Overclocking

AMD's FX architecture was designed for very high clock speeds. With Piledriver we're able to see some of that expressed in overclocking headroom. All of these chips should be good for close to 5GHz depending on your luck of the draw and cooling. For all of these overclocking tests I used AMD's branded closed loop liquid cooler which debuted back with the original FX launch. I didn't have enough time to go through every chip so I picked the FX-8350 and FX-4300 to show the range of overclocks that may be possible. In my case the FX-4300 hit 5GHz with minimal effort, while the FX-8350 topped out at 4.8GHz (I could hit 5GHz but it wasn't stable through all of our tests). Both of these overclocks were achieved with no more than 10% additional core voltage and by simple multiplier adjustments (hooray for unlocked everything). The increase in performance is substantial:

Windows 8 - x264 HD 5.0.1 - 1st Pass

Windows 8 - x264 HD 5.0.1 - 2nd Pass

The increase in power consumption is pretty bad however, you do pay for these types of voltage driven overclocks:

Power Consumption - Load (x264 HD 5.0.1)

The 5GHz FX-4300 is pushed into FX-8300 territory, while the 4.8GHz 8350 is in a league of its own at just under 300W of total system power consumption.

Projected Performance: Can AMD Catch up with Intel? Final Words
POST A COMMENT

247 Comments

View All Comments

  • 7beauties - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link

    I've rooted for AMD against Intel before I built my first PC with the 700Mhz Athlon in 2000. AMD stole Intel's thunder to much acclaim. For a while AMD and Intel dueled for supremacy, exchanging leads, much like the tit for tat between Radeon and Geforce GPU's are engaged in. AMD's scrappy fight spurred Intel's clock to speed up its ticks and tocks, and the computing world benefited from this. It would be bad for all of us if AMD goes out of business. I root for the underdog, for David against Goliath, but David is lying on the ground and boasting of winning. It was embarrassing when the Phenom was so unphenomenal. Then AMD heralded the Bulldozer. Bulldoze what? The empty hype makes the truth more painful. Intel plans to integrate the South Bridge onto Haswell's die, and folks, AMD will lose teeth and get bloodied. I'm growing weary of being a sort of Cubs fan. Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - link

    You simpletons all have the same hate filled idiot theory - so let me ask you - since amd has competition, WHY DO THEY SUCK SO BADLY ?

    Somehow you idiots claim, that if amd wasn't around, intel would suck. "Amd has made intel great"

    Well, wait a minute - Intel is around, it's great, AND AMD SUCKS.

    Take a moment, look in the mirror, think about it.... then let me know how red you turned... if not at all, contraception from here on out is a must.

    How are you people so stupid ? How is it possible ?
    Reply
  • Ukdude21 - Thursday, August 15, 2013 - link

    You the biggest idiot on this website. I have read many comments on this website but yours are the most idiotic intel fanboy stained comments ever. Reply
  • halbhh2 - Thursday, October 25, 2012 - link

    If power use is important to you, you should know that different reviews give different results for the power use vs competing intel chips.

    A couple of sites even have equal or lower idle power draw for the 8350 vs i7 3770.

    Trying to figure out why, one variable is the motherboard. Is the Crosshair V a power hog?

    I also looked at yearly cost in electrical use for my own useage.

    The only thing I do that pegs multiple cores at 100% is chess analysis. In Deep Fritz the 8350 is close in performance to the i7 3770.

    I do chess analysis about 1-5 hours a week on average, perhaps 200 hours per year.

    The math is very simple. Power costs 16 cents per kilowatt hour. Peak power useage would cost an extra $3/year roughly vs an intel rig for me. Since I'd use a more power efficient motherboard than the Asus Crosshair, idle power is reasonable. I standby a lot when not using also.

    An 8350 would cost me in the range of $4-$8 more per year in power bills vs an i7 3770 (it's competitor for chess analysis).
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - link

    So go ahead and destroy the earth, see if any humans care. Reply
  • Ukdude21 - Thursday, August 15, 2013 - link

    If you are the worried about the earth why don't you give your pc away. Least then we would not have to read your shit comments lol. Reply
  • taltamir - Thursday, October 25, 2012 - link

    Starting the power cosumption graphs at 50 watt instead of 0 watt is GROSSLY MISLEADING! and very unfair to AMD.

    Lack of performance per watt comparison is unfair to Intel. Yea, AMD finally is able to, at stock, beat intel on some benchmarks... But they consume significantly more power to do so (intel could easily start selling higher clocked parts too)
    Reply
  • pcfxer - Thursday, October 25, 2012 - link

    If I ever build a new machine...it looks like I'll swing towards my first ever Intel box...hrmmm the anticipation may make me do it just for fun even though my Phenom II X555BE Unlocked and OC'd to 3.5GHz serves me just fine. Reply
  • OCedHrt - Friday, October 26, 2012 - link

    it would be nice if they were normalized to idle power usage since we are comparing CPU power usage. Reply
  • halbhh2 - Friday, October 26, 2012 - link

    I got curious about the idle power and visited 7 sites to look at reviews. No 2 sites had the same idle power difference between the 8350 vs the i7 3770. Values ranged from 9 watts AMD *lower* (lower! than intel) to 22 watts higher. The higher readings seemed to all be with the Asus Crosshair V, which logically must be a power hog.

    You should consider the idle power numbers *not* representative. Unreliable.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now