That is completely false. NO BODY has a stable 8350 5.0 GHZX overclock on air. ALL are using liquid coolers to obtain 5.0 GHZ stable. I repeat the word stable. You may boot at 5.0 GHZ in exceptional circumstances on air. You would NEVER be able to successfully complete any serious benchmarks or stress tests on air at that frequency. You are doing a disservice to spread such false information. I am registered on overclock.net and techpowerup.comboth in the Vishera Owners club. I know from both personal experience and reading thousands of posts that you are not being truthful.
One thing is for sure: 4.8/5Ghz "stock" Vishera even with that big TDP rating should be faster than 4770K in many workloads. ST is still not going to be AMD's domain but it will bridge the gap somewhat. Brute force 20% performance increase FTW LoL . I wonder whether they will bundle some serious WC kits with these things, Performance might be there but cooling this thing (and VRMs on these boards!) is going to be a challenge I bet!
Oh come on. One must infer stability for your post to make sense. Otherwise, what's the point of saying that people are already running 5GHz? Hell, at that point I'm sure that some people could be said to be running @ 5.5GHz or 6Ghz (*Using 1.8V, LN2 and only long enough to suicide run to a CPU-Z screenshot -- in other words: Useless)
And in order to attain any kind of reasonable stability @ 5GHz, (stability being a key word, despite it's conspicuous absence from your post) both temperature and voltage need to be addressed. os2wiz already pointed out the bit about cooling which you glossed over in your post. And as for voltage -- this is where the stability bit needed to be inferred -- it'll impact TDP exponentially and power draw, and hence what's needed in a motherboard. And once you take leakage into account, all three variables (i.e. cooling, vcore, TDP) will co-vary.
There's just no point in mentioning those boards out there already running vishera @5GHz unless you imply stability (and the higher Vcore needed) in those overclocks. Who needs a board that won't run your stock FX-Centurion stably, but at least won't blow up so long as you don't push the needed volts to make it stable?
Maybe a series of Centurion-certified mobos could be released with those chips.
GA-990FXA-UD7 was launched 1½ year ago.
http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3880#ov
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128508
This looks as a 2.0 revision boardAMD next generation of AM3+ 5GHz FX series.
If only AMD had access to 22nm node from intel. These clocks would probably be achievable within 125W spec.
But not with official support for This looks as a 2.0 revision board
Very unlikely to put it mildly. FX8350 is already 140W+ Plus we already saw from IDC how things scale with 32nm vs 22nm.
Nope. It is not 140W+.
Originally Posted by MSI
According to RD engineers from our HQ,
1. AMD has claimed that the FX-8350 to be 125W. However, during our internal testing, when the usage of CPU reaches 100% through Prime 95 for a while, the power consumption can exceed 125W and reaches 140W. With such condition on the 970A-G46, the high amount of power draw also causes the MOSFET to exceed its spec and will overheat.
Thus, to prevent such any potential hazard to the MOSFET, 970A-G46’s BIOS will trick the processor that its temperature is 225 degrees which will then allow the CPU to throttle. This is aimed to make the system stable in this condition.
2. We had tested using 3DMark and it did not cause throttling. Throttling only happens when the loading on a 125W CPU usage is heavy by the use of heavy burn-in tools such as Prime 95/OCCT, and such testing methods are not standard usage scenario or practical.
Please also keep in mind that this throttling behavior keeps system stable under such heavy-loading condition.
This is more of AMD’s issue on the FX-8350 because the TDP was rated lower than its actual value.
I think the point is that AMD is targeting this thing at OCers. If you were to OC 8350 to 4.8/5Ghz with good cooling, in all likelihood you would hit similar power draw. So this way you don't need to thinker with anything, you just plug it in the supporting board (that can take it and survive without burning up ) , you turn the PC on and you are good to go. Plus I suppose these parts have at least a 5% headroom left so people will probably go overboard trying to eek out every last % of clock.
Now this is all nice and dandy for OCers, but boards have to be able to survive such a chip under full load. As Stilt at XS notices, these parts just have to be super cherry picked samples that actually cannot draw more than 180W under load. If they were drawing more than 180W there is no board commercially available that can handle the current levels and VRMs would likely burn up. We have to wait and see the real spec, how much this thing exactly pulls from socket and what boards will support it.
That's correct. I'd go even further and say that price needs to be lower than 4770K, somewhere in between 4670K and 4770K (closer to the latter).Price is key also. If it is around 250.00 it might be a viable alternative for certain scenarios. I thought however in the earlier thread about this the price was rumored to be 700.00.
If the price is close to 3970k, it makes no sense at all, except for someone who is a total AMD diehard fan. If it is close to 4770k, I could see a market for it.
Now this is all nice and dandy for OCers, but boards have to be able to survive such a chip under full load. As Stilt at XS notices, these parts just have to be super cherry picked samples that actually cannot draw more than 180W under load. If they were drawing more than 180W there is no board commercially available that can handle the current levels and VRMs would likely burn up. We have to wait and see the real spec, how much this thing exactly pulls from socket and what boards will support it.
What I don't believe is that AMD would bother to do something like that given that the marketshare for such a CPU would surely be extremely limited in terms of total units the market would absorb globally on an annual basis.