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

[The Greater Good]

[citation][nom]husker[/nom] it is really only 1 "module" which consists of 1 full and 1 partial core.[/citation]

I think Bulldozer uses two integer cores and one floating point core (think of the olden days of math co-processors). So two cores, and one math coprocessor per module.

 

[cybersans]

nice try, AMD fanboys...
it is just a number. a red X mark saying that.
just raise the multiplier/fsb/bclk inside a already-running windows, and walla, you get highest number.
the question is, what will happen if you manually set the value inside the bios, and try booting the windows?

after that, stress the cpu using prime95, running cinebench and other benchmarking software? will it survive?

even 7 years old kids can set the frequency to 10GHz, just for idling....

 

[bigcyco1]

Good stuff

 

[synd]

Even if it's over 10ghz, it doesn't really matter performance-wise.
The power consumption is too inefficient, the performance is the worst (pretty obvious if only 1core is active) and it's prolly very unstable. As someone else said, a default clocked i3 will still beat this "beast".
So, those kind of records are beyond pointless.
They would've made more sense if all cores were active and it was tested in games.

 

[Flying-Q]

I think most of the commenters here have completely bypassed the point.

A complex instruction set processor is running near the theoretical limit for a silicon based piece of electronics. Who cares whether it is running 1, 2 or more cores; it is RUNNING at over 9 GHz.

Obviously, things like electron migration would destroy the transitor gates in fairly short order, but this is a pretty amazing achievement and qudos to the guy who did it.

Q

 

[Antimatter79]

[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]

Approaching 1 THz?

 

[Antimatter79]

[citation][nom]cybersans[/nom]nice try, AMD fanboys...it is just a number. a red X mark saying that.just raise the multiplier/fsb/bclk inside a already-running windows, and walla, you get highest number.the question is, what will happen if you manually set the value inside the bios, and try booting the windows?after that, stress the cpu using prime95, running cinebench and other benchmarking software? will it survive?even 7 years old kids can set the frequency to 10GHz, just for idling....[/citation]

Well apparently you must be 6 years old if you believe this.

 

[monsta]

Impressive!

 

[cookoy]

Wow! Would not try it myself, else mine would go even faster, up in smoke.

 

[nebun]

how does it perform in actual every day use?

 

[back_by_demand]

So....

Can it play Crysis?

 

[kajabla]

Can we see some actual benches?

 

[v3nom777]

[citation][nom]zingam_duo[/nom]Low power high performance devices are much more interesting than this. What's the practical use of overclocking? None?[/citation]

No there isn't, but why do people have cars that can go over 110km/h? It's not needed, but it's nice to have.

 

[verbalizer]

again, only 2 cores......
who cares.
show me a quad clocked to about (5.5-6.0)GHz stable and then I will be impressed.

 

[notsleep]

i just hope when piledriver arrives it doesn't suck as bad as bulldozer. i want to upgrade my tuban 1090t hexa core to an octo core piledriver but i have a feeling it's going to under perform like bd. i also feel like if i buy a the bd/pd octo core, i'm paying for only 4 real cores vs my tuban 1090t having 6 real cores. it's like buying intel i7 quad core with ht. you get 4 real cores and 4 'fake' cores.

perhaps it won't be until steamroller before amd gets it right. oh, well. i can live with my 6 core tuban 1090t for a while.

 

[mubin]

But can it help on gaming to reduce bottleneck?

 

[SuperVeloce]

[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]
hehe, yup.. those magical 10GHz that P4 never saw.

you mister, are stealing my thoughts

 

[Guest]

I can See Fans & Friends , Holding their Ideas , Against each others Believe ( Like The Kids at School !!!! ) . Those who are speaking against AMD & Its achievements, Please note that : It is done , & they reached the Level which no Intel CPU's could do before . Open your Eyes , it's Science not Battle ground to beat up each other & spit on the ground. AMD did it before , and they CAN , and thats their ability . You like it or not . I had my personal experience about AMD & Intel cpu's & I am 100% satisfied with AMD CPU's at all times since 10 years up to this day. Price worthy , fast , and good enough to work beyond your imaginations.
Let Intel , To empthy those fan's pocket for the same speed & power , and we still Love and enjoy our Phenom or Athlon CPU's for the best . I love easily overclocking my CPU , where I want , when I want. You can pick your choise & have an Intel CPU. Who cares. I pay Less , Have More , and Enjoy More . GOOD JOB TO The Testers , and Bravo to AMD for their excellent CPU. I mean All of them. Not Only the Mentioned one . Accept the victory of AMD please. Some day Intel may do good . Who Knows !?? But I dont Buy them. Sorry . No offence !!!!!! ? :-( Booooooooo !!!!!!? No F...word Please. Be Civilized .

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]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 coresthat 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'swhile 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.[/citation]

AMD's cores scale very well. They are simply slow cores and yes, they are real cores. A module has two tightly linked cores, but still two cores. Please get your facts strait.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]The Greater Good[/nom]I think Bulldozer uses two integer cores and one floating point core (think of the olden days of math co-processors). So two cores, and one math coprocessor per module.[/citation]

Yes.

 

[tomhuang03]

Plain insanity. Sick sick overclock!

 

[youssef 2010]

Some benchmarks? something that would show us the kind of performance to expect at that clock