AMD OC Record Broken, Still Powered by AMD FX-8150

[Syborfical]

Originally Posted by Dent1

Maybe the Bulldozer is a pile of shit, but that isnt my point.

I'm saying your initial post insinuated that AMD should "give it up". When AMD had nothing to do with this OC record.

Sorry I had to be rude but I fixed this for you
Bulldozer is an epic pile of steaming shit.

[dicobalt]

Originally Posted by newfellow

As far I recall a 10Ghz was planned ahead on corps while they decided to go to threading.

It's sad to see what we have to deal with today, it's still a one hell of an score there.

Intel thought they could do 10GHz by the year 2005 with the 65nm Pentium 4, note the date on the article below: by Anand Lal Shimpi on 12/11/2000

http://www.anandtech.com/show/680/6

[lashton]

Originally Posted by NC37

Intel will reach a wall with extreme cold so no matter how cold you get it or fast you push it, they just can't technically do it as well as AMD can due to AMD engineering to handle such low temps. But outside of testing or maybe scientific environments, not a feature the regular consumer will ever use.

But this is all irrelevant. We'll eventually get new design materials in mass production and finally see clocks much much higher than any of this. Been a lot of promising research over the past decade that is being put towards this.

This is the reason why a core i7 will NEVER beat a FX8150 in an overclocking race

[lashton]

Originally Posted by happita

I wonder if the performance is hindered by not incorporating the Hi-k Metal Gate process in this generation of CPUs. I know that they are supposed to finally make the jump with Piledriver when they come out. Intel's been using HKMG I think for 2 or 3 generations now, and it's been sucessful thus far. Hurry up and get the lead out AMD!! Show Intel that you can work fast too...

HKMG wont inprove bulldozer performance, what they need to do is offer each core 12 MB or level 3 cache, also get the "modules" to split 64 but insdtructions and add a Clock cycle into the FPU, this would consume more power but SMOKE the Core i7 to hell and back

[n-ster]

Lets all hate AMD because some guy OCed AMD's chip and broke a record..

While not a big improvement, it only really hows that AMD shine in extreme OCing. It doesn't show that Bulldozer is a pile of shit or anything like that. So shut your mouths and keep you hate for the next intel vs AMD thread k?

I wonder, what is the best 24/7 STABLE OC?

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by n-ster

Lets all hate AMD because some guy OCed AMD's chip and broke a record..

While not a big improvement, it only really hows that AMD shine in extreme OCing. It doesn't show that Bulldozer is a pile of shit or anything like that. So shut your mouths and keep you hate for the next intel vs AMD thread k?

I wonder, what is the best 24/7 STABLE OC?

I agree. It's like any thread mentioning something positive about AMD people have to add their 2 cents about Bulldozer being XYZ.

Still waiting for Hustler to explain why AMD should "give it up".

Syborfical, no need to correct me. Derailed the point I was hammering home to Hustler.

[Super XP]

This is great, I can see the new B3 revisions pushing a lot more than 8+ GHz

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by Super XP

This is great, I can see the new B3 revisions pushing a lot more than 8+ GHz

Not too fussed, would rather the B3 revision improve single threaded performance than OC'in yield.

Not sure if its worth releasing the B3 revision Q1 2012 and Piledriver also in Q1/Q2 2012 - I feel they need to bring the B3 ASAP to space out the release dates.

[Super XP]

Originally Posted by Dent1

Not too fussed, would rather the B3 revision improve single threaded performance than OC'in yield.

Not sure if its worth releasing the B3 revision Q1 2012 and Piledriver also in Q1/Q2 2012 - I feel they need to bring the B3 ASAP to space out the release dates.

Well that is what I think they plan on doing according to some rumours. FX 8170 is said to be B3 that should get released early Q1 2012, then Piledriver follows IMO with another revision perhaps the B4 or something unless AMD can achieve the performance they want with B3. Though you are correct, it would be better for them to try and increase Single Threaded Performance NOW which will give Multi-Threaded time to mature.

[Zubasa]

Originally Posted by Dent1

Not too fussed, would rather the B3 revision improve single threaded performance than OC'in yield.

Not sure if its worth releasing the B3 revision Q1 2012 and Piledriver also in Q1/Q2 2012 - I feel they need to bring the B3 ASAP to space out the release dates.

The single most important thing B3 must achieve is lower the monstrous power consumption.

[qubit]

I'll bet Asus Formula mobos are now flying off the shelves since these overclocking world records have been set. Can you get any better marketing?

I wonder if other brands could also achieve such impressive overclocks with the same chip?

[Recus]

Some guys are funny. You fear the trolling because of the clear fact: you have Bulldozer, but won't get OC record. Only top overclockers will get it. Deal with it.

[Super XP]

Originally Posted by Recus

Some guys are funny. You fear the trolling because of the clear fact: you have Bulldozer, but won't get OC record. Only top overclockers will get it. Deal with it.

Dry Ice or Liquid N anybody
I can care less about Overclocking so long as gaming is top notch.

[Recus]

Originally Posted by Super XP

Dry Ice or Liquid N anybody
I can care less about Overclocking so long as gaming is top notch.

Not worth extra 7 fps.

[cdawall]

Phew and here I was thinking this thread wouldn't be full of intelidiots screaming about cores disabled specific memory used and no stability testing.

[dicobalt]

Originally Posted by cdawall

Phew and here I was thinking this thread wouldn't be full of intelidiots screaming about cores disabled specific memory used and no stability testing.

FYI for everyone, all high overclocks (both Intel and AMD) on super cooling always use very little RAM and always run on 1 core or 1 module. That's just how they do it because that's what it takes to maximize stability and get those kind of clock rates.

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by dicobalt

FYI for everyone, all high overclocks (both Intel and AMD) on super cooling always use very little RAM and always run on 1 core or 1 module. That's just how they do it because that's what it takes to maximize stability and get those kind of clock rates.

Sounds about like what I did back in the day.

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by Recus

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/K/313...50%20cores.png

Not worth extra 7 fps. http://www.vanadrighem.eu/images/trollface.png

That chart tells us almost nothing, without knowing the minimum and maximm frame rate too

[qubit]

Originally Posted by dicobalt

FYI for everyone, all high overclocks (both Intel and AMD) on super cooling always use very little RAM and always run on 1 core or 1 module. That's just how they do it because that's what it takes to maximize stability and get those kind of clock rates.

Yes, indeed. What would really impress me is if something like 10GHz could be achieved easily with a fully functional chip. Since the power wall was hit around 2003/4, clock speed increases have been pants.

What really surprises me though, is that despite this problem, modern CPUs since the Core 2 Duo era have been able to hit 4GHz easily on air - my E8500 is at 4.11GHz with a very standard Zalman cooler, for example. Therefore, why don't they officially release CPUs rated for 4GHz when this speed is so easily achievable?

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by qubit

Therefore, why don't they officially release CPUs rated for 4GHz when this speed is so easily achievable?

We are in a day and age where organisations are trying to show consideration to the environment.

It doesn't look attractive selling a CPU with a TDP rating of 250W for the sake of giving you 4GHz out of the box.

Also, as nINJAkECIL said, the increased temps would require Intel or AMD to put bigger heatsinks in the box and increase the overal price of the CPU.

[nINJAkECIL]

Originally Posted by qubit

Yes, indeed. What would really impress me is if something like 10GHz could be achieved easily with a fully functional chip. Since the power wall was hit around 2003/4, clock speed increases have been pants.

What really surprises me though, is that despite this problem, modern CPUs since the Core 2 Duo era have been able to hit 4GHz easily on air - my E8500 is at 4.11GHz with a very standard Zalman cooler, for example. Therefore, why don't they officially release CPUs rated for 4GHz when this speed is so easily achievable?

Because then the TDP would be idiotically high. And what would be the temp with those tiny hsf?
That's not pretty in marketing language.

Edit:
Got ninja-ed. lol.

[dicobalt]

Originally Posted by Dent1

We are in a day and age where organisations are trying to show consideration to the environment.

It doesn't look attractive selling a CPU with a TDP rating of 250W for the sake of giving you 4GHz out of the box.

Also, as nINJAkECIL said, the increased temps would require Intel or AMD to put bigger heatsinks in the box and increase the overal price of the CPU.

Not only that but having to create a bargain basement OEM motherboard and power supply capable of delivering that power reliably isn't exactly in the realm of major OEMs like HP and Dell. It would cause product costs to go up and major OEMs are all about keeping it cheap.

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by dicobalt

Not only that but having to create a bargain basement OEM motherboard and power supply capable of delivering that power reliably isn't exactly in the realm of major OEMs like HP and Dell. It would cause product costs to go up and major OEMs are all about keeping it cheap.

Depends the 4ghz chip wouldn't be a base model. They use plenty good boards for top end models. Last stupid Alienware I tore apart had an Asus top end board in it. Last Asus destop I tore open had a Rampage II Gene minus some heatsinks. Top end manufactures always use high quality parts in them.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by Dent1

We are in a day and age where organisations are trying to show consideration to the environment.

It doesn't look attractive selling a CPU with a TDP rating of 250W for the sake of giving you 4GHz out of the box.

Also, as nINJAkECIL said, the increased temps would require Intel or AMD to put bigger heatsinks in the box and increase the overal price of the CPU.

Originally Posted by nINJAkECIL

Because then the TDP would be idiotically high. And what would be the temp with those tiny hsf?
That's not pretty in marketing language.

Edit:
Got ninja-ed. lol.

But that's just it, modern CPUs are released at up to 3.8GHz, which is very close to 4GHz, so reaching it hardly takes any more power and certainly doesn't take a bigger heatsink. The standard crappy stock one that came with my E8500 was enough for it at 4GHz and my CPU is old tech now and only rated officially at 3.16GHz.

You certainly don't need anywhere near 250W for 4GHz. Perhaps 100W or so, even less with smaller process technology. Therefore, there would be no increase in price, either.

[cadaveca]

60000 members here, and less than 50 individuals seem to have interest in this stuff.

Neat stuff...but was this done on LN2, or LHe?

Andre Yang did this? The same guy that was banned from the OC scene for helping people cheat to qualify @ OC events?

And he's still making news in OC? Nice.

NOT.