Amd fx 8350 übertakten: AMD FX-8350 overclocked to over 8GHz

Was ich schon gemacht habe:

— BIOS neuste Version

— MAGICAN neuste Version

— Firmware der SSD neuste Version

— Windows alle Updates installiert

— Sata 6 GB Anschluss und AHCI Modus aktiviert

— Alle Treiber vom Mainboard Gedownloaded, ASMEDIA Sata Controler drauf

Mein System:

— AMD FX 8350 4.0GHz

— Motherboard: ASUS M5A97 EVO R2.0

— Grafikkarte: GTX 970

— RAM: 8GB 1600MHz

— SEAGATE 1TB HDD

— SSD Samsung EVO 850 250 GB

— Windows 8.1 64 BIT

Was ist Falsch ?? PLS HELP

. ..zur Frage

Core-Unlock AMD FX 6300

Ich hab vor mir ein ASUS M5A99X Evo R2.0 Mainboard und einen AMD FX 6300 Sechskern Prozessor zu kaufen.
Jetzt hab ich allerdings gelesen, dass die Evo R2.0 Version kein Core unlocking unterstützt.

Muss bei dem FX 6300 irgententwas unlocked werden?
Das gleiche mainboard mit core unlock unterstützung ist nämlich deutlich teurer.

…zur Frage

Micro ruckler mit G1 Rx 480?

Hallo, kurz zu meinem System… ich hab mir gestern die RX 480 8G von Gigabyte gekauft und sie scheint nicht so warm zu werden mit meinem System :D. Micro ruckler in Games und hefige System abstürze( Bildschirm erstrahlt in zufälliger einer Farbe). Alter Grafiktreiber hab ich vor dem wechseln der Hardware deinstalliert.

Windows 10 M5A97 r2.0 evo Fx 8350 DDR 3 8GB 1150 Mhz SSD für System HDD ausschließlich Games Netzteil, Hamburg 530 W Termaltake

Meine Vermutung, Ram zu langsam… das lässt wohl den schlauch platzen.

Grüße Saixx

…zur Frage

reicht das PURE POWER L8 500 W für eine 980 ti?

Wollt meinen Rechner mal ein wenig aufrüsten und wollt wissen ob mein PURE POWER L8 500 W (ca 1 Jahr alt) für eine neue GTX 980 ti reichen würde ohne das ich mir Sorgen machen müsste ?

Processor : AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor 4.2 GHz Mainboard : ASUS M5A97 R2.0 CPU Cooler : be quiet! Dark Rock Advanced C1 RAM : 16 GB HyperX Hard Drive : 1000 GB WD Solid State Drive : 250 GB Crucial

. ..zur Frage

kann ich den Cooler Master Hyper 212 RGB auf mein motherboard b250h5-EM mit einer intel core i3 7100 benutzen?

kann ich den Cooler Master Hyper 212 RGB auf mein motherboard b250h5-EM mit einer intel core i3 7100 benutzen?

…zur Frage

AMD FX 8350 Prozessor und GA-78LMT-S2P Motherboard?

Hallo!

Ich möchte wissen, ob der AMD FX 8350 Prozessor in mein GA-78LMT-S2P Motherboard passt? Bitte gibt mir eine ehrliche Antwort und vielleicht auch mit beweisen.
Danke!

…zur Frage

AMD FX-8350 — Drivers & Specifications 2023

Updated: Dec 27, 2021

Drivers Download

Get Price production-unknown. It belongs to the FX family and is built on the Vishera architecture. The processor uses AMD Socket AM3+ and Gen 2 PCI express controller. By production 32 nm technical process is used.

Top 5 destinations in …

Please enable JavaScript

Top 5 destinations in Asia for digital nomads

The processor has 8 cores and 8 threads, respectively, and a base frequency of 4 GHz. It supports DDR3 Dual-channel memory and L1 384K, L2 8MB and L3 8MB cache (shared).

Learn more about AMD FX-8350:

• Specifications
• Drivers
• Benchmark and performance
• Gaming
• SSE4.1
• SSE4.2
• AES
• AVX

• AMD64
• EVP
• AMD-V
• CLMUL
• FMA4
• XOP
• Turbo Core
• CVT16
• HT3.1

Drivers

Looking for drivers for FX-8350? We recommend the free Driver Booster program, which allows you to find, install and update drivers for Windows 10, 8. 1, and 7 in one click!

For gaming

To see if the AMD FX-8350 is suitable for gaming, we checked whether popular, new and upcoming games will run on this processor:

AMD FX-8350 processor based on the Piledriver

microarchitecture

Bulldozer 2.0 or 1.5 yet?

A year ago, we studied the firstborn of the new AMD architecture, and until recently, the FX-8150 remained the company’s top solution. Despite some ambiguity, despite the expansion of the range of cheaper devices, the FX-8170, which was once actively discussed by many in the first quarter of this year (as well as in the second and third), did not come out, and talk about it subsided. The reasons are clear: last year it was not possible to release it, and this no longer made sense, as the company worked on architectural improvements in the new generation of processors. The Piledriver microarchitecture, which replaced the Bulldozer, debuted on the market in the first half of this year. At first, however, only as part of mobile APUs, but from the very beginning it was obvious that its expansion into the desktop segment (both in the form of APUs and as the basis of high-performance «classic» processors) was only a matter of time. And not so big. Accordingly, the release of a new FX on the old architecture did not make sense, because it could not improve anything radically, but it was quite possible to spoil mass for a more modern competitor: it is obvious that the superiority of the already planned FX-8350 over the FX-8150 is greater than it would be over FX-8170.

And at the beginning of October we waited for desktop Trinity. In principle, Vishera could have been announced even then — in fact, we (like, apparently, most of the test labs) received samples of the A10-5800K and FX-8350 at the same time. However, to enhance the intrigue, the company decided not to share, but to present to the public APU and multi-module solutions separately — in order to finally spend October “under its own sign”. However, today all the veils of secrecy have fallen, so that we can not only evaluate the pros and cons of the new flagship of the line, but also introduce them to all readers. What are we going to do now. 3.6/4.2 3.8/4.2 3.3/3.7 Number of compute cores/threads 8/8 8/8 9030 4/4 6/6 L1 cache (sums.), I/D, KB 256/128 256/128 128/64

59

59

59 , KB 4×2048 4×2048 2×2048 6×512 L3 cache, MiB 1

Therefore, after some deliberation, we decided to add the A10-5800K to the list of test subjects. Yes, of course, these are processors of completely different classes — here there are half as many modules, and there is no cache. But the architecture is the same, the frequencies are close — in general, it will be interesting to compare processors in a low-threaded software environment. And for someone — not only in it: it may turn out that many consider the A10-5800K performance level sufficient for themselves, which, coupled with good video, lower power consumption and a much lower price, will easily outweigh the difference in performance 🙂

Another competitor taken directly from last year’s article is the Phenom II X6 1100T. It is interesting to us because the FX-8150 sometimes overtook the old flagship slightly, and there were also tests in which it completely lagged behind it, which made a number of fans of AMD products discouraged. Now there is no direct competition between FX and the older Phenom II, because, formally continuing their supplies (and even lowering prices), the company has reduced the shipment of top Phenom II to a minimum, but there are a lot of them on hand, so compare the performance with the new top solution interesting and helpful.

0361 FM2 MSI FM2-A85XA-G65 (A85) G.Skill [RipjawsX] F3-14900CL9D-8GBXL (2×1866; 9-10-9-28) LGA1155 Biostar TH67XE (H67) Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B (2×1333/1066; 9-9-9-24 / 8-8-8-20)

Testing

we present in the diagrams the average result for a group of tests/applications (details on the testing methodology can be found in a separate article). The results on the diagrams are given in points, the performance of the iXBT.com reference test system of the 2011 sample is taken as 100 points. It is based on the AMD Athlon II X4 620 processor, but the amount of memory (8 GB) and the video card (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 1280 MB by Palit) are standard for all tests of the «main line» and can only be changed as part of special studies. Those who are interested in more detailed information are again traditionally invited to download a table in Microsoft Excel format, in which all the results are shown both in converted points and in «natural» form.

Interactive work in 3D packages

A traditionally low-threaded group of applications, which also gravitates towards Intel products, so there was no talk of intercompany competition initially, and even now it is not particularly observed. Something else is more interesting: three out of four AMD processors demonstrate the same level of performance, but the FX-8350 noticeably breaks away from them. We recall that in this mode, the clock frequencies of the other trio (when the new flagship enters) are approximately the same, and we conclude that some of the Bulldozer bottlenecks in the Piledriver really managed to be “expanded”: the FX-8150 slightly outperforms the A10-5800K only due to the presence cache memory of the third level, but it fails to fight on equal terms with the FX-8350, where there is a cache and a new architecture.

Final rendering of 3D scenes

Also a very interesting picture. Such a load was previously devastating for Bulldozer: only four vector units did not allow competing not only with the Core i5 (there are also four of them, but faster), but also with the Phenom II X6. And Piledriver has been improved internally. Plus, we managed to raise the frequencies at full load, so that the FX-8350 is no longer inferior to the above-mentioned processors, noticeably outperforming its predecessor. It is clear that this is still not enough to compete with the eight-thread Core i7 of the second and third generations (the first one also works at the level of the new Core i5), but the performance of the Core i5-3450 in such an inconvenient group of tests is very Fine.

Packing and unpacking

It is noteworthy that the once top Phenom II X6 1100T, despite the large number of cores (one test out of four can use them) and the presence of L3 (which is important for all four), is only 5% ahead of the A10-5800K , where both computational threads and cache memory are smaller. A good answer to those who are still sure of the wrong choice of path — they say, it was not necessary to develop a new architecture, but it was worth simply transferring Phenom II to a new technical process. Well, they would do it — so what? As you can see, there are tasks that are “convenient” for construction equipment. Actually, the FX-8150 also looked good in archiving tests, having performance at the level of the second generation Core i5 and some Core i7 of the first. And the FX-8350 added 10%, which already allows it to overtake all the third generation Core i5 and get closer to the second generation Core i7.

Audio encoding

And an even more convenient load for the FX line, under which the FX-8150 easily outperforms any Core i5. But it did not claim to be equal to the Core i7, and the FX-8350 is capable of this. The reason is clear: a 10% increase in performance per thread with the full utilization of all eight “half-cores” adds up to a 10% increase in clock frequency, which in the end gives already 20%.

Compilation

The situation is similar here. But the performance gain is somewhat less — cache memory is important for these applications, and the L3 characteristics in the new microarchitecture have not changed much (if only due to internal optimizations, both the volume and the frequency have remained the same). But even about 15% is also very good, since it allowed us to break away far from the Phenom II X6 1100T (the progress compared to which the FX-8150 was, to put it mildly, not impressive), and even with modern Core i7 «wrestle» almost by equal.

Mathematical and engineering calculations

Again we return to the low-threaded (for the most part) group of tests, in which so far there are no hints of direct competition with Intel products. But, which is also important, the FX-8350 in it is the fastest of the AMD processors, and earlier all FX were inferior to the older Phenom II. In general, let the victory over yourself, but not unimportant.

Raster graphics

This group occupies a neutral position: on the one hand, there is an increase over its predecessors, and a considerable one; on the other hand, the lag behind the older Intel processors was only reduced, and not completely overcome. However, the FX-8150 overtook the only Core i3-2100, and all the Core i3s (including the latest ones), and even the Core i5-2400 (and slower ones, respectively), are already behind the FX-8350, so not everything is like that. Just.

Vector graphics

This group of programs does not like new modules — and that’s putting it mildly. In general, as before, the Phenom II is still faster in them. But at least not by 20%, as it was last year, so the effect of the architecture update should not be underestimated.

Video encoding

But here the effect is extremely small, since the video encoding programs treated the FX-8150 very well. On the other hand, higher frequencies still have an effect, so if earlier the Core i5-2400 was faster than all AMD processors, then the FX-8350 is on average faster than even the i5-2500/2500K.

Office software

It’s not the first time that we can’t reach the competitors of «other colors», but we managed to break away from the «compatriots». There is still a lot in common between such diametrically opposed classes of software as “office” programs and 3D modeling packages;) In the latter, perhaps the gap from Core is smaller, but the principles are often similar. Although, it would seem, where is Maya — and where is Word!

Java

Another example of a “favorable” load for “building modules”, which the FX-8150 still could not manage in full, only slightly outperforming the Phenom II X6 1100T. As for the victory over the Core i5, firstly, it was predictable (eight threads against four), and secondly, it did not last long: the appearance of the third-generation Core i5 “overthrew” Bulldozer from not the first, but the prize. But the FX-8350 managed not only to restore the status quo, but also to get as close as possible to the Core i7 for LGA1155. Albeit only to the «old man» Core i7-2600 — but this is also the result.

Games

As we (and not only us) have said more than once, for any video card there is a certain level of processor performance, after which the latter ceases to be significant. However, as we can see, AMD processors have not yet reached the level corresponding to the GTX 570, so they have room to grow. And the new architecture is better than the old one in this regard. Although, due to the peculiarities of the F1 2010 operation on six computing threads, the Phenom II X6 1100T is not the best representative of the old one here, yielding to the Phenom II X4 980, but the latter in terms of performance is between the A10-5800K and FX-8150, i.e. between Piledriver without L3 and Bulldozer with L3. And Piledriver with L3 (i.e. FX-8350) is over 5% faster! But eight threads of computing are not very relevant for the time being, so gamers may very well like the new dual-module FX-4300 the most: with comparable performance, but significantly cheaper.

Multitasking environment

During the operation, this experimental test showed good predictability and repeatability, so it did not present any revelations this time either: everything is similar to multi-threaded «individual» applications. Well, since the bottleneck in the form of cache memory performance of the third level has not disappeared, the situation is closest to compilers — the FX-8150 was already able to bypass both the Phenom II X6 1100T and any Core i5, and the FX-8350 by another 10% faster, allowing it to get as close as possible to the Core i7. And just such types of loads show why four “dual-core” modules are needed. How, however, and why do Intel processors need Hyper-Threading technology.

Total

Starting from the very first test results, we had a vague regret about the unfulfilled: how simple everything would be if this processor was called FX-8150 and came out a year ago! Indeed: the superiority over the best Phenom II X6 1100T is noticeable, not nominal; despite the large number of single- and dual-threaded applications in the testing methodology (and in real life), the final result is at the level of older second-generation Core i5s, with the latter often noticeably ahead of the latter — such a representative of the new architecture would look extremely convincing. But history (including computer history) does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. Therefore, we have what we have — it is already October 2012, and not 2011. It only helped that Intel also did not speed up the third generation of Core too much relative to the second, and 10% “on average” is one and a half times less than the 15% achieved by the new generation of AMD.

If you look not only on average, then there are 17-20%. However, Intel also has more than “its own” 10%. Moreover, if you look closely, the most significant increase in performance in multi-threaded groups of tests. Which is connected not only and not so much with the architecture, but with the fact that both companies increased the frequencies in this mode. Intel (formally) to a lesser extent, but in the third-generation Core, Turbo Boost was also “turned up”. But AMD had to sharply increase the starting frequency, which can serve as an indirect confirmation that the Turbo Core (albeit 3.0) is still less efficient than the competing earlier development. However, indirect confirmation is not needed here — a direct one is enough: the TS only works when some of the modules (or at least their halves) are turned off, and the TV increases the frequencies even at full load.

In addition, it becomes clear why the FX-8170 did not come out: the superiority over it would be less. Here, Intel somewhat blurred the triumph of Ivy Bridge, first increasing the starting frequencies of the second generation (in the i5-2550K and i7-2700K models) and only then releasing their successors, while AMD could not do this, if only for reasons of prestige. Therefore (in fact) the increase in performance between 2011 and 2012 for companies differs by about a factor of two. Fans of conspiracy theories may see this as collusion and / or Intel’s desire to support a competitor a little. Although, in fact, the company went a little differently: yes, top models accelerated slightly, but energy-efficient ones grew significantly. In particular, we managed to release the Core i7-3770T (the first desktop Core i7 with a 45W TDP) and the i7-3612QM (the first eight-threaded notebook processor with a TDP of 35W — previously only dual-core Core i7s were capable of this). And in the 65 W region, the frequencies have grown a lot: the Core i7-3770S has replaced the Core i7-2600S with frequencies of 2.8-3.8 GHz and the HDG 2000 video core — 3.1-3.9GHz (i.e. + 10% frequency at full load) and HDG 4000. And now remember that at a constant frequency of 3.2 GHz, Ivy Bridge scored 195 points — the real i7-3770S should be slightly better (if only because of active «boost» in low-threaded applications). Maybe a little worse, but it doesn’t matter: as we saw today, the FX-8350 is capable of only 186 points — without any video core (except with the Radeon HD 4290 chipset, which is comparable to the second generation HDG at best) and at 125 W against a faster processor part with video and 65 watts.

On the other hand, it’s not that scary. The older multi-module FX still do not pretend to be used in laptops or monoblocks — there is Trinity for this. Which are quite out of place there — even from a comparison of the A10-5800K and FX-8350, we can conclude that, on average, the second one is “only” one and a half times faster, and in programs for domestic purposes (and close to them in terms of the logic of work) due to the traditional low-flow of the latter, the difference is reduced to 10-15%. Plus the most powerful integrated video core. The A10-5800K, of course, is also not suitable for compact systems, but even in the desktop line, AMD has the A10-5700 with a TDP of 65 W with exactly the same video part and slightly lower processor performance. And the destiny of FX in such conditions is systems with a deliberately “heavy” load and a considerable number of other energy-consuming peripherals. First of all, powerful discrete video cards come to mind that can “gobble up” 200-300 W, against which the difference in TDP between different processors quickly fades and evaporates. It is clear that competition in this segment is not easy, however … However, under a multi-threaded load, the new FX are already unconditionally inferior to at least Core i5, and often reach the level of Core i7. Plus, the complete freedom of overclocking, coveted by a considerable number of potential buyers. Which, by the way, generally makes (at least for them) a conversation about power consumption not very relevant, but it is aggravated by the fact that (as we already wrote) some FX disadvantages become advantages — it is easier to “remove” the necessary amount of heat from a large crystal than with small.

Ultimately, the following general picture emerges. The second generation of FX did not become a radical breakthrough (just as the first did not) — the revolution is once again postponed, already before the Steamroller. However, the company managed to improve the performance of end devices and prove the viability of the new architecture in practice. Of course, the fact that the proof turned out to be two-stage is somewhat disappointing, but the main thing is that it did turn out. Moreover, such situations happened in the past — what was the first Phenom worth (and the first FX were definitely not such a failure). This is not enough for competition in the top segment, but in the mass (and so) it is quite possible — in any case, the FX-8000 are and will continue to be the cheapest processors that support eight computation threads in the foreseeable future (along with some younger Xeon models). , of course, but these are very specific products, and still somewhat more expensive). Thus, for those who demand it, they can be a very good choice.