# AMD OC Record Broken, Still Powered by AMD FX-8150



## btarunr (Oct 29, 2011)

In mid-September, earlier this year, a team of overclockers sponsored by AMD set a new Guinness Record for clock speed by a silicon processor, setting an AMD FX-8150 processor to run at a staggering 8429.38 MHz. If anything, the coveted Guinness Record feat helped cement the general notion that AMD FX processors are good at overclocking. Sadly, AMD's record didn't last long, with renowned overclocker Andre Yang breaking it with his 8461.51 MHz feat. At this point we don't know if Andre had Guinness covering his feat to he could officially break AMD's record. AMD wouldn't mind it at all, because the new record was set using an AMD FX-8150, too. Andre did it single-handed, or at least he is the only person in the "Submitted by" field on the CPU-Z Validation page.

According to the validation page, 8461.51 MHz was achieved using a base clock speed of 272.95 MHz, with 31.0X multiplier, and a brutal core voltage of 1.992V (almost 2 volts!). As with AMD's record feat, an ASUS Crosshair V Formula motherboard was used. A single 2 GB Corsair-made memory module was used doing 909.8 MHz (1818.16 MHz DDR) with timings of 9-9-9-24T. Like with AMD's feat, only two out of the FX-8150's eight cores were enabled. More details are awaited. 





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## btarunr (Oct 29, 2011)

Many Thanks to Seronx for the tip.


----------



## DannibusX (Oct 29, 2011)

I sense a great amount of hate about to be dropped in this thread.


----------



## nINJAkECIL (Oct 29, 2011)

I'm wondering,at that speed and vcore, how much power that chip eats.
If only AMD could lower the tdp...


----------



## NC37 (Oct 29, 2011)

DannibusX said:


> I sense a great amount of hate about to be dropped in this thread.



Aye, I fear this thread has awakened a sleeping monster. Well, we best build our bunkers and get right with Jesus.

*Imperial March plays*

Crap, too late...just run for it. Use women and children as decoys to slow them down!!


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Oct 29, 2011)

Wonder when the records going to be over 9000....

Also there is a typo in the 2nd to last sentence in the first paragraph, seems "to" should be "so".


----------



## The Von Matrices (Oct 29, 2011)

Maybe I'm harder to please than others, but it seems so small of an improvement that I'm not excited.  It's only 0.38% (32 MHz) higher than the previous record.  It's not like the previous record, which was about 150MHz higher than the one before it.


----------



## Fx (Oct 29, 2011)

that is nice and all but I am still waiting further revisions before I buy. maybe even just pull the trigger on Piledriver since my 955 is doing just fine


----------



## Lionheart (Oct 29, 2011)

Worlds fastest dual core ^_^


----------



## Judas (Oct 29, 2011)

Hehe  nice voltage too


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 29, 2011)

Lionheart said:


> Worlds fastest dual core ^_^



And 8 core, by default.


----------



## Hustler (Oct 29, 2011)

Give it up AMD....Derpdozer's a pile of shit.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 29, 2011)

Hustler said:


> Give it up AMD....Derpdozer's a pile of shit.



If you READ the article you'd know the overclock was done by overclocker Andre Yang NOT AMD.


----------



## xBruce88x (Oct 29, 2011)

Lionheart said:


> Worlds fastest dual core ^_^



hmm... isn't it technically hyper-threaded? considering the way its broken into "modules".

I wonder if it uses less power/tdp overclocked that way than it does at stock with all core/modules running


----------



## Hustler (Oct 29, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> If you READ the article you'd know the overclock was done by overclocker Andre Yang NOT AMD.



..lol, so what.

The Bulldozer range is still a pile of shit and should never have been brought to market in its current state.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 29, 2011)

Hustler said:


> ..lol, so what.
> 
> The Bulldozer range is still a pile of shit and should never have been brought to market in its current state.



Maybe the Bulldozer is a pile of shit, but that isnt my point. 

I'm saying your initial post insinuated that AMD should "give it up". When AMD had nothing to do with this OC record.


----------



## dicobalt (Oct 29, 2011)

<sigh> Even a Pentium 4 can run at 8GHz when you use super cooled liquids.   It's hard to care about an overclock that isn't 24/7 stable, isn't using all cores, and doesn't have a sustainable cooling system.


----------



## NC37 (Oct 29, 2011)

dicobalt said:


> <sigh> Even a Pentium 4 can run at 8GHz when you use super cooled liquids.   It's hard to care about an overclock that isn't 24/7 stable, isn't using all cores, and doesn't have a sustainable cooling system.



Intel will reach a wall with extreme cold so no matter how cold you get it or fast you push it, they just can't technically do it as well as AMD can due to AMD engineering to handle such low temps. But outside of testing or maybe scientific environments, not a feature the regular consumer will ever use.

But this is all irrelevant. We'll eventually get new design materials in mass production and finally see clocks much much higher than any of this. Been a lot of promising research over the past decade that is being put towards this.


----------



## Easo (Oct 29, 2011)

Bulldozer this, Bulldozer that. Common, for most PC users Bulldozer is realy fast and cheap CPU with 8 cores to brag around friends, who understands nothing about CPUs.

And gratz to the OC guy with his record!


----------



## naoan (Oct 29, 2011)

Gratz!

Now bench that.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 29, 2011)

This is amazing! You have to disable 6 "cores"! You only use one 2GB stick! What a great feat!


----------



## newfellow (Oct 29, 2011)

As far I recall a 10Ghz was planned ahead on corps while they decided to go to threading.

It's sad to see what we have to deal with today, it's still a one hell of an score there.


----------



## happita (Oct 29, 2011)

I wonder if the performance is hindered by not incorporating the Hi-k Metal Gate process in this generation of CPUs. I know that they are supposed to finally make the jump with Piledriver when they come out. Intel's been using HKMG I think for 2 or 3 generations now, and it's been sucessful thus far. Hurry up and get the lead out AMD!! Show Intel that you can work fast too...


----------



## MightyMission (Oct 29, 2011)

can it run crysis?


----------



## Derek12 (Oct 29, 2011)

Without benchmark or stability test, this is useless IMO.


----------



## Syborfical (Oct 29, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Maybe the Bulldozer is a pile of shit, but that isnt my point.
> 
> I'm saying your initial post insinuated that AMD should "give it up". When AMD had nothing to do with this OC record.



Sorry I had to be rude but I fixed this for you
Bulldozer is a*n* epic pile of steaming shit.


----------



## dicobalt (Oct 29, 2011)

newfellow said:


> As far I recall a 10Ghz was planned ahead on corps while they decided to go to threading.
> 
> It's sad to see what we have to deal with today, it's still a one hell of an score there.



Intel thought they could do 10GHz by the year 2005 with the 65nm Pentium 4, note the date on the article below: by Anand Lal Shimpi on 12/11/2000

http://www.anandtech.com/show/680/6


----------



## lashton (Oct 29, 2011)

*hmmmm*



NC37 said:


> Intel will reach a wall with extreme cold so no matter how cold you get it or fast you push it, they just can't technically do it as well as AMD can due to AMD engineering to handle such low temps. But outside of testing or maybe scientific environments, not a feature the regular consumer will ever use.
> 
> But this is all irrelevant. We'll eventually get new design materials in mass production and finally see clocks much much higher than any of this. Been a lot of promising research over the past decade that is being put towards this.



This is the reason why a core i7 will NEVER beat a FX8150 in an overclocking race


----------



## lashton (Oct 29, 2011)

happita said:


> I wonder if the performance is hindered by not incorporating the Hi-k Metal Gate process in this generation of CPUs. I know that they are supposed to finally make the jump with Piledriver when they come out. Intel's been using HKMG I think for 2 or 3 generations now, and it's been sucessful thus far. Hurry up and get the lead out AMD!! Show Intel that you can work fast too...



HKMG wont inprove bulldozer performance, what they need to do is offer each core 12 MB or level 3 cache, also get the "modules" to split 64 but insdtructions and add a Clock cycle into the FPU, this would consume more power but SMOKE the Core i7 to hell and back


----------



## n-ster (Oct 29, 2011)

Lets all hate AMD because some guy OCed AMD's chip and broke a record..

While not a big improvement, it only really hows that AMD shine in extreme OCing. It doesn't show that Bulldozer is a pile of shit or anything like that. So shut your mouths and keep you hate for the next intel vs AMD thread k?

I wonder, what is the best 24/7 STABLE OC?


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 29, 2011)

n-ster said:


> Lets all hate AMD because some guy OCed AMD's chip and broke a record..
> 
> While not a big improvement, it only really hows that AMD shine in extreme OCing. It doesn't show that Bulldozer is a pile of shit or anything like that. So shut your mouths and keep you hate for the next intel vs AMD thread k?
> 
> I wonder, what is the best 24/7 STABLE OC?



I agree. It's like any thread mentioning something positive about AMD people have to add their 2 cents about Bulldozer being XYZ.

Still waiting for Hustler to explain why AMD should "give it up".

Syborfical, no need to correct me. Derailed the point I was hammering home to Hustler.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 29, 2011)

This is great, I can see the new B3 revisions pushing a lot more than 8+ GHz


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 29, 2011)

Super XP said:


> This is great, I can see the new B3 revisions pushing a lot more than 8+ GHz



Not too fussed, would rather the B3 revision improve single threaded performance than OC'in yield. 

Not sure if its worth releasing the B3 revision Q1 2012 and Piledriver also in Q1/Q2 2012 - I feel they need to bring the B3 ASAP to space out the release dates.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 29, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Not too fussed, would rather the B3 revision improve single threaded performance than OC'in yield.
> 
> Not sure if its worth releasing the B3 revision Q1 2012 and Piledriver also in Q1/Q2 2012 - I feel they need to bring the B3 ASAP to space out the release dates.


Well that is what I think they plan on doing according to some rumours. FX 8170 is said to be B3 that should get released early Q1 2012, then Piledriver follows IMO with another revision perhaps the B4 or something unless AMD can achieve the performance they want with B3. Though you are correct, it would be better for them to try and increase Single Threaded Performance NOW which will give Multi-Threaded time to mature.


----------



## Zubasa (Oct 29, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Not too fussed, would rather the B3 revision improve single threaded performance than OC'in yield.
> 
> Not sure if its worth releasing the B3 revision Q1 2012 and Piledriver also in Q1/Q2 2012 - I feel they need to bring the B3 ASAP to space out the release dates.


The single most important thing B3 must achieve is lower the monstrous power consumption.


----------



## qubit (Oct 29, 2011)

I'll bet Asus Formula mobos are now flying off the shelves since these overclocking world records have been set.  Can you get any better marketing?

I wonder if other brands could also achieve such impressive overclocks with the same chip?


----------



## Recus (Oct 29, 2011)

Some guys are funny.  You fear the trolling because of the clear fact: you have Bulldozer, but won't get OC record. Only top overclockers will get it. Deal with it.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 29, 2011)

Recus said:


> Some guys are funny.  You fear the trolling because of the clear fact: you have Bulldozer, but won't get OC record. Only top overclockers will get it. Deal with it.


Dry Ice or Liquid N anybody 
I can care less about Overclocking so long as gaming is top notch.


----------



## Recus (Oct 29, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Dry Ice or Liquid N anybody
> I can care less about Overclocking so long as gaming is top notch.









Not worth extra 7 fps.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 29, 2011)

Phew and here I was thinking this thread wouldn't be full of intelidiots screaming about cores disabled specific memory used and no stability testing.


----------



## dicobalt (Oct 29, 2011)

cdawall said:


> Phew and here I was thinking this thread wouldn't be full of intelidiots screaming about cores disabled specific memory used and no stability testing.



FYI for everyone, all high overclocks (both Intel and AMD) on super cooling always use very little RAM and always run on 1 core or 1 module.  That's just how they do it because that's what it takes to maximize stability and get those kind of clock rates.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 29, 2011)

dicobalt said:


> FYI for everyone, all high overclocks (both Intel and AMD) on super cooling always use very little RAM and always run on 1 core or 1 module.  That's just how they do it because that's what it takes to maximize stability and get those kind of clock rates.



Sounds about like what I did back in the day.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 29, 2011)

Recus said:


> http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/K/313580/original/amd fx-8150 cores.png
> 
> Not worth extra 7 fps. http://www.vanadrighem.eu/images/trollface.png



That chart tells us almost nothing, without knowing the minimum and maximm frame rate too


----------



## qubit (Oct 29, 2011)

dicobalt said:


> FYI for everyone, all high overclocks (both Intel and AMD) on super cooling always use very little RAM and always run on 1 core or 1 module.  That's just how they do it because that's what it takes to maximize stability and get those kind of clock rates.



Yes, indeed. What would really impress me is if something like 10GHz could be achieved easily with a fully functional chip. Since the power wall was hit around 2003/4, clock speed increases have been pants. 

What really surprises me though, is that despite this problem, modern CPUs since the Core 2 Duo era have been able to hit 4GHz easily on air - my E8500 is at 4.11GHz with a very standard Zalman cooler, for example. Therefore, why don't they officially release CPUs rated for 4GHz when this speed is so easily achievable?


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 29, 2011)

qubit said:


> Therefore, why don't they officially release CPUs rated for 4GHz when this speed is so easily achievable?



We are in a day and age where organisations are trying to show consideration to the environment.

It doesn't look attractive selling a CPU with a TDP rating of 250W for the sake of giving you 4GHz out of the box.

Also, as nINJAkECIL said, the increased temps would require Intel or AMD to put bigger heatsinks in the box and increase the overal price of the CPU.


----------



## nINJAkECIL (Oct 29, 2011)

qubit said:


> Yes, indeed. What would really impress me is if something like 10GHz could be achieved easily with a fully functional chip. Since the power wall was hit around 2003/4, clock speed increases have been pants.
> 
> What really surprises me though, is that despite this problem, modern CPUs since the Core 2 Duo era have been able to hit 4GHz easily on air - my E8500 is at 4.11GHz with a very standard Zalman cooler, for example. Therefore, why don't they officially release CPUs rated for 4GHz when this speed is so easily achievable?


Because then the TDP would be idiotically high. And what would be the temp with those tiny hsf?
That's not pretty in marketing language.

Edit:
Got ninja-ed. lol.


----------



## dicobalt (Oct 29, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> We are in a day and age where organisations are trying to show consideration to the environment.
> 
> It doesn't look attractive selling a CPU with a TDP rating of 250W for the sake of giving you 4GHz out of the box.
> 
> Also, as nINJAkECIL said, the increased temps would require Intel or AMD to put bigger heatsinks in the box and increase the overal price of the CPU.



Not only that but having to create a bargain basement OEM motherboard and power supply capable of delivering that power reliably isn't exactly in the realm of major OEMs like HP and Dell.  It would cause product costs to go up and major OEMs are all about keeping it cheap.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 29, 2011)

dicobalt said:


> Not only that but having to create a bargain basement OEM motherboard and power supply capable of delivering that power reliably isn't exactly in the realm of major OEMs like HP and Dell.  It would cause product costs to go up and major OEMs are all about keeping it cheap.



Depends the 4ghz chip wouldn't be a base model. They use plenty good boards for top end models. Last stupid Alienware I tore apart had an Asus top end board in it. Last Asus destop I tore open had a Rampage II Gene minus some heatsinks. Top end manufactures always use high quality parts in them.


----------



## qubit (Oct 29, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> We are in a day and age where organisations are trying to show consideration to the environment.
> 
> It doesn't look attractive selling a CPU with a TDP rating of 250W for the sake of giving you 4GHz out of the box.
> 
> Also, as nINJAkECIL said, the increased temps would require Intel or AMD to put bigger heatsinks in the box and increase the overal price of the CPU.





nINJAkECIL said:


> Because then the TDP would be idiotically high. And what would be the temp with those tiny hsf?
> That's not pretty in marketing language.
> 
> Edit:
> Got ninja-ed. lol.



But that's just it, modern CPUs are released at up to 3.8GHz, which is very close to 4GHz, so reaching it hardly takes any more power and certainly doesn't take a bigger heatsink. The standard crappy stock one that came with my E8500 was enough for it at 4GHz and my CPU is old tech now and only rated officially at 3.16GHz.

You certainly don't need anywhere near 250W for 4GHz.  Perhaps 100W or so, even less with smaller process technology. Therefore, there would be no increase in price, either.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 29, 2011)

60000 members here, and less than 50 individuals seem to have interest in this stuff. 

Neat stuff...but was this done on LN2, or LHe?

Andre Yang did this? The same guy that was banned from the OC scene for helping people cheat to qualify @ OC events?

And he's still making news in OC? Nice.

NOT.


:shadedshu


----------



## theubersmurf (Oct 29, 2011)

Not to feed the trolls here, but I am more interested in how well they overclock using conventionally available cooling (and with more moderate vcore, yikes!!!) than I am in "Xtreme" overclocking. (Or whatever)

This sort of score is great for showing off your e-peen, but not much else.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 29, 2011)

theubersmurf said:


> I am more interested in how well they overclock using conventionally available cooling



AMD says this is what you should expect:








Kinda interesting that quite a few chips seem capable of doing more than AMD says. I wonder why the low estimates...what's really nice to see is that ram voltage is good for Hyper-lovin'


----------



## theubersmurf (Oct 29, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> I agree. It's like any thread mentioning something positive about AMD people have to add their 2 cents about Bulldozer being XYZ.
> 
> Still waiting for Hustler to explain why AMD should "give it up".
> 
> Syborfical, no need to correct me. Derailed the point I was hammering home to Hustler.


I think the irony of this is, the most vocal of fanboys tend to be using their cpus for gaming rigs, and as we know, any of these cpus is sufficient for modern games, making the debate irrelevant.


----------



## seronx (Oct 29, 2011)

Just want to point out this was done with LN2 

LN2 beats LHe what a week

http://www.asusrog.com/forums/showthread.php?5371-Crosshair-V-FX-8150-LN2-8.46G&p=38844#post38844

@btarunr You're Welcome anytime


----------



## Wile E (Oct 29, 2011)

Ok, so we have these clock speed records, but what speeds can they achieve with all cores enabled and bench stable?

I wanna see what these chips can do under real pressure.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 29, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Ok, so we have these clock speed records, but what speeds can they achieve with all cores enabled and bench stable?



Check the graph I posted above.  Given what users have been reporting the past couple of weeks, seems pretty accurate, too. 4.5-5.0 GHz, same as Intel.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 29, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> 60000 members here, and less than 50 individuals seem to have interest in this stuff.
> 
> Neat stuff...but was this done on LN2, or LHe?
> 
> ...



andre yang got banned for sharing scores in the MoA competition. Him, Hiwa, eXtremetweaker.de, KJ and Skinnee all recieved 1 yr bans on hwbot lifetime on XS and FM. The ban on hwbot is up and he has a skill no reason to stop doing something you enjoy for one fuck up.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 29, 2011)

cdawall said:


> andre yang got banned for sharing scores in the MoA competition. Him, Hiwa, eXtremetweaker.de, KJ and Skinnee all recieved 1 yr bans on hwbot lifetime on XS and FM. The ban on hwbot is up and he has a skill no reason to stop doing something you enjoy for one fuck up.



Yes, nevermind. was gonna say something else, no point though, really. Cool that he's still into it, i did not expect that. Anyone can post up what they did, especially something like this.


Showed the AMD noobers how to get it done.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 29, 2011)

qubit said:


> But that's just it, modern CPUs are released at up to 3.8GHz



I disagree, Bulldozer FX CPU seems to be the only modern CPU on the market with high base clocks.

Neither Core i3, i5 or core i7 have base clocks of 3.8GHz - Probably because of the TDP wall.


First generation of Deneb Phenom II X4 (810 model) was only 2.6GHz. The second generation of Deneb Phenom II X4 (925)  with C3 stepping was only 2.8GHz and even then AMD was pushing the advertised TDP to its limits. It was two years later AMD released a Phenom II X4 (980 Model) at 3.7GHz probably after lots of refinements to the chip. So yes, they can release a near 3.8GHz baseclock CPU within TDP but it takes time to tweak. Surely, if AMD started at 3.7GHz all the other models afterwards would exceed the TDP limit for sure.




qubit said:


> You certainly don't need anywhere near 250W for 4GHz.  Perhaps 100W or so, even less with smaller process technology. Therefore, there would be no increase in price, either.



More than 100W! The Phenom IIs TDP starts at near 100W! Using Phenom II as example, they tend to have base clocks of between 2.6-3.4GHz (with the exception of the newer models) and come in two TDP ratings, 125W and 95W.  4GHz will require more voltage, thus increase the heat on a chip which is already rated near and above 100W at stock voltage.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 29, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Check the graph I posted above.  Given what users have been reporting the past couple of weeks, seems pretty accurate, too. 4.5-5.0 GHz, same as Intel.



I meant more along the lines of benches, not just clock speeds. Does BD compete well against Intel in the extreme category for benching?


----------



## Ilden (Oct 29, 2011)

I saw this article, then the name "Andre Yang", then people buying into it, and all I can do is roll my eyes. Similar to what Cadaveca said. Yang may not have cheated, personally, but he was most certainly willing to engage in fraud. Anything he touches will forever be sullied by that one disgraceful act. No forgiveness.

I can't put any faith in the legitimacy of these results.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 29, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I meant more along the lines of benches, not just clock speeds. Does BD compete well against Intel in the extreme category for benching?



Not that I have seen. TBH, it's only been what, 17 days since the launch? Chips are still in limited supply, with ZERO chips in here in Edmonton for sale to date. Chips I can buy, aren't local, and are still overpriced by $35, and do not include the watercooler. I doubt we will be seeing all that much for a couple of months yet.

When i can buy the 8150 with the AMD watercooler, local, I will. I just want a full AMD rig, board, GPU, and CPU. Too bad I cannot, even if I could afford it.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 29, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Yes, nevermind. was gonna say something else, no point though, really. Cool that he's still into it, i did not expect that. Anyone can post up what they did, especially something like this.
> 
> 
> Showed the AMD noobers how to get it done.



I spoke with him once or twice he is a good guy from what I could tell. I had no problems with him and he paid quickly for the last batch of chips I had  There is a whole side to the OC'ing a lot of people choose not to acknowledge.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 29, 2011)

cdawall said:


> There is a whole side to the OC'ing a lot of people choose not to acknowledge.



Meh. Most people just have no interest at all in this stuff. Very niche. Personally, I'd rather let my hardware collect dust then spend all that money trying to blow it up, and that seems to be the general consensus here on TPU, too.

I stopped paying real attention long ago. We've already discussed why.  

Anyway, you gonna be doing any clocking this winter? Gonna give these BD chips a go? This is interesting enough that I might. I don't care about benchmarks, just want to have some fun, and 1155 was done in a few hours. I need more tweaking!


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Oct 29, 2011)

dicobalt said:


> <sigh> Even a Pentium 4 can run at 8GHz when you use super cooled liquids.   It's hard to care about an overclock that isn't 24/7 stable, isn't using all cores, and doesn't have a sustainable cooling system.



The problem is above and probably with multiple post here is, NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO CARE??!!!??!!! I myself DON'T EVEN SEE THIS news post. (no offense dicobalt and Bt) 

I do absolutely praise AMD for a great overclock, good job on raising the bar ever so higher when it comes to cutting edge overclocking. 

Anybody making personal accusations and trying to tell the POSTING AUDIENCE what they should be considering is creating perfect opportunity for argument.  

If you want to make a post, make it positive. Instead of lowering your self down with twisting topics on a STRAIT FORWARD NEWS achievement on pushing for the highest clock seen to anyone's eyes. 

completely unnecessary post and flaming about a STRAIT FORWARD TOPIC AND ACHIEVEMENT. Considering its the highest clock seen in this ENTIRE WORLD

VVVV LOL I remember the flame about Teh Andre scandal when I was HWBOT whoreVVVV


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 29, 2011)

3volvedcombat said:


> new guineas world record.



This is NOT a new guiness record.




I do not think this is anything other than a screenshot on a forum.



btarunr said:


> At this point we don't know if Andre had Guinness covering his feat to he could officially break AMD's record


----------



## cdawall (Oct 29, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Meh. Most people just have no interest at all in this stuff. Very niche. Personally, I'd rather let my hardware collect dust then spend all that money trying to blow it up, and that seems to be the general consensus here on TPU, too.
> 
> I stopped paying real attention long ago. We've already discussed why.
> 
> Anyway, you gonna be doing any clocking this winter? Gonna give these BD chips a go? This is interesting enough that I might. I don't care about benchmarks, just want to have some fun, and 1155 was done in a few hours. I need more tweaking!



I agree on the first two points you have seen my posts dwindle here 

As for this winter it wont be cold were I am as of shortly and wont be back until winter is damn near over. Hopefully I will have something either BD or similar for a couple of cold months, but we will see.


----------



## nt300 (Oct 30, 2011)

Give Bulldozer a little time to mature and expect crazy Overclocks and good TDP.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 30, 2011)

nt300 said:


> Give Bulldozer a little time to mature and expect crazy Overclocks and good TDP.



You have faith that GloFo will pull up thier socks? Or do you expect TSMC to start making chips? Like, where is this maturity going to come from?


Crazy OC and good TDP mean little if the performance isn't there to match. And from what I have seen, BD needs 4.5-4.6 GHz to compete with i7 2600k, at stock. So we'll need what...a chip with 5GHz turbo, at stock?




While I'd like to bleeive that's possible, and AMD would have a killer marketing potential campaign(though i doubt they could execute on it), if they were the first mainstream desktop chip @ 5GHz - I just doubt that will happen any time soon. I mean really, if AMD could have made BD better already, it would be...


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> You have faith that GloFo will pull up thier socks? Or do you expect TSMC to start making chips? Like, where is this maturity going to come from?
> 
> 
> Crazy OC and good TDP mean little if the performance isn't there to match. And from what I have seen, BD needs 4.5-4.6 GHz to compete with i7 2600k, at stock. So we'll need what...a chip with 5GHz turbo, at stock?
> ...


At least for this generation anyway. They were able to improve K8 quite a lot with revisions, just look at PII performance (which is just a tweaked K8). I'm thinking we'll see something better on the new socket. 

I, however, think that AM3 is a dead end. Performance on this socket will not improve much anymore.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 30, 2011)

Wile E said:


> At least for this generation anyway. They were able to improve K8 quite a lot with revisions, just look at PII performance (which is just a tweaked K8). I'm thinking we'll see something better on the new socket.
> 
> I, however, think that AM3 is a dead end. Performance on this socket will not improve much anymore.



I would like to believe that you are wrong, but I don't think that you are. If Vishera fails as hard as BD, I'm glad to know that Asus makes ROG boards for IB.


----------



## zithe (Oct 30, 2011)

The Von Matrices said:


> Maybe I'm harder to please than others, but it seems so small of an improvement that I'm not excited.  It's only 0.38% (32 MHz) higher than the previous record.  It's not like the previous record, which was about 150MHz higher than the one before it.



I use math to explain how displeased I am with this article.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 30, 2011)

meh


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Oct 30, 2011)

What's with all the dickheads saying bulldozer is shit???? sorry, did you not read the fricking thread title? it's not about BD performance Vs Intel, it's about a world record acheived using a BD chip to acheive the highest ever recorded frequency for a CPU... is that really that hard to comprehend? 

Oh and another thing, all Intel records were also acheived disabling cores as you get the highest possible frequency using 1/2 cores compared to 4/8. 

Proud owner of an 2500K


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 31, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> What's with all the dickheads saying bulldozer is shit???? sorry, did you not read the fricking thread title? it's not about BD performance Vs Intel, it's about a world record acheived using a BD chip to acheive the highest ever recorded frequency for a CPU... is that really that hard to comprehend?
> 
> Oh and another thing, all Intel records were also acheived disabling cores as you get the highest possible frequency using 1/2 cores compared to 4/8.
> 
> Proud owner of an 2500K



I say it's shit because of it's performance vs. Phenom II. Intel has nothing to do with it. I'm glad it's achieving OC records, but it needs better single threaded performance.


----------



## LeadSled (Oct 31, 2011)

I wonder how many they went through before they found the best of the bunch. When they did this test it showed 3 trays of CPU's for testing. AMD has made some huge steps in the overclocking field how many 8150's are you now seeing runing over 5Ghz online now, its alot but to get that 50Ghz+ it shuts down how many cores ? who knows . It is still a step in the right direction for AMD and they are even on par with the 4 core Intels what are they going to do when Intel releses their 6 and 8 core E models. AMD will be back in the mud again. At least they are trying good luck AMD its been along time since you where king of the hill.


----------



## nt300 (Oct 31, 2011)

LeadSled said:


> I wonder how many they went through before they found the best of the bunch. When they did this test it showed 3 trays of CPU's for testing. AMD has made some huge steps in the overclocking field how many 8150's are you now seeing runing over 5Ghz online now, its alot but to get that 50Ghz+ it shuts down how many cores ? who knows . It is still a step in the right direction for AMD and they are even on par with the 4 core Intels what are they going to do when Intel releses their 6 and 8 core E models. AMD will be back in the mud again. At least they are trying good luck AMD its been along time since you where king of the hill.


There's many that have all 8 cores OCed at 4.80 GHz with only 1.4 vCore running 24/7 stable. That is impressive. I do agree if Piledriver does not deliver with AM3+ platform, then AMD may have to move to FM2 sooner. What I would be happy with is AM3+'s 8-core Piledriver beats the fastest Phenom II by more than 20% all across the board and stays ahead of the i7 2600 a little. This to me would tell me AMD is on the right track.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Oct 31, 2011)

How much of our finite helium did they waste this time?


----------



## meran (Oct 31, 2011)

i smell netburst which is a very un efficient processor come on sandy bridge still the most efficient processor in the world!

the celeron on netburst was the record breaker now the new netburst they should have made an 32nm x6 with clock bump first


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 31, 2011)

What?!?


----------



## Super XP (Oct 31, 2011)

meran said:


> i smell netburst which is a very un efficient processor come on sandy bridge still the most efficient processor in the world!
> 
> the celeron on netburst was the record breaker now the new netburst they should have made an 32nm x6 with clock bump first


This is a Bulldozer thread, not a Pentium 4 thread.


----------



## meran (Nov 1, 2011)

Super XP said:


> This is a Bulldozer thread, not a Pentium 4 thread.



but its a semi pentium 4 slow un efficient u may call it that way 
i.e. desined to run at highest chocks possible without taking in mind the ipc  that was the p 4 and now the bulldozer


----------



## repman244 (Nov 1, 2011)

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...B2-HWBot.org&p=4985362&viewfull=1#post4985362


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 1, 2011)

Super XP said:


> This is a Bulldozer thread, not a Pentium 4 thread.



It isn't a Bulldozer thread per se since we're talking about a 2-core, 2-threads CPU from AMD (which doesn't exist under the "Bulldozer" lineup).


----------



## JrRacinFan (Nov 1, 2011)

repman244 said:


> http://iamxtreme.net/andre/8585.jpg
> 
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...B2-HWBot.org&p=4985362&viewfull=1#post4985362



Busted again by another 120mhz! 

@entropy13

LOL ... 
Then if it isn't a Bulldozer chip, what is it?!


----------



## repman244 (Nov 1, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> Busted again by another 120mhz!



And also don't forget this is on LN2 and not LHE  I think 9GHz is close


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 1, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> LOL ...
> Then if it isn't a Bulldozer chip, what is it?!



A "Bulldozer" with "missing parts"? To reach this frequencies a lot of compromise was made. It's like an actual bulldozer without everything that makes it one (like the blade, ripper, track) except for the body, the tracks replaced with four road tires and the engine also replaced with a more beefier one.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 1, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> A "Bulldozer" with "missing parts"? To reach this frequencies a lot of compromise was made. It's like an actual bulldozer without everything that makes it one (like the blade, ripper, track) except for the body, the tracks replaced with four road tires and the engine also replaced with a more beefier one.



You need to understand that the world of Extreme clocking has far different rules than what the average user deems acceptable. I've watched the scene grow from it's infancy, to what it is now, so I'm pretty confident in saying that stuff liek this will ALWAYS happen.

This a clocking challenge, not performance.

This is not a compare between CPUs from differnt OEMs...this is a compare of skill in clocking.

Over the next several months, these guys are going to be working hard @ getting a BD module over 9GHz. And nothing we think or say is gonna stop them.


Many people want to be the one to be first to say "It's over 9000!".  you can sit back and watch the competition, or you can ignore it. The choice is yours.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Nov 1, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> A "Bulldozer" with "missing parts"? To reach this frequencies a lot of compromise was made. It's like an actual bulldozer without everything that makes it one (like the blade, ripper, track) except for the body, the tracks replaced with four road tires and the engine also replaced with a more beefier one.



You had me up until they added a "more beefier" engine. They most certainly did not swap out parts from the chip.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 1, 2011)

No, but you could call the cooling the engine...


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Nov 1, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> No, but you could call the cooling the engine...



Ok, I'll concede. But that's a stretch.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 1, 2011)

So are many other similes.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Nov 1, 2011)

Right again. I still personally like to consider cooling the fuel though.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 1, 2011)

The power input is the fuel that is consumed to get stuff done.

It would not be capable of handling that power without the cooling upgrade. Kinda like how sometimes you need a bigger block or heads to push for horsepower.

A stretch, for sure, but whatever. You really gonna gripe about THAT, of all things?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Nov 1, 2011)

Sometimes I just like to hear myself bitch.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Nov 1, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Sometimes I just like to hear myself bitch.



You need to stop that!  Not good for your health  

@entropy

Oh cmon, my post was meant with lighthearted-esque-ness.  Nothing more


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 1, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> You need to understand that the world of Extreme clocking has far different rules than what the average user deems acceptable. I've watched the scene grow from it's infancy, to what it is now, so I'm pretty confident in saying that stuff liek this will ALWAYS happen.
> 
> This a clocking challenge, not performance.
> 
> ...





So in short...an FX-8150 with 4 cores enabled at 8.3GHz for example is NOTHING compared to an FX-8150 with 2 cores enabled at 8.5GHz?


No wonder overclocking competitions are just like your typical elections ($$$, influence, blackmail, cheating), or your typical workplace (patronage policies, favoritism, badmouthing of others).


EDIT: Actually there's a better analogy then to overclocking record setting/competitions. It's the (illegal) motorcycle racing here. You start with a typical motorcycle, and you end up with basically what would amount to a bicycle with slightly bigger wheels and an engine. There's no seat, no headlights, no mudguards, no any other covering over the body, just for the sake of speed.

Of course I'm not saying overclocking is illegal, but apparently it's better to reach 150kph with a "skeleton" motorcycle rather than 145kph with the same motorcycle that didn't have that much compromises.


----------



## nt300 (Nov 1, 2011)

More news of higher Overclocks for upcoming Bulldozer II CPU's based on the Socket AM3+ 


> NT says:
> Great Review: The 10-Core Piledriver based on Socket FM2 won't be released until sometime in 2013. It's replacement is based on Socket AM3+ and will be an 8-Core Piledriver CPU. AMD plans on releasing a B3 revision to it's current Bulldozer (FX-8170), then will move to the 8-Core Piledriver in around Q1 2012 to Q2 2012 for an added 10% increase in performance. This 10% increase in performance should be an addition to the B3 stepping performance boost which should amount to approx: 5% to 7%. Add in the tweaks and some minor design repairs and we are looking at a total possible *20% to 25% increase in performance with Piledriver.* So Socket AM3+ has a much longer life.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 1, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> Of course I'm not saying overclocking is illegal, but apparently it's better to reach 150kph with a "skeleton" motorcycle rather than 145kph with the same motorcycle that didn't have that much compromises.



Basically, yes, that's exactly it. And just so we're straight, I kinda feel as you do, too, about the whole thing.

That said, I have spoken to many of these guys over the years, and it's jsut liek any other hobby..they are in it for the fun. There have been some unfortunate instances of overclocking competitions rigged(Dude in the OP has access to MEGA amounts of parts to bin from, and in the past, was giving scores away to people that then used those scores and won competition entries and prizes they never actually competed for. NOt the OP poster, but dude who lays claim ot those clocks), but all that said, I still enjoy WATCHING them.

I just feel that this side of the OC world has no place in product marketing. AMD marketing team should have pulled their socks up, and sent TPU a chip for a launch release, but clearly they decided that things like the Guinness record were more important. I think that was a very bad move...and really, you must understand that it would not be me personally doing that review, so this is not ME bitching about not getting a chip myself. This is me bitching that my co-worker here @ TPU didn't.

And let me just say, sub-zero clocking isn't as simple as getting a pot, pouring LN2 in it, and then running up the clocks. There is a bit of knowledge you need to just get the system to boot when under that much cold...so I do appreciate the "skill" these guys have.


I wouldn't call it "skill", exactly, but whatever. These guys still put on a good show.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Nov 1, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> And let me just say, sub-zero clocking isn't as simple as getting a pot, pouring LN2 in it, and then running up the clocks. There is a bit of knowledge you need to just get the system to boot when under that much cold...so I do appreciate the "skill" these guys have.
> 
> I wouldn't call it "skill", exactly, but whatever. These guys still put on a good show.



It's definitely skill. And there is a a lot more knowledge and experience involved than the uninitiated is like to think, starting with knowing how not to kill your hardware from any number of things from condensation to too much voltage.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 1, 2011)

meran said:


> but its a semi pentium 4 slow un efficient u may call it that way
> i.e. desined to run at highest chocks possible without taking in mind the ipc  that was the p 4 and now the bulldozer



Well this chip technically is not inefficient, it is not as efficient as the Intel offerings. It is however still a better CPU than the previous generations in certain aspects. IPC on these chips is still 4 the same as the intel offerings and up from 3 on the old chips and 2 on P4 "netburst".



entropy13 said:


> It isn't a Bulldozer thread per se since we're talking about a 2-core, 2-threads CPU from AMD (which doesn't exist under the "Bulldozer" lineup).



No that little box still says "Bulldozer" the core is still a bulldozer core. This isn't any different than a rebadged Sargus core which is really just a Regor core tuned down.



repman244 said:


> And also don't forget this is on LN2 and not LHE  I think 9GHz is close



You would be surprised how little gains they get from LN2 to LHe we will see larger gains moving from stepping to stepping as fab techniques improve. The same way the last batches of Phenom 1 clocked better and the last batches of Phenom II clocked better.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 1, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> It's definitely skill. And there is a a lot more knowledge and experience involved than the uninitiated is like to think, starting with knowing how not to kill your hardware from any number of things from condensation to too much voltage.



I do not agree 100%. Current motherboard technology takes alot of the guesswork out of it.

You can kill chips on air easy enough. The biggest thing in the past was that you needed to know how to OCP mod most boards, and had to know how to recognize coldbug, and how to get even the memory contorller to work right, by adjusting drive strengths and such. That means that to get the best results, you needed not to have real knowledge, other than knowing what parts to buy. And there are literally only a few guys out there that gave out this info in the first place, and the rest simply did what they were told works. If you are not friends with someone in the know...you're wasting your time.

Insulation and such is a given. But I hardly see that as a skill.

The big thing for me, is that I cannot call something that people do not share with others as a skill. It's a SECRET...and there are many SECRETs in the Extreme scene. that closed community, and the secrets that surround it, is what has me think it's a waste of time, marketing-wise.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 1, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I do not agree 100%. Current motherboard technology takes alot of the guesswork out of it.
> 
> You can kill chips on air easy enough. The biggest thing in the past was that you needed to know how to OCP mod most boards, and had to know how to recognize coldbug, and how to get even the memory contorller to work right, by adjusting drive strengths and such. That means that to get the best results, you needed not to have real knowledge, other than knowing what parts to buy. And there are literally only a few guys out there that gave out this info in the first place, and the rest simply did what they were told works. If you are not friends with someone in the know...you're wasting your time.
> 
> ...



While I have not played with BD yet I can still say there is some skill involved with extreme clocks. There is still a lot that plays into any of these chips regardless of Intel or AMD. Simple things like 45nm AMD chips had a 32nm memory controller that would fry the entire chip if you pumped its volts high and left the overall chip volts low. Same sort of thing applies to these there is only so much voltage you can push in certain spots to get them clocked up. A lot of the guesswork and trail and error might be gone with new highend boards, but there is a reason why any Joe Blow with LN2 cannot hit these clocks. Plenty of people with money buy the best of the best parts and can't break into the top 10 clocks done by guys who know what they are doing.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 1, 2011)

I agree, CDA, but the fact that it's always the same 10-15 guys is stupid. ALWAYS. Hasn't really changed at all in the past 10 years. Few new guys, sure.

And to me, figuring this stuff out isn't that hard. Most people, on the other hand, sure...don't even have any idea how to set secondary timings.

I'm not a smart guy, really. if I cna do it, so can near anyone else. Trail and error ain't all that hard, really.


----------



## Super XP (Nov 1, 2011)

Skill is always apart of Overclocking. We are talking about NB, CPU and Memory OC's, if you can get them at a nice speed with stability, then that is called skill IMO. To achieve this, you take it slow and perform the OC step by step removing all possible limiting factors such as keep memory speed and NB speed at stock, take your CPU step by step as high as you can. Find the max or close to it. Then put the CPU back to stock, and try upping the NB speed until you can at least get close to your CPU speed. When you have that, then keep everythign on stock, and play around with your memory speed and find it's max, then drop it down a little to certify stability.

That said, if you find you run into stability issues, bump the voltage a little and continue.

What I noticed in my past with both AMD and Intel CPU's is if you rush with the OC too fast and you don't take her up slowly, for some reason you end up with a higher vCore and at a lower OC speed. 

Sure today's hardware make it easy to OC, along with auto OC options, though I would be against this IMO unless AMD/Intel implimented something in the CPU hardware that will not mess up the true potencial for a good stable OC by moving too fast to achieve it.

JMOP


----------



## Wile E (Nov 2, 2011)

It's not skill that makes an OCer these days, it's knowledge. 

Back when you had to mod and solder on your board to extreme clock there was skill involved. Not these days. Typing in the proper voltages and frequencies does not require skill at all. A trained monkey can do that. It does, however, require knowledge to choose the proper settings.


----------



## Am* (Nov 2, 2011)

Invalid claim is invalid. Unless it's running all the cores of the 8150, it's not setting any records for the chip, which has serious trouble being bench-stable past 4.6GHz with all cores active. AMD's marketing department is taking the piss here once again. Also these records really aren't impressive, considering people were hitting 8GHz+ on inefficient Pentium 4 65nm/90nm architecture chips back in the day, without turning off any parts of the CPU.

In other news, performance records still powered by Intel CPUs...


----------



## repman244 (Nov 2, 2011)

Am* said:


> Invalid claim is invalid. Unless it's running all the cores of the 8150, it's not setting any records for the chip, which has serious trouble being bench-stable past 4.6GHz with all cores active. AMD's marketing department is taking the piss here once again. Also these records really aren't impressive, considering people were hitting 8GHz+ on inefficient Pentium 4 65nm/90nm architecture chips back in the day, without turning off any parts of the CPU.
> 
> In other news, performance records still powered by Intel CPUs...



This isn't really AMD marketing.
If those Pentiums had 2 cores they would disable them. In fact they did disable HT so you are incorrect. http://hwbot.org/submission/592402_theking_cpu_frequency_pentium_4_631_8179.89_mhz

And yes the FX can run all 8 with 8GHz:







http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...8-AMD-Bulldozer-FX-8150P-BE-8GHz-Super-PI-1M&

And also this is a FREQUENCY record where you are after highest frequency possible by any means necessary. It's not about how well does the CPU perform.
It's the same thing if you are after a memory speed record and you run it with a low budgte GPU and people would say, that doesn't prove anything because you can't do anything with it...


I see that people have serious problems understanding world records. They aren't set with normal stuff.
For example is the world land speed record set by a Renault Clio? Not really...


----------



## HTC (Nov 2, 2011)

repman244 said:


> This isn't really AMD marketing.
> If those Pentiums had 2 cores they would disable them. In fact they did disable HT so you are incorrect. http://hwbot.org/submission/592402_theking_cpu_frequency_pentium_4_631_8179.89_mhz
> 
> *And yes the FX can run all 8 with 8GHz:*
> ...



That's quite impressive, IMO.

For those that complain about how bad superpi is, look @ this:



> And its more simillarz results-ussually big improvement in photoshop, 3DCAD, practice compression decompression, microsoft office working, megatasking
> I thought, if we are at XS, we are not stupid live only in superpi benchmarks etc, but we know also something about real performance of new products....



Taken from here (modified a bit because it's a big post): http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...-Super-PI-1M&p=4974762&viewfull=1#post4974762


----------



## n-ster (Nov 2, 2011)

HTC said:


> That's quite impressive, IMO.
> 
> For those that complain about how bad superpi is, look @ this:
> 
> ...



An i7 920 seems to be as good as the bulldozer clock for clock. Also note that these comparisons are hardly fair, as many i5 2500K or i7 2600K are being rung at 4.8Ghz +, while Bulldozer is, AFAIK, ran at 4.4Ghz+. Even if it is 4.6Ghz +, the Bulldozer does not reach LGA 1155 in OCing on Aircooling, yet in the benchmarks the Bulldozer is clocked higher

Now bench again with typical OCs like i7 920 @ 4Ghz, and the result will be much better for intel, who usually leave a much greater room for OC


----------



## Super XP (Nov 2, 2011)

HTC said:


> That's quite impressive, IMO.
> 
> For those that complain about how bad superpi is, look @ this:
> 
> ...


Well this explains 3 issues one being Bulldozer requires minor modifications for better overall performance in both single and multi threaded. Two being current benchmarks are not properly optimised for Bulldozer's design structure. IMO it's like trying to ram a 454 big block into a super tiny electric car. Does not work this way. The third being 4P/4T greatly outperforms 2P/4T by a lot especially with the software not being properly optimized. 

Looking at all these latest findings, AMD's upcoming B3 revision is going to really be interesting.


----------

