null

ODwilly wrote on 2021-10-17, 02:39:

If you aren't putting a Hyper 212 on a FX chip and OCing the Northbridge frequency you aint doing it right

A Hyper 212? That is way too wimpy of a cooler for proper overclocking of the higher end FX chips.

A Noctua NH-14 or better is really needed.

And that is not even thinking about the crazy FX 9590.

But California passed the law last year, Proposition 462, a Hyper 212 is perfect for everything, period. 🤣

Hyper 212? Bah! Thermatake Big Typhoon should be enough for everything (including Athlon XP and modern Ryzen CPUs). 15 years of awesomeness.

cyclone3d wrote on 2021-10-21, 22:40:

A Hyper 212? That is way too wimpy of a cooler for proper overclocking of the higher end FX chips. […]
Show full quote

ODwilly wrote on 2021-10-17, 02:39:

If you aren't putting a Hyper 212 on a FX chip and OCing the Northbridge frequency you aint doing it right

A Hyper 212? That is way too wimpy of a cooler for proper overclocking of the higher end FX chips.

A Noctua NH-14 or better is really needed.

And that is not even thinking about the crazy FX 9590.

I used one for 4 or 5 years at 4.5ghz all core OC. Temps never went above 61C. Really nice case with good airflow and a low wattage GPU help.

Was that temps with something like Prime95 or with it just under normal usage?

cyclone3d wrote on 2021-10-22, 05:21:

Was that temps with something like Prime95 or with it just under normal usage?

Just playing Fallout 4 and the like with the CPU pegged out back when that game was new. Played some Star Citizen, PUBG, all sorts of stuff. Now that I have this CPU and board back I kinda want to find a good case and setup again to see what kind of clocks I can get out of it.

Props to AMD 990fx and the FX 8350 was the least problematic system I have ever used, had a bluescreen from a bad stick of ram, and a second bluescreen from an IDE cable that was bad.

FX 8300 series was a very good chip for its time that only got better after Zen facilitated core count proliferation. You can find videos of Zen 3 paired with modern midrange GPUs running things like Doom Eternal without a sweat, so yeah, it's normal that it's in demand.

Except that it can barely compete with stock 2600K even after overclocking and struggle vs 2500K in older games. 2600K at 4500 Mhz is simply untouchable by any FX CPU. So current ludicrous prices are not justified by performance.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2021-10-22, 07:42:

Except that it can barely compete with stock 2600K even after overclocking and struggle vs 2500K in older games. 2600K at 4500 Mhz is simply untouchable by any FX CPU. So current ludicrous prices are not justified by performance.

Well, the 2600K has 1x 16x PCIe lanes while the FX line has 2x 16x which makes it possible to mine on two GPUs at once or use modern faster SDDs with them.

Well, my initial attraction was, that the specific board models I chose was (hopefully) built to last, which is essential from a retro perspective.

AND it has a PGA socket (while having all the pins on the CPU), reducing socket related issues buying old _used_ stuff.... (LGA1155, I look at you! 😑 ).

And, it had a PCI slot for good measure. (granted, some High tier LGA1155 boards did perhaps as well, but none of the ones I was looking at).

Personal preference only, nothing else. As surely an Intel i5 2500K will beat it when it comes to speed in games, but... for these old things I have now gradually been leaning more to longevity/durability etc than pure speed. For anything semi-modern that benefits from faster speeds I'll just use Win7 and a Ryzen 2700X.

And I DO have some of those s1155 combos as well, don't get me wrong.
We'll see which systems (AM3/S1155) are still alive after another 20 years or so... I am happy either way as long as at least 1 winXP PC is still working fine.... 😁

Hmmmm I still have my FX-4300 and my FX-9590.
I personally never hated them, I think they were a good value in their day (maybe not the 9590) but some of those prices are wild.

appiah4 wrote on 2021-10-22, 10:04:

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2021-10-22, 07:42:

Except that it can barely compete with stock 2600K even after overclocking and struggle vs 2500K in older games. 2600K at 4500 Mhz is simply untouchable by any FX CPU. So current ludicrous prices are not justified by performance.

Well, the 2600K has 1x 16x PCIe lanes while the FX line has 2x 16x which makes it possible to mine on two GPUs at once or use modern faster SDDs with them.

You don't need x16 PCIe to mine. For the large mining ops, or even home ones for that matter, you either have a board with a bunch of x1 slots and x1 to x16 risers or you can use adapters that break out the PCIe slots to multiple x16 slots. (running at x1)

cyclone3d wrote on 2021-10-22, 13:24:

appiah4 wrote on 2021-10-22, 10:04:

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2021-10-22, 07:42:

Except that it can barely compete with stock 2600K even after overclocking and struggle vs 2500K in older games. 2600K at 4500 Mhz is simply untouchable by any FX CPU. So current ludicrous prices are not justified by performance.

Well, the 2600K has 1x 16x PCIe lanes while the FX line has 2x 16x which makes it possible to mine on two GPUs at once or use modern faster SDDs with them.

You don't need x16 PCIe to mine. For the large mining ops, or even home ones for that matter, you either have a board with a bunch of x1 slots and x1 to x16 risers or you can use adapters that break out the PCIe slots to multiple x16 slots. (running at x1)

It can mine on 2x the number of cards, regardless.

appiah4 wrote on 2021-10-22, 13:58:

cyclone3d wrote on 2021-10-22, 13:24:

appiah4 wrote on 2021-10-22, 10:04:

Well, the 2600K has 1x 16x PCIe lanes while the FX line has 2x 16x which makes it possible to mine on two GPUs at once or use modern faster SDDs with them.

You don't need x16 PCIe to mine. For the large mining ops, or even home ones for that matter, you either have a board with a bunch of x1 slots and x1 to x16 risers or you can use adapters that break out the PCIe slots to multiple x16 slots. (running at x1)

It can mine on 2x the number of cards, regardless.

That depends entirely on how many PCIe slots the motherboard has and that can be active at the same time.

The PCIe splitters can take a single slot (x1, x4, x8, x16) and split them up into 4x x1 slots. So if you had a board with 3x x1 slots and 1x x16 slot, you could mine with up to 16 cards, If you had a board with 2x x16 slots and no other slots, you could mine with up to only 8 cards.

cyclone3d wrote on 2021-10-21, 22:40:

A Hyper 212? That is way too wimpy of a cooler for proper overclocking of the higher end FX chips. […]
Show full quote

ODwilly wrote on 2021-10-17, 02:39:

If you aren't putting a Hyper 212 on a FX chip and OCing the Northbridge frequency you aint doing it right

A Hyper 212? That is way too wimpy of a cooler for proper overclocking of the higher end FX chips.

A Noctua NH-14 or better is really needed.

And that is not even thinking about the crazy FX 9590.

I ran my 9590 at 5.1ghz , undervolted. It was still super hot. Would hit like 75c under full stress, which was quite a bit warmer than AMD recommended, if still under max Tjunction.

I cooled it with a 360mm AIO from Deepcool. That cooler eventually sprung a leak at the pump and killed the system. Deepcool replaced it all under warranty.

The 9590 really was just a overclocked 8350. at 4.5-4.6ghz the chip was way cooler and more manageable.....but 5ghz man! 🤣.

but 5ghz man!

Yeah, but still with 2200 Mhz North Bridge/L3 cache *facepalm*

bestemor wrote on 2021-10-12, 19:47:

Personally I view these as (hopefully) durable retro machines for now - planning on a decent WinXP box, perhaps also dual bootin […]
Show full quote

Personally I view these as (hopefully) durable retro machines for now - planning on a decent WinXP box, perhaps also dual booting Win7.

Already have a few motherboards (even got a Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 for 20 euro some time ago).
If not the fastest thing around, I was hoping at least the (assumed) build quality would make it last a few decades more, for WinXP etc...
The Sabertooth is perhaps not quite as good as an Asus Formula Crosshair V, but still....

If my personal experiences are anything to go by, I certainly wouldn't count on this platform to be durable...at all. The percentage of people I know that used it (since beginning of this year no one anymore though) and had some sort of (serious) issue with it is absolutely staggering! Mostly the solution required a new motherboard, often a new PSU as well (just the most recent example of a Gigabyte 970 board with a stock 8370e (yes, the 95w) burned through three cpu 8-pin power plugs before it was finally deemed hopeless). Now, you could argue that's because in that era mobo manufactures really didn't put much effort in AMD boards (like Jay says here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWjMt8GMsX8&a … el=JayzTwoCents at 11:55 mark), but the end result is all the same.
Now, the very top end boards, like the Sabertooth that you already have or the mentioned Crosshair V are likely (considerably) better, so if you are going to use the platform anyway, I'd stick to those.

Oh and also, just for XP era gaming, you want the highest possible single thread performance and the FX chips really don't shine here - even a properly OCed E8600 will outdo them for that purpose, not to mention the likes of 2500k which you can now get for peanuts! (sort of a shame there is no OC-able 1155 i3 or even just a Pentium, because that would have been perfect for a really fast, yet still sensible XP build)

Motherboards for AMD have a long history of being poor compared to Intel's in all the mid, low and high-end range. An example from a long time ago would be the GA-7DXE, AMD760 north bridge and VIA 686b south bridge to save costs since AMD's south bridge was more expensive. In motherboards for AMD, it took longer to generalize the use of polymer capacitors instead of electrolytic. For years the chipsets for AMD with the highest performance and the most common came from Nvidia and also coincided with the time of Bumpgate, this delayed AMD a lot, and it made things very difficult. Until AMD began to manufacture its own chipsets to control the quality of the motherboards a bit, things did not begin to improve, the FX platform was at the level of the competition but not the FX processors, a higher consumption and a lower IPC were not a good sign.
Ryzen processors have little to do with FX.
For XP using more than a dual-core processor is a waste in most cases, some games even had problems to run on four core processors but most were patched. But if you want to get a crazy XP machine, the FX processors lack the IPC you can get from an Intel processor of the same era because the core count is not so relevant in XP, and IPC is more relevant than GHz. That's why we were buying lower GHz 462 Athlon instead of higher GHz Pentium 4 and the reason AMD used the PR rating back then.

I haven't experienced any reliability issues with the Am3/Am3+ platform. My business has retired several of them after running 24/7 for 6+ years.

A mix or Asus/ASRock/Gigabyte/MSI boards. No issues whatsoever.

There MIGHT have been a time where AMD based boards weren't as "high end" as Intel based ones but I think this is by and large complete BS.

I don't know why so many people tend to regurgitate this nonsense over and over. How does that even make sense?
The boards are being built in the same plant on the same machines by the same people out of the same raw materials......why would they be of lesser quality?

Perhaps the chipsets weren't as reliable, perhaps more driver bugs?
I don't necessarily agree with that myself but at the argument holds water. But that is it.

There are better options for a fast XP gaming system to be sure. But let's not just make up reasons for it to be so. The performance numbers speak for themselves. Come on now.