# Core i7 975 XE Breaks 5 GHz Barrier, With Air Cooling



## btarunr (Apr 27, 2009)

Intel's newest high-end processor, the Core i7 975 Extreme Edition is gearing up for launch later this year, on course of which, it already passed a milestone. Xtreme Systems Forums member PcCI2iminal scored one with overclocking a Core i7 975 XE D0 stepping chip past the 5 GHz mark, 5015 MHz to be precise using only air cooling for the processor, with an ambient temperature of 20 °C as claimed by the overclocker. Its cooling was care of a Thermalright Ultra Extreme 120. Its partners in crime were Biostar TPower X58 motherboard, and Corsair Dominator DDR3-1866 memory. At that speed, the setup made it through a CPU-Z validation. PcCI2iminal was further able to put the chip through SuperPi 1M at a speed of 4750 MHz, where its crunch time was measured 8.672 seconds. For more pictures and screenshots, head over to the thread at Xtreme Systems. 



 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 27, 2009)

Nice I hope this isnt fake  5ghz on air is crazyness.


----------



## Assassin48 (Apr 27, 2009)

Not cherry Picked?

I wont belive it till i see more benchmarks


----------



## erocker (Apr 27, 2009)

It's an engineering sample, so most likely it is very good silicon.


----------



## iStink (Apr 27, 2009)

Don't you guys remember the first c2d overclocking results? They were phenomenal just like this (not 5ghz phenomenal, just phenomenal.)

Although this makes my panties wet, I still think the reality is most people won't see that kind of overclock.  Still though, dayumn


----------



## Binge (Apr 27, 2009)

Ehhh I've just got my 920 D0 and it's hitting 4.2GHz @ 1.28V so I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 27, 2009)

Why do these people take such rediculous pictures I mean for god sake stand back and get a decent picture capturing the monitor and setup.


----------



## freaksavior (Apr 27, 2009)

Binge said:


> Ehhh I've just got my 920 D0 and it's hitting 4.2GHz @ 1.28V so I wouldn't be surprised.



binge, 

is it worth getting the d0?


----------



## MilkyWay (Apr 27, 2009)

thats siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick, lol yes the only way to describe that oc
if i could afford one id do it fuck having good meals ill survive on bread and water to get one


----------



## Binge (Apr 27, 2009)

It's a trade off.  The C0 would operate sometimes with low qpi (which usually yielded higher OC), or high qpi (which wouldn't OC so high but had low temps).  The D0 on the other hand seems to use excessively low VCore to overclock but requires higher QPI making the temperatures not that much lower than the C0.  I can run a 4.0GHz @ 1.218V.  I've seen System Viper get a great OC with his.  So far D0s seem like a win.  It's worth while to wait for one.


----------



## mtosev (Apr 27, 2009)

So long AMD Phenom II


----------



## cdawall (Apr 27, 2009)

mtosev said:


> So long AMD Phenom II



FX81 will be out shortly which is rumored to default to 4ghz on 6 cores so who knows but this is going to be a very interesting battle


----------



## btarunr (Apr 27, 2009)

cdawall said:


> FX81 will be out shortly which is rumored to default to 4ghz on 6 cores so who knows but this is going to be a very interesting battle



AMD does not have a desktop 6-core CPU in its roadmaps for at least the next two years.


----------



## bogmali (Apr 27, 2009)

cdawall said:


> FX81 will be out shortly which is rumored to default to 4ghz on 6 cores so who knows but this is going to be a very interesting battle




I've always thought of you as an AMD fanboy and this just confirms it:shadedshu 

So when exactly is "shortly"?


----------



## btarunr (Apr 27, 2009)

Please no [more] AMD-Intel nonsense in this thread. Celebrate Core i7's epic aerial win.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Apr 27, 2009)

this is nice but i hope AMD catches up soon for the prices to go down..


----------



## WhiteLotus (Apr 27, 2009)

so these "special" chips, they just hand picked ones? So, if correct, this meant there could be other chips out there that are just as good, no?


----------



## cdawall (Apr 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> AMD does not have a desktop 6-core CPU in its roadmaps for at least the next two years.



road maps don't list any FX series of chips either. Yet the boards list phenom FX on them funny no?



bogmali said:


> I've always thought of you as an AMD fanboy and this just confirms it:shadedshu
> 
> So when exactly is "shortly"?



ES chips are already out as of 2 weeks ago. and i have been trying to tone down my AMD undertones hell i even played with a P4 on my last DICE bench 



btarunr said:


> Please no [more] AMD-Intel nonsense in this thread. Celebrate Core i7's epic aerial win.



i did salute the owner on XS when it happened its a great feat. the new intel designs allowing the run hotter and clock higher


----------



## js01 (Apr 27, 2009)

While that's awesome and all it would be better if that chip didn't cost around $1000. That's a crap load of money for an unlocked multiplier.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 27, 2009)

cdawall said:


> road maps don't list any FX series of chips either. Yet the boards list phenom FX on them funny no?



Phenom FX is an idea that neither exists, nor doesn't. It was thrown out of the roadmaps when AMD realised that they could never sell Phenom for anything over $300, and that DSDC in the form we saw in Athlon64 FX 7x was a terrible, inefficient design. There is, however, no Phenom II FX that we hear of, nor do motherboard vendors "accidentally" list/print the name in their packages, BIOS, or manuals.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Phenom FX is an idea that neither exists, nor doesn't. It was thrown out of the roadmaps when AMD realised that they could never sell Phenom for anything over $300, and that DSDC in the form we saw in Athlon64 FX 7x was a terrible, inefficient design. There is, however, no Phenom II FX that we hear of, nor do motherboard vendors "accidentally" list/print the name in their packages, BIOS, or manuals.



i will do my best to get you some benchmarks


----------



## Imsochobo (Apr 27, 2009)

Yeah, my PHII hits 4 G @1.55 V.

My friends PH II 940 hits 4.3 same setup, and at 1.5 V, and ive seen one hit 4.6 on pretty much the same, suicide @ 4.8 on air @ PHII, so, when every one is hitting 4.2 on theese, THEN im impressed, dont say this is a awesome feat, just that i want more proof before im blown away by the 975 XE


----------



## btarunr (Apr 27, 2009)

cdawall said:


> i will do my best to get you some benchmarks



Of what, a random Deneb ES with its name string / vendor ID messed with?


----------



## cdawall (Apr 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Of what, a random Deneb ES with its name string / vendor ID messed with?



only if you can add 2 extra cores with a string change. why are you arguing so much with this? i have been talking to several different sources and they all have pushed this idea on me and a certain user on this forum were i got some hook ups gave me a SS or two already.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 27, 2009)

cdawall said:


> FX81 will be out shortly which is rumored to default to 4ghz on 6 cores so who knows but this is going to be a very interesting battle



And Intel is due out with 8 core cpus. It's all irrelevant to the topic tho.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 27, 2009)

cdawall said:


> only if you can add 2 extra cores with a string change.



Ok, bring them up. I'm sure they're Istanbul ES benchmarks that have no traces of "Phenom" in the name anywhere. You cannot use an ES to prove the Phenom FX point since the CPU vendor string can be manipulated.

Even then, the objective behind Istanbul is parallelism, not that a numerically high count of cores makes it better in the client platform. Again, there is no 6-core client CPU from AMD, in the foreseeable future.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Ok, bring them up. I'm sure they're Istanbul ES benchmarks that have no traces of "Phenom" in the name anywhere. You cannot use an ES to prove the Phenom FX point since the CPU vendor string can be manipulated.
> 
> Even then, the objective behind Istanbul is parallelism, not that a numerically high count of cores makes it better in the client platform. Again, there is no 6-core client CPU from AMD, in the foreseeable future.



they are on an AM3 board the Asus M4A79


----------



## btarunr (Apr 27, 2009)

cdawall said:


> they are on an AM3 board the Asus M4A79



Waiting for your benches. Not in this thread. 

Back to topic.


----------



## Assassin48 (Apr 27, 2009)

This isnt a AMD vs INTEL Thread so plz no more arguing this is just news that states they were able to hit 5ghz on intel on air which is nice for any chip

PLZ no more


----------



## MilkyWay (Apr 27, 2009)

i think that this will be pricey much like the extreme versions of intels

rapid tho this cpu is pure rapid


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 27, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> i think that this will be pricey much like the extreme versions of intels
> 
> rapid tho this cpu is pure rapid



Oh god I hate when scottish people say pure 

This will cost about 1k I think unless intel feels generous.


----------



## Flyordie (Apr 27, 2009)

@ Cdawall... don't mind bta, he has no internal sources at AMD.  Also, there will be an FX-90 in August-September (around the launch of the HD5 series). Prelim results of the C3 Silicon put it at 4.4Ghz. (C3 clocks to 7Ghz on LN2).

As for the i7 reaching 5Ghz... that is a good feat but we don't want our cooling loops boiling water nor do we need a car radiator strapped to our PC's to cool it.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 27, 2009)

Did anyone read anything? It can barely get a cpu-z shot w/o crashing. Notice there's not a benchmark at 5 ghz. He had to back it down to 4.75 just so a short pi run would pass. So, it's not even stable at that speed let alone 5 ghz. Lower it some more and that's the probably the stable rate. With the power that thing consumes it would overheat and throw an error if loaded too long.

Lame, intel trying to steal the limelight, but failed. If you can't at least run 3dmark for a while, then a suicide screenie is pointless. You can all get your pants wet when it FINISHES a benchmark.

edit: woo, i see he can superpi run in at 5. Load the cores for 5 mins and see what happens...


----------



## Binge (Apr 27, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> so these "special" chips, they just hand picked ones? So, if correct, this meant there could be other chips out there that are just as good, no?



They're just ES D0 975s... having a retail D0 920 I can assume the retail product will be just as good.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 27, 2009)

Flyordie said:


> @ Cdawall... don't mind bta, he has no internal sources at AMD.  Also, there will be an FX-90 in August-September (around the launch of the HD5 series). Prelim results of the C3 Silicon put it at 4.4Ghz. (C3 clocks to 7Ghz on LN2).
> 
> As for the i7 reaching 5Ghz... that is a good feat but we don't want our cooling loops boiling water nor do we need a car radiator strapped to our PC's to cool it.


This was done on air.



TheGuruStud said:


> Did anyone read anything? It can barely get a cpu-z shot w/o crashing. Notice there's not a benchmark at 5 ghz. He had to back it down to 4.75 just so a short pi run would pass. So, it's not even stable at that speed let alone 5 ghz. Lower it some more and that's the probably the stable rate. With the power that thing consumes it would overheat and throw an error if loaded too long.
> 
> Lame, intel trying to steal the limelight, but failed. If you can't at least run 3dmark for a while, then a suicide screenie is pointless. You can all get your pants wet when it FINISHES a benchmark.
> 
> edit: woo, i see he can superpi run in at 5. Load the cores for 5 mins and see what happens...



Phenom II can't pull off those kind of clocks for 24/7 either. Who cares?


----------



## cdawall (Apr 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> This was done on air.
> 
> 
> 
> Phenom II can't pull off those kind of clocks for 24/7 either. Who cares?



no it cannot i can vouch for that this is a good clock no doubt about it no current AMD chip can compete with this at all 4.5ghz should be doable on water easy stable


----------



## MKmods (Apr 27, 2009)

Biostar FTW!


----------



## Agility (Apr 28, 2009)

You guys must remember what chip is this. It's an extreme edition with an extreme price. A Quad Core extreme costs $2700+ in SGD. Yes that's hell. :shadedshu


----------



## hat (Apr 28, 2009)

Blah. Big benchmark numbers are nice I guess but I really don't give a damn if I can't actually do anything aside from an 8 second super pi run with it. Considering all the i7s are 130w so far it wouldn't suprise me if this thing sucks up 200w with the voltage it would need to get to 5GHz. How much do you want to bet that the heatspreader of this processor has a bluish tint to it due to tempering?


----------



## Binge (Apr 28, 2009)

Most OCed i7 920s can pull over 300W from the wall.  Try a bit more hat.


----------



## Psychoholic (Apr 28, 2009)

my 920 c0 doesnt require a whole lot of voltage..

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=1194705#post1194705


----------



## Binge (Apr 28, 2009)

hahaha that's hardly the wattage you draw from the wall


----------



## Flyordie (Apr 28, 2009)

After getting some helpful insight from a guy named "h-i-p-p-o" ...
Doesn't CPU-Z recognize threads correctly on the i7?  HT is off, this is BS.


----------



## _jM (Apr 28, 2009)

Nice results.. makes me want one. But there is no way Im gonna pay the price Intel's putting on this bad boy. No sir. If Im correct the price range on this is over 1K.. correct?


----------



## Hayder_Master (Apr 28, 2009)

20c run at 1.52v , sure it is idle temp , one hour under prime 95 test  and you can see the cpu jump out form the window


----------



## Binge (Apr 28, 2009)

_jM said:


> Nice results.. makes me want one. But there is no way Im gonna pay the price Intel's putting on this bad boy. No sir. If Im correct the price range on this is over 1K.. correct?



it's exactly $999



Flyordie said:


> After getting some helpful insight from a guy named "h-i-p-p-o" ...
> Doesn't CPU-Z recognize threads correctly on the i7?  HT is off, this is BS.



Also what's your point?  We can all see HT is off.  You make a quad do 5 GHz on air and then you can go ahead and work it out so it does it with HT on.


----------



## iStink (Apr 28, 2009)

Binge said:


> it's exactly $999
> 
> 
> 
> Also what's your point?  We can all see HT is off.  You make a quad do 5 GHz on air and then you can go ahead and work it out so it does it with HT on.



yeah i mean, at what point do you want bells and whistles over sheer brute force? Would a quad doing 4.5ghz w/ HT on be faster than a 5ghz quad with ht off? It seems like HT is just icing on the cake, not enough to warrant any complaints against a 5ghz quad lol


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 28, 2009)

hayder.master said:


> 20c run at 1.52v , sure it is idle temp , one hour under prime 95 test  and you can see the cpu jump out form the window



 True

and HT is off. I've been trying to find any photoshop evidence on it, not looked too hard but I've got a feeling this isn't real. I'd like it to be real though.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 28, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> True
> 
> and HT is off. I've been trying to find any photoshop evidence on it, not looked too hard but I've got a feeling this isn't real. I'd like it to be real though.



it has a valid link


----------



## Binge (Apr 28, 2009)

iStink said:


> yeah i mean, at what point do you want bells and whistles over sheer brute force? Would a quad doing 4.5ghz w/ HT on be faster than a 5ghz quad with ht off? It seems like HT is just icing on the cake, not enough to warrant any complaints against a 5ghz quad lol



There's mostly no difference in Vista, since the OS doesn't use threads correctly.  In any case it would be faster in general unless you were rendering or something thread intensive like that.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 28, 2009)

cdawall said:


> it has a valid link
> 
> [url]http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/553302.png[/url]



Fair enough. Well he could have at least took better pictures of the rig.


----------



## freaksavior (Apr 28, 2009)

i want one of these.

i really want one of these.
i relly really want one of there
i really really really want one of these
i really really really really want one of these
i really really really really really want one of these
i really really really really really really want one of these
i really really really really really really really want one of these
i really really really really really really really really want one of these

anyway


----------



## caleb (Apr 29, 2009)

I love those internet GHz screenshots they are so shiny and cheap.


----------



## Assimilator (Apr 29, 2009)

I'm waiting to see benchies of this CPU (or preferably a retail D0) under LN2 or DICE...



			
				bogmali said:
			
		

> So when exactly is "shortly"?



"never" 

Pretty telling that a Google search for "amd fx-81" turns up a bunch of mostly irrelevant results - the second is a post made way back in 2007, and the third links back to this thread.

Considering that AMD was singing the PII's praises from the rooftops before its launch, and that that CPU turned out to be mediocre in every aspect except price, and that there has been bugger all news from AMD recently except the standard "OMG Bulldozer", I'm not holding my breath for a new (read: competitive) chip from them anytime soon.


----------

