AMD not adhering to 125W spec with FX8350?

Avenged7Fold · 16 Apr 2013 at 01:31

Throttling problems because of VRMs IMO is more down to the buyers fault rather than CPU manufacturer or motherboard manufacturer. If you bought a high powered chip to go with a motherboard that cant draw that power stably, it's hardly the manufacturers fault.

Just because it is listed as compatible it doesn't mean it'l work well together. Granted there has been boards which have had sketchy VRM issues but it is easy enough to find out motherboard and chip performance from reviews.

The biggest parts manufacturer crime IMO comes in the form of the ridiculous rated power numbers cheap brands give their PSU's. Fortunately it is much easier find the current each rail can supply these days.

humbug · 16 Apr 2013 at 02:39

8 cores clocked at 4Ghz, its hardly surprising.

Martini1991 · 16 Apr 2013 at 07:42

Phixsator said:
I dont know how correct HWmonitor is when it comes to watt usage, but at stock speeds my fx8350 reported 55watt at peak when running prime85.

Its funny how people will bash 1 product but forget about the competition whenever they are in the same situation, because you know Intel isnt exactly bottleneck free

No one said it was.
But the almost 2 year older 2500k won't bottleneck your GPU set up as much as your FX8350 does (Ergo, the older CPU is the better gamer, and AMD have had 2 shots at releasing something better since it launched)

So yes, it's quite easy to bash the performance.

Also, don't see how you can exactly bash the Intel, there isn't an alternative for better performance, 99/100 times, it is the faster CPU for gaming.

The two situations aren't the same.

I could bash Intels pricing for the i7's, given AMD's price/performance area in anything which would start using more than the Intels physical cores ; Rendering/Encoding, but that's about it.

vicky953 · 16 Apr 2013 at 09:17

Martini1991 said:
No one said it was.

Also, don't see how you can exactly bash the Intel, there isn't an alternative for better performance, 99/100 times, it is the faster CPU for gaming.

The two situations aren't the same.

QUOTE]

its not just about bashing intel however if everyone took this forums point of view and steered clear of AMD i wonder how much we would all be paying if intel were the only show in town and how far ahead the technology would be. At the end of the day, and ive noticed this forum is especially bad for it, everyone has there own choice and shouldnt be ridiculed either way

Martini1991 · 16 Apr 2013 at 09:34

vicky953 said:
its not just about bashing intel however if everyone took this forums point of view and steered clear of AMD i wonder how much we would all be paying if intel were the only show in town and how far ahead the technology would be. At the end of the day, and ive noticed this forum is especially bad for it, everyone has there own choice and shouldnt be ridiculed either way

No one believes people should stay clear of AMD, they offer some brilliant price/performance (And even total performance) in the 90-130 pound range.

vicky953 · 16 Apr 2013 at 09:51

Martini1991 said:
No one believes people should stay clear of AMD, they offer some brilliant price/performance (And even total performance) in the 90-130 pound range.

im not saying anyone individual only in general on this site. i notice a thread the other day where a member specifically asked for an AMD build and i think the forst 7 posts were all intel builds. why i do not know and the trend continues, ive only been a member for a couple of weeks and some of the advice ive had has been second to none but here and toms hardware that my boyfriend regularly reads have both very pro intel and steer from AMD. i just purchased an fx 8350, best £140 ive spent now im sure if you ask my boyfriend about the build he was recommended on toms hardware he will tell you how very much unimpressed he was. he was advised that the i3 3220 i believe was a far superiour gaming chip than my old fx6300. couldnt have been further from the truth and that was with an almost identical setup

d_brennen · 16 Apr 2013 at 09:56

lolMSI

Martini1991 · 16 Apr 2013 at 10:37

vicky953 said:
im not saying anyone individual only in general on this site. i notice a thread the other day where a member specifically asked for an AMD build and i think the forst 7 posts were all intel builds. why i do not know and the trend continues, ive only been a member for a couple of weeks and some of the advice ive had has been second to none but here and toms hardware that my boyfriend regularly reads have both very pro intel and steer from AMD. i just purchased an fx 8350, best £140 ive spent now im sure if you ask my boyfriend about the build he was recommended on toms hardware he will tell you how very much unimpressed he was. he was advised that the i3 3220 i believe was a far superiour gaming chip than my old fx6300. couldnt have been further from the truth and that was with an almost identical setup

There's a thread where someone's asking about a 750 quid gaming rig, ITX. Trinity, as good as it is, isn't a CPU to put in a higher end rig.

Or maybe the budget is high enough that the extra 30 or whatnot from the FX to the i5 is worth it.

Just because someone requests something, doesn't mean people should suggest something else, as they may not know that X or Y will serve their needs better.

An FX6300 to an FX83 is a bit of a strange move, they'll probably give identical performance (Assuming you've overclocked) in 99/100 games.

As for the i3/FX6300 thing, it's an annoying case, I'd always suggest the FX6300, unless the i3 was literally interim.
Then you've got the other side of the coin where people are suggesting Trinity rigs when it's not the best choice, even against AMD's own AM3+ products.

vicky953 · 16 Apr 2013 at 11:04

i got the fx 8350 and gave the 6300 to my bf that was all.

humbug · 16 Apr 2013 at 11:07

It does sometimes get a bit spiky in here if you suggest AMD as an alternative.

there really isn't a great deal of situations where a ~ £200 3570K is needed over even an FX-6300, if you play a lot of old or DX9 MMo's on anything more than a GTX 660 or 7850, or if you have top end GPU: CF / SLI... then yes.

The thing is most people play modern DX11 games on single mid to high level GPU's where the £100 FX-6300 is just as good.

Yet its the same in the GPU room, sometimes people get an ear bashing if they suggest Nvidia over AMD.

Its sad but it often seems that here we have the Intel room, and next door is the AMD room.

joeyjojo · 16 Apr 2013 at 11:22

Lying? No. Look at the definition of TDP:

The TDP is typically not the most power the chip could ever draw, such as by a power virus, but rather the maximum power that it would draw when running "real applications".

OP you've been a bit disingenuous with your highlighting in that quote, when the really important bit is:

2. We had tested using 3DMark and it did not cause throttling. Throttling only happens when the loading on a 125W CPU usage is heavy by the use of heavy burn-in tools such as Prime 95/OCCT, and such testing methods are not standard usage scenario or practical.

Although there is a good point to be made that new Intel chips (3770K for example) fit inside their 77 W TDP even in stress tests.

mmj_uk · 16 Apr 2013 at 11:37

Prime95 is a real world application used to find Mersenne Prime numbers, also if you read the thread on Anandtech the guy witnessed the same throttling using Adobe Media Encoder.

In MSI's defence, they offered the guy a 'step up' to their top end board which supports 140W processors, they didn't need to do that given that the ones in wrong are AMD for ignoring their own spec. MSI's motherboard supports FX-8350 with a 125W TDP as per spec, it's not their fault if AMD are shipping FX-8350's with a higher TDP.

AFAIK all AMD (and Intel) processors previous the TDP referred to the maximum.

dacads · 16 Apr 2013 at 11:51

And who's going to be using prime95 on a daily basis at stock speeds? It will be used for OC testing and wouldn't be wise to get a 970 motherboard would it I wonder if this throttling occurs on 990x/fx motherboards..

Martini1991 · 16 Apr 2013 at 11:56

I'm pretty sure you can do 100% as a real world load.

humbug · 16 Apr 2013 at 12:06

A good fix would be (don't buy lower level Motherboards for top end 8 core CPU's)

Or any MSI boards IMO, never did like them. the last few i had were pretty unstable and poorly made.

MSI GPU's of late have also been full of bugs and poor construction.

I think this says more about MSI than it does about the CPU.

95% of the people in this room are running thier CPU way over its TDP rating, be it AMD or Intel, if its overclocked you can be certain of it.

So even if the FX-8350 was only pulling ~120w at stock you wouldn't be able to overclock it.

This is MSI pushing the blame for their junk Motherboards at AMD.

Martini1991 · 16 Apr 2013 at 12:08

Well we know it's not 95%, but the sentiment isn't wrong

Only manufacturer I've ever had stuff break with is MSI, be it GPU's or Mobo's.

humbug · 16 Apr 2013 at 12:16

Martini1991 said:
Well we know it's not 95%, but the sentiment isn't wrong

Only manufacturer I've ever had stuff break with is MSI, be it GPU's or Mobo's.

Yes same here, This might be a bit snobbish on my part; the only motherboards i buy for myself is Asus, never had a problem with anything from Asus and they have always been solidly stable, even the low end chip-set models.

Martini1991 · 16 Apr 2013 at 12:21

humbug said:
Yes same here, This might be a bit snobbish on my part; the only motherboards i buy for myself is Asus, never had a problem with anything from Asus and they have always been solidly stable, even the low end chip-set models.

I'm Asus myself.
ROG Master race. I am the ultimate snob.
I've used a fair few Gigabyte boards and put them in builds I do.

humbug · 16 Apr 2013 at 12:31

Martini1991 said:
I'm Asus myself.
ROG Master race. I am the ultimate snob.
I've used a fair few Gigabyte boards and put them in builds I do.

Sabertooth, as i think you know, fantastic board, have had ROG boards for myself in the past, they are just awesome.

My GPU is Gigabyte, Nothing wrong with Gigabyte Motherboard's, but i don't think they are quite as good as Asus, and i hated the colour of the older ones, Blue PCB's with bright Green and Orange plastics, Yuk!

But they all seem to be going Black now.

Hagar · 16 Apr 2013 at 12:38

My early overclocking (in the nineties) was all Abit. Purely because of their bioses. Then latterly Gigabyte for the same reasons but only because Abit went down (exploding capacitors etc.). Recently have had only good experience with ASUS as they have improved their bios and the componentry is very good. I never had an MSI and the only Asrock I fitted was in a build for someone else who wanted the cheapest possible solution with an Athlon II (crap bios).