1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

A8-3850 Has Ineffective BClk Multiplier

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jul 7, 2011.

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,246 (11.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,584
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    "Empty Overclocking" is a term we just made up, to describe unreal overclocking headroom that does not translate into any performance improvements, with AMD's A8-3850 APU. This chip can be set to run at base clock multiplier value above 29x on some motherboards, that will increase clock speed being reported to you, but that "increased" clock speed will not translate to any performance improvements at all.

    This means that the multiplier is ineffective in driving the clock above its maximum default value. So the next time you see screenshots screaming something like "6.00 GHz" on air with the base clock at its default 100 MHz, don't be fooled, trust only those overclocking feats in which the multiplier is set at the maximum default (29.0x) or lesser, and in which the overclocker has increased the base clock among other things.

    [​IMG]

    Update: It seems like AMD is aware of the issue, and forewarned reviewers about it. Apparently a glitch in the BIOS code allows the users to "set" higher multiplier values than the chip can respond to, even as the chip doesn't run at those values. Utilities like CPU-Z read those BIOS-set values and display the effective clock speed, even as the actual clock speed doesn't budge. AMD recommends only the base clock increase method for overclocking. As always, AMD warned that overclocked chips are not covered by product warranties. Perhaps future BIOS updates by motherboard vendors will fix this bug.

    Source: OCWorkbench, Image Courtesy Newegg.com
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2011
    PHaS3, erixx, gumpty and 1 other person say thanks.
  2. RejZoR

    RejZoR

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,454 (1.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    875
    Location:
    Europe/Slovenia
    Ok, is it just me or is this a bit erm, dumb? Why don't they just hard lock it if there is no point in increasing it anyway?
  3. jmcslob

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,888 (1.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    452
    Location:
    Internet Heaven
    Negative attention is still Attention.
    Chevalr1c says thanks.
  4. Chevalr1c

    Chevalr1c

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    Messages:
    3,146 (2.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,348
    Well, AFAIK it is not a BE/FX/what shall I call it. So people won't buy it b/c of the unlocked MP, I guess. So the few fools who will "OC" this CPU via the MP will be easy to spot and ID as idiots (one should not trust OC reports without BClk/MP details anyway).
    Crunching for Team TPU
  5. arterius2

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    493 (0.42/day)
    Thanks Received:
    103
    well, what is the maximum default?
  6. PHaS3

    PHaS3

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    265 (0.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    136
    "to describe tests confirm to be unreal overclocking headroom that does not translate into any performance improvements at all"

    What does not translate is that sentence... Maximum English confusion... is maximum

    :roll:
    btarunr says thanks.
  7. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,246 (11.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,584
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    29.0x
  8. Maban

    Maban

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,338 (1.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    988
    Llano/Lynx isn't even supposed to have an unlocked multiplier as far as I'm aware.
  9. Enmity New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    454 (0.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Location:
    New Zealand
    This, most enthusiasts should know what to look for if they want to overclock - in the case of Bulldozer this will be the black edition/ FX models. Much like intels K series being monster overclockers and non k's suckin worse than a Maori hooker.
  10. xaira

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    208 (0.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19
    i read somewhere that this dued was saying that all bulldozer ES suffer from the same thing so any clock for clock comparsons with sandy at 4.0ghz where sandy is like crushing BD by like 25% that thats good news for amd because all current overclocks on new models is empty until the bug is fixed so that 4ghz sandy is actually going against the stock BD
  11. Trackr New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    265 (0.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    15
    So I could take it up to 500x and it would show up as 50.0Ghz?

    That's worth the money just to see.
  12. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,246 (11.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,584
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    That's about as useful as using photoshop to make a 50 GHz screenshot.
    Jonap_1st says thanks.
  13. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,246 (11.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,584
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Added an update.
  14. erixx

    erixx

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,237 (2.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    430
    Kudos for bringing more 'conflictive' news to the frontpage, and not only post P.R. letters of many times boring products like usb sticks!!!

    BIG CHEERS!
  15. HalfAHertz

    HalfAHertz

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,886 (0.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Location:
    Singapore
    Um pretty sure this was known since review day. I think Xbit labs were the first to report the glitch and they got a confirmation from Asrock as well...Not really news worthy.
  16. Haytch

    Haytch New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Messages:
    510 (0.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    28
    Location:
    Australia
    I find this all rather interesting.

    I personally wouldn't get one, but that doesn't mean it's going to fail.
    99% of my clients dont O.C.

    If a BIOS level update resolves this glitch, then . . . It's all good.
  17. spynoodle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Messages:
    27 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Oh, AMD..... when will you finally catch up to Intel?
  18. 63jax

    63jax

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    47 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Location:
    Romania
    PcPer just made an article about overclocking on Llano A8 and IT does make a difference, up to 30 percent performance win.
  19. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,090 (2.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    885
    Catch up in what respect? Explain yourself!
  20. JATownes

    JATownes

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,824 (0.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Source Link?
  21. caleb

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,538 (0.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    204
    Location:
    Poland,Slask
    PentiumII behaved the same way. Even if you OC'd with jumpers above the multi it was still locked at its stock. Apparently its locked.
  22. nINJAkECIL

    nINJAkECIL New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    235 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    16
    I thought AMD had already past Intel.
    oh wait.....
    that's GPU. Sorry. :rolleyes:
  23. DigitalUK

    DigitalUK New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    503 (0.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    68
    Location:
    UK South
    just a bios glitch, the last bios "glitch" amd had gave many users extra cores for free.
  24. 63jax

    63jax

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    47 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Location:
    Romania
    JATownes says thanks.
  25. TheLaughingMan

    TheLaughingMan

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    5,074 (2.66/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,292
    Location:
    Marietta, GA USA
    I thought this was NOT a BE chip and there where no addition multipliers above the 29x? I remember reading somewhere quote, "...with the multiplier, you can go down, not up."

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page