AMD FX OC'ers Club

[pantherx12]

Not sure but with that mobo you may be able to unlock extra cores from 6 to 8. My Crosshair V hasd that bios option.

Bulldozer uses a modular design so it's likely that there are no extra cores to unlock.

Now this isn't bulldozer but chips come out in big wafers like this one

Because of the way bulldozer is designed in theory they can just choose the best clusters for their 8 cores.

What ever is left is made into 6 and 4 core chips ( which is why the 6 and 4 core chips seem to require more voltage from what I've seen so far)

 

[PolRoger]

Very nice overclock. How much PPD are you getting from this thing?

Here it is... although the 2600k does better.

FX-8150 at 4.5/4.6GHz:


i7 2600K at 4.6/4.7GHz:



I've now bumped my FX up to 4.6GHz 2600Mhz NB and ~2133MHz memory:

 

[MarcusTaz]

Ok core enabler does nothing, kindof knew it would not unlock any cores... I am at a simple 4GHZ stable and the only thing I have done is raise the multi to 20 and bumped the volts up by .8 and bam... Prob the easiest overclock I have ever done and I seriously mean that... The Asus Sabertooth has so many options in the bios but sadly I do not know enough of what does what... I just like raising CPU vcore or NB vcore, lol...

I love this 6100 everything snaps open and I honestly see no difference gaming BF3 then my intel rig. No bottleneck here... This is what kindof bugs me about synthetic benchmarks... Who knows call me ignorant but I just do not feel the desire to purchase intel, I much rather go with AMD...

 

[Chicken Patty]

Here it is... although the 2600k does better.

FX-8150 at 4.5/4.6GHz:
[url]http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv315/PolRoger/AMD%20FX/th_FX-8150WCGdevicehistory.png[/URL]

i7 2600K at 4.6/4.7GHz:
[url]http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv315/PolRoger/AMD%20FX/th_i72600KWCGdevicehistory.png[/URL]


I've now bumped my FX up to 4.6GHz 2600Mhz NB and ~2133MHz memory:
http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv315/PolRoger/AMD FX/FX-815046GhzWCG2600MHzNB-1.png

Thanks for the info dude However, seems to be doing very low PPD. Seems like on average about 28,000 WCG. My 1090T does on average about 25-2600 at 3.8 GHz with two less cores. Not sure why those CPU's are not getting higher PPD.

 

[eidairaman1]

anyone suspect a stepping revision of BD besides the Piledriver due to the miscount of the transistors inside?

 

[PaulieG]

I've got a 8150 on the way. Disappointing or not, i'm looking forward to playing with the new chip.

 

[erocker]

Thanks for the info dude However, seems to be doing very low PPD. Seems like on average about 28,000 WCG. My 1090T does on average about 25-2600 at 3.8 GHz with two less cores. Not sure why those CPU's are not getting higher PPD.

Slow cores vs. faster cores.

 

[pantherx12]

Slow cores vs. faster cores.

Thing is BD is only supposed to be 10% slower IPC so one at 4.4ghz should be the same speed as a 4ghz Phenom with the same amount of cores.


So I reckon there's a problem somewhere

 

[TheLaughingMan]

anyone suspect a stepping revision of BD besides the Piledriver due to the miscount of the transistors inside?

There is no reason to suspect. They blunt stated their would be a stepping revision before Piledriver's debut. And is was not a miscount of transistors. It was a typo in the documents sent to reviewers. It was just another example of the PR department failing at their old job.

 

[eidairaman1]

So your saying that the FX has the proper amt of transistors just that PR didnt QA their own writing

 

[erocker]

So your saying that the FX has the proper amt of transistors just that PR didnt QA their own writing

That's the gist of it. AMD has been poorly managed and this is another indicator of that. Hopefully things are turning around now with new management.

 

[eidairaman1]

I hope so too, but who knows the Piledriver arch might be more than we expected, possibly what BD was truly supposed to be, I mean BD landed on Opterons first and this first gen desktop model probably isnt even changed from the Opterons at all other than the socket used.

I Just know my next board will be an AsRock,

Either the 990FX Extreme 4 or the Fatality.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

So your saying that the FX has the proper amt of transistors just that PR didnt QA their own writing

I know it. I received those PR kits and the 4 revisions to the documents after the initial release. I think when I started the review I had FX-8150 Overview version 1.7, Bulldozer PR version 1.4, and another document that was on version 1.2 (started with 1 and incremental changes for each 0.1).

So do I think something got lost in the shuffle or there were still typos, yes I do. I know cause I had to correct some of them. Those document still list the GPU speed of the APU's as 443 MHz even though they all run at 444 MHz. I could be wrong, but I believe I was the first to correctly list the APU's specs related to GPU speed and only now see other sites with the correct info.

I didn't think releasing all those people was a good move by AMD, but I shed no tears for the PR department. They needed to be fired long ago and I think AMD just wanted till there was going to be downtime for their PR to rebuild the dept.

 

[pantherx12]

So just been playing with various configurations whilst running cine-bench.

At 4.46ghz ( highest I can get without temperatures going over 62)

I get 7.33 consistently.

With Turbo on @5ghz I get the same, so I confirm their are no negative effects to using turbo during multi-threaded work loads. ( even though frequency read outs would make you think scores would be lower)

With cores 0/2/4/6 Disabled I get 4.35, with turbo on I get 4.39.

Turbo just doesn't seem to work correctly ( it ramps up cores all over the place, only getting to 5ghz for the shortest of bursts and typically only on one or two cores)

I'll try again tomorrow but I'll disable cores in the bios rather than through task manager.

 

[n0tiert]

Here it is... although the 2600k does better.

FX-8150 at 4.5/4.6GHz:
[url]http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv315/PolRoger/AMD%20FX/th_FX-8150WCGdevicehistory.png[/URL]

i7 2600K at 4.6/4.7GHz:
[url]http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv315/PolRoger/AMD%20FX/th_i72600KWCGdevicehistory.png[/URL]


I've now bumped my FX up to 4.6GHz 2600Mhz NB and ~2133MHz memory:
http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv315/PolRoger/AMD FX/FX-815046GhzWCG2600MHzNB-1.png

what type of RAM you running on ?

 

[n0tiert]

Turbo just doesn't seem to work correctly ( it ramps up cores all over the place, only getting to 5ghz for the shortest of bursts and typically only on one or two cores)

i ve seen in AOD a setting to choose the amount of TurboCores 2/4/6
i disabled turbocore , i dont see any benefit of that feature yet

 

[mjkmike]

any one know why it says I have a 8130P?

 

[Daimus]

any one know why it says I have a 8130P?

http://img.techpowerup.org/111212/Capture.png

It says you have a 8150

 

[n0tiert]

any one know why it says I have a 8130P?

http://img.techpowerup.org/111212/Capture.png

where ?

i also read 8150

 

[mjkmike]

 

[n0tiert]

http://img.techpowerup.org/111212/pie.png

may they don´t have cpu code in HW Mon, i think cpu-z view ist OK

 

[PolRoger]

what type of RAM you running on ?

This kit:http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=113...erclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=690894

 

[Irony]

So just been playing with various configurations whilst running cine-bench.

At 4.46ghz ( highest I can get without temperatures going over 62)

I get 7.33 consistently.

With Turbo on @5ghz I get the same, so I confirm their are no negative effects to using turbo during multi-threaded work loads. ( even though frequency read outs would make you think scores would be lower)

With cores 0/2/4/6 Disabled I get 4.35, with turbo on I get 4.39.

Turbo just doesn't seem to work correctly ( it ramps up cores all over the place, only getting to 5ghz for the shortest of bursts and typically only on one or two cores)

I'll try again tomorrow but I'll disable cores in the bios rather than through task manager.

I get 7.38 to 7.42 at 4.2 (depending on whats running in the background) with a 1090T

 

[Chicken Patty]

This kit:http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=113...erclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=690894

I should get me one of those RAM coolers. . Nice kit!

 

[TheLaughingMan]

So just been playing with various configurations whilst running cine-bench.

At 4.46ghz ( highest I can get without temperatures going over 62)

I get 7.33 consistently.

With Turbo on @5ghz I get the same, so I confirm their are no negative effects to using turbo during multi-threaded work loads. ( even though frequency read outs would make you think scores would be lower)

With cores 0/2/4/6 Disabled I get 4.35, with turbo on I get 4.39.

Turbo just doesn't seem to work correctly ( it ramps up cores all over the place, only getting to 5ghz for the shortest of bursts and typically only on one or two cores)

I'll try again tomorrow but I'll disable cores in the bios rather than through task manager.

At that temp, the CPU is going over the safety margin so Turbo can't work well or for very long. Remember +300 MHz for all cores, +600 MHz for half the cores if and on if the CPU is below the TDP limit for Turbo.