BF4 Retail CPU scaling measured

[alex_123_fra]

I'd like to see when I have posted it before as I cannot seem to remember and don't want to get mixed up on someone else's comments.

Cool to know it works on custom loops at least then, I assume you have tried it? Because the H100 is not enough for it to not throttle.

(Well, OCuk said it doesn't throttle with the fathom, so I guess that's kind of a custom loop. But if it still runs close to throttling that's not good. I don't know).

I have my 8320 at 5GHz at 1.51V and it doesn't throttle using a custom loop but with only a Phobya 200mm rad. I imagine the 9590s achieve their boost clocks (5 GHz) at less voltage as they are extensively binned. So I doubt an H100 can't cope. It is more likely that the motherboard VRMs overheating will result in throttling unless the board is man enough. The latter has nothing to do with what version of the FX chips you are running.

 

[Make]

I can run my 8320 at 5ghz all day long if I feel like it. It does run quite hot but well within safe limits. What it does do though is heat up the room, and with the heating on it turns into a sweat box. I prefer 4.7ghz as basically I get stock temps (idles of 25c and max of 52)

I've no idea how much power it is using to be honest. What I do know is that with it and SLI 670s and five mechanical drives and so on with my 750w psu I have no issues. I'm also running a boat load of fans off the PSU too.

I really must get myself one of those power useage meters...

Cool to know, thanks.

I guess the jump from 4.7 exponentially increases the power usage a LOT, like it does when jumping volts on intel.

I don't really care about the power usage as such, but more about the heat generation and how it can be dissipated. Luckily we are in the UK so heating up the room ambient to overheat the PC is not really possible.

 

[teppic]

I'd like to see when I have posted it before as I cannot seem to remember and don't want to get mixed up on someone else's comments.

If it was someone else I apologise, but the 9590 can easily maintain 5GHz with decent cooling, it doesn't need a custom water loop. The £110 8320s can often overclock that high with water.

 

[Martini1991]

AMD core temperatures aren't accurate, (That should be evident by the fact it shows all at the same temperature, but we'll ignore that)

It's an offset, so it could be X temp +20c.


Which is why AMD's keep it under 62c seems so conservative, but in reality it's going to be much hotter.

Unless someone can answer AMD's thermodynamic law breaking with their higher TDP and "lower" temperatures. (Compare it to Sandy, as Ivy/Haswell are gimped as they can't get rid of the heat due to the paste rather than solder, but the heat to get rid of is less.)

 

[ALXAndy]

I have my 8320 at 5GHz at 1.51V and it doesn't throttle using a custom loop but with only a Phobya 200mm rad. I imagine the 9590s achieve their boost clocks (5 GHz) at less voltage as they are extensively binned. So I doubt an H100 can't cope. It is more likely that the motherboard VRMs overheating will result in throttling unless the board is man enough. The latter has nothing to do with what version of the FX chips you are running.

9590 only boosts to 4.7ghz on all 8 cores. 5ghz is one core dude.

 

[teppic]

At higher temps the readings are accurate, according to people who use separate readings.

Temp and throttling problems on FX systems are usually VRM / power phase related, as most of the boards weren't designed for high clocked Piledriver parts.

 

[alex_123_fra]

AMD core temperatures aren't accurate, (That should be evident by the fact it shows all at the same temperature, but we'll ignore that)

It's an offset, so it could be X temp +20c.


Which is why AMD's keep it under 62c seems so conservative, but in reality it's going to be much hotter.

Unless someone can answer AMD's thermodynamic law breaking with their higher TDP and "lower" temperatures. (Compare it to Sandy, as Ivy/Haswell are gimped as they can't get rid of the heat due to the paste rather than solder, but the heat to get rid of is less.)

True the on-chip temp sensor readings are based on an AMD-specific scale and hence temp monitors at ambient temps will often show the CPU measuring <10C. When close to/at the thermal design limit, the CPU will throttle anyway and I have found software like HWmonitor quite good for monitoring socket/cpu temps. I have gone up to 5.2 GHz and near the limit of 62C (based on HWmonitor) and have not experienced throttling yet.

 

[teppic]

9590 only boosts to 4.7ghz on all 8 cores. 5ghz is one core dude.

It could go to 5GHz on more than one, but in any multi-threaded task if you leave the CPU on stock it's going to stick to 4.7GHz in practice.

That's misleading as a result from the benchmark in the first post - the 9590 will be at 4.7GHz, and the 9370 at only 4.4GHz (which all 8320s will easily reach).

 

[ALXAndy]

Cool to know, thanks.

I guess the jump from 4.7 exponentially increases the power usage a LOT, like it does when jumping volts on intel.

I don't really care about the power usage as such, but more about the heat generation and how it can be dissipated. Luckily we are in the UK so heating up the room ambient to overheat the PC is not really possible.

Yes. As soon as you start going over 4.7 the heat happens quick. I can get 4.85 very easily but again, I would rather not.

The power argument is a funny one, because the I7 9X0 used a ton of power. At stock my 950 used 140w. Push it hard? I've no doubt it was guzzling well over 200w, no doubt at all because of the temps I was seeing. 90c was easily done, at which point that waste heat has to be paid for.

The power argument has only come around since Sandy, where Intel said they were shrinking dies to decrease power use. It worked well with Sandy, but, the problems with tiny dies started to rear its ugly head with Ivy. IE - you can't solder a die that small as you will damage it.

Ironically shrinking dies will only serve to hurt enthusiasts. They are not doing it for enthusiasts. They are doing it because they need another avenue and quick. That avenue is NUC and tablet PCs and so on. So the smaller they go the better they get for a tablet, but the desktop user ends up with something pretty useless.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

AMD core temperatures aren't accurate, (That should be evident by the fact it shows all at the same temperature, but we'll ignore that)

It's an offset, so it could be X temp +20c.


Which is why AMD's keep it under 62c seems so conservative, but in reality it's going to be much hotter.

Unless someone can answer AMD's thermodynamic law breaking with their higher TDP and "lower" temperatures. (Compare it to Sandy, as Ivy/Haswell are gimped as they can't get rid of the heat due to the paste rather than solder, but the heat to get rid of is less.)

Temperature is also dependent on the surface area of the die. The FX CPUs have a much larger die than a socket 1155 SB CPU. If anything they are more comparable in surface area to the socket 2011 32NM CPUs.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Actually looking on another forum,it seems the Sweclockers result might be on a 64 player conquest map.

 

[Martini1991]

Temperature is also dependent on the surface area of the die. The FX CPUs have a much larger die than a socket 1155 SB CPU. If anything they are more comparable in surface area to the socket 2011 32NM CPUs.

Good point, there's a decent amount of factors.

The 3930K was a pretty big chip IIRC, 8 core with 2 disabled?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Good point, there's a decent amount of factors.

The 3930K was a pretty big chip IIRC, 8 core with 2 disabled?

More the Core i7 3820,although the FX8350 is nearly 10% larger.

IIRC,AMD has less dense caches than Intel,and the CPU has to be clocked higher too which does not help.

 

[Cool Breeze]

My 8320 @ 4.8Ghz 2600NB and 2600 HT was hitting 75Deg C on the cores and 70 Deg socket last night while playing BF4.

Ran fine though, but man the combination of GPU and Cpu in one loop even with 480mm worth of rads = a lot of heat.

Gonna be winding back the OC and voltage's for 24/7 Use I was surprised at how much heat was generated!

 

[ALXAndy]

My 8320 @ 4.8Ghz 2600NB and 2600 HT was hitting 75Deg C on the cores and 70 Deg socket last night while playing BF4.

Ran fine though, but man the combination of GPU and Cpu in one loop even with 480mm worth of rads = a lot of heat.

Gonna be winding back the OC and voltage's for 24/7 Use I was surprised at how much heat was generated!

There's a suprisingly conflicting amount of info on the net tbh. Some say 62c. Me? I've ran mine to 78c @ 5.2ghz with no crash

Apparently they throttle in the 80s, which says to me that they're good until then ! But yes, running them at that sort of clock will generate a lot of heat. My IO plate was actually hot to the touch, as was the surrounding case at the back. So I did this.



And it was literally problem solved. In the end though I settled on 4.7 as it was so mild mannered. It seems once you go past that you're dancing with the devil.

 

[rolypolyman]

Seriously...it is a bad idea to go from an 2500K to a FX8 (for gaming).

At the same clock, best case scenario is that the FX83xx is may be 3-5% faster than the i5 2500K in BF4; but in any games that don't use all 8 cores fully, the FX83xx would be slower than your current i5 2500K.

I'm not telling you to not go AMD ever, but at the moment if you do go from the i5 2500K to the FX83xx, it'd still be only a side-grade. If you are interested in 8 cores, then at least wait for AMD's next gen and see what it may bring...for now, just clock your i5 2500K higher.

If you must upgrade now, you'd much better off just upgrading your i5 2500K to a i7 2600K or something with HT. It would matches the FX83xx at a much lower clock (as show in 1st post of this thread), and exceed it by a fair margin when both are on the same clock.

Ok Marine the thrust of my post was basically will I benefit from going to a FX8320\50 setup, which I could do for very little money, rather than stay with my 2500k for a couple of years. I don't buy second hand(don't know what you are getting basically) so that rules out i7 2600k\3770k\4770k as they are too pricey for me. I found the following statement in a review of the FX83**(see below) and if true would certainly make a big difference. However my main point was will the FX8320(overclocked of course) be better for the next couple of years than my 2500k bearing in mind the influence Amd will have over the consoles and what sort of games will be developed and coded surely for many core cpu's. Main point below is No.1 re steamroller, is this true re staying AM3+?

'I was a bit tight on budget so Intel chips were a bit too pricey for me. Despite Piledriver being inferior to Ivybridge in some ways (the web is littered with Vishera reviews), I would say the price makes this CPU a great buy. For £120 you get 8 cores, great OC capability (you can get to 4+GHz on air without much hassle). I myself managed to squeeze out 4GHz while staying below 65C. I had a Q6600 Quad Core before and after almost 5 years of great service it started to feel a bit slow. Most games these days are CPU intensive so if you are looking for a decent FPS boost which won't cost a fortune - look no further. If you fear Piledriver might not be futureproof enough for you and it might be worth paying extra for Intel consider this:
1) Steamroller (next gen AMD) is coming in 2014 and AMD is sticking with AM3+ socket for it.
2) Intel Haswell has new socket, so socket 1155 is at the end of its life.
3) You can always get water tank to get this baby to 4.5-5GHz.
The choice is yours.

 

[~>Dg<~]

bascally the first benchmark is bs. for those who dont want to read everything. so the who debate based on a baised benchmark.

if we want to do this properly remember you maybe selling people on spending a lot of money atleast post the right details !

benchmarks will all SINGLE cards which all cpus

mp and single player

benchmarks with crossfire cards sli cards and dualcards like the one that was used in the ops first post ! the differences in one card to two can be quite a bit so please post proper benchmarks labelled correctly

get fed up of people with i7s saying i5s wont or you need to upgrade when with a titan for eg in bf there is like 2 fps or same fps from a i7 lol.

in twin card configuration yes i7 will have a very small difference but thats two or more and how many do have two or more cards ? 1-3 percent ? not many most will have singular gpus so lets stop with the bs please

 

[Cool Breeze]

@ALXAndy

Yea I have an Antec Spot cool in that exact place really need to check my air intake, I'm thinking not enough cool air being pulled in by a single 200mm fan at the front.

I'm going to reverse my exhaust fan above the I/o to intake and fit a 140mm on the side panel of my Phantom 530 to intake too, should help things, having just the 360mm rad and fans as the only exhaust point.

 

[Martini1991]

It's unlikely Steamroller is coming out on AM3+, if it ever gets an 8 core desktop release (Rumors of it being skipped for excavator)
And even the APU Steamrollers aren't due until next year (Called it).

 

[ALXAndy]

Steamroller will not be some huge great thing that tramples on the Piledrivers. It's not happening on AM3+ meaning it isn't a balls out performance CPU. It's an 8 core APU, that should have enough grunt to mimic the consoles. It's also an attempt at lower power usage. So basically it's like a low clocked locked haswell I5, versus a 2011 set up.

It's primarily designed to put an end for a need for a high powered expensive GPU and CPU, yet you can game on it with high settings.

If you want to switch from an I5 2500k to an 8320? then that's your call to make. Logically? I'll be honest with you, the 8320 is a far more powerful chip. But that's only logically and scientifically. Before I'm jumped on I'll put up this link...

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-9590/FX-9590-55.jpg

And as you can see, scientifically it's an incredibly powerful CPU. The 8320 can do bloody everything a Centurion can do.

However, as some people have pointed out these results are few and far between (though honestly they are growing in numbers as the days pass !) so would it be an upgrade?

It certainly wouldn't be a downgrade, that's for sure. You certainly don't stand to lose anything by changing over, and, the future could really cement the change.

The 8320 is absolutely tons of fun to overclock, providing you don't cheap out on a board. If you want to have fun then you're looking at £95 or so for a board. However, 990FX boards are very well decked out. Full SATA III all over, USB3, Crossfire, SLI, you name it. They have everything you could need to make up a good gaming rig.

So I guess it depends how you look at it. If you're encoding, streaming, running virtual machines? the AMD will absolutely trounce the Intel. It's a far more high end orientated chip by design than the 2500k was, which was literally an unlocked quad core gamer CPU. It lacks features that can be put to use, should you want to make use of them. Me? I need virtualisation for the SLI hack I run. Without it? I'd be a bit screwed..

As you have pointed out, 1150 is yet another Intel socket that got the launch CPUs and then will be left in the dust. So that kind of invalidates the socket/dead tech argument.

Not being funny but I've never bought a rig or a CPU and board thinking "What about changing out the CPU and what options will I have?".

AM3+ may be a dead socket but that doesn't mean it's a dead tech. AMD are still smashing out 83x0s as we speak and they are about to bundle games with them. That's about as far removed as a dead tech IMO.