# AMD's Bulldozer 8.4GHz+ OC Achievement: Cooled to Near-Absolute Zero



## qubit (Sep 18, 2011)

*AMD's Bulldozer 8.4 GHz+ OC Achievement: Cooled to Near-Absolute Zero*

TechPowerUp recently brought you news on AMDs fantastic overclocking achievement with their new processors. Now we can tell you how it was done: cherry-picking the chips and slapping on some water cooling isn't quite enough. AMDs new processors can operate at much lower temperatures without displaying the "cold bug" - where it just gives up and goes home - and performance scales very well at super-low temperatures. The problem is that the cold affects lots of things such as timing, but more importantly, power circuits, which stop switching and just fry everything in sight - surely one to avoid. AMD senior manager of social media, Simon Solotko explains in detail how it was all done, using both liquid helium and liquid nitrogen to make the poor processor _really_ cold. The new processor had these great qualities, according to Solotko:



> It was able to take a lot of voltage, extremely low temperatures, extremely high frequencies," he said. "It was very durable under extreme overclocking. So that was awesome. So it worked well, it scaled well, it responded to cold well - all the right variables.



This overclock is an impressive feat and it will be interesting to see if Intel can match it.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Fourstaff (Sep 18, 2011)

News on sunday? o_0 Qubit you are doing well!


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Sep 18, 2011)

I doubt they can match it. With the similarities to SB I'm expecting another multi-wall. Maybe higher but certainly not 84. Not that it matters. Interest in these impractical clocks has gone down massively. Show me the best 24/7 performance. Something we can use is far more impressive.


----------



## oldcrank (Sep 18, 2011)

*Bulldozer overchock*

So they set the record.  When I am ready to switch to a liquid nitrogen and liquid helium-cooled computer, I will keep this in mind.  Otherwise, this is just a meaningless number achieved for publicity purposes.


----------



## razaron (Sep 18, 2011)

According to the article the processor lasted a few seconds at what is theorized to be around 10K (while OCed to 8.49Ghz). This shows lots of promise for (complicated) digital circuits, in 5-10 years they might reach or even surpass Tardigrade levels of toughness.


----------



## DrPepper (Sep 18, 2011)

oldcrank said:


> So they set the record.  When I am ready to switch to a liquid nitrogen and liquid helium-cooled computer, I will keep this in mind.  Otherwise, this is just a meaningless number achieved for publicity purposes.



Generally the cpu's which have achieved world record oc's can achieve very high speeds on air and water.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Sep 18, 2011)

I honestly don't care about how high the chip can clock. I'm only interested in it's performance. Come on AMD, bench a BD chip and release the results. That's what I care about. Celerons can be OC'ed to 8ghz, but that doesn't mean I want one.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 18, 2011)

oldcrank said:


> So they set the record.  When I am ready to switch to a liquid nitrogen and liquid helium-cooled computer, I will keep this in mind.  Otherwise, this is just a meaningless number achieved for publicity purposes.



You mean when you are ready to switch to a 1 core computer. World records don't have anything to do with the average user. But talking like you do is like saying, "so what they built a rocket car that broke the sound barriuer, it isn't impressive at all until I can haul my groceries in it." 

It's very impressive, and the fact that you expect to haul your groceries (or do your everyday simply PC tasks) with a rocket is just insane.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 18, 2011)

I thought we were done with this pointless "news". . .


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 18, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I thought we were done with this pointless "news". . .



It's not pointless, just everyone with an Intel chip keeps saying "because I can't do this when I buy one, it doesn't matter". It's a world record, you doubtfully want benches anyways as you most likely aren't interested in AMD chips anyways. How many world records do you look at and you think that you can go out and do every day, and if you can't you discount them? They are meant to be amazing feats, of extraordinary proportions, not average feats of blandness.

Other benches will come soon, I will look to those for real performance figures. This is just something thats cool, that record has stood for a while.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 18, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> It's not pointless, just everyone with an Intel chip keeps saying "because I can't do this when I buy one, it doesn't matter". It's a world record, you doubtfully want benches anyways as you most likely aren't interested in AMD chips anyways. How many world records do you look at and you think that you can go out and do every day, and if you can't you discount them? They are meant to be amazing feats, of extraordinary proportions, not average feats of blandness.
> 
> Other benches will come soon, I will look to those for real performance figures. This is just something thats cool, that record has stood for a while.



Wow a lot of assumptions you made there without knowing a damn thing, but sadly I knew what I said would make someone butt hurt. For the record I own both AMD and Intel chips, and if bulldozer is worth an upgrade I will likely buy it but a"world record" means nothing as I can't buy one and then overclock it. I am not "discounting" the "world record" I am saying meh, I want something I can relate to as to how it will preform should I buy one, and this attention grab is not it.


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 18, 2011)

IMO, there are more important things that the clock, eg microarchitecture, caches, instructions per clock, SSEs etc

All we know that more clock more performance but, reaching those clocks without any practical uses, without benchmark or without knowing if the CPU is stable is pointless IMHO

Anyway it's interesting the overclocking potential or those CPUs because that mean you could overclock it more if you cool it better with WC or something


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 18, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Wow a lot of assumptions you made there without knowing a damn thing, but sadly I knew what I said would make someone butt hurt. For the record I own both AMD and Intel chips, and if bulldozer is worth an upgrade I will likely buy it but a"world record" means nothing as I can't buy one and then overclock it. I am not "discounting" the "world record" I am saying meh, I want something I can relate to as to how it will preform should I buy one, and this attention grab is not it.



I only made one assumption, and it was based on your own system specs (I list all of my systems in my specs usually, as do others) 

And I agree completely on buying if the performance is right. All world records are "meh", they don't mean anything to any almost anyone on here, but usually if something means absolutely nothing to me, I just don't even post about it, as it doesn't matter. Just seems to be so many posts that are copy and paste of what you said, instead of a discussion of the actual way they hit the record, or how long the record has stood, just annoying.

I of course would like to see some real world figures as well. But I'll just have to wait for those.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 18, 2011)

I can see the New AMD Bulldozer's to be faster in Real World Gaming and in Video. Not sure about the rest of the apps. Only time will tell when they finally get released.


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

Meaningless and nothing but FLUFF ! What really matters is performance if AMD can do some thing real in the performance area it would stand to reason they would put out some real BM numbers not all this BS and fluff . Time to put up or shut up AMD !


----------



## 1c3d0g (Sep 18, 2011)

Yawn. Wake me up when Ivy Bridge arrives. You know, Intel MASS-PRODUCES an innovative 3-D chip technology which ACTUALLY makes a difference in power consumption, that's what I'm talking about. Not some uber-exotic overclock which no one in their right mind can setup and run 24/7.


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

1c3d0g said:


> Yawn. Wake me up when Ivy Bridge arrives. You know, Intel MASS-PRODUCES an innovative 3-D chip technology which ACTUALLY makes a difference in power consumption, that's what I'm talking about. Not some uber-exotic overclock which no one in their right mind can setup and run 24/7.



LOL Yeah . Hell we have more information on the Ivy bridge than on this BD and BD is just days away from the retail market


----------



## Horrux (Sep 18, 2011)

trickson said:


> LOL Yeah . Hell we have more information on the Ivy bridge than on this BD and BD is just days away from the retail market



That doesn't have to be a bad thing. We'll see. But it certainly is possible this hush-hush is just delaying the inevitable beating AMD's stock would take if BD is less than impressive. But as you say, we don't have the info, so it could go either way.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 18, 2011)

While the record breaking was cool (no pun intended), this post offers absolutely no new information. If is is not new it is not news.


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Sep 18, 2011)

My highest OC to date was with an AMD chip...which lasted only a brief time.


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

rickss69 said:


> My highest OC to date was with an AMD chip...which lasted only a brief time.



Mine was on a Intel CPU . In-fact the one I have now . I could not break 4.0GHz with any of my AMD chips . :shadedshu


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 18, 2011)

Nice,

Top 20th for max frequency were only with Intel crapmill celerons  and one Bulldozer ES B2 rev.

Come on AMD, do the competition, and let the prices drop... Intel is doing too much money for himself.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 18, 2011)

trickson said:


> Mine was on a Intel CPU . In-fact the one I have now . I could not break 4.0GHz with any of my AMD chips . :shadedshu



I hit 4.2ghz with my 1055t on the cooler that came with it  Doesn't get much better than that, ran it at 3.9ghz on the AMD stock cooler for a few months for daily use without any issues.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 18, 2011)

P4 based celerons hit 8Ghz too. They were still slow. This record is meaningless unless we know how it performs at this level. It's like the 2000hp dyno queens that only run 9's in the real world.

I want performance info, dammit. Is my next build BD or skt2011?


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Sep 18, 2011)

Blah blah blah more hype. Please just give us some bloody real reviews of the product. I'm pretty sure ancient processors did reach 6-7 GHz, still they were slower than a modern 2 GHz processor. And on top of that they only OCed 2 cores to that speed, not all 8. Real world performance is what we want to know, not if it can go "over 9000" MHz.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 18, 2011)

8 cores on the BD, i dont think dirt 3 uses more than 6. so the benches against i7 980 is okay?


we need more apps that use moar cores


----------



## craigo (Sep 18, 2011)

speaking of cpu`s in everyday industrial computing scenarios,
Check out what a few atom`s can do...

IDF 2011

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1713/1/

8.4gig is not nearly as cool as you think mr AMD (pun intended)

I call this post "How to amuse,entertain and impress a potential customer"


----------



## BrooksyX (Sep 18, 2011)

This is cool and all but for all i know my 2500k could be just as fast/faster at 4.8ghz (on air) than that Bulldozer at 8+ ghz. I'm not trying to start an argument but we all know that clock speed doesnt matter all that much in this day and age.


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

Well one thing is for sure , At the very least it will be far faster than my Q9650 LOL !


----------



## cdawall (Sep 18, 2011)

BrooksyX said:


> This is cool and all but for all i know my 2500k could be just as fast/faster at 4.8ghz (on air) than that Bulldozer at 8+ ghz. I'm not trying to start an argument but we all know that clock speed doesnt matter all that much in this day and age.



with the higher IPC and other architectural improvements that's highly unlikely.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 18, 2011)

craigo said:


> speaking of cpu`s in everyday industrial computing scenarios,
> Check out what a few atom`s can do...
> 
> IDF 2011
> ...



cool but a total fail if you tell me. it could have probably been done with a few micro controllers.


----------



## blibba (Sep 18, 2011)

cdawall said:


> with the higher IPC and other architectural improvements that's highly unlikely.



I think the honourable gentleman was knowingly using an exaggerated example to make his point.


----------



## qubit (Sep 18, 2011)

Reading through the posts on here, it seems that some people might be missing the point of this news article.

Indeed, we knew the other day that AMD did 8GHz and I explained that. What we now know are the full techy details of how they did it and that these new CPUs can work at much colder temperatures than previously possible. I had hoped this would interest people here? 

Using nitrogen _and_ helium to reach near absolute zero seems pretty hardcore techy to me!


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

qubit said:


> Reading through the posts on here, it seems that some people might be missing the point of this news article.
> 
> Indeed, we knew the other day that AMD did 8GHz and I explained that. What we now know are the full techy details of how they did it and that these new CPUs can work at much colder temperatures than previously possible. I had hoped this would interest people here?
> 
> Using nitrogen _and_ helium to reach near absolute zero seems pretty hardcore techy to me!



Yeah it is hard core for sure . But just how many people use LN-LH 24/7 ? It seems a bit impractical to me . Maybe they can use it in space or on Titan but I am not there . Water cooling is the best I have and this could make for a great CPU , Time will tell just how they will perform under normal operating conditions .


----------



## tayga (Sep 18, 2011)

ya true using auto OC on my mobo seemed pointless since with games it more GPU power and that why you see so many OCed video cards and processors are for computing so if you do a lot of computing (anything besides that uses the GPU) then OC it :3


----------



## qubit (Sep 18, 2011)

trickson said:


> Yeah it is hard core for sure . But just how many people use LN-LH 24/7 ? It seems a bit impractical to me . Maybe they can use it in space or on Titan but I am not there . Water cooling is the best I have and this could make for a great CPU , Time will tell just how they will perform under normal operating conditions .



Oh yeah, it was a PR stunt all right, but an interesting one.

w1zzard's take on previous posts on other threads suggests that the performance of the chip won't be so hot for everyday use, so I'm betting that he knows something we don't. 

Man, the suspense is killing me!


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Sep 18, 2011)

I'd like to know the max oc on a real world cooling setup, ie a half decent water loop.

Oh and my best oc was on the E6300 in my sig, 107% on air.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 18, 2011)

blibba said:


> I think the honourable gentleman was knowingly using an exaggerated example to make his point.



Yes but it is a stupid hyperbole that several people have used in several threads to show distaste towards AMD when they prefer Intel. This is the first time AMD has been on that board and it seems to be stirring shit up.


----------



## Goodman (Sep 18, 2011)

Why another thread about Bulldozer overclock , should had been added to this one , i think...

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152008


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

Goodman said:


> Why another thread about Bulldozer overclock , should had been added to this one , i think...
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152008


It should be closed . Nothing news or new about it .


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 18, 2011)

qubit said:


> Reading through the posts on here, it seems that some people might be missing the point of this news article.
> 
> Indeed, we knew the other day that AMD did 8GHz and I explained that. What we now know are the full techy details of how they did it and that these new CPUs can work at much colder temperatures than previously possible. I had hoped this would interest people here?
> 
> Using nitrogen _and_ helium to reach near absolute zero seems pretty hardcore techy to me!



I knew that stuff already.


----------



## qubit (Sep 18, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> I knew that stuff already.



Not everybody does though.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 18, 2011)

qubit said:


> Not everybody does though.



Its in the original TPU post about the world record that they used LN2 at first and switch to liquid helium to get even lower temps.


----------



## qubit (Sep 18, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Its in the original TPU post about the world record that they used LN2 at first and switch to liquid helium to get even lower temps.



Ok, fair enough.  I still have my Learner plates on!


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Sep 18, 2011)

This is all fluff.

Liquid helium and near-zero is so damned cold you couldn't and wouldn't be handling it bare-handed out of a thermos flash or holding your hand to shield the evaporating gases (like the video showed).  The video is therefore fake and is just a "imaging" for the sake of PR, and the actual superclock was not achieved "live" in the way they were pretending.  

We also learned that the "random CPUs in a box and the 4th one did it", well that box was cock full of pre-cherry picked samples.

We also heard that AMD broke the GUINESS World Record.  But no such record previously existed.

In my mind, there is only one question: HOW MANY untruths were told in that PR stunt, and given the number of untruths, do I feel ethically compelled to avoid such a dishonest company? (and I'm still sitting on that question, but I'm getting awfully close to the answer).


----------



## Wile E (Sep 18, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> This is all fluff.
> 
> Liquid helium and near-zero is so damned cold you couldn't and wouldn't be handling it bare-handed out of a thermos flash or holding your hand to shield the evaporating gases (like the video showed).  The video is therefore fake and is just a "imaging" for the sake of PR, and the actual superclock was not achieved "live" in the way they were pretending.
> 
> ...



If ethics will cause you to avoid doing business with a company, who do you plan to buy your future desktop cpus from, VIA?


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

Wile E said:


> If ethics will cause you to avoid doing business with a company, who do you plan to buy your future desktop cpus from, VIA?



Intel .


----------



## Fourstaff (Sep 18, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> This is all fluff.
> 
> Liquid helium and near-zero is so damned cold you couldn't and wouldn't be handling it bare-handed out of a thermos flash or holding your hand to shield the evaporating gases (like the video showed).  The video is therefore fake and is just a "imaging" for the sake of PR, and the actual superclock was not achieved "live" in the way they were pretending.
> 
> ...



I see nothing wrong with going to the extreme to set a world record speed, while its not normal conditions it still holds. Just like you set the fastest land speed on a salt flat not on your average highway. They videotaped the overclock, so no doubt you could have seen it live there, if given the opportunity. I don't know how you would interpret it otherwise, but that is how I interpreted it. 

Cherry picking is of course necessary for these kind of records. One do not just send a random guy to break the 100m speed record, you need years of conditioning. Cherry picking is a bit different, but same idea: only a certain lucky few have the right combination of factors to allow them to attempt to break the record. 

I think the fastest P4 chips went only to 8Ghz, so this might be the fastest clock speed ever achieved on a consumer x86 processor. I might be wrong though. 

There are no untruths, just different forms of interpretation. From my eyes, this is a perfectly fine PR with your usual amount of spin.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 18, 2011)

trickson said:


> Intel .



*cough* anti-trust *cough*


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

Wile E said:


> *cough* anti-trust *cough*



LOL . 

Thing is ethics has nothing to do with it at all . Performance is king and if the performance is there then cool if not we will all soon know then ...


----------



## cdawall (Sep 19, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> This is all fluff.
> 
> Liquid helium and near-zero is so damned cold you couldn't and wouldn't be handling it bare-handed out of a thermos flash or holding your hand to shield the evaporating gases (like the video showed).  The video is therefore fake and is just a "imaging" for the sake of PR, and the actual superclock was not achieved "live" in the way they were pretending.



way to watch the whole video LHe is used the same way it was used on the last set of AMD overclocks








Completely Bonkers said:


> We also learned that the "random CPUs in a box and the 4th one did it", well that box was cock full of pre-cherry picked samples.



they were cherry picked for the VID's no one said they were random chips they did however say they were untested until now. This is easily believable since this has happened several times now.


Completely Bonkers said:


> We also heard that AMD broke the GUINESS World Record.  But no such record previously existed.



yup it is SUCH a lie i mean they hand the plaques out all over the place






Completely Bonkers said:


> In my mind, there is only one question: HOW MANY untruths were told in that PR stunt, and given the number of untruths, do I feel ethically compelled to avoid such a dishonest company? (and I'm still sitting on that question, but I'm getting awfully close to the answer).


In your mind you appear to not know how to read or watch an entire video.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 19, 2011)

i wish people knew how to read these news articles without resulting in trolling and bullshit.



8.4GHz on LN2 is a world record for LN2 - which means these chips might well also break records on other cooling.

these could become the fastest clocking chips on water and air as well, if this holds as a constant (and its not just a freak chip)


----------



## cdawall (Sep 19, 2011)

Mussels said:


> i wish people knew how to read these news articles without resulting in trolling and bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



this record is for silicone based cpu. this record was also done on LHe not LN2...


----------



## Mussels (Sep 19, 2011)

cdawall said:


> this record is for silicone based cpu. this record was also done on LHe not LN2...



i have no idea what these liquids are, dont hold my ideas to account based on my failure at chemistry. or spelling. or math.


i just want people to be aware that there is implications that these chips could be the best overclockers in the market on non extreme cooling as well, and if they are - well thats newsworthy.


----------



## trickson (Sep 19, 2011)

Mussels said:


> i have no idea what these liquids are, dont hold my ideas to account based on my failure at chemistry. or spelling. or math.
> 
> 
> i just want people to be aware that there is implications that these chips could be the best overclockers in the market on non extreme cooling as well, and if they are - well thats newsworthy.



Agreed .


----------



## cdawall (Sep 19, 2011)

Mussels said:


> i have no idea what these liquids are, dont hold my ideas to account based on my failure at chemistry. or spelling. or math.
> 
> 
> i just want people to be aware that there is implications that these chips could be the best overclockers in the market on non extreme cooling as well, and if they are - well thats newsworthy.



Don't worry was just tossing the info out there so you didn't get called an idiot  As you said it is very likely these chips will scale very well on all temps which would be quite nice. they did scale quite a bit more according to this video than the old chips did jumping from LN2 to LHe which honestly surprised me. if -40C is worth almost a 1ghz on the top end i hope AMD pops a few more WR's.


----------



## caleb (Sep 19, 2011)

What makes you guys think that the OC results on air will be also good in its own category ?
Because some other CPU that beat a record also did?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 19, 2011)

Mussels said:


> i wish people knew how to read these news articles without resulting in trolling and bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You gotta realize in the other thread about bulldozer there was plenty of that, n it seems its all the intel fanboys who troll in AMD threads, I can name a few here n the previous thread... Tell You the truth the ones that do troll the threads like that have an inferiority complex n are fearful that their stuff will get stomped on, then again i guess they also claim their penis size is not wut its truthful n fact small.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Sep 19, 2011)

cdawall said:


> yup it is SUCH a lie i mean they hand the plaques out all over the place
> 
> [url]http://www.brightsideofnews.com/Data/2011_9_13/iBUYPOWER-Launches-Worlds-Fastest-AMD-FX-8150-Powered-System/IBUYPOWER_Darren_Su_689.jpg[/URL]
> 
> In your mind you appear to not know how to read or watch an entire video.



I find that last comment a personal attack and insult. tut-tut.

Kindly note that I did not say that they didn't SET a World Record. I said that there was no previous Guinness World Record. AMD set up this as a *new* record category.  So all this "RECORD BREAKERS" is a bit misrepresentative. OK, so they SET the "first world record" in one run, and then they "BROKE that said record 10 minutes later" etc.

Read again the thread and my posts. I did not say it was not true. I am saying it is sloppy or inaccurate or disingenuous PR and journalism.  All that video material might have got you hot but to me I am pretty close to absolute zero. It doesn't get me excited. 

You might 50cc motorcycle racing. I don't.
I might like Monster Trucks. You don't. Well actually, I don't either, but the point is, my interest in CPU technology is different to yours. Personally, I am more interested in POWER as in performance, or LOW POWER as in it can operate on just two electrodes in a gnat's piss.

Anyway, enough of hair-splitting.

Great news: able to keep a CPU stable without frying itself at 8+ GHz
Bad news: no benchmarks to demonstrate ability for that overclocked CPU to be able to complete any benchmark or even a level of minesweeper


++++

In other news, there is a discussion about unshielded 8GHz+ frequencies on the PC. With these (relatively) high voltages and currents there is a measurable about of electromagnetic noise/radiation being created compared to a regular PC. What is the level of electromagnetic radiation being given off? Above 8GHz is X Band Radiation. X Band is used for radar detectors, Air traffic control... etc. 

Remember how a mobile phone can cause interference with your PC and speakers? Creating 8GHz radiation can cause all sorts of legal issues, and requires formal licensing if unshielded. You aren't going to crash an aeroplane through Air traffic interference, but just like "CB radio" or "Band G and Band A wifi" it is a grey legal area until it is sorted.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 19, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> This is all fluff.
> 
> Liquid helium and near-zero is so damned cold you couldn't and wouldn't be handling it bare-handed out of a thermos flash or holding your hand to shield the evaporating gases (like the video showed).  The video is therefore fake and is just a "imaging" for the sake of PR, and the actual superclock was not achieved "live" in the way they were pretending.
> 
> ...





this guy definitely works for intel.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 19, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> This is all fluff.
> 
> Liquid helium and near-zero is so damned cold you couldn't and wouldn't be handling it bare-handed out of a thermos flash or holding your hand to shield the evaporating gases (like the video showed).  The video is therefore fake and is just a "imaging" for the sake of PR, and the actual superclock was not achieved "live" in the way they were pretending.
> 
> ...





Completely Bonkers said:


> I find that last comment a personal attack and insult. tut-tut.
> 
> Kindly note that I did not say that they didn't SET a World Record. I said that there was no previous Guinness World Record. AMD set up this as a *new* record category.  So all this "RECORD BREAKERS" is a bit misrepresentative. OK, so they SET the "first world record" in one run, and then they "BROKE that said record 10 minutes later" etc.
> 
> ...



i think it was pretty clear you were trying to "brush" of an amazing feat.

free advice: if you dont know how to behave you should stay out of posting BS.


----------



## Fourstaff (Sep 19, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Kindly note that I did not say that they didn't SET a World Record. I said that there was no previous Guinness World Record. AMD set up this as a *new* record category.  So all this "RECORD BREAKERS" is a bit misrepresentative. OK, so they SET the "first world record" in one run, and then they "BROKE that said record 10 minutes later" etc.



Pretty sure the world record is set by P4 back in the days. Whether its officially registered with Guinness or not is a matter of contention, but fact is that they broke it, and deserves some recognition. 



Completely Bonkers said:


> Read again the thread and my posts. I did not say it was not true. I am saying it is sloppy or inaccurate or disingenuous PR and journalism.  All that video material might have got you hot but to me I am pretty close to absolute zero. It doesn't get me excited.



This is your usual PR, with your usual amount of spin. I didn't get hot from the news either, but it doesn't give me the right to criticise what they have done, especially if they have done nothing which breaks the law. Sue them for misinformation and get them right if you firmly believe they are doing false marketing. Otherwise, you will have to accept the fact that while this is not your most sincere advert, it is at least based on truths, a quality not all adverts have. 



Completely Bonkers said:


> ... my interest in CPU technology is different to yours. Personally, I am more interested in POWER as in performance, or LOW POWER as in it can operate on just two electrodes in a gnat's piss.



This article was about things which you do not like, so why come in and complain? Please consciously refrain from trolling posts, intentional or not. 



Completely Bonkers said:


> Great news: able to keep a CPU stable without frying itself at 8+ GHz
> Bad news: no benchmarks to demonstrate ability for that overclocked CPU to be able to complete any benchmark or even a level of minesweeper



This sums it up, but then again, they weren't aiming for 8.4GHz stable, so they are not obliged to show stability.


----------



## heky (Sep 19, 2011)

And whats so great about this 8.4ghz? Ok they showed they can clock a little higher then a few years old celerons, cooled with liquid helium. So in what way is it the fastest processor? It isnt! It is the fastest clocking processor, but far from anything else. Or was the celeron also the fastest prcessor? I mean, dooooh


----------



## qubit (Sep 19, 2011)

heky said:


> And whats so great about this 8.4ghz? Ok they showed they can clock a little higher then a few years old celerons, cooled with liquid helium. So in what way is it the fastest processor? It isnt! It is the fastest clocking processor, but far from anything else. Or was the celeron also the fastest prcessor? I mean, dooooh



They're just setting a world overclocking record as a PR exercise and talking point. It's not meant to be taken too seriously.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Sep 19, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> This is all fluff.
> 
> Liquid helium and near-zero is so damned cold you couldn't and wouldn't be handling it bare-handed out of a thermos flash or holding your hand to shield the evaporating gases (like the video showed).  The video is therefore fake and is just a "imaging" for the sake of PR, and the actual superclock was not achieved "live" in the way they were pretending.








how is liquid helium any different to handling liquid nitrogen bare handed? people do it all the time.... it evaporates off your skin too fast to burn you if its only a small amount.


unless liquid helium is somehow different to nitrogen? ( search you tube for people drinking it / pouring it over there skin)

(yes i know its colder)



EDIT:
according to this guy hes even stuck his hand in liquid helium briefly.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110126102947AA9HsZG




its actually more dangerous to ware gloves with liquid nitrogen as it will stay on them and freeze them to your hands.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Sep 19, 2011)

I wouldn't try that sly. (Sticking your hand in a vessel of liquid helium)

http://hasylab.desy.de/e78/e1380/e3132
http://www.lindegas.hu/hu/images/2471-15683.pdf

Standard safety precautions: gloves and goggles... to avoid any splashes. Since it boils at such a low temperature, a splash tends to be "more exciting" that just - say - splashing water. However, since the quantities usually handled are relatively small, and the space they are used in are relatively large, the risks are just direct contact with these super low temperatures and the "burns" they might cause.

Remember "wafting" your hand over a supercooled metal object without gloves isnt clever. Your skin could stick to it! Just like holding a frozen pipe in winter, but worse.

After you asked your question, I googled and saw some nasty burns/accidents with liquid He. But not necessarily more or worse than liquid N. Of course, it all depends on quantities.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 19, 2011)

heky said:


> And whats so great about this 8.4ghz? Ok they showed they can clock a little higher then a few years old celerons, cooled with liquid helium. So in what way is it the fastest processor? It isnt! It is the fastest clocking processor, but far from anything else. Or was the celeron also the fastest prcessor? I mean, dooooh



Its the first high end next gen chip to do so. Know of any other quad/hexa/octa chips that can break 8ghz?


----------



## heky (Sep 19, 2011)

cdawall said:


> Its the first high end next gen chip to do so. Know of any other quad/hexa/octa chips that can break 8ghz?



It doesnt matter, since they used 2 cores anyway. With all cores enabled it doesnt even come close to 8ghz!


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 19, 2011)

keep it civil, kids.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 19, 2011)

cdawall said:


> they were cherry picked for the VID's no one said they were random chips they did however say they were untested until now. This is easily believable since this has happened several times now.




Um...there was more than VID binning, IMHO, just FYI. I see more than just VID listings there:



 

Of course, personally, i think pre-binning for something like this is not really important(and expected), but it does show that not all chips are able to do this, which does raise question to just how important, or not, events like this are. At least AMD isn't claiming that all chips can do this, but they DID SAY "expect higher clocks soon".


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 19, 2011)

heky said:


> And whats so great about this 8.4ghz? Ok they showed they can clock a little higher then a few years old celerons, cooled with liquid helium. So in what way is it the fastest processor? It isnt! It is the fastest clocking processor, but far from anything else. Or was the celeron also the fastest prcessor? I mean, dooooh



if you dont like it you dont have to stay. this is a multicore running at 8.4 GHz n the performance is considerably higher than any celeron. N it seems its always the fanboys of intel that always troll the AMD threads


----------



## Fourstaff (Sep 19, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> if you dont like it you dont have to stay. this is a multicore running at 8.4 GHz n the performance is considerably higher than any celeron.



Actually I think only one module was active at the time. Whether its multicore that is going to cause shitstorm, but to me its still one "core" so to speak.


----------



## heky (Sep 19, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> if you dont like it you dont have to stay. this is a multicore running at 8.4 GHz n the performance is considerably higher than any celeron. N it seems its always the fanboys of intel that always troll the AMD threads



Who are you to tell me i dont have to stay. I have the right to express my opinion. And for your information, i am not an intel fanboy, i have many amd rigs at home. For my main rig i am currently using a intel i7 2600k, since it just brigns the best performance for money atm.


----------



## Steven B (Sep 19, 2011)

I have access to liquid helium if anyone wants to come to DC and OC lol.


----------



## digibucc (Sep 19, 2011)

that number alone is something some people are interested in.  i'm looking forward to seeing performance numbers, but i am not frothing at the mouth.

if a technological record such as this only means "hype" to you, then maybe you could just leave it alone.  i for one think it's awesome that a cpu is running at nearly 8.4ghz.  we are pretty close to a 10ghz cpu now, and i think that alone is something worth mentioning.



heky said:


> Who are you to tell me i dont have to stay.


you don't have to go.  you don't have to stay.  you don't have to eat crap.

ok

he wasn't TELLING you to do anything, so calm down.  the point is as mine above, *we think this alone is cool* - so if all you want to do is drag on it, you don't HAVE to do that here.  you don't HAVE to try and ruin this for people who like it.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 19, 2011)

I think part of the problem is that, for example, with the phenom I launch, we were told by Leslie Sobon that 3GHz cpus were coming. They did, but not with Phenom I, at least, not for sale @ 3 GHz.

However, AMD did show CPUs running @ 3 GHz.

So, now we got one CPU @ 8.4 GHz. Going by the past, this may very well be the only chip that ever does that, and many are a bit hesitant to expect much from AMD, as they have in the past made promises, just to fail to deliver.

I don't think anyone really wants to ruin anyone else's fun, but it will be quite disappointing for many if they set their expectations to high, so many are quick to quash any ideas that seem overly excited.

AMD can only blame itself for customer reactions, after all.


----------



## trickson (Sep 19, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I think part of the problem is that, for example, with the phenom I launch, we were told by Leslie Sobon that 3GHz cpus were coming. They did, but not with Phenom I, at least, not for sale @ 3 GHz.
> 
> However, AMD did show CPUs running @ 3 GHz.
> 
> ...



Best statement in the entire thread !


----------



## Steven B (Sep 19, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Um...there was more than VID binning, IMHO, just FYI. I see more than just VID listings there:
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=43658&stc=1&d=1316449766
> 
> 
> ...


For a public demo, i don't think there is any public display of OC like this that use non binned CPUs. Its embarrassing if one CPu can't even do 6ghz, and it takes too much time otherwise. 

Yea well technically when you go for an extremely high frequency you want ES processors, whether its from intel or AMD, because usually they have unlocked/no set TDPs and thus can have very leaky transistors, high leakage = higher frequency potential. That is one reason you see Intel ES CPUs OC higher than retail, with Sandy bridge CPu PLl overvoltage changed that, but none the less. These frequencies are amazing, the only down part is that it doesn't take a nice CPU to hit those speeds, I think celerons owned the record before these buldozers. i just hope they can get to a moderate high frequency to beat a 6ghz SB-E, if we can see them benching at 1ghz higher AMD might be in luck!


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 19, 2011)

Yes, I do expect hard bininng for demo like this. 


I DO NOT expect anyone to claim otherwise. I wasn't evne going ot post in this thread; I just wanted to get that picture in there. I probably shouldn't have even bothered.

I've said before, it's cool to see, and a bit exciting, but I'll feel much better with chips in my hands to play with. Doesn't matter what ANYONE says, I refuse to make any judgments on Bulldozer until I do it myself, as many sources out in the wild are suspect, and this whole Bulldozer story has caught out quite a few people, for sure.

And myself, I'm fully aware of what chips were doing what. I still have a 347 cellery sitting here on my desk. Didn't keep it for no reasion.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 19, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I think part of the problem is that, for example, with the phenom I launch, we were told by Leslie Sobon that 3GHz cpus were coming. They did, but not with Phenom I, at least, not for sale @ 3 GHz.
> 
> However, AMD did show CPUs running @ 3 GHz.
> 
> ...


I have to disagree a bit with a couple of things...

1. You saw yourself from the picture in the news thread how many were labeled 8Ghz and how many were close. At least a few. Chew has also told us his method of selecting the chips and it wasnt nearly as in depth/binned as you think it was (quote to follow)...

2. If people here are setting their expectations that high, they just are clueless about how it was achieved. 

2a. This press release wasnt really meant for average joe TPU so much as it was for others that have an idea about extreme overclocking and what that means. Generally, and there are many exceptions, the higher a CPU can clock like this, the higher it can go with normal cooling...and that it scales quite well under cold and voltage.


----------



## digibucc (Sep 19, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> but it will be quite disappointing for many if they set their expectations to high, so many are quick to quash any ideas that seem overly excited.
> 
> AMD can only blame itself for customer reactions, after all.



i don't mean to be rude, but obviously.  anyone who gets their hopes up because of this can blame themselves though.

my point is simply take it by itself.  a silicon chip can now do instructions at 8.4ghz. that is technologically awesome and i don't think anyone saying so is expecting their retail chip to do anything close.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 19, 2011)

Oh, I agree, 100%(both with you, EarthDog, and you, Digibucc). This means much different things to the extreme user. My problem is that the extreme user, those that go to LN2 and better, are a dying breed, even in enthusiast circles.


Which is why I question how this event was marketed in the first place.


You get what I mean? I'm not trying to downplay how cool this is...but the fact remains it's only really cool to a few people, globally. like less than 0.000001% of the world's population cares that this CPU design can set a world record, and even less care that they can do it ONLY near absolute zero.

I mean, hasn't Intel shown 100GHz tansistors, or some such nonsense? How about a 100-core CPU? This is just as unimportant to daily life, and should not, really, be hyped as any real technological feat.

At least, not so early before CPUs are in retail. If this was done on launch day, I wouldn't have taken this side of the argument. I'd be busy trying to get chips to get these clocks myself.

Except reality has me sitting here analyzing it instead.


----------



## trickson (Sep 19, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Oh, I agree, 100%(both with you, EarthDog, and you, Digibucc). This means much different things to the extreme user. My problem is that the extreme user, thos ethat go to LN2 and better, are a dying breed, even in enthusiast circles.
> 
> 
> Which is why I question how this event was marketed in the first place.
> ...



Agreed . Nothing here has been shown to the MASSES at to what BD will be offering up performance wise . Most people could careless if a chip can clock to 8+ GHz if the performance is not there . It is a PR stunt and I hope to GOD it doesn't back fire on them .


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 19, 2011)

To quote a song from the 90's: This is ponderous man...really, ponderous.


----------



## digibucc (Sep 19, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> You get what I mean? I'm not trying to downplay how cool htis is...but the fact remains it's only really cool to a few people, globally. like less than 0.000001% of the world's population cares that this CPU design can set a world record, and even less care that they can do it near absolute zero.



i get it.

still though, i am not an overclocker.  my hardware is perfect for it, but i just don't have an interest.  i don't attend any shows, i don't do any of that.  i just think world speed cpu records are cool, and always have.

i think more people appreciate it just as a technological advancement. than you seem to think.  they don't have to understand the architecture to know 8.4ghz is a high number, a world record is a cool thing (imo) and a jump in speed (even under such conditions) is always welcome.

something of course can be said for how they released it, but i really just think people are sick of waiting and so are being cynical.  i choose to take it on it's own.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 19, 2011)

digibucc said:


> just as technological advancement than you think


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 19, 2011)

heky said:


> Who are you to tell me i dont have to stay. I have the right to express my opinion. And for your information, i am not an intel fanboy, i have many amd rigs at home. For my main rig i am currently using a intel i7 2600k, since it just brigns the best performance for money atm.



they way your portraying your attitude in every AMD thread proves that you are being one.


----------



## erocker (Sep 19, 2011)

Keep the conversations on topic and not pointed towards others.

Thank you.


----------



## lashton (Sep 19, 2011)

cdawall said:


> this record is for silicone based cpu. this record was also done on LHe not LN2...



Considering you are correcting everyone else, this was done on LN2 AND LHe, you may want to read the original article again!


----------



## lashton (Sep 19, 2011)

this OC was done because people said that the Bulldozer would not be overclocked (also as a PR stunt) well they were proved wrong


----------



## Steven B (Sep 19, 2011)

i don't think anyone said bulldozer wouldn't OC well, a 4.8ghz or so turbo(i am unsure of the actual turbo number but i think it was 4.8 or 4.4ghz) shows that a CPU can do 4.8 or 4.4*ghz under manufacturer specs means its going to OC very high, and AMD not really having issues with cold means that you can expect some very high frequencies. 

I just hope that these can bench at 7ghz consistently(also AMD later batches tend to be better than ES, just because the processing tech gets better(llano for example)), and hopefully be able to beat a 6ghz SB-E, if AMD can pull that off, 1ghz higher, same core numbers or even higher. If they can pull that off, average joes will buy them up and OC them to hell and not spend a fraction of what they would spend on a SB-E system. that is just the truth, AMD has beaten Intel before, if anyone here is old enough to remember the P4 days, AMD rocked, Then Intel gained room. I left the OC sense when Intel sucked, and my P4 561 held its own WR(still does), i come back and Intel is way ahead, now maybe the tides will turn. From what I have seen ambient temps and so Intel is far ahead, even with bulldozer, but this gives AMD a chance to win over the extreme overclockers.


----------



## trickson (Sep 19, 2011)

> Originally Posted by cdawall
> this record is for silicone based cpu. this record was also done on LHe not LN2...





> Originally Posted by lashton
> Considering you are correcting everyone else, this was done on LN2 AND LHe, you may want to read the original article again!



You just got SCHOOLED !


----------



## Steven B (Sep 20, 2011)

i have a question how do you use LN2 and LHe?


----------



## Fx (Sep 20, 2011)

DrPepper said:


> Generally the cpu's which have achieved world record oc's can achieve very high speeds on air and water.



+1

I agree, I dont try to do any extreme overclocking. this year is when I finally tried out water-cooling for my cpu

I dont ever overclock to any speed that is a pain to stabilize so I appreciate when I can take a cpu and easily overclock for a major bonus


----------



## qubit (Sep 20, 2011)

Fx said:


> +1
> 
> I agree, I dont try to do any extreme overclocking. this year is when I finally tried out water-cooling for my cpu
> 
> I dont ever overclock to any speed that is a pain to stabilize so I appreciate when I can take a cpu and easily overclock for a major bonus



+1 again. I got my E8500 CPU because I knew there was a very good chance I'd get a gig overclock out of it - and I did. All this with a few simple tweaks to the BIOS and good quality air cooling. Heck, most of the settings I just left on Auto! To get much more out of it though, I have to start getting a better cooler and fine tuning all the settings to make it stable, so I'm happy with the 4.11GHz I've got out of it.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 20, 2011)

Steven B said:


> i have a question how do you use LN2 and LHe?



It's in that video, no?


----------



## Steven B (Sep 20, 2011)

ahh i didn't watch it


----------



## NirXY (Sep 20, 2011)

lashton said:


> Considering you are correcting everyone else, this was done on LN2 AND LHe, you may want to read the original article again!



I suggest you go and read it yourself first..
LHe was used for the 8.4 record, LN2 (cheaper) was used to bin the chips (lower o/c).

not only they didn't use it together, it was a complete process to completely remove the LN2 residues before using LHe..

on topic, too sad they disabled 6 cores, i'm curious to max o/c on all 8 cores..
I really hate PR stunts


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 20, 2011)

Steven B said:


> ahh i didn't watch it



They used LN2 to cool the CPU down as low as they could, then swapped to LHe. They did the same @ the blackops event(although they screwed up at the blackops event and didn't hapve proper fittings, and wasted tonnes of LHe waiting for it to build up ice to seal. was very scar to watch them panic when the LHe leaked all over the garage on the streamcast).


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 20, 2011)

Those hose popped out at this event too, was quite funny.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 20, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> Those hose popped out at this event too, was quite funny.



it didn't pop out at the blackops, event, it was never in! 

And yeah, i saw it pop. Crazy stuff done by crazy guys, setting a crazy record. Seems fitting.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 20, 2011)

Whole thing is, we see wut the 1st gen Bulldozer is capable of, now we shall see how Bulldozer-E is next year



Steven B said:


> i don't think anyone said bulldozer wouldn't OC well, a 4.8ghz or so turbo(i am unsure of the actual turbo number but i think it was 4.8 or 4.4ghz) shows that a CPU can do 4.8 or 4.4*ghz under manufacturer specs means its going to OC very high, and AMD not really having issues with cold means that you can expect some very high frequencies.
> 
> I just hope that these can bench at 7ghz consistently(also AMD later batches tend to be better than ES, just because the processing tech gets better(llano for example)), and hopefully be able to beat a 6ghz SB-E, if AMD can pull that off, 1ghz higher, same core numbers or even higher. If they can pull that off, average joes will buy them up and OC them to hell and not spend a fraction of what they would spend on a SB-E system. that is just the truth, AMD has beaten Intel before, if anyone here is old enough to remember the P4 days, AMD rocked, Then Intel gained room. I left the OC sense when Intel sucked, and my P4 561 held its own WR(still does), i come back and Intel is way ahead, now maybe the tides will turn. From what I have seen ambient temps and so Intel is far ahead, even with bulldozer, but this gives AMD a chance to win over the extreme overclockers.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 20, 2011)

lashton said:


> Considering you are correcting everyone else, this was done on LN2 AND LHe, you may want to read the original article again!



no the final overclock was done on LHe there was no LN2 in the pot during the final clock. LN2 is used to bring the initial temps down so there isn't as much of a drastic drop leading to cracks fatigue etc. roughly the pot was brought down ~ -180C using LN2 and then the LHe is added to drop temps down to ~ -240C. do you have any other things you think i said incorrectly or would you just prefer i was more specific in my next posts?


----------



## Super XP (Sep 20, 2011)

Aren't these Bulldozer CPU's being tested the B0 stepping, the very first CPU's? The B1 or newer is probably the versions AMD is going to release sometime in Oct. 2011...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 20, 2011)

Bulldozer-E is on a new socket totally which AMD will stick with for sometime. I suspect early Models of Bulldozer-E will be AM3+ but at that time the second set will be soley on the new socket (supposedly FM2)


----------



## Super XP (Sep 21, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Bulldozer-E is on a new socket totally which AMD will stick with for sometime. I suspect early Models of Bulldozer-E will be AM3+ but at that time the second set will be soley on the new socket (supposedly FM2)


So in that case do we wait for Bulldozer-E with the new socket and chipset or we dive into Bulldozer once it gets released this Oct. 2011?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 21, 2011)

I say its optional but if the numbers do show its an improvement over PH2 n the turbo core function is higher why not upgrade. My Bros machine will get the upgrade once the final AM3+ Bulldozer Hits the shevles n is discontinued n that machine will then have 32GB ram if they ever release 8 GB DDR3 Modules


----------



## heky (Sep 21, 2011)

Super XP said:


> So in that case do we wait for Bulldozer-E



Sure, but the way things are going for AMD, you will wait till 2015.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

heky said:


> Sure, but the way things are going for AMD, you will wait till *2019*



Fixed that for you.


----------



## Imsochobo (Sep 21, 2011)

trickson said:


> Mine was on a Intel CPU . In-fact the one I have now . I could not break 4.0GHz with any of my AMD chips . :shadedshu



I was able to break 4ghz on a phenom 9850 with WATER! 

My phenom II 940 CRAPPY non cherry picked edition did 4.1 ghz, a friend of mine did 4.3


----------



## xenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

Imsochobo said:


> I was able to break 4ghz on a phenom 9850 with WATER!
> 
> My phenom II 940 CRAPPY non cherry picked edition did 4.1 ghz, a friend of mine did 4.3



The previous record of 8.3Ghz~ was on a Netburst Celeron.


----------



## Imsochobo (Sep 21, 2011)

xenocide said:


> The previous record of 8.3Ghz~ was on a Netburst Celeron.



this was on air.

ehm, even athlon 64's is able to do 4ghz with dry ice.
Phenom II does 5.5 ghz with ease on dry ice.

Netburst chips is like, 6 ghz, thats nothing. I guess bulldozer will be the same, but they are made by nature to allow latencies and such.
I've heard IPC and real life speed per mhz is increased however not on par with intel, but they will be having very high clocks, I think they're gonna be rather competetive for the first time in decades, lets hope things happen quicker in the cpu world onwards.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 21, 2011)

netburst is all, OMG MHz followed by OH CRAP SOLITAIRE, LAAGGGGGG


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Sep 21, 2011)

Netburst is good for Health and Safety. That lag is by design: Work a bit, lag, so get up, walk around, have a coffee, take a short break. ;-P


----------



## xenocide (Sep 22, 2011)

Imsochobo said:


> I've heard IPC and real life speed per mhz is increased however not on par with intel, but they will be having very high clocks, I think they're gonna be rather competetive for the first time in decades



Decades?  They were competitive in terms of performance as recently as 6 years ago...


----------



## Super XP (Sep 23, 2011)

Netburst was a pile of garbage and greatly lacked innovation. To help hide the bottlenecks, you jacked up the speed. Bulldozer has nothing to do with Netburst regardless of the length of the pipes.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 23, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Decades?  They were competitive in terms of performance as recently as 6 years ago...



AMD dominated with K8 Till Intel got their act together with Core 2, AMD was hampered by first Gen K10 but fixed it but was too late with K10 Rev 2.


----------

