• 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.

piledriver - Official AMD FX4300,FX6300 and FX8350 review thread

It's not accurate at idle according to a few sources.

I think the best way to monitor AMD temps is to see if it's stable or not, none of their readouts appear to be all that accurate.

yeh I restarted and looked in the bios said 35C so i'm gonn say core temp is 20C off

This would be why I wa getting thermal throttling at 45C last night
 
The bios reads the "CPU temp" not the core temp, core temp is supposedly accurate but only under load... a few (one senior) AMD sources have said that you should monitor using Core Temp or AMD Overdrive (which reads the same as Core Temp) but then others say the opposite and that CPU temp is important... it seems like AMD themselves don't even know how their CPU's work.

I'm just finding it hard to take the "CPU temp" seriously when it stays more or less the same between using air and water cooling.

Some good info here:
Concerning your question regarding the temperatures with your processor. (1090) the maximum temperature threshold is 62 Celsius which set for the internal die (core) temperature of the chip. The core temperatures have an equational offset to determine temperature which equalizes at about 45 Celsius thus giving you more accurate readings at peak temperatures. The hindrance in this is the sub ambient idle temperature readings you speak of.

The silicon and adhesives used in manufacturing these processors has a peak temperature rating of 97+ Celsius before any form of degradation will take place. The processor also has a thermal shut off safe guard in place that shuts the processor down at 90 Celsius.

The Cpu temperature is read form a sensor embedded within the socket of your motherboard causing about a 7-10 Celsius variance form the actual Cpu temperature, which may be what you are reading about on the net.

You can use an application called AMD overdrive, that will allow you to monitor your temperatures accurately.[/]

As long as your core temperature has not exceeded the high side of the 60 degree mark for extended periods of time you should be ok. 62 degrees holds a generous safety net to begin with.

I hope I was able to answer your questions, If you have any more inquiries don't hesitate to contact us.


Thank You

Alex Cromwell
Senior Technology Director
Advanced Micro Devices
Fort Collins, Colorado
2950 East Harmony Road
Suite 300
Fort Collins, CO
80528-9558


I'm seeing about a 20C difference between CPU temp (socket) and Core temps.
 
Last edited:
It's always a case of one says Y and another says X.
Another thing, the core temp has all cores at one temperature, which isn't really realistic is it?

Thing is, the "under load" thing doesn't make too much sense, given their TDP it's unrealistic to see the minor temperatures they give off, I mean, even under water at its TDP when clocked and overvolted, ~50c isn't all that realistic.
I mean my 2500K maxed out will reach fair higher temperatures.

And again, even getting to 62c is quite hard, as you'd used to throttle before that.

MMJ, how you finding your FX, and what'd you come from?
 
Last edited:
stable @ 4.0ghz x264 results

40.png
 
stable at 4.2. had to increase the vcore now from stock to 1.4V. 200 X 21

Temps were hitting 36C in core temp so going to say that's actualy 56C.

Might try for 4.3

42.png
 
MMJ, how you finding your FX, and what'd you come from?

I've had all sorts up to a 3930K I just wanted to play with an AMD rig really, I've not run any benchmarks yet and it's probably best I don't. :p

4.6ghz appears to be the max Prime stable for me (under water).
 
From this topic



8 cores / 8 threads humbug



4 cores / 8 threads pcz

That is the difference between Windows 7 and Windows 8
You can see the first screenie has aero, so it was win 7
In my screenie you can see it is ribbon so Win 8

Windows 8 treats BD/PD CPU's differently.
The scheduler knows there are 4 real cores and 4 virtual.
 
Last edited:
Except there are not. Eight integer cores shared between 4 FPU cores.

Technically that is right yes.

But PCZ is also right, the correct scheduling is 1 / 3 / 5 / 7 for FP work, what Win 7 does is 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 in the first 2 modules, which is wrong and overloads the threads causing an FP bottleneck.

The correct way Bulldozer and Piledriver should be used is core 1 + thread in Module 1 / core 3 + thread in Module 2 / core 5 + thread in Module 3 / core 7 + thread in Module 4.

Integer cores (8 of them) all get used for such work.

The performance improvement in x264 could be down to the chip or Win 8 using new instruction sets Win 7 does not support.
 
Except there are not. Eight integer cores shared between 4 FPU cores.

Microsft treat the CPU as 4 real and 4 virtual.
That is the way the scheduler is designed.

It can improve performance in some circumstanses by running threads on modules rather than cores if possible.

AMD did get a bit miffed because they are selling the CPU's as eight core and want eveyone to be in that mind set.

If AMD had given us 8 fully functional cores this change wouldn't have been necessary. but as it it stands there are too many shared resources between the cores for the CPU's to be treated as fully fledged eight cores by the OS.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to go slightly OT, but can anyone point me towards a good budget clocking mobo that will likely ship with the correct bios to support an 8320? I'm looking in the 50-60 quid range but am open to all sorts of suggestions.
 
a 4+1 vrm board will be ok for mild overclock, so any of the 970s. £50-65

Spend a bit more and get 8+2 vrm with a 990x. £80-90
Spend a bit more and have a good 990fx excluding asrock 990fx ex3 its only 4+1 vrm. £100-120

Or get a cheap b stock z68 from here for £35 and then a sb, or ivy.
 
Back
Top Bottom