Why is AMD so based anons ?
I OC'd my FX-8320 from 3.5 to 4.2Ghz in like 25mn, and I am sure it's going to be stable.
the autoclock tool is nice for a stable base, but you should be able to push it much farther.
that 4.1GHz clock speed I got from that tool, then I undervolted it. Stock voltage got to 4.6 (manually) before the motherboard thermals became uncomfortable for me. no stability issues at all.
Well at first I did it for Arma 3. Helped, but still not perfect so I got a refund, this gay is optimized with the ass.
I also am a lot into vector drawing, so I guess it will help but I might be wrong.
I don't think I need to push it much farther. But if I did, I should do it directly from BIOS ? How do I undervolt it ? How do I know what voltage is good ?
You guys with FX cpu's might want to consider reading these articles
It's about using Process Lasso to control enhance CPU performance. I would try it but don't game much and the games I do use run fine although I might mess with it on emulation.
look up some overclocking tutorials for reference.
what I personally did was keep moving the voltage down 1 tick in the BIOS, then booting into windows and running Prime 95 for a while. If you don't get crashing, keep lowering the voltage. Once you crash during a P95 test, move back up 1 tick in the BIOS and you should be stable. I'd recommend running the test for at least 30 minutes each time, and confirming the last settings you use by running P95 for at least an hour.
too bad Intel is better
from 2.66 to 4.0GHz in less time than that
>this is an also meme
Except it's not. I built a PC for a friend with an 8350 in it, and he was too much of a cheapskate to get a proper cooler. Well, after two days he called and told me I need to get him a proper one. The old AMD stock cooler is loud as shit, and that's a fact. At least they made a new cooler now which is supposedly better and more silent.
Just can't seem to get it stable at 4.8ghz (then again my mobo isn't built to handle this).
So, I am OP.
I had to refund Arma 3, because even after OC, I couldn't run it at 60FPS online.
I have a FX-8320 OC at 4.2Ghz and a R9 290x.
I heard that like all NVidia Tech games ever, Arma is made to run better on NVidia GPU. Is that true ?
I don't think any motherboard is built to handle that.
ARMA isn't even related to the AMD vs the world thing, its just an ancient game engine that the devs refuse to unfuck.
Any board rated to handle a 9590 is good for 1.5v. My board is not rated for the job.
You know intel and AMD overclock at different voltages correct? If I remember right the 990fx chipset and 83XX's can go up to like 1.5v where as most shilltell's start to kick the bucket after 1.3v
Given the release price of the 9590 I suppose you are right.
I really don't understand the AMD shaming. We all understand AMD is a gen behind Intel. But seriously what are you doing on your rig that absolutely needs those extra calculations per clock cycle...it's like those motor heads who need that screaming engine to make their cock feel bigger
1. AMD is a budget brand, even at the high end
2. Intel/NVidia fans get angry when a budget brand gets anywhere close to their much more expensive hardware
3. AMD parts usually require some sort of tweaking to get the desired performance. While this used to be true for any brand, people have gotten used to HURR GO BUTTON MAKE FAST
4. The module design issue is real and AMD took a while getting a different design into the pipeline. Though for people who understand hardware development, it's understandable that a company with as little resources as AMD took as long as they did.