AMD FX-8150 Gets Pushed Over 9GHz in Extreme Overclock

[Marcus Yam]

Bulldozer goes very, very fast.

AMD FX-8150 Gets Pushed Over 9GHz in Extreme Overclock : Read more

 

[vabeachboy0]

Try to bench it I bet it will jump out of the socket.

 

[Soulmachiklamo]

I hope Intel & AMD plan to ramp up the clock speed bit by bit.. Because not all applications support multi core processing. Great overclock.

 

[geekapproved]

TWO cores only.

 

[bawchicawawa]

Froznic... It's purely for the challenge and record breaking.

Why do people have to say stupid **** that literally has no correlation to the article?

 

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]Soulmachiklamo[/nom]I hope Intel & AMD plan to ramp up the clock speed bit by bit.. Because not all applications support multi core processing. Great overclock.[/citation]
because being able to push locked processors to 4GHz just isn't enough for you? I mean my 2600 (not K) hits 4GHz when all 4 cores are used, and will push 4.2GHz when a process only uses 1-2 cores. The unlocked skus can go much higher very easily, and there are other concerns/bottlenecks when you start pushing stuff past 5GHz (heat, stability, ram throughput, etc.).
The real performance giver is instruction efficiency, not core clock speed.

 

[husker]

[citation][nom]frozonic[/nom]All right!!! we get it! Bulldozer can be overclocked REALLY high, but that doesnt stop nahelem, sandy bridge and ivy bridge from bulldozing the bulldozer....[/citation]
They do best Bulldozer in most real-world situations, but not all. I think Bulldozer is actually just laying the groundwork for what's to come next from this new architecture. This amazing OC that is approaching 1 THz is perhaps a hint of what the AMD engineers have to play with as it matures.

 

[duckwithnukes]

The only way in which I foresee a practical use of 10+ GHz processors.. is when the manufacturing process itself undergoes another computing leap, much like how vacuum tubes were superseded by silicon circuits.

Graphene circuits (early laboratory tests put them around the 1 THz range), or quantum/light based computing will be needed.

 

[duckwithnukes]

"This amazing OC that is approaching 1 THz"

9 GHz is approaching 1000 GHz?

 

[eddieroolz]

[citation][nom]husker[/nom]They do best Bulldozer in most real-world situations, but not all. I think Bulldozer is actually just laying the groundwork for what's to come next from this new architecture. This amazing OC that is approaching 1 THz is perhaps a hint of what the AMD engineers have to play with as it matures.[/citation]

1THz = 1000GHz. This is only nearing 10GHz, which means it's 0.01THz.

By the way, nice clock speed Bulldozer. For all the comparison you get to Pentium 4, at least you're coming close to the 10GHz clock speed...

 

[zak_mckraken]

Well, someone has to say it, so I'll take the bullet.

It's over 9000!!!!!!!!111

 

[duckwithnukes]

Why the CPU frequency stalled? Here is the answer (a very good read)

http://bit.ly/L3vImj

 

[willard]

[citation][nom]husker[/nom]This amazing OC that is approaching 1 THz is perhaps a hint of what the AMD engineers have to play with as it matures.[/citation]
Somebody doesn't know their SI prefixes.

 

[esrever]

Can't wait to see the 10ghz chip that intel prophesied back in 2000

 

[wintermint]

It's nice but you still can't even beat an i5 :/

 

[husker]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]1THz = 1000GHz. This is only nearing 10GHz, which means it's 0.01THz.By the way, nice clock speed Bulldozer. For all the comparison you get to Pentium 4, at least you're coming close to the 10GHz clock speed...[/citation]
Duh, my bad.... thanks for being kind in pointing out my foolish error.

I will point out that although it appears that 2 cores are enabled, it is really only 1 "module" which consists of 1 full and 1 partial core. A lot of resources such as cache and floating point capabilities are shared between the 2 threads or "cores" in a module, so calling them separate full cores is a bit misleading. As others have pointed out, it would have been better if AMD had marketed it this way, because when compared to Phenom II cores, the Bulldozer cores seem somewhat lackluster. But actually it is not fair because 2 cores in Phenom II really are 2 full cores, whereas in Bulldozer 2 "cores" (1 Module) it is like a core and a half.

 

[ewood]

the article should be titles "1/4 of bulldozer reaches 9ghz"...

 

[TheBigTroll]

and then it blows up when you run prime95

 

[Derbixrace]

who cares, intel will beat it at at stock at multi threaded tasks

 

[Guest]

@TheBigTroll

Actually no, everyone knows running prime 95 at 10Ghz will result in it attaining self awareness making a grab for control of our nuclear warheads and beginning the systematic eradication of the human species

 

[mobrocket]

[citation][nom]SkynetisNext[/nom]@TheBigTrollActually no, everyone knows running prime 95 at 10Ghz will result in it attaining self awareness making a grab for control of our nuclear warheads and beginning the systematic eradication of the human species[/citation]

bingo... it happened already once, fortunately the timeline was changed so it never happened in our current timeline.... YET

 

[10tacle]

Today games, and even more so tomorrow's games will be more GPU dependent than CPU speed dependent. I run my 2500k at 4.83GHz with an EVGA superclocked 680. There is no measurable difference in frames between running that chip at 4.0GHz or 4.8GHz at 1920x1200 at 4xAA, all options maxed, and updated high resolution textures on Crysis 2.

 

[ohim]

[citation][nom]10tacle[/nom]Today games, and even more so tomorrow's games will be more GPU dependent than CPU speed dependent. I run my 2500k at 4.83GHz with an EVGA superclocked 680. There is no measurable difference in frames between running that chip at 4.0GHz or 4.8GHz at 1920x1200 at 4xAA, all options maxed, and updated high resolution textures on Crysis 2.[/citation]
There wouldn`t have been almost any difference between that intel CPU of yours vs the AMD Fx one either but still you went with the sheeps

 

[dgingeri]

And it still wouldn't beat a Core i3 in gaming.

 

[mavikt]

[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]It's pretty standard in extreme overclocking to disable cores to enable a higher overclock... doesn't make the clock less legitimate.Everyone knows that these aren't operational speeds anyways; it's just for fun to see how high an architecture can go.[/citation]
And just for that reason I'm not that impressed with these results. It's crippled (scaled down) and not operational.
If you scale it down even further and make the transistor out of graphene you could probably hit 300GHz.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/300-...ung-Shows-the-Graphene-Barristor-270420.shtml
They are probably are equally usable. I'm more impressed with an OC that has the uP fully working.