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

AMD FX OC'ers Club

Discussion in 'techPowerUp! Club Forum' started by pantherx12, Oct 12, 2011.

  1. pantherx12

    pantherx12 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    9,714 (4.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Location:
    ENGLAND-LAND-LAND
    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 [​IMG]

    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)
    Daimus, Chicken Patty and HUSKIE say thanks.
  2. PolRoger

    PolRoger

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    223 (0.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Here it is... although the 2600k does better.

    FX-8150 at 4.5/4.6GHz:
    [​IMG]

    i7 2600K at 4.6/4.7GHz:
    [​IMG]


    I've now bumped my FX up to 4.6GHz 2600Mhz NB and ~2133MHz memory:
    [​IMG]
    Chicken Patty says thanks.
  3. MarcusTaz

    MarcusTaz

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    433 (0.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    33
    Location:
    NJ
    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... :roll:
    H82LUZ73 says thanks.
  4. Chicken Patty

    Chicken Patty WCG Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    28,341 (11.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    12,225
    Location:
    Miami, Florida
    Thanks for the info dude :toast: 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.
  5. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,245 (4.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,412
    anyone suspect a stepping revision of BD besides the Piledriver due to the miscount of the transistors inside?
  6. Paulieg

    Paulieg The Mad Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    11,914 (4.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,979
    Location:
    Wherever I can find the iron.
    I've got a 8150 on the way. Disappointing or not, i'm looking forward to playing with the new chip.
  7. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,597 (13.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,986
    Slow cores vs. faster cores.
  8. pantherx12

    pantherx12 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    9,714 (4.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Location:
    ENGLAND-LAND-LAND
    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 :laugh:
  9. TheLaughingMan

    TheLaughingMan

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    4,998 (2.58/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,291
    Location:
    Marietta, GA USA
    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.
  10. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,245 (4.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,412
    So your saying that the FX has the proper amt of transistors just that PR didnt QA their own writing
  11. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,597 (13.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,986
    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.
    Chicken Patty says thanks.
  12. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,245 (4.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,412
    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.
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2011
  13. TheLaughingMan

    TheLaughingMan

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    4,998 (2.58/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,291
    Location:
    Marietta, GA USA
    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.
  14. pantherx12

    pantherx12 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    9,714 (4.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Location:
    ENGLAND-LAND-LAND
    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.
    Chicken Patty says thanks.
  15. n0tiert

    n0tiert

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    925 (0.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    404
    Location:
    Frankfurt/Main - Germany
  16. n0tiert

    n0tiert

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    925 (0.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    404
    Location:
    Frankfurt/Main - Germany
    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
  17. mjkmike

    mjkmike

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Messages:
    1,551 (0.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,495
    Location:
    Alberta,Canada
    any one know why it says I have a 8130P?

    [​IMG]
    Crunching for Team TPU
  18. Daimus

    Daimus

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Messages:
    527 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Location:
    somewhere in Eastern Europe
  19. n0tiert

    n0tiert

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    925 (0.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    404
    Location:
    Frankfurt/Main - Germany
  20. mjkmike

    mjkmike

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Messages:
    1,551 (0.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,495
    Location:
    Alberta,Canada
    [​IMG]
    Crunching for Team TPU
  21. n0tiert

    n0tiert

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    925 (0.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    404
    Location:
    Frankfurt/Main - Germany
  22. PolRoger

    PolRoger

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    223 (0.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    141
    n0tiert says thanks.
  23. Irony

    Irony

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,721 (1.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    442
    Location:
    Outer Rim system of the interwebz
    I get 7.38 to 7.42 at 4.2 (depending on whats running in the background) with a 1090T

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Dec 12, 2011
    Chicken Patty says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  24. Chicken Patty

    Chicken Patty WCG Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    28,341 (11.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    12,225
    Location:
    Miami, Florida
  25. TheLaughingMan

    TheLaughingMan

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    4,998 (2.58/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,291
    Location:
    Marietta, GA USA
    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.

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

Share This Page