Which AM3+ board?

DarkTheSupreme

DarkTheSupreme

DarkTheSupreme

Associate
Joined
17 Aug 2012
Posts
130
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Hi guys, my mum is looking to upgrade my brothers PC for xmas and I was looking at the FX 6300. Seems like great value, but i'm really unsure of AMD motherboards.

I know I need an AM3+ socket, would anyone have a recommendation for a decent board for overclocking? Got a spare H80 I can stick on it so would be nice to push a decent OC.

Wanting to spend as little as possible to be honest.
 
That's a great 970 board for overclocking, people can get 8320s to 4.8GHz even. If it's for gaming I'd consider the 8320 - it'll give better performance in new and basically all upcoming games.
 
Brilliant board choice.

It got my 8320 to 4.0 easily on air and then 4.4 when I w/c'd it. For the price it's cracking.

Josh
 
The board came today, looks really great. Almost a bit jealous as it looks a lot snazzier than my Gigabyte Z77 board :p

teppic said:
That's a great 970 board for overclocking, people can get 8320s to 4.8GHz even. If it's for gaming I'd consider the 8320 - it'll give better performance in new and basically all upcoming games.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i'm thinking about the 8320 if I can see it for a good price. It was really the 90 quid price tag on the 6300 that attracted me to it. But I suppose future proofing is worth the extra 50 quid or whatever.
 
DarkTheSupreme said:
The board came today, looks really great. Almost a bit jealous as it looks a lot snazzier than my Gigabyte Z77 board :p



Yeah, i'm thinking about the 8320 if I can see it for a good price. It was really the 90 quid price tag on the 6300 that attracted me to it. But I suppose future proofing is worth the extra 50 quid or whatever.
Click to expand...

Some of the games i play now make use of most cores and some even seem to put a load on all of them. I don't know if they are threaded for 8 or 6 and windows processors are being run on the remaining idle cores, but the extra buck for the 8320 is worth it!
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Some of the games i play now make use of most cores and some even seem to put a load on all of them. I don't know if they are threaded for 8 or 6 and windows processors are being run on the remaining idle cores, but the extra buck for the 8320 is worth it!
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're probably right.

I think my brother mainly plays League of Legends and Guild Wars 2. The extra cores might be nice if he wanted to stream or something.
 
Ah nice, for some reason I thought it was 150.

Think i'll pick that up instead...I wonder would the 8320 be better than my 3570k for BF4? I know that 3570k was meant to be better core-for-core but i'm hearing about more games using extra cores nowadays.
 
8320s are reported to be better clockers, however is all a gamble at the CPU lottery. I believe the 8320 is an under clocked 8350.

Btw according to
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

Using a R9 290X on BF4, an i7 4770 @ 4.5 is 2 fps faster than a FX8350/8320 @ 4.5.

And the worst core FX83xx you can get, it will go 4.8 on a medium motherboard. While only 1/25th of the 4770 can get to 4.5+ apparently with the majority stuck at 4-4.4Ghz. (and they run hotter).

However the difference of the results between 7970 CF (ARES 2 config) and R9 290X (single card) raises my suspicion that one benchmark I saw the other day on BF4 (series of CPU) with GTX780 might be true. Where the FX8350 was faster than with the ARES 2 setup, and on the neck of the 4770 (2-3 fps). At stock speeds.

Btw on the techspot is not error the benchmark where 2 270X are faster than Titan & GTX780. :p
 
Yeah they are meant to be the same I believe, hence the 8320 seems to get recommended more than the 8350.
Mantle should be released next month giving amd gpus a boost in bf4 don't know if it's meant to help the cpu though.
I did hear before that an overclocked 4670k was meant to be about the same as a 83*0 in bf4 but don't know how true it is.
But don't forget this is just 1 game that can actually use all the cores, is good they are going in the right direction though. On anything that uses 4 cores or less the i5 still wins.
It will be nice to hear a comparison from someone with both though so let us know how they compare when you get one :)
 
los said:
Yeah they are meant to be the same I believe, hence the 8320 seems to get recommended more than the 8350.
Mantle should be released next month giving amd gpus a boost in bf4 don't know if it's meant to help the cpu though.
I did hear before that an overclocked 4670k was meant to be about the same as a 83*0 in bf4 but don't know how true it is.
But don't forget this is just 1 game that can actually use all the cores, is good they are going in the right direction though. On anything that uses 4 cores or less the i5 still wins.
It will be nice to hear a comparison from someone with both though so let us know how they compare when you get one :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, BF3 was pretty much the only game I played tbh, so BF4 will probably be the same.

Ordered the 8320 tonight, should be here by Tuesday. Will do a bit of testing and see how it is, if I like it I may have to tear apart my 3 week old WC loop and stick it in :p
 
Last edited:
Got the 8320 today and stuck it in my loop, sitting around 25c on idle.

I'm trying to oc at the moment and it's currently at 4.5GHz, which needed some extra voltage. But now it's hitting 60-65c in Prime95 in "CPU Temp" on HW. Package temp is 42c.

As far as I know 65c is the throttle point for these? So I don't think i'm gonna be able to push much more out of it.

Currently at 1.375v btw.
 
Last edited:
If you post in the 83xx overclocking thread (CPU forum) there's lots of help on hand.

65C is very high for 1.375v under water, though.
 
Please bear in mind few things when you try to cool the AMD chips and watercooling.

The centre of the AMD CPU is higher up than the sides (convex shape). And that is the area that connects to the heatsink, not the sides of the chip. So do not smother it with pate the whole lot. Only one line over the centre, plus 2 small blobs on top and bottom at the centre above the line.

On contrary the Intel ones, are concave, and need more paste medium at the centre of the chip to avoid air bubbles (the sides are higher than the centre).
Because the heatsinks are all flat.


Your watercooling system might need some high pressure fans. ~1.4mm H2O pressure minimum, at any speed.
 
Panos said:
Please bear in mind few things when you try to cool the AMD chips and watercooling.

The centre of the AMD CPU is higher up than the sides (convex shape). And that is the area that connects to the heatsink, not the sides of the chip. So do not smother it with pate the whole lot. Only one line over the centre, plus 2 small blobs on top and bottom at the centre above the line.

On contrary the Intel ones, are concave, and need more paste medium at the centre of the chip to avoid air bubbles (the sides are higher than the centre).
Because the heatsinks are all flat.


Your watercooling system might need some high pressure fans. ~1.4mm H2O pressure minimum, at any speed.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the info, i'll maybe try to remount the waterblock. I have two Corsair SP120 fans on my rad and they seem to shift a lot of air, I think the actual mobo heatsinks are retaining a lot of heat though.

Edit : So I took the CPU out and give it a clean with some ActiClean, tried to use a bit less paste etc and it seems to be a good bit better.

I think hardware monitor is bugged or something, as i'm using CoreTemp now and even when I went up to 5GHz at 1.47v it didn't go much over 45-50c. (Wasn't very stable though)

Back down to 4.6GHz now at 1.38v or so and it seems to be doing well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom