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

[mavikt]

And there I should have included a link to work by Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology about the research on their Barristor.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/300-...ung-Shows-the-Graphene-Barristor-270420.shtml Failed :-/

 

[Zingam_Duo]

Low power high performance devices are much more interesting than this. What's the practical use of overclocking? None?

 

[madooo12]

in other news Ivy reached 7 GHZ althought it is made on the 22nm process (68.75% the size of a bulldozer transistor)

 

[Guest]

The submission isn't valid, and the user lied about cooling methods. Bogus.

 

[chewy1963]

[citation][nom]geekapproved[/nom]TWO cores only.[/citation]

Actually one core only (two ALU's) in case you AMD fanboys haven't figured it out yet, AMD has taken basically what Intel would call Hyperthreading 3.0 on a core and call it two cores instead. Yes there are two ALU's per 'module' but only one scheduler plus many things that have traditionally been part of a 'core'. In reality one module is really one core with extra hardware to use a second thread (a la Hyperthread). That is the main reason why bulldozer '8 core' machines are still way behind even the slower (i5) CPUs.

 

[simple_inhibition]

breaks world mhz speed record

still loses to an i7 in super pi

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]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[/citation]

Of course you guys fail to realize every game is different and some games will see a difference. Not only are games like Starcraft 2 very CPU intensive, many multiplayer games become much more CPU intensive, like BF3. Then you have those with 120hz monitor trying to achieve 120 FPS, which again, requires a lot of CPU power in many games.

 

[rds1220]

Who cares it's still a slow POS and in real world everyday performance still gets killed by Intel.

 

[BigBodZod]

This is all great but I wonder if the folks that designed Eniac ever thought about overclocking Vacuum Tubes

 

[livebriand]

I'm sure SB and IB still beat it though...

 

[amuffin]

Marcus, what does the scouter say about it's clock speed?

Marcus: IT"S OVER 9000MHZ!!!!!!!

 

[Radau]

So many people bitching about i7s... it's overclocking, it's a challenge, lets see you do better. Until you do, ah heck off, they worked hard to achieve this, it's called suicide overclocking for a reason. Just because it isn't practical doesn't mean it's a waste of time.

 

[Outlander_04]

[citation][nom]chewy1963[/nom]Actually one core only (two ALU's) in case you AMD fanboys haven't figured it out yet, AMD has taken basically what Intel would call Hyperthreading 3.0 on a core and call it two cores instead. Yes there are two ALU's per 'module' but only one scheduler plus many things that have traditionally been part of a 'core'. In reality one module is really one core with extra hardware to use a second thread (a la Hyperthread). That is the main reason why bulldozer '8 core' machines are still way behind even the slower (i5) CPUs.[/citation]

You are absolutely correct on your assessment of the BD architecture . Its a hardware implementation of hyperthreading by duplicating part of what intel call a "core" .
The reason that makes me laugh hard is the critics who say its performance per core is lower than intel and even Phenom . Its not because FX core are not the same thing as a traditional core .. An FX module which is the nearest equivalent performs far better than a Phenom Core and as well as an intel core .
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865
With proper scheduling the FX probably exceeds IB performance in most situations . Clearly theres an issue with the scheduler , cache and or software . Hopefully Piledriver and Windows 8 will improve these issues

 

[Cyricc]

Pointless "record breaking" like this is what's driving AMD's CEO to pull their head out of their ass.

 

[coder543]

[citation][nom]dgingeri[/nom]And it still wouldn't beat a Core i3 in gaming.[/citation]
No one uses a standard processor for gaming. They use this thing called a graphics card. Processors are far more powerful than they need to be in order to manage the graphics card, so... no. the i3 would lose if the Bulldozer was paired with any kind of graphics card... intel HD graphics aren't considered gaming-worthy by anyone.

 

[DrinkTray]

And it's still slow.

 

[fb39ca4]

[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]
It all depends on the game. Play Skyrim and see if you notice a difference.

 

[ipwn3r456]

Fast dual-core!

 

[Guest]

But can it run Crys- wait a minute its 2012 already?!

 

[Guest]

geekapproved: I was looking back through the article 2 days ago that Ivy Bridge broke a whopping 7ghz, with 1 of 4 cores enabled, and I couldn't find you complaining.

I can provide the link to the article if you need it, because I know you're actually just against "cheating", and not just trolling against AMD.

 

[A Bad Day]

Yesterday 8 GHz

Today 9 GHz

Tomorrow 10 GHz! Finally Intel's promise of processors reaching 10 GHz can come true!

 

[razor512]

keep in mind that it is hard to tell if the CPU is using 2 separate cores, or 1 core cluster which is basically 1.5 cores.

That CPU basically has 4 clusters each consisting of 1.5 CPU cores

that is why the cores do not scale well with 3d modeling applications. If it had 8 complete cores, it would easily compete with the current core i7 CPU's

while I understand that the goal is to just reach the highest MHz, overall, it is very impractical ac it cannot be used without incurring massive cost for liquid nitrogen, all to get about 2-3 cores worth of performance out of a single core. Overall it is not something that can really be used by someone to get actual work done.

 

[atminside]

I would love to see some benchmarks

 

[the_brute]

[citation][nom]atminside[/nom]I would love to see some benchmarks[/citation]
I know its just one core but I would like to see how the extreme clock hurts its overall performance/cycle, or if it has any effect. Because arent there more errors (timing) at this clock?

 

[husker]

[citation][nom]Rds1220[/nom]Who cares it's still a slow POS and in real world everyday performance still gets killed by Intel.[/citation]
Yes, and in real world performance a Chrysler mini-van beats a Lamborghini (gas mileage, passenger seating, safety rating, cup holders, etc.) but that isn't really the point, is it.