Death of an FX-8350

[Magic Carpet]

I'm not sure which of you is more accurate, but the real problem isn't whether it is 61C or 70C. The real issue (in my mind, anyway) is that this info is not published by AMD. The FX-8350 neither has the range of operating voltages nor the max operating temperature published (unlike, say, the Phenom II parts). You guys could argue 'til the cows come home, but without an official published reference from AMD it wouldn't really matter, would it?

The death of this CPU is a very minor nuisance to me, I'm not even aggravated by it. I'm not pissed or anything, even though I could say "damn you, AMD! If only you published the voltages and max temps acceptable, I could have avoided this!". Killing something is an inherent risk which I accepted when I started overclocking years ago. That it happened to be a CPU this time changes nothing. It's simply a risk that comes with the hobby. I knew the risks were a bit higher here where I have no official published guidelines upon which to guide my tinkering, but I accepted that and continued tinkering. I reaped what I sowed, and I'm fine with it.

Good point, selling officially unlocked CPUs without appropriate thermal datasheets, is simply, unresponsible and bad business ethics all-together. Intel even has an overclocking protection plan, let alone the specs :thumbsup:

 

[jvroig]

I respect your decision and legally it is the correct one without a doubt. It just annoys me to see amd and also Intel advertising chips as "unlocked", but voiding the warranty if you use a feature they are advertising. I see this as more frustrating with amd because they have more unlocked chips and they (or resellers/builders) tend to stress this in their advertising, but Intel does it as well.

I completely get you. That same thought has bothered me in the past - how could a vendor get away with advertising something as having this "feature", but using this "feature" voids warranty? But since both Intel and AMD do it, there really is no alternative, and since I still want to play the game, I accept the rules that have been set, even though they do kinda make me go "huh?"

 

[Erenhardt]

Spoiler! Car analogy!
My car have oil drain plug. I undo the plug and let the oil go. After a short ride the engine finally stops (with accompany of unbearable steel on steel friction noise). Doesn't this void my warranty? Oil drain plug is a feature of the engine! It is mentioned in the manual!

 

[Rvenger]

I'm a bit confused by your combined statements.

First, you tell me you've seen guys pump higher volts AND temps, drawing the conclusion I just had a lousy chip because it shouldn't have died. (Very possible, of course)

But then you end with your own experience that 8xxx chips should have a max temp of 60C only, which I breached very cleanly with a 76C max temp (that I remember; I wasn't paying attention to it since I was working on a laptop beside it; it could very well have been at 80C at the specific time it died).

I'm just not sure if you are telling me "well, that's unlucky, most forumers torture it for >3 hours with greater volts and greater temps, so it shouldn't have died" or if you are telling me "well, at least you know it's your fault, because you really shouldn't have exceeded 60C"

Either statement is perfectly applicable, though. I'm just not sure which one to use when I tell you "yep, you're right "

Just pick one and I can change my reasons.


Seriously I meant to say that I have seen higher temps without issues but its normally only prime stable temps and not gaming or application load temps.

I was basically saying that my recommended safe zone is 60c for an 8 core. I would attempt to RMA because i personally think you would have had the same outcome at stock speeds. Default voltage is 1.425v and you were under that.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Well, at least you didn't buy an FX 9590 and have this happen!

 

[frozentundra123456]

Spoiler! Car analogy!
My car have oil drain plug. I undo the plug and let the oil go. After a short ride the engine finally stops (with accompany of unbearable steel on steel friction noise). Doesn't this void my warranty? Oil drain plug is a feature of the engine! It is mentioned in the manual!

Don't really see the analogy. Overclocking an unlocked CPU is using the feature as it is intended, while totally removing the drain plug of an engine is the opposite of the intended use.

Actually it seems the best course would be simply to add a disclaimer to the advertising for unlocked chips that operating out of factory specs voids the warranty.

 

[2is]

@61'C AMD CPUs start throttling... Not only yours exceeded that temp by 10 degrees, but could not reduce the voltage (high temps are not so dangerous. High temps and increased voltage are deadly) for several hours of powervirus tasks.
What is worth mentioning is, AMD doesn't hinder CPU overclocking. We are able to disable all the protecting instructions and put the CPUs straight into hell. Your imagination is your limit...

If they start throttling at 61C the limit will be reached far sooner than anyone's imagination. That oil drain analogy didn't work either.

 

[Torn Mind]

Don't really see the analogy. Overclocking an unlocked CPU is using the feature as it is intended, while totally removing the drain plug of an engine is the opposite of the intended use.

Actually it seems the best course would be simply to add a disclaimer to the advertising for unlocked chips that operating out of factory specs voids the warranty.

A better analogy would be a guy listening to loud music constantly when he is younger and experiencing hearing loss later in life. He used the equipment as it was intended, but in such a way he suffered certain consequences from using the equipment in that manner.

 

[Erenhardt]

Actually it seems the best course would be simply to add a disclaimer to the advertising for unlocked chips that operating out of factory specs voids the warranty.

There is a disclaimer regarding out of spec usage to every CPU, and every time you try to overclock using overclocking software... Just read the papers included in the box next time

Anyway, I think overclocking is not a valid reason to void warranty. Overvolting on the other hand is. As well as disabling damage preventing utilities (like engine lubrication).

 

[fixbsod]

Piss poor analogy -- oc'ing a chip is not like draining all the oil out of your car

Try something along the lines of a tuner car that allows you to tweak the turbo boost on your car, but gives you NO guidelines on the max boost limits or recommended air/fuel ratios or other needed specs. now you could argue it is great that amd doesn't limit oc'ing as a previous post does, but without giving ANY guidance on thresholds they're leaving it to enthusiasts to determine the limits. I got a feeling this is due to AMD not testing their chips enuff to know their limits.

Spoiler! Car analogy!
My car have oil drain plug. I undo the plug and let the oil go. After a short ride the engine finally stops (with accompany of unbearable steel on steel friction noise). Doesn't this void my warranty? Oil drain plug is a feature of the engine! It is mentioned in the manual!

 

[Erenhardt]

I got a feeling this is due to AMD not testing their chips enuff to know their limits.

Clearly AMD is releasing CPUs with random stock frequencies...

 

[2is]

Clearly AMD is releasing CPUs with random stock frequencies...

You're on a roll in this thread with posting things that don't make much sense. Probably time to cut your losses and quit.

 

[PPB]

Even if AMD published the specs you seem really carefree regarding checking your CPU's temps while stress testing. 8xxx series are capable of taking some serious abuse, just a glance over Xtremesystem forums can prove you that. I just don't see how a monumental mess up from your part should be turned into AMD's fault.

Next time just get better cooling or paste, be more conscious regarding checking temps when stress testing or just dont overclock at all

 

[Erenhardt]

You're on a roll in this thread with posting things that don't make much sense. Probably time to cut your losses and quit.

No, I am just shocked by the fact that some people expect AMD to somehow support overclocking and out of specification usage of their products. If AMD could guarantee that, they would release higher clocked products in the first place (fx-9590).

as to my analogy... yea,maybe missed one, but car analogies never work, do they? That's why I put a spoiler in there.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I can't speak for the FX series of chips, because I've never owned one, but other AMD chips have an operating max temp something like 60C. Much above 65C, and they tend to flake out and crash.

 

[Phynaz]

Has AMD published the temperature offset yet? If not, then you have no idea what temperature your CPU is running at.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I've never killed a CPU except when I was making my own custom boards and accidentally supplied way, way too much voltage. As mentioned the FX series can take some serious abuse and keep going, head over the Xforums and be amazed at the pounding they can take. You must have really really bad luck I guess. Even though AMD won't officially offer warranty, I would contact them anyway to see what they can do for you.

 

[frozentundra123456]

There is a disclaimer regarding out of spec usage to every CPU, and every time you try to overclock using overclocking software... Just read the papers included in the box next time

Anyway, I think overclocking is not a valid reason to void warranty. Overvolting on the other hand is. As well as disabling damage preventing utilities (like engine lubrication).

Obviously I was referring to some sort of disclaimer in the advertising itself. It is a bit late to buy a chip based on overclocking and only find out that you cant after you get the box and read an insert. Much like over the counter medications have warning labels on the outside of the box or container, and a more detailed fact sheet inside that you can read in more detail once you have purchased the item.

 

[tweakboy]

Give her a proper burial. gb

 

[fixbsod]

I would try and RMA it -- yeah the fine print ofc reads about how oc'ing and out of spec usage blah blah blah. But this chip is MARKETED to hit like 5 GHz (http://sites.amd.com/us/promo/products/Pages/amdfx.aspx) check out the webpage. It drones on and on about oc'ing it: No premium to pay. No code to input. Just unrestrained, overclockable power right away. In fact *ALL THREE* bullet points note OC, OC, OC, unlocked, unlocked unlocked.

So if AMD advertises the chip in this fashion, and also has tech issues with the chip shutting down at certain limits, AND often has poor temp sensors that make it difficult to determine what temp you're running at AND doesn't note max voltage / temps and what not... then I would RMA away. You are using the chip in the manner designed and the bs fineprint is just that. Chips should be advanced enuff in this day and age to throttle down to prevent all but the most insane situations. Plus if this is one of the only times someone had an FX chip die it sounds like it could have been a bunk chip.

I've got a hankering that perhaps the current FX 8350 chips are a little shittier than the ones they HAD been making as the higher binned ones are used as 9xxx's. Same thing happened when intel released the 2700k -- scooped up all the nice 2600ks and called them the 2700k. So if the OC'ability of your chip went down the drain as they wanted to squeeze more money out of consumers then god forbid you get a replacement.

 

[sequoia464]

Well, at least you didn't buy an FX 9590 and have this happen!

True - but, doesn't this open up an opportunity for the OP to jump on one of those now that the price has dropped?

Kidding, but bad luck for sure, I have ran my 8320 at 4300 MHz for quite some time, never really stressed it much though.


Edit: Bummer to loose $200 though, that much could have been a couple of nights out on the town for me.

 

[Idontcare]

Even if AMD published the specs you seem really carefree regarding checking your CPU's temps while stress testing. 8xxx series are capable of taking some serious abuse, just a glance over Xtremesystem forums can prove you that. I just don't see how a monumental mess up from your part should be turned into AMD's fault.

Next time just get better cooling or paste, be more conscious regarding checking temps when stress testing or just dont overclock at all

404 monumental mess-up not found

You really think the OP is a newb at OC'ing?

My FX-8350 does not throttle either. Goes all the way to 83C before the computer simply shuts down.

AMD won't bother to publish or state the max operating temperature. For all any of us know it is 100C. I even asked AMD support and they said there are no internal documents that even they can look at to give me guidance, unofficial or otherwise.

When I contacted ASUS support (my mobo maker) they said AMD gave them no specs on operating temperature. It is completely up to the mobo makers as to whether or not the CPU starts throttling at any given temperature - the throttling is not because of temperature but because of current draw.

If you see an AMD PD-based CPU throttle at 60C it is because it is already hitting the mobo makers internally defined current limit. That's it, nothing more. If another mobo maker allows more current before hitting the limit then your PD-based CPU might go to 70C before being throttled.

 

[tolis626]

And what's the moral of the story?If you overclock an FX series CPU,you gotta stay cool!
Seriously though,it must have been a shitty chip.I've seen lower binned parts with locked cores (At least in Phenom times) that have been fully unlocked,used all cores and were working way above factory clocks.All possible with a little luck and a good cooler.Having worked with AMD CPUs for the last few years,I got kinda shocked when I joined the forums and saw Intel CPUs reaching 80-90C in Prime95 with no problem and mostly without throttling.
Also,for the thermal paste thing,I also find the Arctic Silver ones top notch.

 

[jvroig]

Even if AMD published the specs you seem really carefree regarding checking your CPU's temps while stress testing. 8xxx series are capable of taking some serious abuse, just a glance over Xtremesystem forums can prove you that. I just don't see how a monumental mess up from your part should be turned into AMD's fault.


Next time just get better cooling or paste, be more conscious regarding checking temps when stress testing or just dont overclock at all

All pertinent details have already been mentioned by me in the "Long Story" portion of the OP. I'm sure you had no patience to read it, but it would be nice if you did before you made some of your comments as your comments are already answered by the details there.

Anyhoo, to recap quickly:
1.) I was not "carefree", as that implies I didn't care and just said "start the test, the hell with you, I'll be back later". I in fact monitored it until it settled (at 74-76C), and I resumed working on my laptop while still sitting in front of the PC being tested, so a quick movement of my head allows me to glance at the progress so far. Everything that happened (except the death) happened on purpose, with the rationale already clearly expressed in the "Long Story" portion of the OP, to recap:

Here's what I was thinking. AMD doesn't publish max temps AND vcore ranges for this part. If I go by the FX-8150 (direct ancestor), max temp should only be 61C (but at what range of operating voltages? AMD doesn't publish). But Trinity mobile SKU's (like the A4-4300m I benched in VC&G) sporting the same Piledriver cores have a much higher limit (sites like CPUBoss and CPU World specify 100C, despite a vcore range of up to 1.35V). So, the same old Piledriver cores can take 1.35V and 100C? Well, if so, I'm still relatively ok (1.396V, 76C).

2.) I don't see a monumental mess-up. If you take the rationale quoted above, given that AMD publishes absolutely no thermal guidelines and operating voltages (unlike for the Phenom II chips), it's as good a guess as any, considering I based the "guesstimate" on a similar Piledriver-core based SKU, and not a Phenom II-era chip (where the common ~62C / 1.45V on air guidelines came from).

3.) I also don't see where I actually blame AMD, or where you get that idea. In the post where I say I could blame AMD by saying "if only they published guidelines for voltages and temps", you'd also see (if you read it again) that I quite clearly and repeatedly state the experience has not aggravated me at all, I am not pissed, and that I accept the death as an inherent risk in overclocking, and even clearly stated in earlier posts that this is way outside of a valid RMA case. I'm not sure how you can take that and then transform it into blaming AMD, when - as far as I can see - everything that I have posted so far has been bile-free, and I've been pretty stoic in all my posts here so far.

4.) As for the "cooling/paste" issue, the reason for that is also in the long story portion of the OP. It was all that was available, I wanted to see what it could do before I replace it with a superior one in the coming weeks. So this stress test isn't actually FOR the 8350 - I already know that it is stable at the setting using the previous paste (Tuniq). Rather, the stress test done is for the TG-2, to see if it can still keep the 8350 stable. Now we know it can't, in no small part due to a 10-15C delta from a top-tier paste like Tuniq.


Anyway, I hope you (and others) don't misinterpret this as an attack against AMD. In an earlier post (a reply to Shintai) I mentioned I have 4 machines. 2 Intel, 2 AMD (it just happened like that, I didn't purposely build 2 each for balance or anything), and one of the Intel machines is a 3930K (other one is a Celeron G550 that's extremely power-efficient, I love it). That I already have a 3930K but still bothered to give AMD a free ~$200 just to upgrade an old 1090T rig to an 8350 should tell you that bringing down AMD is not my intention here.

Rather, it's an interesting data point that I did not want to remain locked up in my own head only. Ever seen an 8350 die before? Neither have I, but now we all have 1 data point, and it died with only 1.396V and 76C load temps (according to HWMonitor) running P95 Large FFT for almost 3 hours.

 

[jvroig]

I can't speak for the FX series of chips, because I've never owned one, but other AMD chips have an operating max temp something like 60C. Much above 65C, and they tend to flake out and crash.

I have a Phenom II X4 965BE and the already mentioned 1090T. Both of them do flake out the moment they cross 62C (63C and up will inevitably cause them to fail whatever stress test rather quickly). This is no surprise because their operating voltages AND max operating temps are all published by AMD in their website, the "Compare Phenom II Processors" page or whatever they call it (that contains not just Phenom II processors).

It did not happen to the 8350. I can stay at 65C, for example, during a stress test (previously, while I was still on Tuniq paste), and not flake out. And similar Piledriver cores, as I've mentioned, can take much higher (A4 4300m is specced as high as 100C, with comparable max voltage at 1.35V). So we can guess and say "it's probably like Phenom II, 62C only", or we can base our guess on how Piledriver-based SKU's are specced (like the mobile Trinity chips). Either is just as valid, because both are just that: guesses. Until AMD chooses to publish anything, then everything we are doing is just guesses, and we can only be sure something is wrong when a chip dies - the non-immediate-death of a chip is not a guarantee of accuracy of our guess.

In this particular case, just 1 data point, we can refine our guess by saying 75C is above the safe operating temps (so 100C is not applicable to the desktop, non-APU parts, even though it's safe for the mobile, APU parts), since this one died at relatively low voltage at this temp.

But even so, it is still a guess. For all we know, EVERY Piledriver-based SKU really can take 100C, and this one just died because it was flaky to start with. Although an interesting data point, we really can't be sure of anything until specs are published by AMD, and at this late in the game, it's pretty safe to say they'll never publish those specs.