Just got an FX8300 Black edition today.

[trickson]

Supper excited today! I finally have the FX 8300!
Got to say really disappointed at the HSF they put with this CPU. tiny and very ineffective at cooling the CPU.
The CPU is awsome this is what I am able to get with stock cooling. Can't wait to get that after market cooler on it. Should be able to get 4.2Ghz and better. Need RAM now and LOTS of it. 4GB is NOT enough for anything!

Jesus just look at that 658C!!!
Is this thing cooking a pizza? WTF? Hey AMD did you guys test that cooler at 4.2GHz? Or was you just blown smoke up our azzez?
There is NO way this CPU can reach the stated Turbo speed of 4.2GHz on this stock cooler NO WAY AMD!

Sucks this Chip is FAST and I mean wow FAST!

I can hardly wait to UN-Lock this Black edition CPU.
There is something very wrong with cinabench it is only reading 4 of my cores? This sucks! WTH?! 4 cores 8 threads WTF?!!!

 

[eidairaman1]

Supper excited today! I finally have the FX 8300!
Got to say really disappointed at the HSF they put with this CPU. tiny and very ineffective at cooling the CPU.
The CPU is awsome this is what I am able to get with stock cooling. Can't wait to get that after market cooler on it. Should be able to get 4.2Ghz and better. Need RAM now and LOTS of it. 4GB is NOT enough for anything!

Jesus just look at that 658C!!!
Is this thing cooking a pizza? WTF? Hey AMD did you guys test that cooler at 4.2GHz? Or was you just blown smoke up our azzez?
There is NO way this CPU can reach the stated Turbo speed of 4.2GHz on this stock cooler NO WAY AMD!

Sucks this Chip is FAST and I mean wow FAST!

I can hardly wait to UN-Lock this Black edition CPU.
There is something very wrong with cinabench it is only reading 4 of my cores? This sucks! WTH?! 4 cores 8 threads WTF?!!!

View attachment 96982View attachment 96985

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture)

 

[trickson]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture)

Ok not sure what that was for but thanks?

 

[eidairaman1]

Ok not sure what that was for but thanks?

Youve been out of the loop, read that for how FX parts are layed out, they are 4 module 8 core parts, in each module is 2 cores that share certain resources, on that these parts are CMT units too

 

[trickson]

Youve been out of the loop, read that for how FX parts are layed out, they are 4 module 8 core parts, in each module is 2 cores that share certain resources, on that these parts are CMT units too

I maybe out of the loop but 8 cores is 8 cores if you falsely say that you have 8 cores when you only have 4 real cores that is false advertising.
Now that said, Why does cinabench only see 4 cores? That is NOT right. That has nothing to do with the CPU architecture.
But I do thank you kind human.

 

[eidairaman1]

I maybe out of the loop but 8 cores is 8 cores if you falsely say that you have 8 cores when you only have 4 real cores that is false advertising.
Now that said, Why does cinabench only see 4 cores? That is NOT right. That has nothing to do with the CPU architecture.
But I do thank you kind human.

Further info to enlighten you

https://www.bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/amd-fx-8350-review/1/

 

[lexluthermiester]

For the price paid, that CPU is a good performer in spite of it's perceived shortcomings. With the 8cores+4FPUs module design AMD had something that was on par with what Intel had to offer at more than twice the price. With a proper cooler, it will even OC somewhat. While the following is only an example, it is a good indicator of the bang for buck you are getting.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1825&cmp[]=1309&cmp[]=2340
The second and third CPU's are my lot before I sold the 5820k.

 

[PHaS3]

I maybe out of the loop but 8 cores is 8 cores if you falsely say that you have 8 cores when you only have 4 real cores that is false advertising.

Being out of the loop from the FX series means you've kind of missed the part where the CPUs had 8 integer cores within 4 modules with 4 shared FPUs.

There's still 8 "cores", but they're integer only, and organized into 4 modules. At the time software had a tough time recognizing the modules and consequently where to schedule threads for the highest efficiency, and reported the threads vs module counts incorrectly. It is right to say it is a 4 module / 8 thread design, as the CPU is a CMT (Clustered Multi Threading - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(microarchitecture)#CMT) design, vs SMT (Simultaneous Multi Threading), which is in Ryzen and what Intel calls Hyperthreading.

 

[Basard]

I had mine running at at 1.46v or so. 4.6Ghz.... I tortured that 8300. I think I had 1.55v set in BIOS for a boot or two, but as soon as I saw the LLC was bumping it to 1.62v under load I settled down a little. Needless to say, that chip started showing signs of death after about a year.
I replaced it with a 9590 I found on sale. I'm running it underclocked a bit now, sick of listening to that fan spin up.
They aren't bad chips.... If you live above the tree line.

 

[Mussels]

The FX series has a bad reputation for being power hungry, hot, and misleading on the core counts.

Also with that high a power draw dont forget to check your VRM temps, often you'll throttle CPU performance down despite it being 'cold' because the VRM's are the ones throttling you (and very few boards had temp sensors on those, so its time to risk your fingertips during heavy benchmark loads)

 

[Vya Domus]

I maybe out of the loop but 8 cores is 8 cores if you falsely say that you have 8 cores when you only have 4 real cores that is false advertising.

It has 8 cores , it's just a very different architecture from anything else. A floating point execution unit is shared between two cores among other things such as some fetch/decode stages. Fanboys with zero knowledge about these things started calling it a quad core processor so the confusion ensued.

It is right to say it is a 4 module / 8 thread design, as the CPU is a CMT (Clustered Multi Threading - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(microarchitecture)#CMT) design, vs SMT (Simultaneous Multi Threading), which is in Ryzen and what Intel calls Hyperthreading.

Neither CMT or SMT have a direct correlation to core count.

Modern software and operating systems do not care about how the CPU handles it's resources internally , it only sees X number of hardware threads and it uses them accordingly. Not to mention all these processors are superscalar and out-of-order meaning that the arrangement of their front end matters even less.

 

[RejZoR]

65°C is not really hot for an overclocked CPU.

 

[dirtyferret]

Is the op being sarcastic in this thread??

 

[cakehunter]

"65°C is not really hot for an overclocked CPU."
Cpu-world says 65 degrees is the limit for FX 8350 - anybody has comment on this one?

Edit: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8350.html

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

It has 8 cores , it's just a very different architecture from anything else. A floating point execution unit is shared between two cores among other things such as some fetch/decode stages. Fanboys with zero knowledge about these things started calling it a quad core processor so the confusion ensued.



Neither CMT or SMT have a direct correlation to core count.

Modern software and operating systems do not care about how the CPU handles it's resources internally , it only sees X number of hardware threads and it uses them accordingly. Not to mention all these processors are superscalar and out-of-order meaning that the arrangement of their front end matters even less.

Im sure I remember arguing with trickson over just such a thing once lolz anyway make sure you have not accidentally disabled four cores because the bios options can easily set one core per module for a four core looking chip, i ran an 8350 as a dual core for a bit.

65 is hot , the best way to see T junction temps on FX chips is to install AMD Overdrive software ,its cpu section shows temp to t Junction speed correctly and all that you are interested in.

 

[Mussels]

"65°C is not really hot for an overclocked CPU."
Cpu-world says 65 degrees is the limit for FX 8350 - anybody has comment on this one?

pretty sure they thermal throttle around that range, depending on if its reading core temp or socket temp - 60-70C would be in the throttling range (and the VRMs can cause throttling as well, even if temps are lower... you need to run something like IBT and see if the scores drop between runs)

These are from when AMD were bad, they ran hot, but had a low heat ceiling.

edit: got the throttle temps from an OC thread on the webs
(FX-8120 < 61C, FX-8150 <61C, FX-6100 <70C, FX 4100 <71C)

 

[Vya Domus]

65c is still kind of reasonable for both core and socket temp. It's pretty much what I would expect from the stock cooler , I could easily hit 70c with the stock fan on my 6 core FX.

 

[Flaky]

the best way to see T junction temps on FX chips is to install AMD Overdrive software ,its cpu section shows temp to t Junction speed correctly and all that you are interested in.

That's the important one.
Relying on tjunction read from overdrive saves from all the confusion regarding which temperature is what.

 

[Vya Domus]

Problem is the throttling takes place based on the socket temp first or the VRMs. I suggest placing a fan over the VRM heatsink.

 

[newtekie1]

There is something very wrong with cinabench it is only reading 4 of my cores? This sucks! WTH?! 4 cores 8 threads WTF?!!!

There is a big argument in the industry over this. Some software reads each module in the processor as a core, and then each core in the module as a thread. Even Windows reads it as 4-cores and 8-threads, but Microsoft can't even be consistent with that, because they will read other Bulldozer based processors read in Windows as each core as a core. Some quad-core APUs, so 2 modules with 2 cores each, are read properly in Windows as 4-Cores. It's stupid, the number of FPUs does not determine the number of CPU Cores, no matter how much people want to claim it does.

 

[trickson]

There is a big argument in the industry over this. Some software reads each module in the processor as a core, and then each core in the module as a thread. Even Windows reads it as 4-cores and 8-threads, but Microsoft can't even be consistent with that, because they will read other Bulldozer based processors read in Windows as each core as a core. Some quad-core APUs, so 2 modules with 2 cores each, are read properly in Windows as 4-Cores. It's stupid, the number of FPUs does not determine the number of CPU Cores, no matter how much people want to claim it does.

RIGHT! How the HELL is an FPU a CORE!
I hope that they can fix this. It SUCKS! 4 cores 8 threads makes no sense and I bet the score would be higher if they got things figured out.

 

[RejZoR]

pretty sure they thermal throttle around that range, depending on if its reading core temp or socket temp - 60-70C would be in the throttling range (and the VRMs can cause throttling as well, even if temps are lower... you need to run something like IBT and see if the scores drop between runs)

These are from when AMD were bad, they ran hot, but had a low heat ceiling.

edit: got the throttle temps from an OC thread on the webs
(FX-8120 < 61C, FX-8150 <61C, FX-6100 <70C, FX 4100 <71C)

There is NO WAY processors from this FX range thermal throttle at 65°C. It just wouldn't make ANY sense to throttle it so quickly. Usually threshold is 90-100°C, not 65.

 

[trickson]

So if this is truly NOT an 8 core CPU with only 4 cores and 4 FPU's then that my friends is FALSE addvertising and AMD should be sued for this!
I thought they were true 0cta core CPU's! How can it be a true octa core if it is not seen as one? Only Intel is seen as true core and AMD is FAKE?
So 4 cores 8 threads? Instead of 8 cores 8 threads?
Seems like false addvertising to me. I may just look into this! If they are pushing FAKE shit onto us and NOT true real stuff then WE the consumers have to act I am not into being DOOPED or ripped off!

 

[Vya Domus]

So if this is truly NOT an 8 core CPU with only 4 cores and 4 FPU's then that my friends is FALSE addvertising and AMD should be sued for this!
I thought they were true 0cta core CPU's! How can it be a true octa core if it is not seen as one? Only Intel is seen as true core and AMD is FAKE?
So 4 cores 8 threads? Instead of 8 cores 8 threads?
Seems like false addvertising to me. I may just look into this! If they are pushing FAKE shit onto us and NOT true real stuff then WE the consumers have to act I am not into being DOOPED or ripped off!

It has 8.

This how the module looks containing the two cores like :

 

[trickson]

So it is not a TRUE octa core, It really is just a Quad core that is broken up to look like it has 8 cores. 4 modules with 2 cores? Sounds like they split the "Cores" up into half cores and labeled it a fing 8 core!
Like lot splitting, split a lot into half and put 2 tiny homes on the lot made for one and call it a skinny! I think there could be a lawsuit if some one smart really took them to task!

I feel like this now!


I am loving this CPU though it is fast! take a look at the CPU score! That is far better than the score passmark said I would get in there baseline score. 77** something.