only see 4 cores? That is NOT right. That has nothing to do with the CPU architecture.
> But I do thank you kind human.



Further info to enlighten you

https://www.bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/amd-fx-8350-review/1/


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 10, 2018)

For the price paid, that CPU is a good performer in spite of it's perceived shortcomings. With the 8cores+4FPUs module design AMD had something that was on par with what Intel had to offer at more than twice the price. With a proper cooler, it will even OC somewhat. While the following is only an example, it is a good indicator of the bang for buck you are getting.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1825&cmp[]=1309&cmp[]=2340
The second and third CPU's are my lot before I sold the 5820k.


----------



## PHaS3 (Feb 10, 2018)

trickson said:


> I maybe out of the loop but 8 cores is 8 cores if you falsely say that you have 8 cores when you only have 4 real cores that is false advertising.


Being out of the loop from the FX series means you've kind of missed the part where the CPUs had 8 integer cores within 4 modules with 4 shared FPUs. 

There's still 8 "cores", but they're integer only, and organized into 4 modules. At the time software had a tough time recognizing the modules and consequently where to schedule threads for the highest efficiency, and reported the threads vs module counts incorrectly. It is right to say it is a 4 module / 8 thread design, as the CPU is a CMT (Clustered Multi Threading - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(microarchitecture)#CMT)  design, vs SMT (Simultaneous Multi Threading), which is in Ryzen and what Intel calls Hyperthreading.


----------



## Basard (Feb 10, 2018)

I had mine running at at 1.46v or so.  4.6Ghz.... I tortured that 8300.  I think I had 1.55v set in BIOS for a boot or two, but as soon as I saw the LLC was bumping it to 1.62v under load I settled down a little.  Needless to say, that chip started showing signs of death after about a year.  
I replaced it with a 9590 I found on sale.  I'm running it underclocked a bit now, sick of listening to that fan spin up.
They aren't bad chips....  If you live above the tree line.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 10, 2018)

The FX series has a bad reputation for being power hungry, hot, and misleading on the core counts.

Also with that high a power draw dont forget to check your VRM temps, often you'll throttle CPU performance down despite it being 'cold' because the VRM's are the ones throttling you (and very few boards had temp sensors on those, so its time to risk your fingertips during heavy benchmark loads)


----------



## Vya Domus (Feb 10, 2018)

trickson said:


> I maybe out of the loop but 8 cores is 8 cores if you falsely say that you have 8 cores when you only have 4 real cores that is false advertising.



It has 8 cores , it's just a very different architecture from anything else. A floating point execution unit is shared between two cores among other things such as some fetch/decode stages. Fanboys with zero knowledge about these things started calling it a quad core processor so the confusion ensued.



PHaS3 said:


> It is right to say it is a 4 module / 8 thread design, as the CPU is a CMT (Clustered Multi Threading - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(microarchitecture)#CMT)  design, vs SMT (Simultaneous Multi Threading), which is in Ryzen and what Intel calls Hyperthreading.



Neither CMT or SMT have a direct correlation to core count.

Modern software and operating systems do not care about how the CPU handles it's resources internally , it only sees X number of hardware threads and it uses them accordingly. Not to mention all these processors are superscalar and out-of-order meaning that the arrangement of their front end matters even less.


----------



## RejZoR (Feb 10, 2018)

65°C is not really hot for an overclocked CPU.


----------



## dirtyferret (Feb 10, 2018)

Is the op being sarcastic in this thread??


----------



## cakehunter (Feb 10, 2018)

"65°C is not really hot for an overclocked CPU."
Cpu-world says 65 degrees is the limit for FX 8350 - anybody has comment on this one?

Edit: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8350.html


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 10, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> It has 8 cores , it's just a very different architecture from anything else. A floating point execution unit is shared between two cores among other things such as some fetch/decode stages. Fanboys with zero knowledge about these things started calling it a quad core processor so the confusion ensued.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Im sure I remember arguing with trickson over just such a thing once lolz anyway make sure you have not accidentally disabled four cores because the bios options can easily set one core per module for a four core looking chip, i ran an 8350 as a dual core for a bit.

65 is hot , the best way to see T junction temps on FX chips is to install AMD Overdrive software ,its cpu section shows temp to t Junction speed correctly and all that you are interested in.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 10, 2018)

cakehunter said:


> "65°C is not really hot for an overclocked CPU."
> Cpu-world says 65 degrees is the limit for FX 8350 - anybody has comment on this one?



pretty sure they thermal throttle around that range, depending on if its reading core temp or socket temp - 60-70C would be in the throttling range (and the VRMs can cause throttling as well, even if temps are lower... you need to run something like IBT and see if the scores drop between runs)

These are from when AMD were bad, they ran hot, but had a low heat ceiling.

edit: got the throttle temps from an OC thread on the webs
(FX-8120 < 61C, FX-8150 <61C, FX-6100 <70C, FX 4100 <71C)


----------



## Vya Domus (Feb 10, 2018)

65c is still kind of reasonable for both core and socket temp. It's pretty much what I would expect from the stock cooler , I could easily hit 70c with the stock fan on my 6 core FX.


----------



## Flaky (Feb 10, 2018)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> the best way to see T junction temps on FX chips is to install AMD Overdrive software ,its cpu section shows temp to t Junction speed correctly and all that you are interested in.


That's the important one.
Relying on tjunction read from overdrive saves from all the confusion regarding which temperature is what.


----------



## Vya Domus (Feb 10, 2018)

Problem is the throttling takes place based on the socket temp first or the VRMs. I suggest placing a fan over the VRM heatsink.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 10, 2018)

trickson said:


> There is something very wrong with cinabench it is only reading 4 of my cores? This sucks! WTH?! 4 cores 8 threads WTF?!!!



There is a big argument in the industry over this.  Some software reads each module in the processor as a core, and then each core in the module as a thread.  Even Windows reads it as 4-cores and 8-threads, but Microsoft can't even be consistent with that, because they will read other Bulldozer based processors read in Windows as each core as a core.  Some quad-core APUs, so 2 modules with 2 cores each, are read properly in Windows as 4-Cores.  It's stupid, the number of FPUs does not determine the number of CPU Cores, no matter how much people want to claim it does.


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> There is a big argument in the industry over this.  Some software reads each module in the processor as a core, and then each core in the module as a thread.  Even Windows reads it as 4-cores and 8-threads, but Microsoft can't even be consistent with that, because they will read other Bulldozer based processors read in Windows as each core as a core.  Some quad-core APUs, so 2 modules with 2 cores each, are read properly in Windows as 4-Cores.  It's stupid, the number of FPUs does not determine the number of CPU Cores, no matter how much people want to claim it does.


RIGHT! How the HELL is an FPU a CORE! 
I hope that they can fix this. It SUCKS! 4 cores 8 threads makes no sense and I bet the score would be higher if they got things figured out.


----------



## RejZoR (Feb 10, 2018)

Mussels said:


> pretty sure they thermal throttle around that range, depending on if its reading core temp or socket temp - 60-70C would be in the throttling range (and the VRMs can cause throttling as well, even if temps are lower... you need to run something like IBT and see if the scores drop between runs)
> 
> These are from when AMD were bad, they ran hot, but had a low heat ceiling.
> 
> ...



There is NO WAY processors from this FX range thermal throttle at 65°C. It just wouldn't make ANY sense to throttle it so quickly. Usually threshold is 90-100°C, not 65.


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

So if this is truly NOT an 8 core CPU with only 4 cores and 4 FPU's then that my friends is FALSE addvertising and AMD should be sued for this! 
I thought they were true 0cta core CPU's! How can it be a true octa core if it is not seen as one? Only Intel is seen as true core and AMD is FAKE? 
So 4 cores 8 threads? Instead of 8 cores 8 threads? 
Seems like false addvertising to me. I may just look into this! If they are pushing FAKE shit onto us and NOT true real stuff then WE the consumers have to act I am not into being DOOPED or ripped off!


----------



## Vya Domus (Feb 10, 2018)

trickson said:


> So if this is truly NOT an 8 core CPU with only 4 cores and 4 FPU's then that my friends is FALSE addvertising and AMD should be sued for this!
> I thought they were true 0cta core CPU's! How can it be a true octa core if it is not seen as one? Only Intel is seen as true core and AMD is FAKE?
> So 4 cores 8 threads? Instead of 8 cores 8 threads?
> Seems like false addvertising to me. I may just look into this! If they are pushing FAKE shit onto us and NOT true real stuff then WE the consumers have to act I am not into being DOOPED or ripped off!



It has 8.





This how the module looks containing the two cores like :


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

So it is not a TRUE octa core, It really is just a Quad core that is broken up to look like it has 8 cores. 4 modules with 2 cores? Sounds like they split the "Cores" up into half cores and labeled it a fing 8 core!
Like lot splitting, split a lot into half and put 2 tiny homes on the lot made for one and call it a skinny! I think there could be a lawsuit if some one smart really took them to task!

I feel like this now!


I am loving this CPU though it is fast! take a look at the CPU score! That is far better than the score passmark said I would get in there baseline score. 77** something.


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 10, 2018)

we told you like .... 6 times ask before you buy anything
fx chips are garbage .... they suck at everything


----------



## Jetster (Feb 10, 2018)

trickson said:


> So if this is truly NOT an 8 core CPU with only 4 cores and 4 FPU's then that my friends is FALSE addvertising and AMD should be sued for this!
> I thought they were true 0cta core CPU's! How can it be a true octa core if it is not seen as one? Only Intel is seen as true core and AMD is FAKE?
> So 4 cores 8 threads? Instead of 8 cores 8 threads?
> Seems like false addvertising to me. I may just look into this! If they are pushing FAKE shit onto us and NOT true real stuff then WE the consumers have to act I am not into being DOOPED or ripped off!



They were sued I believe

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...lse-bulldozer-chip-marketing-is-without-merit


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 10, 2018)

and it never went anyware
why the tf would you build a system around a known poor platform like FX ...


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

Jetster said:


> They were sued I believe


No Shiz? For this? If so they should be pulling them off the shelves and stop advertising them as 8 cores? If they were sued for this that would have happened.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 10, 2018)

It is 8 real cores as people have pointed but they share resources and are structured in such a way that some software reads it as 4 core 8 thread, they have been out for a number of years and if there was a class action lawsuit to have been had there would of by now, stop worrying. As for them being garbage, that's a bit harsh considering the cost they can be had for nowadays and they still perform fairly well in most applications.


----------



## Jetster (Feb 10, 2018)

trickson said:


> No Shiz? For this? If so they should be pulling them off the shelves and stop advertising them as 8 cores? If they were sued for this that would have happened.


That's not how law suits work. It's come down to a settlement or in this case nothing


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

OneMoar said:


> and it never went anyware
> why the tf would you build a system around a known poor platform like FX ...


Ok first off it is NOT a poor platform at all it works just fine and is extremely fast. why you sand bagging on the system? I am sandbagging AMDfor not telling the truth. I can live with Quad cores dual cores I can live with a 6  core CPU just tell me what I am getting is real that is all I want to know. It's like asking for a grape and getting a grapefruit! You know? 
I think this setup will be super fast once I tune in the RAM video and the HSF for OC'ing the CPU. 
Can I ask why you are so down against the AMD line? you say it is a poor platform how? 
I do not see it in the score on that CPU there do you? 
It is way better than the score they got here. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1825&cmp[]=1309&cmp[]=2340
I have been looking at for 2 weeks and I get a score way higher with crap cooling? I can not wait to get the cooler for this CPU and get her up to 4.5GHz YEAH YEAH the VRM'S hell they are not even hot to the touch at all I and the yseem fine as wine with the clocks I have now I just want to get that 4.2GHz turbo boost it CLAMS it has! AND IT DOES!  AND I WILL!


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 10, 2018)

because good luck with anything thats not threaded for >6
garbage ipc , power hungary, runs hot,low thermal ceiling

they were not competitive chips when they where released and they are no better now


----------



## Vya Domus (Feb 10, 2018)

trickson said:


> So it is not a TRUE octa core, It really is just a Quad core that is broken up to look like it has 8 cores. 4 modules with 2 cores? Sounds like they split the "Cores" up into half cores and labeled it a fing 8 core!



https://www.anandtech.com/show/5831/amd-trinity-review-a10-4600m-a-new-hope

You can research this and draw your own conclusion.

There is no definition of a "core. Software "sees" hardware threads not cores such that there is no dependency with regards to the internal structure of processors and programmers don't have to deal with that. It's up to each manufacturer to implement their own architectures.

You can simply make wider cores with multiple hardware threads and less dependencies between them during execution like Intel did to not hurt single thread performance and increase efficiency slightly. But it's more wasteful under multi threaded workloads which in return show very little scaling. Remember than a similar core i7 from that time also showed up as having 8 threads but because the scaling was so poor to begin with no one ever though about it as an 8 core CPU.

Or, introduce more dependencies within the execution elements to increase efficiency even more in terms of the resources that are being used but affect single thread performance in the process of doing so like AMD did.

Neither one of those approaches give out more or less "cores" , they are simply different ways of doing the same thing. Remember that most people still think more Ghz means faster as a universal rule , of course they would get pissed when they saw some program say 4 cores instead of 8 without really knowing anything about these details. This is why that lawsuit didn't do much either , it made no sense. AMD could advertise it as a quad core as much as it can as an octa core and so could Intel.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 10, 2018)

trickson said:


> So it is not a TRUE octa core, It really is just a Quad core that is broken up to look like it has 8 cores.


No, that's the misconception a lot of people have. There are 8 actual CPU cores on the die. Most CPU's have an accompanying FPU. What AMD did was build a module that had two standard CPU cores that share an FPU between them. In theory, it was thought that this would be very efficient as more of a CPU's workload is in the core itself and not the FPU. In practice, it turned out different than they thought but still worked well. So to be fair, it would be accurate to call that series of chips "Hybrid CPU's" as there are 8 separate X86 CISC CPU cores on the die, two of each sharing an X86 CISC FPU. AMD had an idea that worked, but wasn't well received and was badly misunderstood. Does that make sense? You're not being tricked or ripped off.


OneMoar said:


> we told you like .... 6 times ask before you buy anything
> fx chips are garbage .... they suck at everything


Incorrect, they are *not* garbage. They do what they are intended to do and at good value for price paid.


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 10, 2018)

there is a reason the platform is so cheap now
nobody wants it 
with good reason 
its not a competitive chip it wasn't competitive when it was released and isn't now


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 10, 2018)

OneMoar said:


> its not a competitive chip it wasn't competitive when it was released and isn't now


That is a matter of opinion and isn't supported by benchmarks and price/performance calculation ratios. No it's not the best performer and no one is claiming it is. But judged on it's own merits and taking into account the likely usage scenario, it was a good purchase. If you are going to share opinions, please be a little more constructive and objective. You are effectively trying to make him feel bad about a purchase when the reality is that for money paid, he will get good value and for a long time to come.


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 10, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> That matter of opinion and isn't supported by benchmarks and price/performance calculation ratios. No it's not the best performer and no one is claiming it is. But judged on it's own merits and taking into account the likely usage scenario, it was a good purchase. If you are going to share opinions, please be a little more constructive and objective. You are effectively trying to make him feel bad about a purchase when the reality is that for money paid, he will get good value and for a long time to come.



No its not a matter of opinion its a matter of mathematical fact. look at the benchmarks look at the performance per watt IPC and game benchmarks
if all he does is encode video and a multithreaded workload more power to it .... its still a power hungry pizza oven but at least it will do that if he doesn't ... or intends top play dem games on it ... well we know what the benchmark is on that don't we

because he was told literally 6 times to do some research before jumping the gun hes now stuck with a mediocre cpu and board with no upgrade path but to replace it all AGAIN 

I am sorry trickson I should have been there for you in your hour of need work gets in the way


----------



## Norton (Feb 10, 2018)

Let's keep the battling to a minimum here folks... no sense earning points arguing over a chip and platform that is no longer made.

Only public warning


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

OneMoar said:


> No its not a matter of opinion its a matter of mathematical fact. look at the benchmarks look at the performance per watt IPC and game benchmarks
> if all he does is encode video and a multi-threaded workload more power to it .... its still a power hungry pizza oven but at least it will do that if he doesn't ... or intends top play dem games on it ... well we know what the benchmark is on that don't we
> 
> because he was told literally 6 times to do some research before jumping the gun hes now stuck with a mediocre cpu and board with no upgrade path but to replace it all AGAIN
> ...



WOW you really do hate the AMD FX line! LOL. First off NO I love this CPU it is faster than the Intel core i5 and some i7's! So you are wrong in every way that this platform is poor! I have an old video card HD5870 and only 4GB of crap RAM and a CRAP cooler! Once all this is replaced it will be a far better system that you would be willing to admit! In fact I bet that CPU score on passmark smoked your core i5! LOL. (just being sarcastic).
Anyway I am going to game the shiz out of this MF'r! I again am in NO way disappointed in the performance just the HSF. I know it will do much better once I work out RAM HSF and Video.

So please stop sandbagging on the platform, I am just wondering why some see only 4 cores and 8 threads and I know why now thank you. I remember this happening to some other CPU's I had in the past I think even my Q9650 once was only being shown as 2 cores 4 threads. CPU-Z shows 8 cores 8 threads so I am good with that as that is what I go by anyway! CPU-Z FTW!!!
In short I would love to put your system against mine once I get all this worked out, OK? Then we can see what you consider poor performance hell this system as is has already smoked my new Ryzen3 1300x! FOR shiz sake! and it is KILLING the Q9650 at 3.6GHz! Jesus man poor performer? WTH are you talking about?



Norton said:


> Let's keep the battling to a minimum here folks... no sense earning points arguing over a chip and platform that is no longer made.
> 
> Only public warning


But it is still being sold in store across the world as NEW! I still see AMD FX CPU systems in computer stores and DDR3 RAM is still selling at FRY's and New egg. SO they may not make the stuff anymore but they sure do have a shiz ton to sell us in stores! lol. Most people like me do not get to afford the new new stuff so we have to wait some times years till we get a shot at it. But from what I can see this is still holding up very well against the NEW NEW stuff.



lexluthermiester said:


> No, that's the misconception a lot of people have. There are 8 actual CPU cores on the die. Most CPU's have an accompanying FPU. What AMD did was build a module that had two standard CPU cores that share an FPU between them. In theory, it was thought that this would be very efficient as more of a CPU's workload is in the core itself and not the FPU. In practice, it turned out different than they thought but still worked well. So to be fair, it would be accurate to call that series of chips "Hybrid CPU's" as there are 8 separate X86 CISC CPU cores on the die, two of each sharing an X86 CISC FPU. AMD had an idea that worked, but wasn't well received and was badly misunderstood. Does that make sense? You're not being tricked or ripped off.
> 
> Incorrect, they are *not* garbage. They do what they are intended to do and at good value for price paid.



Yes it does. Thank You very much.
Now see some folks can put things in a way that makes perfect sense and is easy to understand, Thank you very much for this wonderful explanation.

I really do like this FX CPU and I believe once I make addjustments to the RAM and HSF I will be even more pleased than I am now.

Fact is the MB, RAM and a Blueray DVD ROM player were in a Thermaltake Armor case at Goodwill, I picked it up for $30 dollars. I just couldn't pass it up a great case a great deal.
I had no idea what the MB was or the CPU or RAM till I got it home, I found out that it had a semprom CPU single core in the socket AM3+ and that it has 4GB PNY DDR3 RAM the MB I found out is an MSI AM3+ . I posted up asking for advice on a CPU for the MB and YOU ALL DID come up with this CPU! SO that said......@*OneMoar* you are wrong! TPU DID recommend to me this VERY CPU for this MB.
Yes I know every one is barking about the VRM chips I am aware of the defective weak VRM that MSI is said to have used, But SO far I do not nor has this MB shown any signs of this being an issue as of yet. And I can NOT strees this enough, This was at a Goodwill Bin store! FOR GOD SAKE do you know what a Goodwill Bin store looks like? It looks like a refugee camp for dirty old men! And this MB WORKS! the Blueray DVD ROM works the CPU RAM and the PSU It had a Tt 750 watt in it and still is on the MB and FX CPU now powering everything without FAIL! Even the Aromo Case it all was in all cleaned up and working great! It has a HUGE fan on the side and IT WORKS! Not broken FROM A BIN STORE AT GOODWILL!
So when it comes to price vs performance? I BLOW EVERYONE AWAY!!!!!!

Now all in all I think I am going in the right direction with this FX 8300 CPU. I am very pleased with AMD again they hit a home run with me. I only paid $100 bucks for the chip!
So in my eyes this entire system cost me $100.00 bucks and it blows away the 600- 800 dollar systems out there LMFAO!
That is PRICE performance right there FOLKS!


----------



## dirtyferret (Feb 10, 2018)

If it really bothers you that some software reads the fx-8 as 4c/8t then save the image, Photoshop it to say 8c/8t or whatever you like and whatever cinebench score you feel the chip deserves and then set that image as your wall paper.


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

dirtyferret said:


> If it really bothers you that some software reads the fx-8 as 4c/8t then save the image, Photoshop it to say 8c/8t or whatever you like and whatever cinebench score you feel the chip deserves and then set that image as your wall paper.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 10, 2018)

RejZoR said:


> There is NO WAY processors from this FX range thermal throttle at 65°C. It just wouldn't make ANY sense to throttle it so quickly. Usually threshold is 90-100°C, not 65.


There's no way on this earth AMD used the same process as intel bro 32nm SOI is not the same as anything intel uses, the chips top end T junction is about 72 on the actual core afaik but typically  package temp wise 65 will cause throttling due to short term internal thermal spikes beyond 72 ,or my two aren't typical and i have had one since day one of its release.


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 10, 2018)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> There's no way on this earth AMD used the same process as intel bro 32nm SOI is not the same as anything intel uses, the chips top end T junction is about 72 on the actual core afaik but typically  package temp wise 65 will cause throttling due to short term internal thermal spikes beyond 72 ,or my two aren't typical and i have had one since day one of its release.



they get unstable at about 65 if your are overclocking too ..

at minimum he needs a 240 mm AIO cooler


----------



## Mr.Scott (Feb 10, 2018)

I give that board a couple weeks tops.


----------



## Batou1986 (Feb 10, 2018)

OneMoar said:


> they get unstable at about 65 if your are overclocking too


Well yea that's the TJmax, your ignorance is showing again

People can talk all the garbage they want about the FX series the fact is they work fine for 99% of things the only exceptions i have found are poorly coded applications that dont know how to use multi core cpu's such as DCS world.



Mr.Scott said:


> I give that board a couple weeks tops.


My 970 board has worse heatsinks than that and its been running at 4~4.2 ghz for over 4 years linpac stable


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 10, 2018)

Batou1986 said:


> Well yea that's the TJmax, your ignorance is showing again
> 
> People can talk all the garbage they want about the FX series the fact is they work fine for 99% of things the only exceptions i have found are poorly coded applications that dont know how to use multi core cpu's such as DCS world.
> 
> ...



you may want to fact check before you call other people ignorant

its 61 or 62 on the core 70 or 72 on the package depending on the stepping. there's a few degrees of conservative engineering there WHEN  AT stock voltage

WHEN  you go above that and thermal stability becomes a real problem the power consumption and heat output jump by lightyears when you start raising voltage or even just trying to run all 4 CCX's at full boost clocks something people like to ignore because hey it does 4Gigamahhurz ... on effectively two cores try it with all 4 you are headed for chernobyl 

they throttle into the ground when the core hits 65 or so depending on the voltage/load/board

working fine does not mean working good. my i5 2500  works fine but that doesn't mean I would recommend building a new system around one

you can not deny that the FX platform was widely regarded as a failure by both users and enthusiasts.

nobody bought them nobody wants them they fall on there face in 70% of applications. because as you said nobody wants to code for 6+ threads or code around funky SMT  implementations. and AMD's is a nightmare to code around because they cut corners in terms of execution resources because cost and die space


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

Mr.Scott said:


> I give that board a couple weeks tops.



Still a better Price VS Performance build than anyone else has! so far I have invested a total of $160 Dollars and have a system that in time with a tad more investing (Lots of RAM and a better video card) will beat anything you can build Price VS performance wise like I have! Just think of THAT! 
Seems to me this MB has been running a bit more than a few weeks and is still doing great! VRM issues? NOT A ONE so far all this negative talk coming from a few is just that, Empty talk no substance! This system is killing the comp! Price VS performance I TOOK the PRIZE!


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 10, 2018)

trickson said:


> Still a better Price VS Performance build than anyone else has! so far I have invested a total of $160 Dollars and have a system that in time with a tad more investing (Lots of RAM and a better video card) will beat anything you can build Price VS performance wise like I have! Just think of THAT!
> Seems to me this MB has been running a bit more than a few weeks and is still doing great! VRM issues? NOT A ONE so far all this negative talk coming from a few is just that, Empty talk no substance! This system is killing the comp! Price VS performance I TOOK the PRIZE!


put a cheap webcam in the case I want video when the vrm's catch fire


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

OneMoar said:


> you may want to fact check before you call other people ignorant
> 
> its 61 or 62 on the core 70 or 72 on the package depending on the stepping. there's a few degrees of conservative engineering there WHEN  AT stock voltage
> 
> ...



WTF are you talking about? You are just sandbagging because your i5 gets eaten up by my 100 dollar chip and $160 dollar total cost system! LOL!
They sure sold a lot of them and from the looks of it still are selling them so I think you have a bias that is unjustified.



OneMoar said:


> put a cheap webcam in the case I want video when the vrm's catch fire


OMG you are so wack. LOL

And I said to you before and I will again so far the VRM's are great cold to the touch at 3.7GHz so you are poking at a dead fish there pal.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 10, 2018)

trickson said:


> So if this is truly NOT an 8 core CPU with only 4 cores and 4 FPU's then that my friends is FALSE addvertising and AMD should be sued for this!


Few months ago there was news of a Class Action lawsuit about this.
Not heard anything lately ( it will probably be dismissed )
Of Course if not you might  get some money but i would not hold my breath or anything else


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 10, 2018)

OneMoar said:


> you may want to fact check before you call other people ignorant
> 
> its 61 or 62 on the core 70 or 72 on the package depending on the stepping. there's a few degrees of conservative engineering there WHEN  AT stock voltage
> 
> ...


Your right and all but warecooled as he says they don't throttle, and since i game at 4k I can assure you their weaknesses are both overstated and easy to sidestep and im not talking about with a massive Oc ,they do use a bit of power though, and It's certain they can put some heat out.


On the core count ,the OS and taskmanager rule imho and on all 5 FX rigs i built it shows the right number of execution cores ie 8 atm on a 8350.


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 10, 2018)

trickson said:


> WTF are you talking about? You are just sandbagging because your i5 gets eaten up by my 100 dollar chip and $160 dollar total cost! LOL!
> They sure sold a lot of them and from the looks of it still are selling them so I think you have a bias that is unjustified.


they aren't selling much of them at all its why you see so many still in stock ;P

id put my i5 against that chip in any thread for thread benchmark you want

you wanna race bro ill race you for pinks

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13775269

my i5 which is older uses less power and has half the cores will still out game bench that chip any day of the week


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

OneMoar said:


> they aren't selling much of them at all its why you see so many still in stock ;P
> 
> id put my i5 against that chip in any thread for thread benchmark you want
> 
> ...


LOL you is a wack sucker lol. 
Once I get the stuff then yes I will race you anyday of the weak hell lets go with my Ryzen3 1300X think you wanta try that Qaud out with that puny i5? Yeah I bet NOT!


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 10, 2018)

dorsetknob said:


> Few months ago there was news of a Class Action lawsuit about this.
> Not heard anything lately ( it will probably be dismissed )
> Of Course if not you might  get some money but i would not hold my breath or anything else


I thought that was a few years ago?


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 10, 2018)

ima run cinebeach right now i am smoke you like a dodge neon at at a drag strip ...


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

@*OneMoar*
Yeah lets see that i5 beat that CPU score.

$160 dollar system SMOKING you at Price performance EVER TIME!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 10, 2018)

OneMoar said:


> they aren't selling much of them at all its why you see so many still in stock ;P
> 
> id put my i5 against that chip in any thread for thread benchmark you want
> 
> ...


I beg to differ on the ALL game bench front.
Could maybe do apples to apples on the gpu too since I've a 1060 and vega in my main rig.


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

OneMoar said:


> ima run cinebeach right now i am smoke you like a dodge neon at at a drag strip ...



Post up the score. I am waiting.

Watch he will photo shop it. LOL.


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 10, 2018)

becareful what you wish for you may get it
boomshakalaka 




http://imgur.com/a/0eGee


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

OneMoar said:


> becareful what you wish for you may get it
> boomshakalaka
> 
> 
> ...




LOL you fail to see the entire picture still. In time my FX setup will eat your i5 for breakfast! You still don't get it your "scores" are at your computer peak performance you are tapped out at the MAX! I have yet to even OC! LMFAO! It is running at 3.3-3.7Ghz STOCK Speed! And I have 4GB of CHEEP RAM! LOL So you see you are just WRONG on every level!
Oh and lets not forget the fact that I have a HD5870 video card LOL Still not seeing the BIG picture are you?

YOU HAVE FAILED!


----------



## erocker (Feb 10, 2018)

Is there a point to this thread?


----------



## cdawall (Feb 10, 2018)

I don't really know what is trying to be compared here, but in more benchmarks than not my low power i7 6700t beats the fx you have.

The chip is garbage, the platform didn't have anything to write how about on it either. 

I have a full FX9370 build sitting in the garage. TEC cooled, does 5ghz, on a crosshair board. Has some of the better ddr3 for the platform etc. It sits in the garage and collects dust. A relic of the times.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 10, 2018)

erocker said:


> Is there a point to this thread?


I'd argue it's both fractionally enlightening and definitely entertaining . 
Even your comment struck at just the perfect moment and tone


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

cdawall said:


> I don't really know what is trying to be compared here, but in more benchmarks than not my low power i7 6700t beats the fx you have.
> 
> The chip is garbage, the platform didn't have anything to write how about on it either.
> 
> I have a full FX9370 build sitting in the garage. TEC cooled, does 5ghz, on a crosshair board. Has some of the better ddr3 for the platform etc. It sits in the garage and collects dust. A relic of the times.


WOW that sucks. Too bad I like it seems to be a nice platform. Can I have it? Trade for it? OMG I need RAM BAD!
I guess that some are more into getting the best and only the best of the best. some just have fun getting more bang for the buck, I am the later kind.

Yes there is a point to my thread I just got this FX 8300 CPU like TPU said to and now I am telling about it. as far as the sandbaggers and negative Nellie's talking trash about it. I LOVE it! And thank TPU's Members for helping me find a good CPU for a GOOD MB. If that is hard to accept then what are we here for??????


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 10, 2018)

cdawall said:


> I don't really know what is trying to be compared here, but in more benchmarks than not my low power i7 6700t beats the fx you have.
> 
> The chip is garbage, the platform didn't have anything to write how about on it either.
> 
> I have a full FX9370 build sitting in the garage. TEC cooled, does 5ghz, on a crosshair board. Has some of the better ddr3 for the platform etc. It sits in the garage and collects dust. A relic of the times.


Your being excessive of course your brand new platforms better but at 4k gaming, not much


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Your being excessive of course your brand new platforms better but at 4k gaming, not much




RIGHT? I do not even have a 4k TV or monitor I can't afford one not to mention a video card set for 4k! 
Still can't see that this 160 dollar setup is worth at least that? Then why the hell don't they GIVE the stuff away at the store! BECAUSE THEY STILL SELL! PEOPLE STILL BUY THEM USE THEM AND WANT THEM??? Maybe?


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 10, 2018)

because we all know that trickson is going to be doing 4k runs of plants vrs zombies on a 1050 ... 
at this point this is just savagery Wb @trickson 
we are done here folks ./thread


----------



## trickson (Feb 10, 2018)

OneMoar said:


> because we all know that trickson is going to be doing 4k runs of plants vrs zombies on a 1050 ...
> at this point this is just savagery Wb @trickson
> we are done here folks ./thread


Maybe in about 3 years when the 4K monitors and tv's price comes down to 200 bucks! I can't even see in 4K what the heck do I need to play a game at 4K? My vision is like bad bifocals and all and still can't see.


----------



## erocker (Feb 10, 2018)

trickson said:


> Yes there is a point to my thread I just got this FX 8300 CPU like TPU said to and now I am telling about it. as far as the sandbaggers and negative Nellie's talking trash about it. I LOVE it! And thank TPU's Members for helping me find a good CPU for a GOOD MB. If that is hard to accept then what are we here for??????


Thread served its purpose then.


----------

