AMD FX-8150 Breaks New Clock Speed Record at 8.8 GHz

[razor512]

I feel that a better form of overclocking competition would be based on who ever can get the largest relative speed improvement, eg doubling your CPU score in 3dmark.

clock speed can be a separate section, especially since these overclocks are often very useless. in a multithreaded environment, 2 cores at 8.8GHz is slower than 8 cores at 3.6GHz

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Rds1220[/nom]Yea ok I'm sure eveyone out there with a Bulldozer is going to try to overclock thier CPU to 8 GHz. Obviously there is no talking any logic into an AMD fanboy. Face it the Bulldozer is just a hyped up Core 2 Duo because thats exactly how it performs.[/citation]

Read my post again and read it without being a subjective fool. First, I clearly stated 7GHz, not 8GHz. Second, phase-change cooling is realistic, even if you're too ignorant to understand it. Third, I never said anything about everyone doing it, only that it is practical. Obviously, there is no point in using logic to discuss things with you because you seem to be trying to twist logic as much as it takes to make me, someone who has already given some objective compare and contrast posts of Bulldozer CPUs and Sandy/Ivy Bridge CPUs, look like a fanboy in your mind. Well congratulations, you're clearly better at deluding yourself than I am at deluding myself (I suck at doing that).

Oh, but go ahead... Compare an FX-8150 with two or four cores enabled and a huge overclock against a Core 2 Duo. Heck, compare it against a Core 2 Duo overclocked to the max with the same phase-change cooling. The FX will win by a very large margin.

[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]I feel that a better form of overclocking competition would be based on who ever can get the largest relative speed improvement, eg doubling your CPU score in 3dmark.clock speed can be a separate section, especially since these overclocks are often very useless. in a multithreaded environment, 2 cores at 8.8GHz is slower than 8 cores at 3.6GHz[/citation]

That would be a completely different activity. The point of overclocking records isn't performance; the point is to get the highest clock frequency. Getting the highest total performance out of a CPU would be a different competition.

 

[moonzy]

That's just frickin' Amazing!
First words to come out of my mouth: "Damn!"

Now he's @ over 9 GHz!
It's all goin' good at the end of the day for AMD.
I trust KSIN has a wild cooling system O_O.

 

[TheBigTroll]

i5 3570k is better

 

[moonzy]

Having had to adjust my cooling in my case because of the recent heat wave (had other projects going)
from positive pressure to a decent negative pressure, I can understand what ksin had to work on.

Man! What a difference the negative air pressure did!
I put an Aerocool 120mm sharkfin in for exhaust and connected it 4 pin to 3 pin - powerhouse city with coolness for the heavy loads!

 

[Guest]

It's time the folks here writing articles like this one LEARN the difference (mathematically & otherwise) the difference between "speed" and CLOCK RATE.

Ref.: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_rate)
"The clock rate of a CPU is normally determined by the frequency of an oscillator crystal. Typically a crystal oscillator produces a fixed sine wave – the frequency reference signal. Electronic circuitry translates that into a square wave at the same frequency for digital electronics applications (or, in using a CPU multiplier, some fixed multiple of the crystal reference frequency). The clock distribution network inside the CPU carries that clock signal to all the parts that need it. An AD Converter has a "clock" pin driven by a similar system to set the sampling rate.

In this context, the use of the word "speed" (physical movement), should not be confused with frequency or its corresponding clock rate. Thus, the term "clock speed" or "processor speed" is a misnomer."

 

[azraa]

I ask the same question that another guy did earlier.
Are there any other person reading this site that it's not an Intel Fanboy?

All those defending Intel in this topic say that 'Performance in gaming'
Gaming my ass! wooaa i mean... This is a workstation CPU. It works better with software written to use multithread. And for the price, it does wonders for somebody not willing to buy an expensive i7 (along with their expensive mobos) and who will use it as intended, for media editing, 3D modeling and hardcore numbermunching. And sure there are options from Intel for the same task, but none has this Price/Performance ratio.

Fact: This CPU is still better than a Phenom (smaller process, less power, more overclock headroom)
Fact: If you buy an i7 for gaming, you need educate yourself
Fact: Fanboyism is bad.
Fact: Gaming needs four high performance cpu cores (which you can get with Intel and AMD as well). Going beyond that is overkill.

 

[Guest]

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2385966 Yea-a-a-h

 

[TheBigTroll]

I ask the same question that another guy did earlier.
Are there any other person reading this site that it's not an Intel Fanboy?

All those defending Intel in this topic say that 'Performance in gaming'
Gaming my ass! wooaa i mean... This is a workstation CPU. It works better with software written to use multithread. And for the price, it does wonders for somebody not willing to buy an expensive i7 (along with their expensive mobos) and who will use it as intended, for media editing, 3D modeling and hardcore numbermunching. And sure there are options from Intel for the same task, but none has this Price/Performance ratio.

Fact: This CPU is still better than a Phenom (smaller process, less power, more overclock headroom)
Fact: If you buy an i7 for gaming, you need educate yourself
Fact: Fanboyism is bad.
Fact: Gaming needs four high performance cpu cores (which you can get with Intel and AMD as well). Going beyond that is overkill.

if it was meant for workstations, i dont think that making the entire lineup of fx chips unlocked makes sense. one more thing, how would the fx4100 be good at workstation tasks? it only has 4 threads=same as a i3 2120

i understand that intel doesnt have good price to performance. thats why nobody really buys the i7 3770k and only buys the i5 3570k because it does much better in games than a fx chip

i bought a i7 chip for gaming. Problem? (acutally i bought it just so that it lasts 10 years like a first gen athlon)

 

[azraa]

Hey BigTroll, i7 for gaming, srsly?
I dont doubt Intel's superiority speaking of sheer compute power dude, forget it. If i ever build a workstation, it will probably be an Intel based system, but gaming?

Does the work bottleneck mean anything for you?
Sure, your chip is old now, but back in the day, it was probably overkill anyway
People (even those 'uber pro gamerz n00b-pwnerz') should build balanced machines. There is no science in wasting money.

 

[azraa]

BTW, i meant an 8-core FX cpu. Four cores (the cpu in question) are no good for a workstation :x

 

[TheBigTroll]

Hey BigTroll, i7 for gaming, srsly?
I dont doubt Intel's superiority speaking of sheer compute power dude, forget it. If i ever build a workstation, it will probably be an Intel based system, but gaming?

Does the work bottleneck mean anything for you?
Sure, your chip is old now, but back in the day, it was probably overkill anyway
People (even those 'uber pro gamerz n00b-pwnerz') should build balanced machines. There is no science in wasting money.

i do some casual video editing. might also try folding.

im planning to stuff a nice asus 670 with a 240gb SSD. i fail to see how that will be unbalanced

 

[TheBigTroll]

acutally make that 2 670s when they are on sale