Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Ravenas, May 11, 2013.
I found the water cooler that came with the 8150 on ebay. I bought it and It had never been used.
tell me about it.... i got a list of upgrades/needs/wants. and soon as i done one i want/need another haha
You are correct, though the FX 4350 is the obvious choice if you compare it to the FX 4170. On a side note, check out the FX 8350, that CPU rocks very well. Speaking from experience
Probably be 8550 as top model for next round which should be steamroller
Join the club,
4.8GHz best I can get stable so far. See screenshot. Any tips on how to get 5.0 GHz stable?
Did you get that water cooler I linked you to in the classified forum?
Have you tried going up to 1.5v to see if you can hit 5Ghz?
My motherboard won't let me do 1.5V for some reason... right below it but I cant go above it.
Try reading through this and see if it helps.
I don't think drivers are my problem.
From what I can see it looks like a BIOS limitation set by MSI.
Two things I can think of If you have CPU LLC settings in that BIOS try setting it as high as possible. I'm not that familiar with the MSI boards but I have two different ASUS990 boards and they both react differently sat the seame LLC settings. One gives me an offset of about .02v and the other is .07v. So if you set your V_core to the max LLC should allow it to go over 1.5 under load.
You could also try using one of the older bulldozer BIOS. They tend to work better than the Piledriver bios versions and it may not have that limitation.
AMD FX-4170 Vs. AMD FX-4350
So.. Ok I dont know what happened to my post.
But I was asking what the difference was between the AMD FX-4170 Vs. AMD FX-4350
I want to get one of these CPUs.. but the thing is.. I dont know which one is better.. the reason i am determined to get one of these models is that I don't need a SUPER SUPER powerful gaming rig.. Just a bit of a better one.
I have compiled a bunch of data about these two but I have very vague information on the 4350... It mainly comes from Newegg.. I haven't seen many other Discussions about the 4350.. other then that.. one guy on new egg whom is a verified owner states that he had a very bad experience OCing the 4350... that it seems to be more unstable when OCing,,
But the problem is there isn't that many reviews out since very few people purchased that model so I cannot get a more accurate view on the 4350 but on the 4170 though there is a bunch of reviews and they state that OCing is a breeze with that thing..
Here is another compared chart for these two
So.. Which is better? .
Another weird thing is that on the CPU info it states two different things.
the 4170 says for turbo Frequency it states 4300 MHz (2 cores or less)
So you have to disable two cores in order to have turbo?
and on the 4350 CPUID Specs on cpu-world it doesn't say the same thing.. just says Turbo 4300mhz and thats it.. no mentioning of disabled cores in turbo mode.
I dont know which is better.. I don plan to over clock a little.. But honestly.. Considering I have more single threaded PC games and some mid grade Multi threaded/core games...
I Don't plan on buying a bigger CPU that has more cores or something.. Its not like I am going to play Call of Duty Ghost on this thing or something..
So my question mainly is: has anyone had good experience with either one? Would I have better OCing ability with the 4170?
You sure that's not just the SSD? I am assuming you got the SSD the same time as the 8350.
No matter which FX chip you choose go for the X3XX series piledriver cores. They're just all around better chips by about 15%
So plainly choose the 4350 over the 4170.
Just make sure you get a decent board and cooler to pair up with it or you'll have headaches.
People who have bad experiences overclocking the FX's are those who underestimate the power requirements and heat output from these things. I would suggest a 6+2 phase board at the minimum.
in regards to your suggestion
I got this board: is it good?
Got a lot of good reviews that the OCing is pretty nifty in the BiOS.
Does that do 6+2 Phase?
Would this motherboard also OC well with the 4350? or is this mobo more less made a bit older technology for processors like the 4170?
Also the reason why I thought the 4170 might have been good for me is because of what it states on the CPU-world.com website
Turbo Frequency 4300 MHz (2 cores or less)
I figured I could use that CPU for more single threaded apps. Well I only have about .. Six of them which are old games..
But does the 4350 do the same thing where it does this 2 cores or less thing?
Its a good board for features. But if you're not going to use CF/SLI or OC then it's a waste. You may get better value looking at a midrange board and using the remaining budget for a FX X6.
Updated my previous post.
I am sorry I had updated my post but I had to leave for a moment and Never got to update my post.. Please reffer to my post above that you got the quote from: I asked a series of other questions and yes I do plan to OC that is for sure and I am wanting to SLI bridge a good pair of GPU cards =D
Im looking at PCIe 2.0 cards right now.
Related question not meant to hijack the thread. Is a 8350 a worthy upgrade from an 8150? Its a gaming PC with a X fire 7970's
Ya that board will do sli but the slots are pretty close.
Where something like this the slots are 3 apart for breathing room, http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131851
There is about 15% up to you if you wanna spend the coin for that.
Its a great motherboard. But like I said you'll get better performance on a more "midrange" motherboard chipset and forwarding the saving to a better CPU like the FX 6300. If your goal is for SLI you're more likely to encounter bottlenecking on the FX 4xxx series.
But yes its a very good motherboard. Not sure its the best choice for you though.
Its not for me. I have Intel but thanks for your response I just have someone asking
I decided to do a compared PNG for this. I see what your saying:
Biostar is two Slot space and ASUS is 3
See the lines i did though..ASUS has a total of 4 PciE x16s , one more then Biostar.
Im wondering since the Biostar says they are all SLI slots i think; Im going to read the manual: Im already stuck with this board because i Bought it two days ago but I wish I would have done more research.. Maybe that BIOstar PCIex 16 RED with the red line i traced to the PCIe_0 First PCi near south bridge & North bridge might work together it just says on the manufacture they are all pciE x16; doesnt say anything about SLI x00. Number speeds clocking down when you have SLI mode enabled on two cards. I know there is some boards that clock down the x16- like x8 or something when you have SLI enabled for two GPU cards.
Its the chipset too that i was worried about.. That ASUS has the same north and south bridge though so thats good.
Does that ASUS M5A99FX PRO have better SLI handling compared to the biostar?
Lower bottle necking that is ?
I also found these Video cards.. They are single slot profile; pretty decent i guess.
they are SLI and I can get a couple of them perhaps:
its got a good pretty decent CoreCLock with a 1800Mhz Mem frequency on it
ASUS ENGTX550 Ti/DI/1GD5 GeForce GTX 550 Ti (Fermi...
But yeah.. that Biostar I ordered. it does do 6+2 Phase.. right.. ? Do you know ?
I posted some links up on the top referring to some GPU cards I might be getting: I dont think I would have much of a bottle neck issue as I am not doing extreme OCing just some basic OCing. I just wanted a decent board mainly; so i went with this one; I was also kinda in a rush; I guess I could use this configuration for a year then sell it as like new condition on ebay or something or maybe I can sell it to one of the local clients i work with here.
I am no professional expert PC guy but I Do know a lot about PCS and all the basics.
The games I have well.. ok i have another Tower.. its a server set up though but its pretty good. It doesnt have Server parts but it has been set up as a server and with instruction sets in the OS.
its a IBM tower; and it has a intel 478 P4 um... hmm let me think.. 1mb L2 cache i think it was.. had about 3.2Gmhz CPU speed, 800mhz FSB with 4 Gs of Ram, Sata Drive.
with HIS ICeQ ATI Radeon Premium Graphics HD 4670 AGP interface qGB DDR3 Ram HDMI 1080PHD Full.
320 stream processing units.. 128bit DDr3 Interface for memory. 24x filter anti aliasing HP anisotropic filters.. Dyno Geo acceleration.
Core Clock : 750 MHz
Interface Spd: x8 AGP
Memory Clock: 1600 MHz
And it runs Railworks 3 software Trains 2013 and it runs a bit smoothly on it so just a little boost in preformance with another new build would help; that's only one of the most powerful game in graphics hogging I have let alone Second Life or Trainz 2013 from Australia.
Oh and Tribes : Ascend from Hi-Rez Studios My Super number one Graphics hogger: infact I cant even play it because my current build doesn't have the requirements LOL.
Here is my current gaming rig, (not IBM server):
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 San Diego Socket 939
Extended Family/Model F.27
Core Stepping SH8-E4
Core Speed 2813.7 MHz
Multiplier x Bus speed 14.0 x 201.0 MHz
HT Link speed 1004.9 MHz
Stock frequency 5000 MHz
Instruction sets MMX (+), 3DNow! (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, x86-64
L1 Data cache (per processor) 64 KBytes, 2-way set associative, 64-byte line size
L2 cache (per processor) 1024 KBytes, 16-way set associative, 64-byte line size
Northbridge NVIDIA GeForce 6100 rev. A2
Southbridge NVIDIA nForce 410/430 MCP rev. A2
Graphic Interface PCI-Express x16
4 Gigs RAM pc3200
GeForce 7900 GTX
Core clock: 650 MHz
Memory data rate: 1600 MHz
Memory interface: 256-bit
Memory: 512 MB
Memory type: GDDR3
Separate names with a comma.