AMD's Bulldozer Pushed to 8.46 GHz, Breaks Own Record

Status
Not open for further replies.

tical2399

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2009
1,081
0
19,460
69
IDC what kinda insane speeds they got it up to in a controlled environment, the fact that my old 1st gen I7 920 still outperforms it in certain things equals fail for these chips.
 

ozzy702

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2008
69
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]flclkun[/nom]This just in: It's still shit[/citation]

^ This. It needs to run at 5.5-6ghz to come close to SB in per core speed. In five years when all the software is written to utilize 8 threads it'll do just fine, until then it's a flop flop flop.
 
meh.
the 2 bd cores are equivalent to intel's 1 core. this speed is comparable to that oc'ed celeron, if i remember right.
anyone complaining about asus' crosshair mobo being bad for bd should look at the cpu-z screeny and realize that it's a very good mobo for bd even if the cpu sucks.
btw, this cpu would still get beaten by a lynnfield 750 in efficiency analysis. :lol:
 

dragonsqrrl

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2009
1,280
0
19,290
3
This was achieved with only one of the four modules active. And the only validation required for the overclock was a boot-up into windows and CPU-Z. No further stability or burn-in tests were done. While this is cool and all, I think its relevance is relatively limited, even as extreme overclocking goes.

What gets me far more interested is an extreme, fully-stable overclock on a fully functioning processor (yes, these do exist).
 

officeguy

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2009
188
0
18,680
0
If this Andre Yang did indead break this record, why have a screen shot. This should have been documented (recorded on some type of media). Sorry Andre I don't believe a screen shot because it could have been altered.
 

getreal

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2010
238
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]phatbuddha79[/nom]who cares about the faildozer anymore...?[/citation]

I don't want to overreact, but I have to say this is one of the top technology blunders and disappointments of all time. I was really disappointed when I saw the leaked benchmarks were real.
 

amk-aka-Phantom

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2011
3,004
0
20,860
31
[citation][nom]geekapproved[/nom]Until software like Windows 7 can actually recognize BD's architecture and knows where and when to place the threads in order, it's not going to look good compared to Intel chips. FACT.[/citation]

This AGAIN? Why, then, 8-threaded i7-2600 outperforms it? Somehow Win7 CAN place all the threads in Intel's case.
 

tipoo

Distinguished
May 4, 2006
1,183
0
19,280
0
Looking at this optimistically, I think they could do a four core/two module Bulldozer chip with higher base clock speeds if this is possible. It may not have the IPC that Sandy Bridge has, but at say 4.5GHz it could still be competitive.
 

Stardude82

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2006
538
0
19,010
12
These overclocking records are lame. It's also complete hypocrisy that AMD has a whole team dedicated to achieve entirely pointless clock speeds. These were the people who fought the "Megahertz Myth" so hard. Marketing tag should be "MOAR COREZ! MOAR MEGAHURTZ! IZ BETTAR!"
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]ozzy702[/nom]^ This. It needs to run at 5.5-6ghz to come close to SB in per core speed. In five years when all the software is written to utilize 8 threads it'll do just fine, until then it's a flop flop flop.[/citation]

not just threads, the things that make the bulldozer look bad is the applications that are still single core, much less thread.

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]This AGAIN? Why, then, 8-threaded i7-2600 outperforms it? Somehow Win7 CAN place all the threads in Intel's case.[/citation]

windows 7 was made ground up to support threads in the i processors. wait till win 8 to judge bulldozer fully there.
 

Stardude82

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2006
538
0
19,010
12
[citation][nom]de5_roy[/nom]...still get beaten by a lynnfield 750 in efficiency analysis.[/citation]

Dude, I think they are still chasing Yorkfield.
 


The problem isn't that it can't assign tasks to all 8 cores, the problem is that it doesn't know that it should fill up cores 1, 3, 5, 7 before assigning 2, 4, 6, 8.
 

CaedenV

Splendid
[citation][nom]ozzy702[/nom]^ This. It needs to run at 5.5-6ghz to come close to SB in per core speed. In five years when all the software is written to utilize 8 threads it'll do just fine, until then it's a flop flop flop.[/citation]
lol, and in 5 years when 8 cores are standard then intel will simply have 8 cores instead of some strange freak of nature.
 

gamebrigada

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2010
126
0
18,680
0
Windows isn't optimized for Bulldozer. Comparing the processors in the same benchmarks with the same setups is like comparing apples to oranges. I've seen some hack attempts to make windows recognize and use the modules more efficiently. Just wait till Windows 8. Bulldozer is definitely not a loss. Its just not used correctly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS