Gpu temps.

[Akamii]

suddenly i noticed that my gpu temps after installing i5 cpu, getting around 70~75C while gamming, is that really normal ?

also the cpu temps 55~60C ..

 

 

r9 285 dual-x

i5 4440

[Comrade_Dave]

Those temps won't cause any damage.

[CoolaxGaming]

Yeah, they seem noice

[IateMApoo]

Those are normal temps for 285, but if it goes above 80 C some time soon you better improve cooling in your case.

[Akamii]

Those are normal temps for 285, but if it goes above 80 C some time soon you better improve cooling in your case.

actually the case has 0 fans but the temps before was about 68~72C as maximum and 77C while futuremark 1.5 test.

idk maybe i5 improved the card performance so it works harder now..

[TheModMonster]

90C is when Thermal throttling occurs. I would be happy with 50-60C idle and 70-80 when gaming.

[IateMApoo]

actually the case has 0 fans but the temps before was about 68~72C as maximum and 77C while futuremark 1.5 test.

idk maybe i5 improved the card performance so it works harder now..

285 doesnt need strong CPU to push it to limits, are you trying tell you had AMD CPU before ? Higher temps then would makes sense since Intel chips run bit hotter, especialy on stock cooler and kick more heat into case.

[Aphala]

Thats pretty bog standard if it hits 85 > 90 then you should be concerened.

[Akamii]

285 doesnt need strong CPU to push it to limits, are you trying tell you had AMD CPU before ? Higher temps then would makes sense since Intel chips run bit hotter, especialy on stock cooler and kick more heat into case.

actually my fx 6300 was bottlenecking it(at high cpu demanding games "u can say 70% of my games), was running on stock btw, anyway im planning to buy another case with at least 3 or 4 fans. better than buying evo 212 for the cpu since i dont even oc it, and it runs 55C upto 60C and everyone said its kinda fine.

[Akamii]

thanks everyone

[IateMApoo]

actually my fx 6300 was bottlenecking it(at high cpu demanding games "u can say 70% of my games), was running on stock btw, anyway im planning to buy another case with at least 3 or 4 fans. better than buying evo 212 for the cpu since i dont even oc it, and it runs 55C upto 60C and everyone said its kinda fine.

Shoulda OC that 6300 and you wouldnt have problems.

[AStateOfTrance]

90C is when Thermal throttling occurs. I would be happy with 50-60C idle and 70-80 when gaming.

I get 24C idle 

[Akamii]

Shoulda OC that 6300 and you wouldnt have problems.

would need a new mobo + evo fan + new case + the risk .. ,so no , i5 is better choice and costs less

[Akamii]

would need a new mobo + evo fan + new case + the risk and in the end it wont be like an i5 .. ,so no , i5 is better choice and costs less

[IateMApoo]

would need a new mobo + evo fan + new case + the risk .. ,so no , i5 is better choice and costs less

I only needed H60 that i got for laughably low price to get my FX 6300 at 4.4 GHz, i will soon try to jump to 4.6 when ill have free time to screw around with OCing, also im getting GTX 960 any day now since i have positive reccomends from those who already got 6300/960 setup.

[TheModMonster]

I get 24C idle 

I get around 22-33C! Hyper Evo 212 on AMD XF 6350

[Akamii]

I only needed H60 that i got for laughably low price to get my FX 6300 at 4.4 GHz, i will soon try to jump to 4.6 when ill have free time to screw around with OCing, also im getting GTX 960 any day now since i have positive reccomends from those who already got 6300/960 setup.

im using bad case without fans + cheap mobo it was 78lmt, and a stock fans. so calculate it all + the risk, it will cost more than i5 4440 which the i5 is better

[IateMApoo]

im using bad case without fans + cheap mobo it was 78lmt, and a stock fans. so calculate it all + the risk, it will cost more than i5 4440 which the i5 is better

In bad PC ports lacking multi threading support yeah its gona kick ass, but in well made games you wont see much of a difference with i5, personaly id get 4690K, i really hate locked CPU's.

[Faceman]

In bad PC ports lacking multi threading support yeah its gona kick ass, but in well made games you wont see much of a difference with i5, personaly id get 4690K, i really hate locked CPU's.

No, this is not true.  Even very well multithreaded games like CoD:AW, GTAV, Battlefield4, etc.. an FX overclocked to 5.0Ghz is what it takes to match a stock i5-4440, and that is only in those "well made" games.  In others, you have no chance of matching the locked i5.

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

---

---

---

Really pitiful when modern games are playing so much better on an i3 than an FX9.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

Even Mantle doesn't bridge the gap.  Too bad they don't show the minimums in this above graph.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Very modern, multi-threaded game that does take advantage of all cores available, yet you have to OC an FX to 5Ghz to MATCH an i3.

---

---

---

---

This one above is Witcher 2

---

---

---

These are just a few games, and obviously skewed towards Intel, but my point is to try and illustrate that some games run very poorly on the weak cores on FX processors.  Even these new games that are well multithreaded are running better on i3s than FX8s.  If you can find benchmarks from multiple sources that show something else, please share because in all of my research, I have not found any. 

 

What benchmarks fail to show is in-game performance.  There is no substitute for actually playing these games on both processors.  Now, I will admit I haven't played all of the games listed above, but in the games I did play, there was a noticeable stutter that would happen.  It didn't happen in all games, but it happened often enough for me to be displeased with it.  My friend who owns the FX8 simply said "You get used to it."  This is the wrong attitude to have.

 

Now...why buy a processor that can only play 4 out of 5 games, when you can pay the same and play 5 out of 5 games without issue?  In the 18 gaming graphs above that show both the FX8 processor and the 4th Gen Intel i3, the i3 is performing better than the FX8 in 16 of the games!  In not a single game does the i5 perform worse than the FX8.  A locked i5 + H81/B85 motherboard can be purchased for less than the cost of an FX8 + 8+2 VRM Phase Motherboard.  I will show that below in another spoiler.

 

 

Look through all of these sources... the i3 is handing it to the FX8s and FX9s in so many games!

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgamegpu.ru%2Ftest-video-cards%2Figry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpclab.pl%2Fart57842.html

http://benchmarkreviews.com/24051/amd-fx-8320e-am3-processor-performance-review/14/

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-4340-vs-AMD-FX-8320E/2877vs2985

 

 

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"In terms of raw single-core performance the flagship AMD FX-8350 is lagging behind intel's processor line-up by over two generations. The PassMark Single Thread scores for the i5-2500K vs the FX-8350 are 1863 to 1520 which shows that in terms of raw per-core processing the FX-8350 is lagging the two year old i5 by 23%. Where the AMD FX makes up is on multi-core performance, with a score of 9156 vs 6745, the AMD leads the Intel 2500K by 36% making it the far more capable multi-threaded server orientated performer. The AMD is also cheaper but significantly more power hungry which counts strongly against it as a sever proposition. The FX-8350 could be a good fit for specific server use cases but for general consumer use, which is single and dual core intensive, Intel's two year old i5-2500K will deliver better performance."

 

"When AMD first released CPUs for their AM3+ platform we at OC3D were not overly impressed, behind the hype of AMD's "Bulldozer" architecture was some very power hungry, hot running and under-performing CPUs. When AMD's second generation of FX CPUs, Piledriver, was released AMD had lessened a lot of these issues, but many of those flaws still remained."

 

"This is a huge result – it wasn’t until we used a Haswell core CPU that the R9 280X  was able to deliver consistent frame times and a 60 FPS frame rate in Assassin’s Creed IV. All three AMD CPUs we used – even the FX 8350 – and the Ivy Bridge Core i3 would deliver a sub 60 FPS frame rate, with frame spikes throughout the benchmark run.

In this case, the Core i3 4340 allows the R9 280X GPU to run at maximum potential, just like the Core i5 (and Core i7 would)."

 

"My benchmarks show that the Core i3-4360 is faster than the FX-8320E in virtually every test on a per-core basis, you’re probably never going to see this differential unless you spend quite a lot of time in benchmark-land. Benchmark-land is fun, kind of like taking your car to the drag strip to see what it will do. But, like your quarter-mile time, it often doesn’t have that much correlation with real-world performance."

 

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

 

 

There is nothing wrong with a locked CPU, especially when they outperform anything an unlocked FX processor can achieve.  This goes back to what he said about overclocking.  Its something he couldn't do on his motherboard, heck, he was having problems achieving stability at stock speeds because his motherboard wasn't sufficient for the power hungry FX processor.  This is again why AMD is not cheaper than Intel.  For AMD to be viable, you need an expensive motherboard.  Not to mention cooling and energy cost per year.

[Faceman]

im using bad case without fans + cheap mobo it was 78lmt, and a stock fans. so calculate it all + the risk, it will cost more than i5 4440 which the i5 is better

How is your performance now that you switched to an i5?

 

I think it is normal for your GPU to be running hotter, probably because it is being used to its full potential which you stated earlier.  Those temperatures are fine anyways, very normal.  85C and below is safe for CPU and GPU, of course lower is better, but you still have plenty of headroom with your temperatures.

[Akamii]

In bad PC ports lacking multi threading support yeah its gona kick ass, but in well made games you wont see much of a difference with i5, personaly id get 4690K, i really hate locked CPU's.

 

well i just wanna ask a question here.. locked cpus are that bad? ?

How is your performance now that you switched to an i5?

 

I think it is normal for your GPU to be running hotter, probably because it is being used to its full potential which you stated earlier.  Those temperatures are fine anyways, very normal.  85C and below is safe for CPU and GPU, of course lower is better, but you still have plenty of headroom with your temperatures.

well ye its like no more sudden freezes (freeze: fps drops like 60fps stable then suddenly 30fps and goes up again to 60fps) ye freezes are completely gone. the fps is stable, more stable clocks speed (gpu) .. ye it runs hotter like 5C more than before.. also i notice that the 4 cores are almost working equal to each others (viewed by msi AB) .. but the fx 6300 was like 50% first core ,70% 2nd, 35% 3rd, 50% 4th , 0% 5th , 12% 6th, but the i5 : all of them 50% or all of them 60% .. it doesnt matter really but i meant all of them are equal to each others or close abit .. and here's my personal explaination about the high temps of i5 , just because it works harder than the fx .. well correct me if im wrong

 

also tell me about the locked i5 cpus.. they are that bad?

[Akamii]

.

[Faceman]

well i just wanna ask a question here.. locked cpus are that bad? ?

well ye its like no more sudden freezes (freeze: fps drops like 60fps stable then suddenly 30fps and goes up again to 60fps) ye freezes are completely gone. the fps is stable, more stable clocks speed (gpu) .. ye it runs hotter like 5C more than before.. also i notice that the 4 cores are almost working equal to each others (viewed by msi AB) .. but the fx 6300 was like 50% first core ,70% 2nd, 35% 3rd, 50% 4th , 0% 5th , 12% 6th, but the i5 : all of them 50% or all of them 60% .. it doesnt matter really but i meant all of them are equal to each others or close abit .. and here's my personal explaination about the high temps of i5 , just because it works harder than the fx .. well correct me if im wrong

 

also tell me about the locked i5 cpus.. they are that bad?

I'm glad we were able to get it fixed for you!  This is exactly what happens when you get a strong processor.  Stable FPS with no drops.

 

It is actually not running hotter.  The FX CPUs use an algorithm which isn't all that accurate.  That algorithm measures from the socket, not the cores.  The cores are an additional 7-10C hotter than what you are seeing in your monitoring program.  Plus you have the VRMs on the AM3+ motherboards that are very hot and not really being cooled by anything other than a heatsink, and sometimes not even a heatsink.  This adds to the overall heat of the system.

 

No, locked CPUs aren't bad.  That is just what AMD fanboys cry about.  They can't overclock and their world comes to an end.  Intel CPUs are so strong that you don't need to overclock.  It takes an FX6/8/9 CPU 5.0Ghz just to match the i5-4440, and 5.0Ghz is very unrealistic.  Locked CPUs are fine.  Your processor is stronger than any FX CPU when it comes to gaming.

[IateMApoo]

well i just wanna ask a question here.. locked cpus are that bad? ?

well ye its like no more sudden freezes (freeze: fps drops like 60fps stable then suddenly 30fps and goes up again to 60fps) ye freezes are completely gone. the fps is stable, more stable clocks speed (gpu) .. ye it runs hotter like 5C more than before.. also i notice that the 4 cores are almost working equal to each others (viewed by msi AB) .. but the fx 6300 was like 50% first core ,70% 2nd, 35% 3rd, 50% 4th , 0% 5th , 12% 6th, but the i5 : all of them 50% or all of them 60% .. it doesnt matter really but i meant all of them are equal to each others or close abit .. and here's my personal explaination about the high temps of i5 , just because it works harder than the fx .. well correct me if im wrong

 

also tell me about the locked i5 cpus.. they are that bad?

Locked CPUs will start bottlenecking your system in next years to come, with unlocked CPU you have chance to avoid that by overclocking. Theres barely anyone sitting on locked Sandry Bridge CPUs nowa days, but unlocked chips like 2500K and 2600K still rock on with no problem. But if you swap CPUs every year or two then sure go with locked CPU, it wont matter.

[Akamii]

I'm glad we were able to get it fixed for you!  This is exactly what happens when you get a strong processor.  Stable FPS with no drops.

 

It is actually not running hotter.  The FX CPUs use an algorithm which isn't all that accurate.  That algorithm measures from the socket, not the cores.  The cores are an additional 7-10C hotter than what you are seeing in your monitoring program.  Plus you have the VRMs on the AM3+ motherboards that are very hot and not really being cooled by anything other than a heatsink, and sometimes not even a heatsink.  This adds to the overall heat of the system.

 

No, locked CPUs aren't bad.  That is just what AMD fanboys cry about.  They can't overclock and their world comes to an end.  Intel CPUs are so strong that you don't need to overclock.  It takes an FX6/8/9 CPU 5.0Ghz just to match the i5-4440, and 5.0Ghz is very unrealistic.  Locked CPUs are fine.  Your processor is stronger than any FX CPU when it comes to gaming.

thank you mate , ye i believe this intel combo is much better (btw never used intel and now i feel good with it )