AMD FX-8370E at 4.5 GHz
For some reason, everyone seems to want to hit a nice, round 4.5 GHz when they overclock. We're not going to be the exception, even though it might not be an efficient approach to tuning AMD's Vishera core. Really, this CPU can go higher. We even managed 5 GHz long enough to boot into Windows. That required an unsafe 1.5 V though, which is unreasonable for running benchmarks.
Core Voltage
The core voltage at 4.5 GHz was set to 1.315 V in the BIOS, resulting in an actual reading of 1.26 V. This is already quite high, even though it’s still a lot more manageable than 1.5 V.
Power Consumption
At 116 W for the CPU and VRM combined, AMD's FX-8370E is still doing well, especially since the CPU’s contribution is probably under 100 W.
It's annoying that the motherboard and its voltage regulation circuit hit almost 80 degrees Celsius, though. If massive overclocking is your goal, then a more efficient platform would help.
Temperatures
In light of the previous findings, especially the relatively moderate power consumption, a CPU package temperature of 47 degrees Celsius isn't surprising. The processor's heat spreader registers 53 degrees Celsius according to the sensor under it, which isn’t much higher.
The infrared snapshot shows us that a big aftermarket cooler is capable of handling the FX processor's thermal load. Its two fans remain barely audible.
Efficiency
Does it make sense to run at a higher clock rate, trading better performance for increased power consumption? The answer isn’t clear-cut. We do see that the CPU speeds up while essentially consuming the same amount of power when it’s overclocked to 3.5 GHz. This is achieved with mostly untouched BIOS settings and a manual Vcore configured to match AMD's stock reading. Then there's the sweet spot (the point beyond which efficiency starts to decrease). We calculate this to land right around 3.8 GHz. And once you crest 4.2 GHz or so, overclocking AMD's FX-8370E probably doesn't make much sense. It mostly wastes electricity.
Again, if you're gunning for the sweet spot, it's right around 3.8 GHz. That's where you'll get sub-90 W power consumption and respectable performance. If you care more about benchmark results than your power bill, consider calling it a day around 4.2 GHz. Yes 4.5 GHz and higher is possible, but at a certain point you're going to spend too much on a beefy motherboard and high-end cooler, negating the value of overclocking outright.




If you pre-suppose that your sample is tainted why bother to do the testing and the article in the first place. Perhaps this is a case where your should purchase the product of the shelf in order to better serve your readers.
I think we all get it Vishera isn't exactly wonderful in single core operations, but:
A) I have yet to see any software which requires A LOT of single core power, it's 2014, if something is still single-core, it probably doesn't need all that power or il old enough to make even Vishera good at it.
B) You are comparing a 2012 architecture to a 4790K, It's like comparing Pentium 4 to a Pentium G3258.
If you pre-suppose that your sample is tainted why bother to do the testing and the article in the first place. Perhaps this is a case where your should purchase the product of the shelf in order to better serve your readers.
8150, 8320, 8230e, 8350, 8370e.
That would demonstrate the improvements of Vishera over Bulldozer, as well as any improvements offered by binning.
1) almost every vendor does this, cpus, graphics, ect..
2) the chip they received is exactly what you get when you buy it off the shelf, however every cpu/gpu ect varies by a small amount. The vendors simply make sure that review sites get the top end of that group. In all honesty we are probably talking 3% performance from the majority at most.
My 8320 will happily run 3.5/3.6ghz @ 1.15v as long as turbo core is disabled.
I will probably get the 8320E for my office computer during Black Friday. $140 is the price right now but I prefer $125 or less for an AMD CPU.
Far too many people forget the whole cost of OCing a chip. Sure, a 4.5 83XX can slightly beat a stock i5, but at what cost? The 6300 is a far more compelling CPU for tweakers. If you're lucky on a few sales, you can get the chip, cooler, and mboard for the same $200. And as pointed out here, unless you're pairing it with a top-shelf GPU, you won't see any gaming benefits with a pricier platform.
This is AMD's latest offering. The Haswell refresh is Intel's latest offering. Whatever the products' pedigrees, why shouldn't the two latest SKUs be compared?
AMD is embarrassing itself with these "new" releases. It is quite sad. I wonder how many more years they will milk "Piledriver"?
agreed, this cpu need new (limited) mobo to operate.. this making it's a minus point...
anyways we need to keep advocating good balanced built more often..
I see lot's of people keep waste money in one (op) part to only be limited by another parts in his system...
(the true potential of the system is nowhere to be seen)
agreed, this cpu need new (limited) mobo to operate.. this making it's a minus point...
anyways we need to keep advocating good balanced built more often..
I see lot's of people keep waste money in one (op) part to only be limited by another parts in his system...
(the true potential of the system is nowhere to be seen)
Agreed, too many people, and some that I personally know will throw a high end K chip in their rig and match it with a $120 GPU while not wanting to overclock said CPU, and then get mad because they can't max out new titles. Recently, a friend's brand new i7 rig was out ran by my overclocked FX rig in a bet on the Metro LL benchmark due to his GTX 650 GPU vs my heavily overclocked R9 280X
However, it seems that AMD won't be making any new CPU architectures until 2016. I'm doubtful that AMD will manage to push the clock any further in the near-future, though 5 GHz is possible. A 200W part will make your PC a space heater.
For the 2016 build, there's a chance that AMD may be revamping the CPU drastically, but there's also the chance that AMD will just give up. The third alternative is that they will release a CPU update for game consoles.
I'm also doubtful about the hybrid x86/ARM chip they want to make. In theory, it's sound, but I'm thinking of the complications from programming the thing, plus the potential for bugs.