Fastest AM3+ CPU?

D

DellAxim

Gawd
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
999
I got an Asus M5A78L-M/USB3 motherboard for free, I want to basically max it out with the fastest CPU and 32GB of RAM. I don't really need all that, but I want a computer that isn't going to be outdated for a while.

Anyway, can anybody tell me what the fastest CPU is I can use in this board? Will this FX-8370 8 core work in that board?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00MUTWELC/ref=psdc_229189_t2_B009O7YUF6

Is there anything faster?

Board specs:
https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/M5A78LMUSB3/specifications/
 
buzzbomb said:
"Fastest" between the two will depend on what you are going to do with it. Get the X4 if you're going to game, get the X6 if you are going to do serious multithreaded application use.
Click to expand...

What about the 8 core? Will that work with this board? I'm confused by the CPU list, it says it supports FX-8370, but also says 4.0ghz, the FX-8370 on Amazon is 4.3ghz.
 
DellAxim said:
I got an Asus M5A78L-M/USB3 motherboard for free, I want to basically max it out with the fastest CPU and 32GB of RAM. I don't really need all that, but I want a computer that isn't going to be outdated for a while.

Anyway, can anybody tell me what the fastest CPU is I can use in this board? Will this FX-8370 8 core work in that board?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00MUTWELC/ref=psdc_229189_t2_B009O7YUF6

Is there anything faster?

Board specs:
https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/M5A78LMUSB3/specifications/
Click to expand...
Well first and foremost, ask whoever gave you that motherboard for free if it has the latest BIOs update, version 2001. Or at the very least, when it was last updated. The FX-8370 only works with that mobo if you have newer 1801 update.

No, you can't just stick in the newer CPU and update the BIOs. You need to use an older compatible CPU in order to update the BIOs and then you'll be able to use that FX-8370 or FX-8350. So you really really want to find out when and what that motherboard was updated with. Otherwise it's going to cost you money.

That 4.3Ghz mention on Amazon is the turbo speed for when one or a few cores are under max load. The FX-8370 is indeed 4Ghz across all eight cores. Unfortunately that's a bad thing because the cheaper FX-8350 is clocked at 4Ghz as well. Since the only real difference between the FX-8370 and FX-8350 is a mere 100Mhz turbo speed increase, the 8370 is a poor choice for the money at $190. You're better off with the FX-8350 for ~$165. Plus the FX-8350 only requires 1401 update so if that motherboard was updated at least within the last two and a half years, it'll more than likely work with the FX-8350 off the bat.

Yes technically the FX-8370 is the fastest available CPU for that motherboard. But as noted above, it's a really poor choice for the money. There are indeed faster AMD CPUs than the FX-8370 but they don't work with your motherboard and even if they did, I still wouldn't recommend any of them due to their really stupid pricing.
 
Dangman said:
Well first and foremost, ask whoever gave you that motherboard for free if it has the latest BIOs update, version 2001. Or at the very least, when it was last updated. The FX-8370 only works with that mobo if you have newer 1801 update.
Click to expand...
Would that be on the board or the box anywhere? It is new in the box but I don't know how long it's been on the shelf.

Dangman said:
Since the only real difference between the FX-8370 and FX-8350 is a mere 100Mhz turbo speed increase, the 8370 is a poor choice for the money at $190. You're better off with the FX-8350 for ~$165.
Click to expand...

I see some places quoting these as either 8/8mb cache, or 16mb cache. Are they both just quoting the same number differently? No, I don't really care about that 100mhz.


Thanks for the info.
 
If you cant beg or borrow a AM3/AM3+ cpu to check it out or flash it then pick up a ultra cheap AM3 Sempron for as little as possible on Ebay or similar.
 
DellAxim said:
I see some places quoting these as either 8/8mb cache, or 16mb cache. Are they both just quoting the same number differently? No, I don't really care about that 100mhz.
Click to expand...

The cache size is the same (4x 2MB L2 + 8MB L3). The chips are identical other than the turbo frequencies.
 
With the lack of an 8pin and any decent heat sinks on the VRMs I would recommend the 8730E to get the most life out of such a crummy mobo.
 
Dangman said:
No, you can't just stick in the newer CPU and update the BIOs. You need to use an older compatible CPU in order to update the BIOs and then you'll be able to use that FX-8370 or FX-8350. So you really really want to find out when and what that motherboard was updated with. Otherwise it's going to cost you money.
Click to expand...

May not be true with this board, due to the "CrashFree BIOS 3" feature.

I've used similar tools with success in the past. I guess it all depends how it works.
 
Kardonxt said:
With the lack of an 8pin and any decent heat sinks on the VRMs I would recommend the 8730E to get the most life out of such a crummy mobo.
Click to expand...

This guy's on the right track, I think a 6 core FX would be more suited to that board. It is rather light in the power department. I feel the OP would have a better all round experience with something less power hungry.
 
Sell that Mobo on eBay and get a truly good Motherboard. If you like AMD of which I am a stanch Fan, there are many to chose from currently on the market, with cpu combo's at a reasonable cost.
 
With the money saved from buying AMD and not Intel, one can get all kinds of spiffy stuff for your new computer case that you may have purchased by Not spending all your money on an Intel mother board and processor.
 
Kardonxt said:
With the lack of an 8pin and any decent heat sinks on the VRMs I would recommend the 8730E to get the most life out of such a crummy mobo.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand all this "turbo" bullshit. (I wish people would stop giving that word to everything that goes faster) What is the difference in actual performance between the 8370 and 8370E? Is it just like a laptop that slows down when I don't need it?

If they both run at 4.3ghz under load...what's the difference?
 
Last edited:
DellAxim said:
I don't really understand all this "turbo" bullshit. (I wish people would stop giving that word to everything that goes faster) What is the difference in actual performance between the 8370 and 8370E? Is it just like a laptop that slows down when I don't need it?

If they both run at 4.3ghz under load...what's the difference?
Click to expand...

unless you're gaming all the time or encoding all the time, the cpu will be spent close to its idle speed if not lower. that means the e-chip will be sipping 95w while the non-e will be drinking 120-140w while you're browsing the web. in the long run, the e-chip will put a smaller burden on the board's voltage regulators and the board will last longer.
 
DellAxim said:
I don't really understand all this "turbo" bullshit. (I wish people would stop giving that word to everything that goes faster) What is the difference in actual performance between the 8370 and 8370E? Is it just like a laptop that slows down when I don't need it?

If they both run at 4.3ghz under load...what's the difference?
Click to expand...

Couldn't tell you since i'm not big into the AMD overclocking world (not sure how their turbo functions work). My recommendation was based off the fact that the 8370e is a 95watt cpu and the 8730 is a 125 watt cpu. With the crappy power regulation on his motherboard the 95watt will put less stress on it. (These low end amd mobos are known to die early because the manufactures are too focused on one upping each other to admit the power regulation is not designed for high wattage cpus. )

Edit: renny wins the race lol
 
rennyf77 said:
unless you're gaming all the time or encoding all the time, the cpu will be spent close to its idle speed if not lower. that means the e-chip will be sipping 95w while the non-e will be drinking 120-140w while you're browsing the web. in the long run, the e-chip will put a smaller burden on the board's voltage regulators and the board will last longer.
Click to expand...

If it's running at idle speed, the chip is going to drop the voltage also, hence, they will both be drawing virtually the same amount of power. The only way the 95W vs. 125W chip would be an issue is when you're running 100% load all the time. The 95W/125W is a maximum number, not a "every second the computer is on" number.

If push came to shove, I'd get a 95W chip for that board though (as I'd suggest with all of the "cheap-o" 760G mATX motherboards). My experience with them has been that they throttle under heavy load (IBT, etc.) when OC'd due to the voltage regulation even with 95W chips. I've used the Asus M5A78's, Gigabyte 78LMT's, and MSI 760GM boards. They all exhibit this.
 
Last edited:
DellAxim said:
Would that be on the board or the box anywhere? It is new in the box but I don't know how long it's been on the shelf.

I see some places quoting these as either 8/8mb cache, or 16mb cache. Are they both just quoting the same number differently? No, I don't really care about that 100mhz.
Click to expand...
You actually have to start the motherboard up to see inside the BIOs screen itself to see what version it has. Although, check the box for any sort of "Manufacture date" or something that indicates when it was built. I've seen first hand that it can take up to 9 months for motherboards to ship with newer BIOs that supports newer CPUs.

Same number differently.
krogen said:
May not be true with this board, due to the "CrashFree BIOS 3" feature.

I've used similar tools with success in the past. I guess it all depends how it works.
Click to expand...
My experience so far that is that those CrashFree BIOS 3 or similar features don't work all that well with newer CPUs.
DellAxim said:
I don't really understand all this "turbo" bullshit. (I wish people would stop giving that word to everything that goes faster) What is the difference in actual performance between the 8370 and 8370E? Is it just like a laptop that slows down when I don't need it?

If they both run at 4.3ghz under load...what's the difference?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately turbo is the name the companies themselves are using so thats what we have to use. Here's how turbo basically works: NOrmally, a 8350 or 8370 runs 4Ghz across all eight cores. Say you're using a program or game that only uses 1 to 2 cores and the other six cores aren't being used. So since only two cores are being loaded, the CPU more or less lowers the speed of the unused cores and boosts the speed of the 1-2 cores in actual use. So rather than those two cores operating at 4Ghz, they're now operating at 4.3Ghz. However, the second the other cores are used, the CPU clocks all the cores at 4Ghz. That's what Turbo is. With that said, for all intents and purposes, just ignore the turbo talk. A lot of the times, the turbo doesn't make that much of a difference to worry or think about.

Considering that earlier I said that the 8370 was a poor buy at $190, the 8370E is an even shittier buy at $200. The key difference between the two CPUs is that the 8370E is clocked at 3.3Ghz whereas the 8370 is clocked at 4Ghz. So it's 700Mhz slower. If you want something less power hungry, just go with an Intel setup as going low power with an AMD FX setup is an exercise in futility and waste.
 
Dangman said:
Here's how turbo basically works: NOrmally, a 8350 or 8370 runs 4Ghz across all eight cores. Say you're using a program or game that only uses 1 to 2 cores and the other six cores aren't being used. So since only two cores are being loaded, the CPU more or less lowers the speed of the unused cores and boosts the speed of the 1-2 cores in actual use. So rather than those two cores operating at 4Ghz, they're now operating at 4.3Ghz. However, the second the other cores are used, the CPU clocks all the cores at 4Ghz. That's what Turbo is.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that makes more sense. AMD is definitely king of confusing marketing bullshit! :D

Just so I'm clear: Turbo never works on all 8 cores at the same time?

I'm replacing an old Athlon 64 X2 that isn't used for much more than web browsing, so it's not going to get worked very hard, I don't need an 8 core, but I want one....
 
Dangman said:
You actually have to start the motherboard up to see inside the BIOs screen itself to see what version it has. Although, check the box for any sort of "Manufacture date" or something that indicates when it was built. I've seen first hand that it can take up to 9 months for motherboards to ship with newer BIOs that supports newer CPUs.

Same number differently.

My experience so far that is that those CrashFree BIOS 3 or similar features don't work all that well with newer CPUs.

Unfortunately turbo is the name the companies themselves are using so thats what we have to use. Here's how turbo basically works: NOrmally, a 8350 or 8370 runs 4Ghz across all eight cores. Say you're using a program or game that only uses 1 to 2 cores and the other six cores aren't being used. So since only two cores are being loaded, the CPU more or less lowers the speed of the unused cores and boosts the speed of the 1-2 cores in actual use. So rather than those two cores operating at 4Ghz, they're now operating at 4.3Ghz. However, the second the other cores are used, the CPU clocks all the cores at 4Ghz. That's what Turbo is. With that said, for all intents and purposes, just ignore the turbo talk. A lot of the times, the turbo doesn't make that much of a difference to worry or think about.

Considering that earlier I said that the 8370 was a poor buy at $190, the 8370E is an even shittier buy at $200. The key difference between the two CPUs is that the 8370E is clocked at 3.3Ghz whereas the 8370 is clocked at 4Ghz. So it's 700Mhz slower. If you want something less power hungry, just go with an Intel setup as going low power with an AMD FX setup is an exercise in futility and waste.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say waste but that board would be one with an 8 core FX. 780 chipsets will handle a 6 core at best, but prob more suited to the 4 core FXs.

As far as turbo FORGET IT. It only matters if you don't touch the bios setting aka: OverClock. Most turn the turbo off and use straight overclocks.

Again though with this board use no more than a six core. Generally I feel 8 core FX is the only viable purchase left for AMD till ZEN comes out.
 
DellAxim said:
Thanks, that makes more sense. AMD is definitely king of confusing marketing bullshit! :D

Just so I'm clear: Turbo never works on all 8 cores at the same time?

I'm replacing an old Athlon 64 X2 that isn't used for much more than web browsing, so it's not going to get worked very hard, I don't need an 8 core, but I want one....
Click to expand...
The Turbo feature and name is also used by Intel. So it's not solely an AMD thing.

Yes, turbo never works on all 8 cores.

With that said, in light of the fact that some people here are questioning the viability of that motherboard with an relatively power hungry 8 core CPU, rightly so actually, I'd err on the side of caution and avoid all of the eight core CPUs. That motherboard is technically the low-end AMD motherboard platform on account of the old outdated chipset and the 4Pin CPU connector that others pointed out. So forget my earlier FX-8350 recommendation and go with the FX-6300 at best.
 
Why would they list the 8 core processors on the official supported CPU list if they didn't work? Somewhere it says it's supposed to work with up to 140w processors...
 
DellAxim said:
Why would they list the 8 core processors on the official supported CPU list if they didn't work? Somewhere it says it's supposed to work with up to 140w processors...
Click to expand...

They do work. It's just that the long-term survivability of the motherboard is in question. It's akin to junk food: They're technically food and do provide you with the energy to keep going but eating junk food non-stop isn't exactly conducive to a healthy life.
 
Is it possible to turn off cores somehow and turn an 8 core into a 6 or even 4 core if I don't need the extra power?
 
DellAxim said:
Is it possible to turn off cores somehow and turn an 8 core into a 6 or even 4 core if I don't need the extra power?
Click to expand...

Technically yes but why would you do that in the first place? That's just wasting money: you bought an 8 core CPU and you're going to turn it into a six-core CPU or even four core CPU? Might as well save the money and go with the six or four core off the bat.
 
Dangman said:
Technically yes but why would you do that in the first place?
Click to expand...

Not much different than overclocking. People that overclock don't always clock up to the maximum 24/7. Much like your junk food analogy, there is nothing wrong with eating junk food once in a while if that's not all you eat. If 8 cores will kill the motherboard long term, then I only have to use them if I really need it. 8 core is only around $30-40 more than the 6 core if I don't get the top end model.
 
You need to look at wattage not really how many cores for example the 8370e is on the supported list and it is a 95 watt part like the 6300 but it also is $200 where the 6300 can be had for south of 100 most games only beat on 2-4 cores with only the newest hitting on 6 cores none have been tested to be optimized for an 8 core.
 
DellAxim said:
Not much different than overclocking. People that overclock don't always clock up to the maximum 24/7. Much like your junk food analogy, there is nothing wrong with eating junk food once in a while if that's not all you eat. If 8 cores will kill the motherboard long term, then I only have to use them if I really need it. 8 core is only around $30-40 more than the 6 core if I don't get the top end model.
Click to expand...

To me, $30 to $40 is still a substantial amount of money to waste. However, the price difference is greater than that: The FX-6300 can be had for under $100. The FX-8350 is $165. That's a $65 difference. So yeah, not worth spending an extra $65 for a PC that, as you just said earlier, is only really used for web-browsing. $65 that could be used towards a 250GB SSD in fact.

It is very different from overclocking in that you're not losing or wasting anything if you don't overclock at all or do so in very limited times/increases. Here you are losing and wasting the value of that CPU by deliberately limiting it to certain number of cores. It's like getting a ribeye steak and asking for it be well done. Waste of a perfectly good steak and a decent CPU. Or going back to junk food, you're buying a ton of junk food and just throwing half of it into a trash can before they're actually touched.
 
Dangman said:
However, the price difference is greater than that: The FX-6300 can be had for under $100. The FX-8350 is $165. That's a $65 difference. So yeah, not worth spending an extra $65 for a PC that, as you just said earlier, is only really used for web-browsing. $65 that could be used towards a 250GB SSD in fact.
Click to expand...

FX-6300 is $97 from Amazon, comparable 8 core is FX-8320 for $136. $39 difference. The 8 core is more future proof, even if I used it in a different motherboard later on. I'm still using my Athlon 64 dual core, it's gotta be getting close to 10 years old, on the cheapest motherboard I could find at the time. I want the same kind of life from this one. And the old Athlon is going to keep playing music for probably another decade...

I already have the RAM, and a bunch of fast hard drives, the CPU would be the only thing not maxed out. Cost is not really an issue, no matter what I'm getting way more performance for way less money than last time I built a computer...
 
DellAxim said:
FX-6300 is $97 from Amazon, comparable 8 core is FX-8320 for $136. $39 difference. The 8 core is more future proof, even if I used it in a different motherboard later on.
Click to expand...
Money wasted is still money wasted even if its' technically less waste before.

The 8 core isn't more future proof since you have not stated anything at all where the extra cores would actually be used. I highly doubt there will ever be a day when you need an 8 Core CPU in order to do some basic web browsing. It doesn't accomplish anything at all to get an eight core CPU, disable two of the cores, and then only enable the other two cores when needed. More than likely those two cores will stay disabled for the duration of the PC.

As for using it in a different motherboard, thats just throwing good money after bad. The whole point of going AMD is to save money. So if you're planning on buying another motherboard, you might as well switch platforms altogether and go Intel. At least Intel's better IPC means that an Intel system will technically last longer as a web browsing system than an AMD FX system. Especially if costs is truly not an issue.
 
Dangman said:
The Turbo feature and name is also used by Intel. So it's not solely an AMD thing.

Yes, turbo never works on all 8 cores.
Click to expand...

Where have you been the last 5 years? Nearly every MB Manufacturer sets their BIOS defaults to run all available cores to the maximum Turbo Bins so that they perform better then the competition in review testing..Even cheap ~$70 boards on Both Intel and AMD configurations due this.
 
ccityinstaller said:
Where have you been the last 5 years? Nearly every MB Manufacturer sets their BIOS defaults to run all available cores to the maximum Turbo Bins so that they perform better then the competition in review testing..Even cheap ~$70 boards on Both Intel and AMD configurations due this.
Click to expand...
I have not seen that behavior.
 
Dangman said:
I have not seen that behavior.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Do you ever read ANY of Anandtech's MB reviews/roundups?

Readers of our motherboard review section will have noted the trend in modern motherboards to implement a form of MultiCore Enhancement / Acceleration / Turbo (read our report here) on their motherboards. This does several things, including better benchmark results at stock settings (not entirely needed if overclocking is an end-user goal) at the expense of heat and temperature. It also gives in essence an automatic overclock which may be against what the user wants.
Click to expand...

This is an excerpt from their MSI X99S MPower review but it gets my point across.
 
ccityinstaller said:
Seriously? Do you ever read ANY of Anandtech's MB reviews/roundups?

This is an excerpt from their MSI X99S MPower review but it gets my point across.
Click to expand...
Again, I have not noticed that behavior. Nor do I read Anandtech's motherboard reviews. The only thing I use Anandtech for are their benches.

But fine, let's say that it does happen: In the case of the FX-8370E, do you really think it's going to clock up to its 4.3Ghz across all four cores from the base 3.3Ghz? In addition, do you really think the extra 300Mhz or 200Mhz in clock speed with the FX-8350 really matter?
 
ccityinstaller said:
Seriously? Do you ever read ANY of Anandtech's MB reviews/roundups?



This is an excerpt from their MSI X99S MPower review but it gets my point across.
Click to expand...

I know Intel does this but I haven't seen this behavior from AMD boards. My MSI 990 chipset board definitely does not. Hell they locked out OCing past 4.2Ghz because they limit you to 1.4V in the Bios (have to use other means to OC).

So no it doesn't always work that way. Don't even think it worked with ASUS on my brothers 7850K.
 
Dangman said:
In addition, do you really think the extra 300Mhz or 200Mhz in clock speed with the FX-8350 really matter?
Click to expand...

No. For the third time we think the 8730e being only 95watts will matter in his board not failing. No one is recommending it for the speed. If it was a decent mobo I would say get an 8320 and overclock it to whatever 8350-8370-9370-9570 speed you want.
 
Id recommend a 8320e over an 8370e tbh... practically the same speed at normally $50-60 less.
 
jamesgalb said:
Id recommend a 8320e over an 8370e tbh... practically the same speed at normally $50-60 less.
Click to expand...

I'd recommend the 8310 as an OEM part from tigerdirect. I've seen it on sale as low as $89 after rebate. 95W, 3.4Ghz with turbo to 4.3 IIRC.
 
kirbyrj said:
I'd recommend the 8310 as an OEM part from tigerdirect. I've seen it on sale as low as $89 after rebate. 95W, 3.4Ghz with turbo to 4.3 IIRC.
Click to expand...

I second this.

its hard to beat the 8310 on price, as its cheaper then the E variants and offers the 95 watt tdp, and 4.3ghz turbo core.
 
Those are also both good choices.

I recommended the 8370e because it was the only 95watt cpu on egg at the time and i'm not very familiar with the current line-up other than that they offered a low wattage e cpu lol.
 
I would still go with a six core, we don't know what the OP was going to use it for but he did mention speed. You would stand a much better chance of getting a 6 or even 4 core up to a decent ( gaming) speed on that board than you would an 8 core.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top