Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Fx 8350

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 29, 2012 10:56:29 AM

hi guys,

i've got a little question here... the fx 8350 has 4 modules with each 2 cores, right? every module has 2 mb of shared cache. Now what if we would disable 1 core each module, then every core would have his own 2mb of cache, right? Would this work, will there be an improvement, is it possible?

Thanks in advance,

Demisor

More about : 8350

a b à CPUs
October 29, 2012 11:18:55 AM

No it makes little difference.
I believe there is an article or such going into more detail about this
a b à CPUs
October 29, 2012 11:48:11 AM

I belive it not the case that make the problems, but their sharing/spliting "system/module/algorithm" that not works as good as hoped..

By disabling one core at the module it will be much improvement in it's performance.. (I'm forgot whre i read it....),

But they only tested at buldozer chip, do not know how it will be with piledriver chip like 8350 (since the PD is improvement from BD, I'm guessing the improvement % will be smaller)
Related resources
October 29, 2012 12:58:00 PM

rdc85 said:
I belive it not the case that make the problems, but their sharing/spliting "system/module/algorithm" that not works as good as hoped..

By disabling one core at the module it will be much improvement in it's performance.. (I'm forgot whre i read it....),

But they only tested at buldozer chip, do not know how it will be with piledriver chip like 8350 (since the PD is improvement from BD, I'm guessing the improvement % will be smaller)

What performance are you referring to? gaming? multi-threated?
Honestly, gaming performance is the only thing that interests me :D 

Thanks for your reply though!
October 29, 2012 3:49:40 PM

Anyone else that wants to share his knowlegde with me? :D 
a b à CPUs
October 29, 2012 4:19:06 PM

For best gaming performance, It's best to disable Core 2, Core 4, Core 6 and Core 8. For multi-threaded, its best to leave them all enabled. Also, fast RAM will help with performance so I've heard...
October 29, 2012 6:58:56 PM

After disabling the cores, what's the fps gain in %? will it compete with the 3570k when you only use 4 cores? or is getting the 3570k for 50-60 euros more better? one thing i do hate though, are the intel motherboards! you need to add 40 euros to get a similar quality (not even similar, worse) mobo of assrock D: it's a shame.
October 29, 2012 8:24:11 PM

Is there anyone with an 8350/8320 that could test this for me please? :D 
a b à CPUs
October 29, 2012 8:48:11 PM

I don't have an FX-8320/8350 right now, but I can tell you that disabling one core per module boosts lightly threaded performance (which is what almost all games care about) significantly at the sacrifice of highly threaded performance (only game that I can think of that'd be hurt by this is BF3 MP).

@griptwister
CPU core count starts at core 0, not core 1. Also, for overclocking, disabling core 1, 3, 5, and 6 is more optimal than disabling the second core of each module because this allows better heat dissipation.

Also, OP, overclocking the CPU/NB frequency is another great way to get a decent performance boost. Bringing it from the stock of 2.2GHz up to say 2.8GHz can be a very noticeable improvement in gaming performance where the CPU is too much of a bottle-neck.
October 29, 2012 9:06:36 PM

Thanks for your answer blazerthon!

People, if one of you have an 8320/8350, dont hesitate and test this out please ^^
Everything for science! (lol)
October 30, 2012 6:19:23 AM

Really, no one? :/ 
a c 186 à CPUs
October 30, 2012 6:26:15 AM

No one here has one yet.......
a b à CPUs
October 30, 2012 6:50:28 AM

5-10% performance gains is what you may be looking at, though its very exclusive to certain applications rather than general performance.
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2012 5:07:22 PM

blazorthon said:
I don't have an FX-8320/8350 right now, but I can tell you that disabling one core per module boosts lightly threaded performance (which is what almost all games care about) significantly at the sacrifice of highly threaded performance (only game that I can think of that'd be hurt by this is BF3 MP).

@griptwister
CPU core count starts at core 0, not core 1. Also, for overclocking, disabling core 1, 3, 5, and 6 is more optimal than disabling the second core of each module because this allows better heat dissipation.

Also, OP, overclocking the CPU/NB frequency is another great way to get a decent performance boost. Bringing it from the stock of 2.2GHz up to say 2.8GHz can be a very noticeable improvement in gaming performance where the CPU is too much of a bottle-neck.


I should know that, haha! My mistake, thanks for clearing it up.

@Demisor, I'm sure there is some one. And, In my opinion, The FX-8350 is a better value. If you pay attention to benchmarks, It really depends on what game it is that the i5 out performs the FX-8350, most benchmarks show that the FX-8350 is right under the i7. Also, you're more likely to be more future proof with a 8 core ;)  I heard that if you add really FAST ram, it really helps get optimum performance from the FX-8350.
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2012 6:36:48 PM

demisor said:
hi guys,

i've got a little question here... the fx 8350 has 4 modules with each 2 cores, right? every module has 2 mb of shared cache. Now what if we would disable 1 core each module, then every core would have his own 2mb of cache, right? Would this work, will there be an improvement, is it possible?

Thanks in advance,

Demisor

This was before windows scheduler patch for AMD's CMT (thats amds version of HT, 2 cores in one module)

windows does this on its own now. It will load cores 0,2,4, & 6 before 1 3 5 7, and actually "park" them when not in use (ie turn them off)

as for disabling half modules, not very many motherboards even do this. most allow module disablling, but not individual cores.

Even so, this was only beneficial to only programs that used more than 2 cores and less than 4.

single core programs (itunes) were unaffected.
a b à CPUs
November 3, 2012 2:03:27 AM

noob2222 said:
This was before windows scheduler patch for AMD's CMT (thats amds version of HT, 2 cores in one module)

windows does this on its own now. It will load cores 0,2,4, & 6 before 1 3 5 7, and actually "park" them when not in use (ie turn them off)

as for disabling half modules, not very many motherboards even do this. most allow module disablling, but not individual cores.

Even so, this was only beneficial to only programs that used more than 2 cores and less than 4.

single core programs (itunes) were unaffected.


Windows 7 doesn't really park the second core of each module. It's still too stupid to schedule things right and regardless of that, disabling the core on a hardware/BIOS level is far more effective than doing so in a software method.

Many older AM3+ motherboards have been getting BIOS updates to allow disabling individual cores (which are not half modules, so IDK why you're referring to them as such) instead of just individual modules and many newer boards have been coming out with this feature. It's much more common than it was before.
a b à CPUs
November 3, 2012 5:47:24 AM

blazorthon said:
Windows 7 doesn't really park the second core of each module. It's still too stupid to schedule things right and regardless of that, disabling the core on a hardware/BIOS level is far more effective than doing so in a software method.

Many older AM3+ motherboards have been getting BIOS updates to allow disabling individual cores (which are not half modules, so IDK why you're referring to them as such) instead of just individual modules and many newer boards have been coming out with this feature. It's much more common than it was before.



aside from core 3 getting loaded insead of core 2, core 1 is handling windows background, cores 0,3,4, and 6 are running skyrim, cores 3 5 and 7 are in fact parked.

you can see the same thing for intel cpus on techspot's testing.

http://www.techspot.com/mediagallery.php?f=467&sub=imag...

!