Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Question about the AMD FX-8350 processor and its heat.

12 replies to this topic
Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#1

Posted 08 January 2014 - 07:10 PM Edited by Xerukal, 08 January 2014 - 07:11 PM.

I can't seem to find a specific answer to my question using Google, so I would like to try and ask here.

 

I'm upgrading to the FX-8350 Eight core 4.0 GHz (4.2 turbo) from my Phenom II Quad Core of 3.2 GHz. Basically a direct upgrade, right? Along from my GTX 560 Ti to the GTX 770.

 

I've seen a lot of people mention that the FX-8350 seems to produce a lot of heat. How true is his?

 

I've had this AMD Phenom II since early-mid 2009 and it has served me incredibly well in these several years. However, it always did like to run hotter. Albeit, I am using an INCREDIBLY old case that is not well ventilated AT ALL. So let us keep that in mind.

 

Nowadays, 47-50 idle and 68-72 in-game. Hot, right?

 

I personally have no problem with this. And heck, when I get a new case with proper ventilation, i won't mind at all. But I don't quite have the budget for a good, separate cooler right now. I have to invest in a new, quality HDD that will replace my IRRESPONSIBLY old hard drive from 2007 (No joke). As well as a new motherboard to support all of this stuff. 

 

I'm fairly new at this sort of thing, I'm an AMD guy because this Phenom has served me so well. So I'd just like to ask anyone out there with a stock-cooled FX 8350; is it really that bad?

 

If it's like 38-40 idle and 50-68 in-game. That would be pretty alright with me, given that it is properly ventilated, cleaned and "thermal-pasted up". Which it should be, in my case, as I'm getting mine new.

 

I'm not sure how appropriate this question is for a GTA forum. But it is the "Technology" sub-forum, and I trust this forum quite a bit. 

 

Thanks. 


yojc
  • yojc

    ~y

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2008
  • Poland
  • Best Poster [Tech] 2014
    Most Knowledgeable [Tech] 2013
    Helpfulness Award

#2

Posted 08 January 2014 - 10:45 PM

Yeah, the FX-8350 heats up quite a bit. Definitely more than the Phenom.
Honestly, I don't think that going for the FX is much of an upgrade, especially for gaming, if that's the purpose of your rig. I'd suggest selling current mobo and going for i5 instead.

Speaking of mobo - what motherboard do you have? If you happen to own some low-end stuff I'd strongly advise you against FX-8350. There have been reports that cheap mobos are throttling under load even with FX6300/6350 installed, let alone FX8350.

Stinky12
  • Stinky12

    No title

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2010

#3

Posted 08 January 2014 - 11:09 PM

It doesn't matter if it's AMD or Intel, with stock coolers and inadequate air flow the CPU will run hotter than usual, but the stock fan should be fine, just as long it's running on stock clocks.

The AMD FX uses a socket AM3+ CPU, so if your board is socket AM3+, check your website's support page and see if that FX CPU is supported or not. If it is supported, then it may also require a bios update for it to work.

Because your case doesn't have proper air flow then I would just run it at stock clocks to prevent it from running to hot.

One thing to get is a better CPU cooler, the most popular is the Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo.

If you're on a tight budget, then get a AMD FX-8320 and have the left over for a CPU cooler.

  • DeafMetal likes this

Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#4

Posted 09 January 2014 - 03:18 AM Edited by Xerukal, 09 January 2014 - 03:19 AM.

Well, my motherboard is kind of a big priority because the one I have is very, very old an inadequate for even DDR3 RAM (My 4GB of DDR2 RAM has been my bottleneck for years now). So that's kind of a must, along with the HDD. Since my current one might die any day now (It's 6-7 years old. Pretty amazed at how long it lasted me).  

 

As for the temperature with the FX-8350, I don't really overclock. Or haven't tried, at all. Just didn't need to or have the experience to do so. So I'll be running everything at its stock. But as I said, I will be getting a new case with proper ventilation and airflow. So that should improve things quite a bit, I hope.

 

I actually went for the FX-8350 because I saw some games like Watch_Dogs starting to demand/require more cores. So I started to feel very... outdated. And because I found myself doing some more CPU intensive things like editing now and then. Not all the time, it's not my general purpose. But when I do end up getting this new setup up and running, I look forward to creating some entertaining videos with Shadowplay and whatnot. 

 

I guess you call this "future proof"? Getting a component in hopes it will last for a certain foreseeable future? 

 

I am a bit hesitant on getting an Intel processor simply because I haven't really had an Intel product before. At all. Just NVIDIA and AMD.  

 

I've read a couple of user reviews by people upgrading from a Phenom II to FX-8350 stating it's a pretty good upgrade. Adding onto the fact that my actual Phenom is quite old now and isn't what it used to be, in base condition. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    We are coven

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#5

Posted 09 January 2014 - 08:39 AM

Have you bought the 8350 yet? If not you could save a bit by buying the 8320 which is exactly the same in every way apart from being clocked slightly lower and therefore is cheaper. Then OC to standard 8350 levels.


yojc
  • yojc

    ~y

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2008
  • Poland
  • Best Poster [Tech] 2014
    Most Knowledgeable [Tech] 2013
    Helpfulness Award

#6

Posted 09 January 2014 - 09:26 AM Edited by yojo2, 09 January 2014 - 09:27 AM.

If you have to change your mobo anyway and you don't want to overclock the CPU, then I *really* see no point in getting the FX-8350. The singlethreaded performance is pathetic compared to i5 (it's barely better than in Phenoms II), and it's not a true eight core CPU (more like something between 4 and 8 cores). FX CPUs are completely different from CPUs used in new-gen consoles.

I really doubt that the FX will be able to close the huge gap there is between it and i5 in newer games.

Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#7

Posted 09 January 2014 - 02:04 PM

If you have to change your mobo anyway and you don't want to overclock the CPU, then I *really* see no point in getting the FX-8350. The singlethreaded performance is pathetic compared to i5 (it's barely better than in Phenoms II), and it's not a true eight core CPU (more like something between 4 and 8 cores). FX CPUs are completely different from CPUs used in new-gen consoles.

I really doubt that the FX will be able to close the huge gap there is between it and i5 in newer games.

I see.

 

I'm really not so sure, then. Don't know what to do now, with the CPU thing. 

 

And no, I haven't bought anything yet. I won't be for a few weeks or so. This build is obviously very important to me and as I am inexperienced, I'd like to take extra time and pay extra attention to everything. 


Killerdude
  • Killerdude

    And Remember, Respect is Everything!

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Canada

#8

Posted 09 January 2014 - 02:16 PM

If saving money is important, And all you'll be using your PC for is Gaming, Just save some money and get the FX-8320, OC it to 8350 levels and save about 40$.

 

If you are using it for more than gaming, like workstation stuff, Go with an I5/I7, At least in Gaming, the difference between either side doesn't really make any noticeable difference.


Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#9

Posted 09 January 2014 - 02:30 PM

If saving money is important, And all you'll be using your PC for is Gaming, Just save some money and get the FX-8320, OC it to 8350 levels and save about 40$.

 

If you are using it for more than gaming, like workstation stuff, Go with an I5/I7, At least in Gaming, the difference between either side doesn't really make any noticeable difference.

I'm very much mostly gaming. But as I said, definitely no hardcore editing or processing going on. Or multi-tasking, for that matter. I only want to prepare for the future if games suddenly start using more cores. And the revelation that this isn't a "true" 8-core is a bit startling. 

 

However, I do editing from time to time. And I am a bit sick of my PC being slowed down when I render the occasional videos in Sony Vegas and/or download something on Steam/install games. So It's not that I'm going for an 8-core with the  "better safe than sorry" mentality alone.

 

I might just go with the 8320 when I get some overclocking experience. Could ask my uncle for advice on that. 

 

Thanks. I'll keep considering stuff in my head. But this is sounding the most logical right now. 


Killerdude
  • Killerdude

    And Remember, Respect is Everything!

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Canada

#10

Posted 09 January 2014 - 02:57 PM

 

If saving money is important, And all you'll be using your PC for is Gaming, Just save some money and get the FX-8320, OC it to 8350 levels and save about 40$.

 

If you are using it for more than gaming, like workstation stuff, Go with an I5/I7, At least in Gaming, the difference between either side doesn't really make any noticeable difference.

I'm very much mostly gaming. But as I said, definitely no hardcore editing or processing going on. Or multi-tasking, for that matter. I only want to prepare for the future if games suddenly start using more cores. And the revelation that this isn't a "true" 8-core is a bit startling. 

 

However, I do editing from time to time. And I am a bit sick of my PC being slowed down when I render the occasional videos in Sony Vegas and/or download something on Steam/install games. So It's not that I'm going for an 8-core with the  "better safe than sorry" mentality alone.

 

I might just go with the 8320 when I get some overclocking experience. Could ask my uncle for advice on that. 

 

Thanks. I'll keep considering stuff in my head. But this is sounding the most logical right now. 

 

What isn't a True 8-core?


Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#11

Posted 09 January 2014 - 02:58 PM

 

 

If saving money is important, And all you'll be using your PC for is Gaming, Just save some money and get the FX-8320, OC it to 8350 levels and save about 40$.

 

If you are using it for more than gaming, like workstation stuff, Go with an I5/I7, At least in Gaming, the difference between either side doesn't really make any noticeable difference.

I'm very much mostly gaming. But as I said, definitely no hardcore editing or processing going on. Or multi-tasking, for that matter. I only want to prepare for the future if games suddenly start using more cores. And the revelation that this isn't a "true" 8-core is a bit startling. 

 

However, I do editing from time to time. And I am a bit sick of my PC being slowed down when I render the occasional videos in Sony Vegas and/or download something on Steam/install games. So It's not that I'm going for an 8-core with the  "better safe than sorry" mentality alone.

 

I might just go with the 8320 when I get some overclocking experience. Could ask my uncle for advice on that. 

 

Thanks. I'll keep considering stuff in my head. But this is sounding the most logical right now. 

 

What isn't a True 8-core?

 

The FX-8350, apparently. Judging by Yojo's post. And I assume what counts for the 8350 would also count for the 8320?  

 

I've also read several people in their reviews mention this, as well. So I'm not sure what to say on that. 


yojc
  • yojc

    ~y

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2008
  • Poland
  • Best Poster [Tech] 2014
    Most Knowledgeable [Tech] 2013
    Helpfulness Award

#12

Posted 09 January 2014 - 04:01 PM Edited by yojo2, 09 January 2014 - 04:02 PM.

Yup. the same goes for FX-6XXX (which are something between three and six core CPUs), FX-4XXX and most of the current APU lineup (which are something between two- and four core CPUs). Cheapest APUs don't even have true two cores.

You might ask why is that - each FX-based AMD CPUs consists of what AMD calls "modules". Each module consists of two ALUs and one FPU. For example - FX-8XXX have four modules, thus they have 8 ALUs and 4 FPUs. So, depending on the app they behave like a quad core or octa core CPU. Games depend mostly on FPUs.
Console CPUs have 8 ALUs and 8 FPUs - that's because they don't rely on the FX architecture at all, they're something completely different.

Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#13

Posted 09 January 2014 - 04:17 PM

Yup. the same goes for FX-6XXX (which are something between three and six core CPUs), FX-4XXX and most of the current APU lineup (which are something between two- and four core CPUs). Cheapest APUs don't even have true two cores.

You might ask why is that - each FX-based AMD CPUs consists of what AMD calls "modules". Each module consists of two ALUs and one FPU. For example - FX-8XXX have four modules, thus they have 8 ALUs and 4 FPUs. So, depending on the app they behave like a quad core or octa core CPU. Games depend mostly on FPUs.
Console CPUs have 8 ALUs and 8 FPUs - that's because they don't rely on the FX architecture at all, they're something completely different.

I see. So games would mostly take advantage of the FPUs... 

 

I assume it just really heavily depends on the program in question. 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users