• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

***official amd 83x0 overclocking thread***

to those that have bought higher freq ram.. has it really boosted performance? iv been messing around with ram settings for the last few days (testing between 1333 - 1866) and iv only gained about 2fps average in game benches.

other overall pc performance benches have improved more so but again, its just not noticeable in real world use, at least to me. :confused:
 
PapaLazaru said:
8320 down to £103.00. Best price I have ever seen.

Do I finally bite the bullet and upgrade my Phenom 965BE? :D

If I do, should I look for more cooling power? My cooler is good (Thermolab Baram) but I am only running one fan on it.

Seen these for a good price for some possible push / pull action.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FG-073-AK

I've got an ASUS Sabertooth 990FX (Rev 1) with the 1604 BIOS.
Click to expand...

Yes just buy it and a pair of the air rippers and start clocking it up.
 
mx0range said:
to those that have bought higher freq ram.. has it really boosted performance? iv been messing around with ram settings for the last few days (testing between 1333 - 1866) and iv only gained about 2fps average in game benches.

other overall pc performance benches have improved more so but again, its just not noticeable in real world use, at least to me. :confused:
Click to expand...



Seen a couple of videos on YouTube and most if not all said there was no difference between 1333 and even over 2000+ in terms of noticeable performance.
 
I have 1866 ram but have never bothered clocking it above 1600 as seen on many placed its not worth it so have just tightened the timings up as much as possible as that is meant to be better for amds chips than higher speeds.
 
dfour said:
I have 1866 ram but have never bothered clocking it above 1600 as seen on many placed its not worth it so have just tightened the timings up as much as possible as that is meant to be better for amds chips than higher speeds.
Click to expand...

tested timings too and again there was negligible performance gain in benchmarks. seems to me that these 2400mhz kits are only useful for those chasing numbers, trying to get number 1 spot. meh

although saying that i have read they are useful for APU's.. hopefully get my hands on kaveri next week :D
 
mx0range said:
tested timings too and again there was negligible performance gain in benchmarks. seems to me that these 2400mhz kits are only useful for those chasing numbers, trying to get number 1 spot. meh

although saying that i have read they are useful for APU's.. hopefully get my hands on kaveri next week :D
Click to expand...

Yeah I think my next move will be into an APU based machine with DDR4. I love gaming but family life and other commitments mean I get less time to sit and play like I once did. :cool:
 
dfour said:
completely agree with you if I spec pcs for friends I never bother specking above 1600mhz ram as its just not worth the extra money.
Click to expand...

£129 Removed

vs

£119 Removed

DO NOT post links to competitors. Read the forum rules before you post again - Rilot

It may have been true a while ago when there was a significant price difference between DDR3 RAM speeds but there isn't such a big difference any more. It's not just on Amazon that the difference is around £10, you can find it on Overclockers (1600MHz vs 2000MHz+) as well as other tech sites that are blocked when linked to.

I upgraded to 16GB not long ago and found the price difference between 2400MHz and 1600MHz to be negligible so went with 2400MHz. Considering games have been limited by 32bit operations restricting their use of memory to less than 4GB it has been mostly negligible to get higher bandwidth RAM in order to boost performance; new consoles now support 64bit software and have 8GB of available memory so that limitation is not there anymore and it is likely that newer games will scale better with memory bandwidth than in previous generations; that extra £10 could provide performance worth more than that in the future if your intention is not to upgrade your memory in 2 years so my advice wouldn't be to save £10 based on old data from games you are unlikely to be playing in a couple years time.

As you have mentioned, day to day operations won't provide any noticeable difference between different memory bandwidths because you'll find your experience is limited by access times rather than bandwidth, same for hard drives. Access times for memory are relatively similar when you look at it, CL8 1600MHz memory has 5ns access time while CL11 2400MHz memory has 4.6ns (MHz being millions of cycles per second and the CL being cycle delay before an action is completed, divide them and times by 1000 to get into billions of seconds and you get 11/2400 *1000 = 4.6ns delay); there isn't much improvement there to provide any noticeable difference in loading your web browser or favourite program. Going from 8ns to 0.1ns with SSD drives provided massive improvements in access times and thus responsiveness even when read speeds were similar to mechanical drives when SSD's first came out.

Higher bandwidth memory doesn't provide significant improvements in performance, at least for now, but it no longer comes at a large price premium so shouldn't be discounted based on price anymore. For AMD systems, that allow for system overclocking using the base clock, higher frequency RAM is still useful and for £10 is worth the extra freedom when overclocking so I would recommend it for those applications. I would also be inclined to include higher bandwidth RAM in a specification if the price is within £10 because the future of applications is moving towards high memory usage which is bound to be bandwidth restricted so that extra bandwidth could help with platform longevity; there is also the fact that higher bandwidth memory is likely to be of higher quality due to binning which means that if you'd like to run it at lower speeds and tighten the timings you are likely to get better results with a 2400MHz rated kit than a 1600MHz rated kit.

For the small difference of £10 I feel the benefit of higher bandwidth memory is worth it, if not for future performance reasons than at least the argument of better quality due to binning should persuade you.
 
Reached a Nice Stable 4.67GHz at 1.416V tonight on the 8350, nice and cool(ish) with a H100i hitting most 55deg.

ROG RealBench results going up also. Could push more out of it I assume but reaching limits now I think before temps get too high.

Sat Apr 19 2014 00:33:48
Image Editing: 78381 - Time: 109.464
Encoding: 86128 - Time: 139.187
OpenCL: 34412 - KSamples/sec: 599
Heavy Multitasking: 81452 - Time: 120.07
System Score: 63210

Taking a fair bit of reading and messing, but im new to clocking so its a learning curve!
 
Th0nt said:
That's a nice voltage point for the speed Cozzi.
Click to expand...

Thanks
I thought so too, going to do a few more tests later today as it seemed a bit too good. Also does anyone use the full speed of the H100i fans, its overly loud! I have mine running at about 60-70% i think at most.
 
It may have been true a while ago when there was a significant price difference between DDR3 RAM speeds but there isn't such a big difference any more. It's not just on Amazon that the difference is around £10, you can find it on Overclockers (1600MHz vs 2000MHz+) as well as other tech sites that are blocked when linked to.

I upgraded to 16GB not long ago and found the price difference between 2400MHz and 1600MHz to be negligible so went with 2400MHz. Considering games have been limited by 32bit operations restricting their use of memory to less than 4GB it has been mostly negligible to get higher bandwidth RAM in order to boost performance; new consoles now support 64bit software and have 8GB of available memory so that limitation is not there anymore and it is likely that newer games will scale better with memory bandwidth than in previous generations; that extra £10 could provide performance worth more than that in the future if your intention is not to upgrade your memory in 2 years so my advice wouldn't be to save £10 based on old data from games you are unlikely to be playing in a couple years time.

As you have mentioned, day to day operations won't provide any noticeable difference between different memory bandwidths because you'll find your experience is limited by access times rather than bandwidth, same for hard drives. Access times for memory are relatively similar when you look at it, CL8 1600MHz memory has 5ns access time while CL11 2400MHz memory has 4.6ns (MHz being millions of cycles per second and the CL being cycle delay before an action is completed, divide them and times by 1000 to get into billions of seconds and you get 11/2400 *1000 = 4.6ns delay); there isn't much improvement there to provide any noticeable difference in loading your web browser or favourite program. Going from 8ns to 0.1ns with SSD drives provided massive improvements in access times and thus responsiveness even when read speeds were similar to mechanical drives when SSD's first came out.

Higher bandwidth memory doesn't provide significant improvements in performance, at least for now, but it no longer comes at a large price premium so shouldn't be discounted based on price anymore. For AMD systems, that allow for system overclocking using the base clock, higher frequency RAM is still useful and for £10 is worth the extra freedom when overclocking so I would recommend it for those applications. I would also be inclined to include higher bandwidth RAM in a specification if the price is within £10 because the future of applications is moving towards high memory usage which is bound to be bandwidth restricted so that extra bandwidth could help with platform longevity; there is also the fact that higher bandwidth memory is likely to be of higher quality due to binning which means that if you'd like to run it at lower speeds and tighten the timings you are likely to get better results with a 2400MHz rated kit than a 1600MHz rated kit.

For the small difference of £10 I feel the benefit of higher bandwidth memory is worth it, if not for future performance reasons than at least the argument of better quality due to binning should persuade you.[/QUOTE]

Totally see your point here but your talking about enthusiast like us who dont need that much help specking out a rig as apposed to joe blogs friend who just wants a rig to play there games on and be stable and fast with minimal maintenance on a budget.
I would rather put the extra tenner towards getting a faster graphics card which will do more good than 2000+ speed ram he will never use. :D ninja edit unless hes going to be using a AMD APU and then 2400 ram makes heaps of sense. :D
 
Last edited:
Th0nt said:
I picked mine up for 106 at a competitor back in October, same board but revision 2 - sweet combo!

Go for it. :D
Click to expand...

Cheers,

Going to order one and get a couple of new fans for my cooler.

Just one question (as you have the same mobo).

What is the fastest RAM it will take? Will it even take this ram?

Seen this deal as well and wondering if it is worth it over my Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz?

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18592900
 
e, I was benching at 5GHz on an M5A99x rev 1 but not prime stable. I was on air 1.47V and getting IBT stability at 4.8GHz.

Failing prime is no biggie if it does not throttle at normal work loads.[/COLOR]

The following is in my opinion a list of good motherboards for the FX8350, competent motherboards and lastly ones to possibly avoid if you want to overclock or even run an FX8350 at stock. The competence is reflected in the price to some extent and obviously not everyone will want to buy from the most expensive end. A motherboard in the 'competent' range will often produce good results with decent cooling and memory etc.

Good motherboards should have good VRM's, 6+2 power phases up to 12+2, overheat protection, extensive and easy to use bios controls. With adequate cooling the CPU should reach 4.8 to 5.0GHz or better


Hi mate am planing to upgrade my mobo and i found msi 990fxa gd65 looks good i read some review and in some they sayed they oc fx 8320-50 max 4.2ghz in other review 4.5ghz max
ASROCK
Fatal1ty 990FX Professional
990FX Extreme9
ASUS
M5A99FX PRO R2
SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0
CROSSHAIR V FORMULA
CROSSHAIR V FORMULA Z

Competent motherboards should also have good VRM's, 6+2 power phases or better, overheat protection, extensive and easy to use bios controls. With adequate cooling the CPU should reach 4.5 to 4.8GHz or better
ASROCK
990FX Extreme4
ASUS
M5A97 EVO R2
M5A99X EVO R2

Motherboards to avoid are likely to have 4+1 phase power, underdesigned VRM spec, or they lack essential bios controls. With adequate cooling the CPU may reach 4.2GHz but could also throttle at under 4.0GHz with load.
ASROCK
990FX Extreme3
All 970 chipset models
ASUS
M5A97 LE R2
M5A97 R2

MSI
Currently until I can find out more information I do not recommend MSI boards for the overclocked FX8350


Currently reviewing Gigabyte
Under construction, all comments welcomed, you can trust me content ;)[/QUOTE]




Hi mate am planing to upgrade my mobo and i found msi 990fxa gd65 looks good i read some review and in some they sayed they oc fx 8320-50 max 4.2ghz in other review 4.5ghz and in another i saw bloke oc phenom ii x6 6.5ghz. Thatsway am confused cos u sayed u not sure about msi a this bord is in good price. Currently i got athlon x3 450 but planing to get fx 8320 tor oc u think its god idea to get this mobo or get something else? Thx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom