Thursday, July 25th 2013

AMD A10-6800K Overclocked To 8.2 GHz, Breaks And Sets World Record

A Finnish group of Overclockers who call themselves 'The Stilt' have managed to score a world record using AMD's newest Richland architecture based A10-6800K APU and using the Asus F2A85-V Pro motherboard. Back in June, The Stilt had managed to score 8000.48 MHz with a bus clock of 126.99 MHz and applying 2.008 volts to the CPU. The new world record, set by the same group, managed to score an applaud-worthy 8203.01 MHz with a bus clock of 130.21 MHz, multiplier set at 63x and a, believe it or not, lower core voltage of 1.968 volts. The recently discovered x87 patch was also applied, which allowed the poor A10-6800K to post better SuperPi scores.

Source: HWBot.org
Add your own comment

32 Comments on AMD A10-6800K Overclocked To 8.2 GHz, Breaks And Sets World Record

#1
McSteel
And with all cores enabled? Great job!
Posted on Reply
#2
EarthDog
Who cares about cores... its a drag race, not a luxury car for pete's sake!

It is a good job though to do it with all the cores, agreed though!
Posted on Reply
#3
repman244
Inb4 comments: "It's useless, you can't run it daily".
Posted on Reply
#4
tigger
I'm the only one
by: repman244
Inb4 comments: "It's useless, you can't run it daily".
No, but that is not the point of doing it.
Posted on Reply
#5
RCoon
Gaming Moderator
I'm amused that AMD's APU's are surpassing the FX chips. I saw it coming, but the record OC on less volts? Awesome.
Posted on Reply
#6
Mathragh
by: RCoon
I'm amused that AMD's APU's are surpassing the FX chips. I saw it coming, but the record OC on less volts? Awesome.
I suppose its not surprising that these APU's perform better. They're simply newer, with a better design(richland aka improved piledriver versus trinity/vishera aka piledriver).

Also, isn't the Stilt one person, instead of the "group of people" mentioned in this news article? Correct me if I'm wrong:)
Posted on Reply
#7
BigMack70
by: RCoon
I'm amused that AMD's APU's are surpassing the FX chips. I saw it coming, but the record OC on less volts? Awesome.
Me too... I keep waiting for the 9590 OC results to come in but nothing so far... it's gonna be kind of pathetic if the 6800k outdoes the 9590 in the LN2 arena. :nutkick:
Posted on Reply
#9
Jorge
This OC is a cool result but for the record Stilt (who is one person), likes attention. He's active in several forums and works for some company who has access to a lot of proprietary AMD information. He however states incorrect technical opinions sometimes that are misleading and a disservice to PC enthusiasts some of whom worship Stilt and take his every word as gospel.
Posted on Reply
#11
PopcornMachine
Breaks and Sets?

Usually records are broken and then there is no record at all!

This is very unusual.



Seriously though, OCs that benefit real world use interest me. This does not.
Posted on Reply
#13
net2007
MY next build will be all amd.

I am going to start support amd even if they are not leading the benchmarks.
Posted on Reply
#14
erocker
by: RCoon
I'm amused that AMD's APU's are surpassing the FX chips. I saw it coming, but the record OC on less volts? Awesome.
Four less "cores" and no L3 cache. :)
Posted on Reply
#15
Super XP
by: EarthDog
Who cares about cores... its a drag race, not a luxury car for pete's sake!

It is a good job though to do it with all the cores, agreed though!
I care about cores. All cores activated at this OC is dam impressive. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#16
mandis
That's a truly phenomenal feat! Good Gob!

by: Jorge
He however states incorrect technical opinions sometimes that are misleading and a disservice to PC enthusiasts some of whom worship Stilt and take his every word as gospel.
I suggest you elaborate on your comment a little with actual facts or people will read your comment as an attempt at defamation and backstabbing...
Posted on Reply
#17
eidairaman1
by: BigMack70
Me too... I keep waiting for the 9590 OC results to come in but nothing so far... it's gonna be kind of pathetic if the 6800k outdoes the 9590 in the LN2 arena. :nutkick:
youre comparing a quad (6800K) to an octo core (9590)
Posted on Reply
#18
Thefumigator
What about the gpu portion of the chip? Was it underclocked? Stock? Oc as well?
Posted on Reply
#19
BigMack70
by: eidairaman1
youre comparing a quad (6800K) to an octo core (9590)
In that particular comparison, however, the 9590 has been heavily defended by AMD's fans as being THE go-to LN2 chip, and that its LN2 prowess is what justifies the stratospheric pricing.

I'm still patiently waiting to see what sort of results it brings in, but if a $900 chip released - supposedly - with a focus on LN2 cannot even beat an APU, that's just laughably embarrassing for the 9590.

Also, they can just disable cores on the 9590 (which I'm sure they'll do... it's really rare to see a result like this one where all the cores were left enabled).
Posted on Reply
#20
Mathragh
by: BigMack70
In that particular comparison, however, the 9590 has been heavily defended by AMD's fans as being THE go-to LN2 chip, and that its LN2 prowess is what justifies the stratospheric pricing.

I'm still patiently waiting to see what sort of results it brings in, but if a $900 chip released - supposedly - with a focus on LN2 cannot even beat an APU, that's just laughably embarrassing for the 9590.

Also, they can just disable cores on the 9590 (which I'm sure they'll do... it's really rare to see a result like this one where all the cores were left enabled).
Actually, why would you think the 9590 would do good on LN2?

As far as I know, the only way AMD could have made those higher clocks possible without too much poweruse or heat generation, is by binning for lower leakage. However, lower leakage also means less awesome for clocking on sub-zero cooling.

This, and that I have never seen your claim being made by AMD anywhere? The only thing they kept saying was 5GHZ CHIP!!11!1oneeinz.
Posted on Reply
#21
Jstn7477
by: Mathragh
Actually, why would you think the 9590 would do good on LN2?

As far as I know, the only way AMD could have made those higher clocks possible without too much poweruse or heat generation, is by binning for lower leakage. However, lower leakage also means less awesome for clocking on sub-zero cooling.

This, and that I have never seen your claim being made by AMD anywhere? The only thing they kept saying was 5GHZ CHIP!!11!1oneeinz.
Check the FX-9590 thread: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2936703&highlight=LN2#

EDIT: Nevermind, looks like it was just a few posts, but I guess a few people consider the FX-9590 to be an "LN2" chip simply because it is ridiculously priced like the Intel EE chips.
Posted on Reply
#22
drdeathx
by: RCoon
I'm amused that AMD's APU's are surpassing the FX chips. I saw it coming, but the record OC on less volts? Awesome.
Surpasing FX? Umm the record overclock was done on a FX chip surpassing their results a ways back at AMD Tech day last year. Their result was a record for A10 chips. Let me see if I could find my photos.

I think Sami pulled a few hundred MHZ higher than this......







Posted on Reply
#24
BigMack70
by: Mathragh
Actually, why would you think the 9590 would do good on LN2
I do not, and I won't unless I see some great results from it. AMD also hasn't said that.

It is AMD fans who pull this out as a defense/excuse for the chip. And I want to give them the benefit of the doubt (because quite frankly, the $900 price point for the 9590 is inexplicable in my mind given the lackluster performance) - maybe they know something I don't and we'll get a 9 GHz chip out of it or something. It's still a bit early to know, since the chip just launched and I'm sure the LN2 guys haven't had enough time with it yet.

It's just interesting that if you start criticizing that particular chip for being the most overpriced thing ever, I guarantee you that a ton of AMD fans will show up and accuse you of not understanding the purpose of the chip, which they will claim is the hardcore (LN2) overclocking crowd.

I can quote any number of posts from 9590 threads, if you like.
Posted on Reply
#25
BigMack70
by: drdeathx
Surpasing FX? Umm the record overclock was done on a FX chip surpassing their results a ways back at AMD Tech day last year. Their result was a record for A10 chips. Let me see if I could find my photos.
Thanks for clearing that up! In other words, this article was just a bit misleading. :ohwell:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment