FX-8300 OC performance

B

buzzbomb

Gawd
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
594
Posting this in the AMD processors section and not the general Overclocking section to avoid Intel cranks. :D

Currently have the top OC for the FX-8300 on hwbot.org, H100i on CPU as noted in the comments. I got into Windows at this speed and it would POST at 5.0GHz but BSOD before I could get into Windows. I'm going to keep tweaking it and I hope to get over the 50% OC hump. All things considered, it isn't IBT/Prime stable at speeds like this (so far anyway), I end up taking it back down to 4.2GHz for daily use and gaming and I'm still working on some stability issues at that speed (ARMA2, I'm looking at you). I was going to hold out for a deal on an 8320E but went for the 8300 instead (pre-Xmas deal kept it under $100 from TD), and I'm glad I did.
 
I picked up a 8320E for 99 bucks, and got some pretty okayoverclocks out of it (sits around 4.6 stable).

The problem is that compared to my X58/5650 system, its actually slower at gaming in DA:I and FC4 (even though my X5650 is running 2.9). But as far as 'stable' OC's for the 8320 go, it seems to go alright

Gaming was done with both a 290 and a 290X to see if there were any oddities with the cards.
 
Right. AMD's single-threaded (and therefore gaming) performance is nowhere near anything from Intel. For as much as games are beginning to take advantage of more cores/threads, single-threaded performance still rules for the most part. This is how the dual core Pentium G3258 can hang with all of the FX-series chips in synthetic and real-world gaming. Hopefully this changes soon, any ideas why devs haven't embraced more core/thread scalability? Quad-core processors have been out for almost ten years, is it an API problem?
 
buzzbomb said:
Right. AMD's single-threaded (and therefore gaming) performance is nowhere near anything from Intel. For as much as games are beginning to take advantage of more cores/threads, single-threaded performance still rules for the most part. This is how the dual core Pentium G3258 can hang with all of the FX-series chips in synthetic and real-world gaming. Hopefully this changes soon, any ideas why devs haven't embraced more core/thread scalability? Quad-core processors have been out for almost ten years, is it an API problem?
Click to expand...

it's harder and more expensive...that's all, it require to design a more complex and heavy resources engine like Cry Engine 3 in crysis 3 but it will keep away A LOT of people from gaming due to CPU bottlenecks (which occur even in newer intel i5 chips Look at this example). and dev's don't want that kind of enthusiast requirements, dev's generally aim to the mainstream gamer for higher requirement and budget gamer for medium requirements and that's where the bigger gamer segment are as not every person in the world can have a 1000+$ gaming rig (gladly crysis 3 is one or maybe the only one game where we can see a Octa Core FX Chip on pair with quad core i7s crushing i5s and below due the excellent core scalability ) but with the arrival of the current gen of consoles games are starting to use more threads and scale much better than before as dev's are practically forced to create multi-threaded engines and we can see FX chips scaling better and with a better use of the cores..
 
I remember the mass exodus from things like hardware accelerated audio and physics (PhysX is an eye candy layer now not integrated into game play like Havok in HL2) and now devs can't use multi-core CPUs that well...

But you have to look at the history of gaming. Modern gaming exploded with the PS360. They are just 3 core CPUs clocked very high making devs design engines that love great single core performance.

When the PS4 and X1 were announced, a lot of PC gamers were happy because now devs HAVE to learn how to scale their game over 6 to 8 core that have poor single core performance. The problem is that this is a MAJOR programing shift: to tell the game to just dump some part of the code on the 8th core instead of staying on the 4th or 6th core.

Gaming will really evolve when doubling your core count will be nearly as good as doubling your CPU clock speed. Right now, this is now where near the case. Hopefully by the end of the PS4 and X1 cycle it will be.
 
not just core count but HSA-like coding. The possibilities moving forward, if utilized well, will open up a far better PC gaming environment.
 
Wally Simmonds said:
I picked up a 8320E for 99 bucks, and got some pretty okayoverclocks out of it (sits around 4.6 stable).

The problem is that compared to my X58/5650 system, its actually slower at gaming in DA:I and FC4 (even though my X5650 is running 2.9). But as far as 'stable' OC's for the 8320 go, it seems to go alright

Gaming was done with both a 290 and a 290X to see if there were any oddities with the cards.
Click to expand...

Where did you score a 8320E for $99? Online?
Thanks!
 
Sorry I got the 8320 (not the e) but the E was the same price at the time.

Black Friday sales, amazon ;)
 
Microcenter has the 8320E for $120, that's where I got mine a couple weeks back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top