FX 8120

Lordgrayone · 21 Mar 2012 at 19:43

gareth170 said:
well i was using trifire 6950 + 6990

Fair point and i respect your opinion and attitude as you have been there.

Martini1991 said:
Except you do.

Really coz i don't see it

Like i said i see no bottleneck, i also said this in the other thread in reply to you

Martini1991 said:
It's acceptable, but it's not worth the purchase unless you're coming from like an Anthlon II X2 and have a board that'd take it and can get it cheap.

Lordgrayone said:
+1

and i upgraded from a 1090t which was clocked @ 4ghz
the bulldozer is faster but not by much

so don't get me wrong....its not the greatest CPU out there but for you say its crap makes we wonder where you end and intel begin

Martini1991 · 21 Mar 2012 at 20:03

You're running at 4.8GHZ, that makes some sense, although I'm very surprised, what resolution are you running?
I had a Phenom II 1055T at 4.375GHZ bottleneck two 6870's, you can understand my scepticism.

Lordgrayone · 21 Mar 2012 at 20:11

Martini1991 said:
You're running at 4.8GHZ, that makes some sense, although I'm very surprised, what resolution are you running?
I had a Phenom II 1055T at 4.375GHZ bottleneck two 6870's, you can understand my scepticism.

i can yes. im running a 1920*1080
TBH it has been a lot of trail and error with the overclock but i think i have found the sweat spot

Ucof · 21 Mar 2012 at 21:09

is it just under your shoulder?

pgi947 · 21 Mar 2012 at 21:15

MNA24 said:
Well here is my GPU usage on BF3 playing the single player mission "Fear No Evil" at 1080p with everything on ultra:

Is this a bottleneck?

gareth170 said:
BF3 single player at 1080p with everything on ultra

mines less bottlenecking than yours and thats with 3 gpus. with 2 gpus it stays at 100%

this game will bottleneck using sli/cf at 1080p with a 8150/8120

Just a minor observation, do you guys have vsync enabled? If so it might not be a bottleneck, rather the cards have done all the work they need to do. 3 cards will not all run at 100% if for example they only need to run at 70% to hit the 60fps vsync wall. A bottleneck is usually seen where say, you are only getting 40 from a possible 60fps and the cards are only sitting at 70%.

And I also couldn't comment on the whole BD situation, many are happy with them, many are not.

Cythx · 21 Mar 2012 at 21:34

Stas823 said:
its more annoying when people are talking down about this chip even though they have never tried it

I do not need to try chips to know about their performance.

Benchmarks are much better at showing me which chip is better.

IvanDobskey · 21 Mar 2012 at 23:12

Bulldozer is not a terrible chip, it is just a massive let down as to what was expected after such a long wait. What we got was no better than the previous generation of AMD chips and was quite a way short of what intel has to offer.

This is why it gets slated

gareth170 · 21 Mar 2012 at 23:49

pgi947 said:
Just a minor observation, do you guys have vsync enabled? If so it might not be a bottleneck, rather the cards have done all the work they need to do. 3 cards will not all run at 100% if for example they only need to run at 70% to hit the 60fps vsync wall. A bottleneck is usually seen where say, you are only getting 40 from a possible 60fps and the cards are only sitting at 70%.

And I also couldn't comment on the whole BD situation, many are happy with them, many are not.

no vsync not on...

as i said when i run on 2 gpus it goes to 100% or run 3 gpus at a higher res than 1080p

Zaim · 21 Mar 2012 at 23:53

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

says it all really, just go for a 2500K, you won't look back.

Much better CPU over BD, runs cooler, uses less power, won't require a power plant when you want to overclock it.

Lordgrayone · 22 Mar 2012 at 00:21

Ucof said:
is it just under your shoulder?

Yes just round the corner at the top of the trail

MNA24 · 22 Mar 2012 at 08:53

Lordgrayone would you be able to shine some light on overclocking your FX8120 so high? I can get my FX8150 to 4.0Ghz without having to change the cpu voltage to add stability. My cpu will to boot into windows without bluescreen or freezing with 4.6ghz and 1.5v but i get 2-4 cores dropping out in Prime95 due to warnings. Any ideas on what steps to take to stop these cores dropping out? or should i just label my chip as an overclocking dud?

mmj_uk · 22 Mar 2012 at 11:32

I would guess it's your motherboard, Asus are far superior to Gigabyte for overclocking on the AMD platform in my experience. I bet you'd have more success with a Sabertooth.

Lordgrayone · 22 Mar 2012 at 18:28

MNA24 said:
Lordgrayone would you be able to shine some light on overclocking your FX8120 so high? I can get my FX8150 to 4.0Ghz without having to change the cpu voltage to add stability. My cpu will to boot into windows without bluescreen or freezing with 4.6ghz and 1.5v but i get 2-4 cores dropping out in Prime95 due to warnings. Any ideas on what steps to take to stop these cores dropping out? or should i just label my chip as an overclocking dud?

Happy to help if i can, as mmj_uk said it could be your motherboard, i take it you are just O/C via the multi?? and are you doing the OC via the bios?
you should not need 1.5V for 4.6 and i found at those volts the core temps would jump up instantly when loaded causing a crash/shutdown
i`ll check my settings in bios and post up in a sec

EDIT : my settings in bios are 1.456v all cool and quiet ECT are off
Best thing i can suggest is work you way up slowly with volts/multi
as far as i can remember 4.5 did not require much more volts than stock, certainly less than 1.4v for sure

gareth170 · 22 Mar 2012 at 18:56

Lordgrayone said:
Happy to help if i can, as mmj_uk said it could be your motherboard, i take it you are just O/C via the multi?? and are you doing the OC via the bios?
you should not need 1.5V for 4.6 and i found at those volts the core temps would jump up instantly when loaded causing a crash/shutdown
i`ll check my settings in bios and post up in a sec

EDIT : my settings in bios are 1.456v all cool and quiet ECT are off
Best thing i can suggest is work you way up slowly with volts/multi
as far as i can remember 4.5 did not require much more volts than stock, certainly less than 1.4v for sure

core temps are not the one you should be monitoring, its the cpu temp (tmpin0 or tmpin1) you should be monitoring.

also he may have a very poor chip that doesn't oc very well and needs high voltage... each chip is different in overclocking terms

Lordgrayone · 22 Mar 2012 at 18:57

Actually going through my screenies i found this.

As you can see max volts is 1.38 under load but it was set to 1.36 in bios

Lordgrayone · 22 Mar 2012 at 18:59

gareth170 said:
core temps are not the one you should be monitoring, its the cpu temp (tmpin0 or tmpin1) you should be monitoring.

also he may have a very poor chip that doesn't oc very well and needs high voltage... each chip is different in overclocking terms

now you got me wondering....which program do you use for monitoring?

Martini1991 · 22 Mar 2012 at 19:01

The software you are using, you're hitting 60c.

gareth170 · 22 Mar 2012 at 19:06

Lordgrayone said:
now you got me wondering....which program do you use for monitoring?

the one your using

cpu reading 60c to high

Lordgrayone · 22 Mar 2012 at 19:14

gareth170 said:
the one your using

cpu reading 60c to high

Care to explain why

gareth170 · 22 Mar 2012 at 19:17

Lordgrayone said:
Care to explain why

amd 8120/8150 max safety temp is 61c