Wednesday, October 24th 2012

AMD FX-8350 Overclocked to 8.176 GHz with 8 Cores Enabled

Last week's 7.443 GHz overclocking feat of the AMD FX-8350 certainly wasn't the last of it, for the chip. Korean overclocker NAMEGT achieved a clock speed of 8176.47 MHz, with all eight cores enabled, and both DRAM channels populated. 8176.47 MHz was achieved with a base clock of 281.94 MHz, multiplier of 29X, and 1.932V to fuel the chip. ASUS ROG Crosshair V Formula-Z motherboard and Samsung-made DDR3 memory was used. The best performing chip was binned from two 12-chip trays. Cooling it all was trusty liquid nitrogen. Find the CPU-Z validation here, and HWBot certification here.
Add your own comment

92 Comments on AMD FX-8350 Overclocked to 8.176 GHz with 8 Cores Enabled

#1
FYFI13
by: eidairaman1
what cooling and where are your system specs dude
Corsair H80 with stock fans, other parts you can see in the link + Zalman 850HP power supply.
Posted on Reply
#2
eidairaman1
by: FYFI13
Corsair H80 with stock fans, other parts you can see in the link + Zalman 850HP power supply.
good system i might say.

I built my bro one with a x2 555BE, unlocked it to B55/955 BE (Stock cooler for that CPU)

I might eventually build a 8350 based or A105800K based machine
Posted on Reply
#3
FYFI13
by: eidairaman1
good system i might say.

I built my bro one with a x2 555BE, unlocked it to B55/955 BE (Stock cooler for that CPU)

I might eventually build a 8350 based or A105800K based machine
Thank you ;) Actually i'd buy an FX8350 if it was compatible with my AM3 mainboard, it's a good overclocker, does it's job on highly threaded apps and so on but if i can get 3470K for the same price my choice will be clear, unfortunately.
Posted on Reply
#4
Dent1
by: FYFI13
Nah, now it's equal to Phenom II on gaming.
...And 2x better than it in everything else.

by: FYFI13
Well, mine Phenom II 965 did quite well at 4,4GHz and it goes now for 92 euro here in Europe ;)

http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/2300583.png
by: FYFI13
Yeah, if Phenom II runs at 3,4GHz... I'm not talking about well multi-threaded games like Battlefield 3, take a look at S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Pripyat. An overclocked Phenom II 980 (@4.4GHz) beats the crap out of all Piledozers.
Very few Phenoms II will reach 4.4GHz, TBH that architecture typically caps out at 3.8-4.1GHz. If yours clocks higher you are in a lucky minority.

More bulldozers and Piledrivers reach 4.5-5GHz than Phenom IIs do 4.1 GHz
Posted on Reply
#5
WhiteLotus
I will say this is certainly impressive. Now make them come out of that out of the box and I might go and buy one.
Posted on Reply
#6
eidairaman1
by: FYFI13
Thank you ;) Actually i'd buy an FX8350 if it was compatible with my AM3 mainboard, it's a good overclocker, does it's job on highly threaded apps and so on but if i can get 3470K for the same price my choice will be clear, unfortunately.
did your board actually come with a bios update because I know AM3 supports AM3+ CPUs but AMD doesnt guarantee it, so its up to board makers to make that decision. I mean Asus and I believe Gigabyte did without a socket change. Hey what ever works for you bro, I just feel this helped AMD actually. If i was going intel Id be going skt 2011 with a IVB-E
Posted on Reply
#7
nt300
by: DannibusX
So the argument shifts from "Meh, unimpressive, when a chip is capable of doing that with more than one core, THEN I'll be impressed." to "Meh, when a chip is capable of doing that for everyday computing THEN I'll be impressed."

Interesting.

When a chip is capable of doing this with all 8 cores for everyday tasks while turning my hand into a vagina, THEN I'll be impressed.
This is testiment that we can push the CPU very high on air and water with all 8 cores. Good work for AMD :D
Posted on Reply
#8
FYFI13
by: Dent1
...And 2x better than it in everything else.
Agreed, but... I need CPU for gaming, video editing and transcoding only. Last two tasks are being done by GPU so all i need from CPU is good frame-rate in games and Piledozers failing at it.

by: eidairaman1
did your board actually come with a bios update because I know AM3 supports AM3+ CPUs but AMD doesnt guarantee it
Nope, unfortunately... The best i can throw in is Phenom II 1100T.

Edit. i swear the God there was post between mine two o_O
Posted on Reply
#9
nt300
by: FYFI13
Agreed, but... I need CPU for gaming, video editing and transcoding only. Last two tasks are being done by GPU so all i need from CPU is good frame-rate in games and Piledozers failing at it.
And how does Piledriver fail? Benchmarks show it is quite competative and the cost is the best bang for the money.
Posted on Reply
#10
FYFI13
by: nt300
And how does Piledriver fail? Benchmarks show it is quite competative and the cost is the best bang for the money.
On some single threaded games it needs to be overclocked to match Phenom II performance (which is ~60% cheaper) and that isn't good in any way. I was hoping from PD at least same IPC as Phenom's had.
Posted on Reply
#11
eidairaman1
by: FYFI13
Agreed, but... I need CPU for gaming, video editing and transcoding only. Last two tasks are being done by GPU so all i need from CPU is good frame-rate in games and Piledozers failing at it.


Nope, unfortunately... The best i can throw in is Phenom II 1100T.

Edit. i swear the God there was post between mine two o_O
ya your prev post there were two who had posted before i did,

nt300 i know your a lil irked, but honestly PD was a interim update- it is still the same design series as BD, its probably good now but it will probably be SR that totally replaces PHII in everything. Eventually PHII chips will runout and what will we have then, PD based FX CPUs and PD based Athlons to replace BD and Stars in the AM3+ market. Im sure AMD isnt finished improving the chips, they will keep refining them with newer steppings of PD till SR is ready to go.


FYFI13- there was no guarantee Single thread IPC would improve drastically. Im sure SR does it better than PHII and BD/PD.
Posted on Reply
#12
Dent1
by: FYFI13
On some single threaded games it needs to be overclocked to match Phenom II performance
by: FYFI13
Last two tasks are being done by GPU so all i need from CPU is good frame-rate in games and Piledozers failing at it.
I've seen Piledriver fail in gaming compared to Intel. But I haven't seen many indepeth reviews of the Piledriver vs Phenom II in gaming.

Show me the review of Piledriver vs Phenom II in gaming please.
Posted on Reply
#13
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
sweet lord of sex kittens :twitch: :wtf: :respect:
Posted on Reply
#14
Mindweaver
Moderato®™
WOW! Now this is really good news! :toast:
Posted on Reply
#15
NHKS
IMPRESSIVE indeed!..

apparently, NAMEGT had 24 tasty 8350's at disposal of which the best achieved this feat.. talk about cherry picking the cherries..

I hope quality yields will be common (so that conventional cooling can achieve 5GHz or more easily) considering that PD is on a mature 32nm..
Posted on Reply
#16
Dent1
FYFI13, you've gone silent :)

I'm sure you are still digging out the Piledriver vs Phenom II gaming benchmarks.

It's OK. I know you won't repond or reply to my request.
Posted on Reply
#17
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
by: FYFI13
[B]On some single threaded games [/B]it needs to be overclocked to match Phenom II performance (which is ~60% cheaper) and that isn't good in any way. I was hoping from PD at least same IPC as Phenom's had.
hey, no one told its still the 90s
Posted on Reply
#18
theoneandonlymrk
by: KainXS
I wish I could get a cherry picked chip like that -_-
Me too , very impresed, another totally polarising thread :)
Posted on Reply
#21
Dent1
by: brandonwh64
So it takes 4.9Ghz to reach close to the same score as a 3770K at stock? I maybe reading this graph wrong
So it takes an overclocked $219 processor to dust a $319 processor. I must be reading it wrong too :)

I'm going to start posting cinebench, so we can see the FX dust the Ivy Bridge all day.



Edit:



Takes a 4.8GHz for the 3570k to beat the FX-8350 (4GHz)

I must be reading the graph wrong?


[IMG] http://oi50.tinypic.com/122f8u8.jpg[/IMG]
Posted on Reply
#22
brandonwh64
Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!
Who cares about cinebench?
Posted on Reply
#23
Dent1
by: brandonwh64
Who cares about cinebench?
Who cares about 3D Mark Vantage. I stopped caring about synthetic points years ago.

Edit:

by: brandonwh64
Then why get upset and stary saying things like "OH NO HE DIDN"T don't make me get out the cinebenches!" I only asked a simple question and didn't need the mad black woman attitude.
Come on, it wasnt just a question. We could all hear the sarcasm as you said it. If there was no sarcasm. My bad.
Posted on Reply
#24
entropy13



Who cares if the Pentium is better in Skyrim? It's just Skyrim!




Who cares if the i5 2400 is better in Batman: Arkham City? It's just Batman: Arkham City!




Who cares if the i5 2400 is better in Civilization V? It's just Civilization V!
Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

Who cares if it's still behind in gaming? It's just gaming!
Posted on Reply
#25
Dent1
by: entropy13
http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/skyrim-fps.gif
http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/skyrim-99th.gif

Who cares if the Pentium is better in Skyrim? It's just Skyrim!

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/arkham-fps.gif
http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/arkham-99th.gif

Who cares if the i5 2400 is better in Batman: Arkham City? It's just Batman: Arkham City!

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/civv-lgv.gif
http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/civv-lgv-nr.gif

Who cares if the i5 2400 is better in Civilization V? It's just Civilization V!




http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

Who cares if it's still behind in gaming? It's just gaming!
Article says it matches the Core i3-3225 in gaming.

However I've never seen anyone say the Core i3-3xxx series "is behind in gaming". One standard for Intel another for AMD.

One great thing about that review is it shows the Piledriver handily beat out the Phenom II in gaming, contrary to the misinformation FYFI13 said.

+1 for the article, it was an interesting read.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment