Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Air cooling FX 8120

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
October 30, 2012 6:05:52 PM

Hi All

I'm afraid I have a number of related questions. Any advice would be gratefully appreciated.

I'm trying to put a spec' together for a box I'm building and I'm considering whether it's worth including an allowance for overclocking the CPU.

I won't be using any graphics to speak of so it's only the CPU I'm concerned with and any impact that might have on the rest of the system.

At peak load the CPU could possibly be running at 100% for serveral hours.

My questions are:

1) Is it safe to overclock and run at max for several hours?

2) Is it possible to do this using air cooling?

3) What speed could be safely achieved with a FX 8120 on a Sabretooth 990-FX using air cooling?

4) What cooling device would you recommend to achieve this?

5) Could this fit into a Fractal R3 case along with 8 HDD drives?

6) Would you recommend additional fans be added to the case?

Many Thanks


Charlie101

More about : air cooling 8120

a c 78 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
October 31, 2012 1:59:06 AM

1) Is it safe to overclock and run at max for several hours? Yes*

2) Is it possible to do this using air cooling? Yes*

3) What speed could be safely achieved with a FX 8120 on a Sabretooth 990-FX using air cooling? ......That will depend on your specific air cooling, the voltage your chip needs, and your motherboard/PSU's ability to supply the needed voltage.

4) What cooling device would you recommend to achieve this? For a mild overclock, a 212+ will suffice. For all-out overclcocking, a ~$100 beast is in order. (Noctua etc)

5) Could this fit into a Fractal R3 case along with 8 HDD drives? Depending on the actual CPU cooler you choose, yes.

6) Would you recommend additional fans be added to the case? The rear fan "downstream" from your beast CPU cooler should have some good air flow to remove all the hot air the cooler throws at it.



The problem is every variable effects the others. I would start by researching different coolers in the price range you are willing to spend.

Find the best one you are willing to pay for.....that fits your case.

Then mount the cooler and work on an OC that will be safe to run 24/7. I would try to keep temps below 55C at full load, and voltage below 1.45v.

I would be comfortable running a bulldozer system, that stayed within those limits, 24/7.

It's all intertwined. More speed generally needs more voltage. More voltage generally creates more heat. Getting rid of more heat requires more cooling....

Different chips require different voltages to achieve the same clock speeds. So your "max" will differ from someone else's max, even though they may have the model number CPU.
October 31, 2012 1:32:26 PM

Hi Hi Z1NONLY

Thanks for your reply. It was very usful especially the pointer to the Noctua.


The GA-990FXA-UD3 is good enough for my needs but the Asus Sabertooth 990FX appears to be better for OC:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/sabertooth-990fx-990fxa-u...

I didn't want to spend the extra £40 if overclocking was going to be too expensive or too much trouble.

Happily after reading around the posts on this and other sites it seems quite straight forward if your not pushing the boundaries.

I'm going to opt for the Sabertooth 990FX with the Noctua NH-D14.


Thanks again for your help.





Related resources
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
October 31, 2012 6:06:05 PM

I originally built mine on the gigabyte, was able to reach 4.4 ghz easy enough, but getting past that wasn't going to happen.

sold it to a friend who was building a 4170 rig, grabbed the sabertooth for mine. the options on the sabertooth can be overwhelming at first, but the ammount of detail you get is insane compared to the gigabyte. voltage adjustments of 0.00125v vs 0.025v being the biggest advantage.

same cpu, gigabyte was 4.4 ghz at 1.42v.
initially on the asus I hit 4.6 ghz at 1.43v, playing with and tweaking the other settings I am at 4.7 ghz at 1.344v rock solid stable with temps ~45c.

Gigabyte is for simple users, asus for tweaking.
November 1, 2012 1:38:09 AM

noob2222 said:
I originally built mine on the gigabyte, was able to reach 4.4 ghz easy enough, but getting past that wasn't going to happen.

sold it to a friend who was building a 4170 rig, grabbed the sabertooth for mine. the options on the sabertooth can be overwhelming at first, but the ammount of detail you get is insane compared to the gigabyte. voltage adjustments of 0.00125v vs 0.025v being the biggest advantage.

same cpu, gigabyte was 4.4 ghz at 1.42v.
initially on the asus I hit 4.6 ghz at 1.43v, playing with and tweaking the other settings I am at 4.7 ghz at 1.344v rock solid stable with temps ~45c.

Gigabyte is for simple users, asus for tweaking.



Hi noob2222

Thanks for the Info. That sounds pretty impressive to me.

I'm afraid I currently know nothing about overclocking so that makes me a bit of a simple user.
However I 'am rather technically minded and have worked in IT for a couple of decades now

The Tomshardware arcticle gave me the impression that the sabertooth board obeyed the bios setting much better than the Gigabyte and so the overclocking process would be more predictable and controlable.

I'll be using the box for testing and teaching Oracle Databases; hence the need for the 8 cores.
I've read a lot of the poor reviews and bench marks, most of which have been interpreted rather superficially by the flamers and fan boys.

Still, I thought combining some overclocking with the parallelization could yield a very impressive work horse. Considering the price and the speed people are getting it looks pretty damn good to me.

I'll be very happy if I can get 4.4 ghz










a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 1, 2012 6:32:15 AM

well, the biggest option to look for when you start to play with it is to find the "llc control" and set it to ultra.

the fx chips are a variable voltage chips, menaing at stock 3.1 ghz it can range from 1.25v to 1.35v (may not be exact but you get the idea)

LLC changes that to vary from its % (ultra is 100%) so on ultra it varies from 1.25v to 1.25v. This will stabilize overclocking voltages greatly. At stock its designed to do that, overclocked, throws things off, requiring higher than needed voltage if its not changed.
November 1, 2012 2:21:43 PM

noob2222 said:
well, the biggest option to look for when you start to play with it is to find the "llc control" and set it to ultra.

the fx chips are a variable voltage chips, menaing at stock 3.1 ghz it can range from 1.25v to 1.35v (may not be exact but you get the idea)

LLC changes that to vary from its % (ultra is 100%) so on ultra it varies from 1.25v to 1.25v. This will stabilize overclocking voltages greatly. At stock its designed to do that, overclocked, throws things off, requiring higher than needed voltage if its not changed.



Thanks for the info, I'll make a note of it and come back to it once I've done some reading and had a bit of a play. .
No doubt I'll be posting more question when I actually get down to the overclocking.

Thanks again.
!