Getting Stable Overclock on FX8350

[HristoBB]

Hey guys i have an old Fx8350 and Asus 970 Pro Gaming Aura and i'm trying to get it to 4.8ghz stable. 
I'm using fsb to overclock.
Right now is on 18.5x255 and running at 4.7Ghz with HT Link at 2814mhz and NB at 2302mhz.
My Ram speed is at 1702mhz. It is pretty much stable at 1.404V,but no matter what i do i just can't get a stable 4.8.
I'm using Deepcool Gammaxx 240 AIO cooler and my temps are getting to like 52 53 so i have a small headroom there to like 62. 
I tried with 1.450V and P95 and Cinebench R15 are good but when gaming and using my second monitor for Facebook&Youtube the system will hardlock almost every time. 
Any more voltage will raise the temps to near 62 degrees which i don't know if it's the maximum or not but it's certainly not in my comfortable range. 
I have LLC to High as well as NB LLC to high. 
CPU current capability is at 130%
And the powerphase control is on Asus Optimized. 
NB voltage i'm using is 1.20000 and i also don't know if that's enough or not. 
Can somebody tell me where is the problem? 
Before i got the AIO i was using BeQuiet Pure Rock 120 and was running solid on 4.6Ghz at 1.335V and P95 Running for like 1-2hours no crash. 
Any tips would be perfect and if somebody is still using that CPU please let me know what settings are you running it on as it could help me a lot  
Also i saw that my motherboard can be and it is used for LN2 Overclocking so it's a very stable board from what i saw and what i've experienced.

[Streetguru]

26 minutes ago, HristoBB said:

 

Not really worth using the base clock to overclock, just use the multiplier, if your VRM is good you can just throw 1.45V at it

[HristoBB]

Just now, Streetguru said:

Not really worth using the base clock to overclock, just use the multiplier, if your VRM is good you can just throw 1.45V at it

I've been monitoring my VRM temps they are not even hot to the touch. My NB on the other side is burning hot,but i think that is pretty normal cuz everyone is experiencing this and i managed to put a small 80mm fan on top of it and now it's barely warm. 
I'll try using the Multiplier to overclock it now and see what will happen. I'll let u know.

[HristoBB]

 

4 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

Not really worth using the base clock to overclock, just use the multiplier, if your VRM is good you can just throw 1.45V at it

it passed Cinebench R15 with 750 points at 4.8 ghz at 1.416V. 
24x200 multiplier 2133 ram 2400 NB and 2400 HT.
Will look forward in to it with some gaming and see what will happen. 
maybe the bus speed was causing some instability issues. 

[Benjeh]

You're not going to win your fight, a 970 board cannot handle a 8350. That motherboard's VRM are going to fail and take your CPU out with it when it fails.

[Benjeh]

18 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

Not really worth using the base clock to overclock, just use the multiplier, if your VRM is good you can just throw 1.45V at it

This is bad advice, this is AMD, not intel, and my intel has been working fine with some bus clock overclocking....

[HristoBB]

16 minutes ago, Benjeh said:

You're not going to win your fight, a 970 board cannot handle a 8350. That motherboard's VRM are going to fail and take your CPU out with it when it fails.

People are using this exact board for LN2 overclocking 8Ghz+ with no problem. Chipset has nothing to do with the power delivery and that board has some of the finest and the only better board is the Sabertooth. 
Although 990FX chipset has support for SLI/CF this 970 board has official support for that too. 
So there isn't really downsides. 

And a very poorly made 970 board like Asrock or MSi ones are probably going to throttle even a 4.5ghz overclock because of the Power delivery and poor vrms. 

[HristoBB]

I bought this board and cpu year ago from a friend which was using Custom water loop and 5ghz with 1.4800V with no problem whatsoever. 
I can easily just ramp up the voltage,but i have a cooling bottleneck.. 
So i wan't something like 4.7 4.8 at around 1.4000-1.4250V max. 

[Streetguru]

On 4/2/2019 at 2:26 AM, Benjeh said:

This is bad advice, this is AMD, not intel, and my intel has been working fine with some bus clock overclocking....

Ya, the chipset has nothing to do with the VRM on the board.

Base Clock overclocking is only really more useful for tuning memory speed, not so much CPU speed, since it's a lot more unstable in general than just using the multiplier.

[Benjeh]

On 4/2/2019 at 10:41 AM, HristoBB said:

People are using this exact board for LN2 overclocking 8Ghz+ with no problem. Chipset has nothing to do with the power delivery and that board has some of the finest and the only better board is the Sabertooth. 
Although 990FX chipset has support for SLI/CF this 970 board has official support for that too. 
So there isn't really downsides. 

And a very poorly made 970 board like Asrock or MSi ones are probably going to throttle even a 4.5ghz overclock because of the Power delivery and poor vrms. 

you do you dude, F my years and years of dedication and research into that platform while learning to OC. Pump 1.6v into that 970 board like my 990FX used to take to get 5.1ghz semi stable. I assume you're using IBT AVX Max setting to confirm stability and it's giving you 3.xxxxxxxxxx results? If not, its unstable.
Ciao

[-rascal-]

9 hours ago, Benjeh said:

you do you dude, F my years and years of dedication and research into that platform while learning to OC. Pump 1.6v into that 970 board like my 990FX used to take to get 5.1ghz semi stable. I assume you're using IBT AVX Max setting to confirm stability and it's giving you 3.xxxxxxxxxx results? If not, its unstable.
Ciao

 

Chipset has nothing to do with the VRM design of a motherboard. A manufacturer can implement a true 16+2 VRM on a 970 chipset board if they wanted.

 

Typically, the 970 and 990X chipset boards were designed towards more budget / price cautious price brackets. The ASUS 970 Pro Gaming was some-what an exception -- it was launched right at the end of the AM3+ platform (e.g. AM4 Ryzen was already well-known, and release dates were given).

 

The ASUS 970 Pro Gaming uses a true 7+1 digital VRM, so it is one of the better boards out there. By then, things like the ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z, and even the refreshed Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 R5, were already discontinued. Compared to some like the MSi 970 Gaming which uses a "6+2" (not a true 6-phase for the CPU, but doubler instead), it was much better

 

You wouldn't use 1.6V Core Voltage as a daily-driver PC. The ASUS 970 Pro Gaming would be sufficient up to ~1.5V, that will be plenty if the target is to only get 4.6 GHz ~ 4.8 GHz out of a FX-8350.

 

Mileage will vary, but I was able to get 4.8GHz with 1.40V on my FX-8350, and 4.9 GHz with 1.45V. 5.0 GHz was game stable with 1.45V ~ 1.47V, but not Intel Burn Test AVX stable, requiring the voltage to be bumped up to ~1.5V, and temperature peaked at 80 ~ 82°C. Temperature limited with using an air/tower cooler.

[HristoBB]

11 hours ago, -rascal- said:

 

Chipset has nothing to do with the VRM design of a motherboard. A manufacturer can implement a true 16+2 VRM on a 970 chipset board if they wanted.

 

Typically, the 970 and 990X chipset boards were designed towards more budget / price cautious price brackets. The ASUS 970 Pro Gaming was some-what an exception -- it was launched right at the end of the AM3+ platform (e.g. AM4 Ryzen was already well-known, and release dates were given).

 

The ASUS 970 Pro Gaming uses a true 7+1 digital VRM, so it is one of the better boards out there. By then, things like the ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z, and even the refreshed Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 R5, were already discontinued. Compared to some like the MSi 970 Gaming which uses a "6+2" (not a true 6-phase for the CPU, but doubler instead), it was much better

 

You wouldn't use 1.6V Core Voltage as a daily-driver PC. The ASUS 970 Pro Gaming would be sufficient up to ~1.5V, that will be plenty if the target is to only get 4.6 GHz ~ 4.8 GHz out of a FX-8350.

 

Mileage will vary, but I was able to get 4.8GHz with 1.40V on my FX-8350, and 4.9 GHz with 1.45V. 5.0 GHz was game stable with 1.45V ~ 1.47V, but not Intel Burn Test AVX stable, requiring the voltage to be bumped up to ~1.5V, and temperature peaked at 80 ~ 82°C. Temperature limited with using an air/tower cooler.

Thanks for the info and the advice. I was able to get stable 4.8Ghz overclock using Multiplier with 1.43~V,but with LLC on High it wasn't dropping below 1.440. The temps was a little bit on the High side tho.. Which was due to my Case being particularly bad at providing good airflow. I fixed that tho by buying Cooler Master MasterCase H500 with 2x 200mm fans at front. 
Now with the same settings in the bios CPU doesn't go over 55degrees and package never goes over 48-49 which is perfect,but for some reason 4.8Ghz doesn't give me the performance i was looking for idk why. 
In FC5 4.8Ghz gives me about 71fps average and 66low and that's at max settings with 1.1 res scale,but when i apply the 4.6Ghz 1.3400V FC5 stays at 75-76 average and 70low which is strange at best. 
So i decided to leave it at 4.6Ghz and i also upgraded my GPU from R9 290X to RX580 which is not being bottlenecked which is more than good. 
And i'm curious if i should leave my ram at 2133mhz>< I'm using DDR3 1600mhz sticks with 9-9-9-24 timings,but when i'm using D.O.C.P. 2133 they go to 11-11-11-36 so i guess i should leave them in the middle 1866Mhz 9-9-9-24.

[Benjeh]

20 hours ago, -rascal- said:

 

Chipset has nothing to do with the VRM design of a motherboard. A manufacturer can implement a true 16+2 VRM on a 970 chipset board if they wanted.

 

Typically, the 970 and 990X chipset boards were designed towards more budget / price cautious price brackets. The ASUS 970 Pro Gaming was some-what an exception -- it was launched right at the end of the AM3+ platform (e.g. AM4 Ryzen was already well-known, and release dates were given).

 

The ASUS 970 Pro Gaming uses a true 7+1 digital VRM, so it is one of the better boards out there. By then, things like the ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z, and even the refreshed Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 R5, were already discontinued. Compared to some like the MSi 970 Gaming which uses a "6+2" (not a true 6-phase for the CPU, but doubler instead), it was much better

 

You wouldn't use 1.6V Core Voltage as a daily-driver PC. The ASUS 970 Pro Gaming would be sufficient up to ~1.5V, that will be plenty if the target is to only get 4.6 GHz ~ 4.8 GHz out of a FX-8350.

 

Mileage will vary, but I was able to get 4.8GHz with 1.40V on my FX-8350, and 4.9 GHz with 1.45V. 5.0 GHz was game stable with 1.45V ~ 1.47V, but not Intel Burn Test AVX stable, requiring the voltage to be bumped up to ~1.5V, and temperature peaked at 80 ~ 82°C. Temperature limited with using an air/tower cooler.

 

That was just to pass a test at standard, once i wanted full stability i was at 1.6v give or take 0.1v either way depending on LLC then I went to 1.7v for lolz. your 970 board won't even dare. Don't quote me please, I literally can't be bothered.

[-rascal-]

3 hours ago, Benjeh said:

That was just to pass a test at standard, once i wanted full stability i was at 1.6v give or take 0.1v either way depending on LLC then I went to 1.7v for lolz. your 970 board won't even dare. Don't quote me please, I literally can't be bothered.

The OP, who HAS a 970 board, is not trying to run 5.0 GHz.

His goal was 4.8 GHz, and decided to dial it back down to 4.6 GHz.

 

Where do you see I owned a 970 motherboard?

As I said, I used a ASUS 990FX Crosshair V Formula with my FX-8350.

 

If you don't want to be quoted, then don't join a peer-to-peer community. Turn off notifications.

[HristoBB]

3 hours ago, -rascal- said:

The OP, who HAS a 970 board, is not trying to run 5.0 GHz.

His goal was 4.8 GHz, and decided to dial it back down to 4.6 GHz.

 

Where do you see I owned a 970 motherboard?

As I said, I used a ASUS 990FX Crosshair V Formula with my FX-8350.

 

If you don't want to be quoted, then don't join a peer-to-peer community. Turn off notifications.

I'm still thinking about the Ram speed tho. 2133mhz gives me about 5-10points in Cibebench R15,but i lost my initial FC5 Benchmarks and i don't know the exact fps that i got so i can compare 1866 to 2133mhz. 
I do have installed aftermarket Coolers on my memory sticks and they don't get hot . not even warm even. 
i managed to run them at 2133 with slightly higher timings . Like 13 13 13 34 and it is perfectly stable. 
I don't know what's the difference between DDR4 and DDR3,but when i compare them it seems like the DDR4 has a lot higher timings so i guess +2 +2 +2 +8~9  on the timings wont brake the performance.. 
My bios D.O.C.P has also 2400mhz profile,but i guess that would be totally pointless. 

 

[-rascal-]

On 4/13/2019 at 4:31 AM, HristoBB said:

I'm still thinking about the Ram speed tho. 2133mhz gives me about 5-10points in Cibebench R15,but i lost my initial FC5 Benchmarks and i don't know the exact fps that i got so i can compare 1866 to 2133mhz. 
I do have installed aftermarket Coolers on my memory sticks and they don't get hot . not even warm even. 
i managed to run them at 2133 with slightly higher timings . Like 13 13 13 34 and it is perfectly stable. 
I don't know what's the difference between DDR4 and DDR3,but when i compare them it seems like the DDR4 has a lot higher timings so i guess +2 +2 +2 +8~9  on the timings wont brake the performance.. 
My bios D.O.C.P has also 2400mhz profile,but i guess that would be totally pointless. 

 

 

What is your memory kit rated for with XMP profile on?

Or...what make and model memory kit do you have?

 

DDR3-2133 with 11-11-11--36 is a bit on the high side -- one of my G.Skill RipJawsX had those timings.

You can most certainly tune them down...but how low you can do will depend on your luck and patience.

If DDR3-1866 is stable at 9-9-9-24 timings, then you can stick with that.

Heatsinks on RAM is not 100% necessary.

 

What you can do, to help stabilize higher RAM frequencies, is to increase the CPU-NB voltage.

This is what feeds the Integrated Memory Controller (IMC).

I would bring it up just a little bit at a time.

1.3V CPU-NB is usually not necessary, and generates more heat -- give 1.20V ~ 1.25V a try first.

 

DDR4 is newer standard, and typically run at higher latency because of higher density memory chips.

You can't compare the timings of DDR3 with DDR4.

JEDEC standard got DDR3 is 1333 MHz, while it is 2133 for DDR4.

 

Each game / benchmark will vary from one another.

Some will benefit with higher RAM frequency, while others performs better with lower timings.

 

[HristoBB]

8 hours ago, -rascal- said:

 

What is your memory kit rated for with XMP profile on?

Or...what make and model memory kit do you have?

 

DDR3-2133 with 11-11-11--36 is a bit on the high side -- one of my G.Skill RipJawsX had those timings.

You can most certainly tune them down...but how low you can do will depend on your luck and patience.

If DDR3-1866 is stable at 9-9-9-24 timings, then you can stick with that.

Heatsinks on RAM is not 100% necessary.

 

What you can do, to help stabilize higher RAM frequencies, is to increase the CPU-NB voltage.

This is what feeds the Integrated Memory Controller (IMC).

I would bring it up just a little bit at a time.

1.3V CPU-NB is usually not necessary, and generates more heat -- give 1.20V ~ 1.25V a try first.

 

DDR4 is newer standard, and typically run at higher latency because of higher density memory chips.

You can't compare the timings of DDR3 with DDR4.

JEDEC standard got DDR3 is 1333 MHz, while it is 2133 for DDR4.

 

Each game / benchmark will vary from one another.

Some will benefit with higher RAM frequency, while others performs better with lower timings.

 

For some reason my NB voltage is on auto and it is 1.4000V so i dialed it down to 1.2000.Doing this brings my CPU temps even lower,so that's great i guess. 
I think 1866 is the way to go for me cuz 2133 is making the system somewhat less responsive idk why. 
My ram is just some generic Samsung 1600Mhz 2x8 sticks. But a great overclocker as i see. Never had issues like BSOD when overclocking memory. 
It's rated speed is 1600mhz but i've never ran it at that speed anyway. 
1866 seems to be the sweetspot. 
And i personally installed those aftermarket coolers on my ram cuz it didn't have any and it was just staying there being ugly so i couldn't resist not to put some fancy coolers and the other + is cooling