# AMD FX Sets Guinness Record for Clock Speed



## btarunr (Sep 13, 2011)

Weeks ahead of its market launch, AMD pulled off a nice PR feat by setting making its trusty squad of overclockers, Sami Mäkinen, Brian Mclachlan, Pete Hardman, and Aaron Schradin set a new clock speed world record (as in Guinness World Record). With just one of its four modules enabled, the eight-core FX-8150 engineering sample was overclocked to a stunning 8429.38 MHz. The chip was able to tolerate a brutal core voltage of 2.016V. Even for a one-in-a-million cherry-picked chip, those are staggering numbers. 

8429.38 MHz was achieved using a base clock of 271.92 MHz, with 31.0X multiplier. The memory used was a Corsair Dominator GT single module, which apparently tolerated 3:10 DRAM ratio and timings of 2-16-2-22. That's right, 2-16-2-22. ASUS Crosshair V Formula seated the platform. Cooling was care of a custom liquid-nitrogen evaporator setup. The team used liquid nitrogen as its cooling medium, and switched to liquid helium halfway, which has a lower boiling point. The team cherry-picked chips from the best lots on-site. 



 

A video of the feat follows.












This feat was more of a hit-and-run, in which the system could run at the desired frequency stable enough to make a CPU-Z validation, no proper stability testing was done. AMD claims that frequencies over 5.00 GHz were possible using sub-$100 cooling solutions (now that can be anything between a high-end heatsink and a cheap closed-loop liquid cooler). AMD did a similar overclocking feat ahead of its Phenom II processor launch.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## btarunr (Sep 13, 2011)




----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 13, 2011)

Meh, good to see it doesn't have a cold bug, but not much here to be excited about.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 13, 2011)

LOL at the salt mine...

Anyhoo, memory timings were (obviously?) not showing up correct.


----------



## sunil (Sep 13, 2011)

World record? who cares show us some benchmarks and true performance.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Sep 13, 2011)

Pretty awesome feat no doubt. 
I still want to see real world numbers.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 13, 2011)

sunil said:


> World record? who cares show us some benchmarks and true performance.



Gotta agree, more over they were engi samples not consumer chips, if it's so close to launch why not use consumer chips ?


----------



## _JP_ (Sep 13, 2011)

That's great! Really, it is.
But there's still a problem with it.



*It isn't available in stores!* 



Fix that and I will be happy.


----------



## Shihab (Sep 13, 2011)

Just a little bit after the pre-order prices came out. Hmmm, a publicity stunt, a good one, and an impressive achievement. But I'm still sceptic about their performance.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Sep 13, 2011)

_JP_ said:


> That's great! Really, it is.
> But there's still a problem with it.
> 
> 
> ...



That's why it's not available in stores. They used all the chips to find the one that can do 8+ GHz!


----------



## Sihastru (Sep 13, 2011)

They forgot to put in the other "six" "cores". Some of the wooden screws must've gotten loose... Since it's the eight-core FX-8150 engineering sample, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 2 threads.... Not valid.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 13, 2011)

It's like Intel when they couldn't get good performance, so they just started breaking clock speed records with the P4...


----------



## WarraWarra (Sep 13, 2011)

LOL


> FX to hit 8.429 GHz, besting the old record of 8.308 GHz. How well the system would actually perform under those conditions was left unexplored



So it can run 121mhz faster than last record okay.

If they LNC'd the memory + north bridge / south bridge they could have done more ?
Why the did not try remains a mystery. 
Maybe they planned to fail and only reach 121mhz higher ?  

I wonder if this FX also suffers from Intel cold / flu when Intel i7 reaches 18C or lower and starts to work worse than above 18C or something like that.


----------



## inferKNOX (Sep 13, 2011)

_JP_ said:


> Fix that and I will be happy.



Or will you? (considering we're still waiting for RL performance figures)


----------



## _JP_ (Sep 13, 2011)

Sihastru said:


> They forgot to put in the other "six" "cores". Some of the wooden screws must've gotten loose... Since it's the eight-core FX-8150 engineering sample, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 2 threads.... Not valid.


AMD bashing with a side of nVidia? That's a new combo (in my book). Interesting to see, now take your fanboi business elsewhere.


inferKNOX said:


> Or will you? (considering we're still waiting for RL performance figures)


Given that, if it were available in stores, hence anybody could buy it, I could expect benchmarks shortly after.
I would be happy, yes. Not because this might be my future processor choice, but because I could stop waiting and buy something and not feel bad about it 3 days later.


----------



## Breathless (Sep 13, 2011)

You guys are completely missing the point (facepalm)


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Sep 13, 2011)

"AMD" and "Overclocking record" in the same sentence? Haven't heard that in quite a while. Now they just need to START SELLING THEM.


----------



## Breathless (Sep 13, 2011)

Yellow&Nerdy? said:


> "AMD" and "Overclocking record" in the same sentence? Haven't heard that in quite a while



This is the point. Not sure why everyone is making a big stink about selling them, that is never the case with the products of overclocking records. Its JUST FOR FUN.


----------



## Sihastru (Sep 13, 2011)

It's not bashing, it's observing a few inconsistencies. Is it not true that most of the chip is disabled? Is it not true that it says there on the validation page "2 cores, 2 threads"?

Wooden screws can be used in many instances, nVidia does not hold the IP on those. A "fanboi" would be someone blinded by their infatuation, 2 out of 8 is just 25%, and that's a big difference.

Wasn't AMD that complained recently about "dark silicon"? ( <== now that's bashing)


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 13, 2011)

Thats how they do it Sihastru (CPUz clockspeed records)...you disable cores to achieve the highest clockspeed. Its obviously not for 24/7 clocks considering that as well as the cooling method.  Put it in a bit of perspective men. 



WarraWarra said:


> I wonder if this FX also suffers from Intel cold / flu when Intel i7 reaches 18C or lower and starts to work worse than above 18C or something like that.


Obviously not considering they used Lhe to cool the processor.


----------



## bpgt64 (Sep 13, 2011)

Really could care less....Whats stupid is we've seen benchmarks from the LGA 2011 lineup before we've seen Bulldozer's performance level.  All signs indicate that this is intentionally done because of lack luster performance.

TLDR;  Doesn't matter if it does 5Ghz on air, if it gets beat by a stock i7 2600k it's pointless.


----------



## Sihastru (Sep 13, 2011)

Hey man, good for them, but the story has gone viral, and these details have already been lost. And that's where the Devil lives, in the details...


----------



## Thefumigator (Sep 13, 2011)

Good for AMD


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 13, 2011)

Oh man!!!!!   Bulldozer just stomped all over intel celerons!!!! I'm going to stand in line .....somewhere!


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Sep 13, 2011)

Er, how is revving your 50cc motorbike/vespa to breaking point anything of interest. Seriously, if they had all 8 cores blowing and stable with world record benchmark numbers, then that would be worth noting. This isnt. Q. Can it run minesweeper? A. No.

Message to these boys: Listen. If you want to be a geeky nerd, fine. But do something to impress us. Don't have a camera focused on yourself like you are doing something that will put us in awe. When it didn't. Fail. Even bigger fail to AMD that thinks this is worthy. Corporate Fail. (And that's even worse!)


----------



## trickson (Sep 13, 2011)

bpgt64 said:


> Really could care less....Whats stupid is we've seen benchmarks from the LGA 2011 lineup before we've seen Bulldozer's performance level.  All signs indicate that this is intentionally done because of lack luster performance.
> 
> TLDR;  Doesn't matter if it does 5Ghz on air, if it gets beat by a stock i7 2600k it's pointless.



I agree . Lots of fluff right now nothing indicating any performance at all .


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 13, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Er, how is revving your 50cc motorbike/vespa to breaking point anything of interest. Seriously, if they had all 8 cores blowing and stable with world record benchmark numbers, then that would be worth noting. This isnt. Q. Can it run minesweeper? A. No.
> 
> Message to these boys: Listen. If you want to be a geeky nerd, fine. But do something to impress us. Don't have a camera focused on yourself like you are doing something that will put us in awe. When it didn't. Fail. Even bigger fail to AMD that thinks this is worthy. Corporate Fail. (And that's even worse!)



Gotta agree, this is a pretty fail attention grab.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 13, 2011)

I don't understand the flaming here. Anyone with half a brain knows this isn't a performance test, this isn't showing anything about what we will be receiving. They are just breaking a number that has stood for I believe 5 years or so, which is a long time for records to stand in the ever evolving PC world. You will see benches soon enough, if anyone was to go out and base their processor purchase (for daily use) on benching done using anything above water cooling, thats your own fault.


----------



## DanishDevil (Sep 13, 2011)

IMO, if this news doesn't make your nuts tingle, you don't belong on this forum


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 13, 2011)

trickson said:


> I agree . Lots of fluff right now nothing indicating any performance at all .


Fluff

Fluff

Fluff

Fluff

Fluff

Fluff

Fluff

Fluff


Ok.. we get it. 




> IMO, if this news doesn't make your nuts tingle, you don't belong on this forum



OMG That is sig worthy!


----------



## trickson (Sep 13, 2011)

What would WOW me is if they did this on all 8 cores ! Kind of seems a bit lacking when you have an 8 core CPU and have to disable all the cores but 2 to achieve some thing meaningless like this . But I guess if AMD wants to show off what they can do like this , They can . I want to be WOWED and this did nothing but piss me off . Show some real substance show some real performance not this BS fluff job ! AMD 8 core CPU can hit 8+ GHz if you have LN2 and all but 2 cores disabled ! WOW !


----------



## linoliveira (Sep 13, 2011)

gotta agree... all the flaming for what? this is an enthusiast run there... isn't where we all interested in here? i did get impressed with the high freqs, now just wait for RL benches and stop flaming like an Intel fanboy who got crashed by a Bulldozer.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 13, 2011)

DanishDevil said:


> IMO, if this news makes your nuts tingle, you don't belong on this forum



Survey says: 


Corrected!


----------



## trickson (Sep 13, 2011)

DanishDevil said:


> IMO, if this news doesn't make your nuts tingle, you don't belong on this forum



LOL . Honestly just how many of these will get in the hands of US ? Nothing news worthy here . I mean yeah good job getting that CPU up there and all , I do not see how this is relevant to any end user .


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 13, 2011)

trickson said:


> LOL . Honestly just how many of these will get in the hands of US ? Nothing news worthy here . I mean yeah good job getting that CPU up there and all , I do not see how this is relevant to any end user .


This is clearly not for you...and you have made that abudently, flufflily, clear. 

Some people, albeit a tiny minority are excited about this though.


----------



## trickson (Sep 13, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> This is clearly not for you...and you have made that abudently, flufflily, clear.
> 
> Some people, albeit a tiny minority are excited about this though.



I just do not see what is so exciting is all . I am really wanting this chip so I am looking at it with eyes wide open . And if you know me then yes I like a great over clocking Chip as in my sig my CPU now has been going strong at 4.2GHz ! I hope these will do that and more yes 24/7 fully stable .


----------



## repman244 (Sep 13, 2011)

I really can't believe some of the posts here....

First of all they need a design which they can improve (they don't have the money to make new designs all the time like Intel does) and a design where you can gain performance by increasing frequency and by doing small improvements (which are cheap!).
Second: a CPU to compete with mid-range CPU's (2500k for an example) because that's where the money is and not high-end $1k chips.

While doing all of that why not break a WR? I don't see a problem with this, are you all jealous of those clocks?
I think it's a nice way to promote the chip and don't see anything wrong with it.

All of those whining about that they only used 2 core...well did you even take a look at the current top 20 list? I guess not, so here you go: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/
Weird isn't it, all those celerons....
When you are after a frequency world record you do not care about the number of core (it is pointless...) all you care is the maximum you can get out of the CPU, that's how freq. WR's are set just deal with it.

Here comes the more important part:

This WR may be pointless to some but then again it shows just how much clock potential the CPU has for future (and this is only the beginning!). 
Just like the first Phenom II's that barely made it to 6.4GHz on LN2 but at the end they got all the way up to 7.4GHz (and you could see that frequency increase on stock frequency at the same TDP).
If you think all of this is pointless, well you are on the wrong forum...

I could be wrong on this one but as far as I know JF-AMD said that IPC increases compared to the current Phenom II's, and if you combine that IPC increase with a much higher clock potential, isn't that a win?


----------



## trickson (Sep 13, 2011)

OK I guess you are right . I am looking at this all wrong . AMD hit a WR overclock now that is great YES it is . The wow factor is there for sure .


----------



## Steevo (Sep 13, 2011)

If you look at raw integer performance on the server chips compared to the same core architecture in server chips Intel is making we see they are still behind in CORE IPC, but in threaded IPC they are 30% ahead at the same clock rate from my math. 

So multithreaded applications will benefit from these new chips, single threaded applications will require a higher frequency than the competitive Intel chip to attain the same performance. Single threaded apps currently are going the way of the dodo, and those still in use can be ran effectively by older processor, meaning current gen processors have more than enough to run them fine. 

So at the end of the day, what does this mean? 

I will take a overclockable 5+Ghz 8 core chip that offers superior performance than a 4 core hyper-threading chip, and does it at a lower price any day. Especially when the whole platform costs less than the equivalent platform from Intel.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 13, 2011)

Steevo said:


> So multithreaded applications will benefit from these new chips, single threaded applications will require a higher frequency than the competitive Intel chip to attain the same performance



Yes, IMO that's how it's going to be, the aggressive high frequency turbo is there for the ST workloads.

I think everyone should be happy with performance that is close to 2500k-2600k at same/lower price. I mean look how much behind SB Phenom II is...they are really doing a massive leap in performance to come close to it (everyone is comparing the FX chips to SB but no one compares them to Phenom II).


----------



## trickson (Sep 13, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Yes, IMO that's how it's going to be, the aggressive high frequency turbo is there for the ST workloads.
> 
> I think everyone should be happy with performance that is close to 2500k-2600k at same/lower price. I mean look how much behind SB Phenom II is...they are really doing a massive leap in performance to come close to it (everyone is comparing the FX chips to SB but no one compares them to Phenom II).



Now I am getting all excited . My new build will be so cool BD !


----------



## repman244 (Sep 13, 2011)

trickson said:


> LOL . Honestly just how many of these will get in the hands of US ? Nothing news worthy here . I mean yeah good job getting that CPU up there and all , I do not see how this is relevant to any end user .



Well you might be interested in this then, directly from chew*:



> I would not go as far as to say cherry picked. I blind pulled with no windows testing 24 chips based on there VID, the 4th chip we tested (note not a pretested ever chip ) did 8.4
> 
> We still had twenty chips left to try out but really didn't care after the 4th one.......



http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...-info-fans-!&p=4948757&viewfull=1#post4948757


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 13, 2011)

Glad you/he posted that. I knew that tidbit but wasnt sure if I could share.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Sep 13, 2011)

Sihastru said:


> It's not bashing, it's observing a few inconsistencies. Is it not true that most of the chip is disabled? Is it not true that it says there on the validation page "2 cores, 2 threads"?
> 
> Wooden screws can be used in many instances, nVidia does not hold the IP on those. A "fanboi" would be someone blinded by their infatuation, 2 out of 8 is just 25%, and that's a big difference.
> 
> Wasn't AMD that complained recently about "dark silicon"? ( <== now that's bashing)



It's completely valid and it's how it's done on both teams amd and intel.  I personally know chew who is in that video and i've been to his house and benched with him.  The validation is only to see how hi the chip goes under any condidition, each core is raised independently of each other to find the one that goes the highest, then when they find that, they push that one the hardest.  intell does the same thing.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 13, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> I don't understand the flaming here. Anyone with half a brain knows this isn't a performance test, this isn't showing anything about what we will be receiving. They are just breaking a number that has stood for I believe 5 years or so, which is a long time for records to stand in the ever evolving PC world. You will see benches soon enough, if anyone was to go out and base their processor purchase (for daily use) on benching done using anything above water cooling, thats your own fault.





DanishDevil said:


> IMO, if this news doesn't make your nuts tingle, you don't belong on this forum



If this was an Intel chip the tune on here would be much different. But hey, thats life. I mean in the end its just a record which is in no way indicative of consumer performance. Its like drag racing is no way indicative of an every day driving experience. 

However I do find it funny how defensive people get of one brand showing off something that couldn't count for less against another brand. I had no idea this forum was so eat up with fanboys. To much new blood.

This post made me lol 
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2393800&postcount=2

Thats EXACTLY how it should be taken.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 13, 2011)

imho its just nice to get some rock solid facts goin on, cant be long now untill we all Know what they will do in benches


----------



## NC37 (Sep 13, 2011)

WarraWarra said:


> I wonder if this FX also suffers from Intel cold / flu when Intel i7 reaches 18C or lower and starts to work worse than above 18C or something like that.



AMD CPUs won't. One of the reasons they are behind in tech is because they make their CPUs able to handle temperature extremes, extreme cold mostly. I remember reading it takes extra work for them to keep designing for this. Intel doesn't do this. But this is more of a thing scientists would care about.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 13, 2011)

NC37 said:


> AMD CPUs won't. One of the reasons they are behind in tech is because they make their CPUs able to handle temperature extremes, extreme cold mostly. I remember reading it takes extra work for them to keep designing for this. Intel doesn't do this. But this is more of a thing scientists would care about.



You don't think it has anything to do with the fact Intels R&D department has a budget the size of an aircraft carrier?


----------



## Lionheart (Sep 13, 2011)

GO AMD woooo


----------



## lashton (Sep 13, 2011)

*really?*

Peop,e are completely missing the point it shows the FX could (possibly) iverclock better than the 2600K but intel fanboys just shuddered in thier pants at this news


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 13, 2011)

lashton said:


> Peop,e are completely missing the point it shows the FX could (possibly) iverclock better than the 2600K but intel fanboys just shuddered in thier pants at this news



I think you mistake some people as intel fanboys, when really, this info really tells them nothing, and that's why they are not impressed. Most users care about what BD can do for THEM, 24/7, not what it can do for a handful of people, for a few minutes.

If it overclocks to 60 GHz, but is slower than the 2600k, does it matter that it can hit 60 GHz? 


NOPE.

This event should have been saved for the launch, IMHO, and that's MY personal issue with it. Again, AMD marketing missed out on a golden oppotunity. Done right, they could have sold a CPU to every single person at the event, but htey cannot, beucase the CPU is still unreleased.

Great, a CPU that can set records...that isn't even for sale yet. I'd open up my wallet...but there's no point. And if htere's no point in me opening my wallet, there's no point in this news, IMHO.

Don't get me wrong though, it's good to see high clocks.

Of course, you also need to keep in mind that Guinness also has a record for the longest nipple hair. Yeah, that's where I want to be, next to the dude with the world's longest nipple hair!


----------



## N3M3515 (Sep 13, 2011)

wow, the next amd cpu on the list is at 117th


----------



## LightningJR (Sep 13, 2011)

single core @ 8.4Ghz, now maybe cities xl will be playable...


----------



## repman244 (Sep 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> This event should have been saved for the launch, IMHO, and that's MY personal issue with it. Again, AMD marketing missed out on a golden oppotunity. Done right, they could have sold a CPU to every single person at the event, but htey cannot, beucase the CPU is still unreleased.



My personal view is that they showed this today because of IDF  No one is actually talking about it, all focus is on BD, more or less. It may be a "dirty" move but it's a dirty world we live in


----------



## rangerone766 (Sep 13, 2011)

i'm just hoping BD's performance is close to intels at a lower price.

i'm rocking a Q9550 @ 4.1 and itching for an upgrade. i've never owned AMD and would like to support the underdog this time around.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Yeah, that's where I want to be, next to the dude with the world's longest nipple hair!


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 13, 2011)

repman244 said:


> My personal view is that they showed this today because of IDF  No one is actually talking about it, all focus is on BD, more or less. It may be a "dirty" move but it's a dirty world we live in



Yeah, I get that. Why did they need to steal Intel's thunder? Are we a bunch of grade school kids throwing insults in the school yard? Because that's 100% the impression that AMD gives, if you want to take that angle. I just chose to ignore the chilish nature of doing this now during IDF.

It's like AMD is mad that INtel has some attnetion, as is screaming for everyone to look at them. Um, really?

Of course, beucase it's Simon, I expect as much, but I so hopes he grows up soon. He's agressive at times, for sure, but oh so much about the wrong things.



rangerone766 said:


> i'm just hoping BD's performance is close to intels at a lower price.
> 
> i'm rocking a Q9550 @ 4.1 and itching for an upgrade. i've never owned AMD and would like to support the underdog this time around.



I don't evne care how close to Intel BD is. it REALLY REALLY doesn't matter.

I mean, you could say now, that BD sucks, and because they cannot beat them in performance, they had to beat them in clockspeed, which is meaningless if the performance doesn't match.


THat said, these prelistings have me very excited. Cheap chips are cheap chips, and as long as the performance is ACCEPTABLE, it doesn't have to be the fastest thing on the planet. Just give me a good deal, and I'll sell, no problem.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> It's like AMD is mad that INtel has some attnetion, as is screaming for everyone to look at them. Um, really?



Thats the way marketing works.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 13, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Thats the way marketing works.



No, that is how marketing is DONE, but not how it WORKS. Effective marketing is a psychologial thriller, that imprints intself permanently in your head, leaving scars.

World records in computing are broken on a regular basis. No big deal, even AMD hints that there's more to come. 


Great.



BORING.


But great.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> No, that is how marketing is DONE, but not how it WORKS. Effective marketing is a psychologial thriller, that imprints intself permanently in your head, leaving scars.
> 
> World records in computing are broken on a regular basis. No big deal, even AMD hints that there's more to come.
> 
> ...



We are talking about AMD. Marketing mission accomplished.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> No, that is how marketing is DONE, but not how it WORKS.



I disagree.




TheMailMan78 said:


> We are talking about AMD. Marketing mission accomplished.




I agree,

The fact that this thread is nearly on page 4, and will probably end at page 10. And the fact that all the other enthusiast forums are talking about this overclocking record indicate that AMD's marketing is working.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 13, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> We are talking about AMD. Marketing mission accomplished.



You know, the thing is, I love AMD, so stuff like this is really disappointing.


I dunno, i think last time, when they actually advertized doing the live streams, around the world...was better, almost, but they were missing Macci. WHY CAN I NOT HAVE BOTH!




Dent1 said:


> The fact that this thread is nearly on page 4



 except that alot of the posts are my own.



Dent1 said:


> And the fact that all the other enthusiast forums are talking about this overclocking record indicate that AMD's marketing is working



Hmm. I guess.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Sep 13, 2011)

They enable only 2 coers right?


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 13, 2011)

Nice to know, but as some have said, AMD would have impressed me more personally, if they simply also did some overclocking with 8 cores at say 1.4V and acheived lets say 4.5gig stable on high end air.  Nevertheless, like it or not it is a record, one I suspect that a few will try to beat pretty soon.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 13, 2011)

Hayder_Master said:


> They enable only 2 coers right?



Correct (1 module in fact...).


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 13, 2011)

This is marketing genius to the mainstream market. The average consumer doesn't know details, they hear world record speed and that's all they hear. It will stick with them. To add to that, they are stealing Intel's thunder. Time will tell, but I think that this could lead to some serious market share gain. Especially if they deliver a product that is competitive.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 13, 2011)

Found some really neat pictures if anyone is interested:











More here: 

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...-achieves-new-world-record-cpu-frequency.html


----------



## trickson (Sep 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I think you mistake some people as intel fanboys, when really, this info really tells them nothing, and that's why they are not impressed. Most users care about what BD can do for THEM, 24/7, not what it can do for a handful of people, for a few minutes.
> 
> If it overclocks to 60 GHz, but is slower than the 2600k, does it matter that it can hit 60 GHz?
> 
> ...


LOL I agree with you . And I would hate to be next to the guy with the worlds largest nipple hair too ! Or the guy with the worlds longest toe nail's  ! GROSS ! 
How can AMD keep missing the mark like this ? Just put out what the thing can do if you want to get to the masses , This is a let down . Good OC ? Yeah , Mean any thing ? No .


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Sep 13, 2011)

Forget the 8ghz cpu what about the CAS 2 ram!!  lol  That is crazy.  But in all honesty it isn't a bench test and its only 1 core...  It is a bit of a tease though


----------



## repman244 (Sep 13, 2011)

DrunkenMafia said:


> what about the CAS 2 ram



It was probably a glitch, the RAM was at 9-9-9-27-1T.
More details here: http://hwbot.org/submission/2206528_macci_cpu_frequency_fx_8150_8429.38_mhz


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 13, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Well you might be interested in this then, directly from chew*:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...-info-fans-!&p=4948757&viewfull=1#post4948757



So they got lucky speculating they could have gone higher because they got a cherry chip on the 4th try is dumb.

It's sad how many people are willing to make performance based on a best of the best ideal conditions OC that has 0 basis on real world performance.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 13, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> So they got lucky speculating they could have gone higher because they got a cherry chip on the 4th try is dumb.
> 
> It's sad how many people are willing to make performance based on a best of the best ideal conditions OC that has 0 basis on real world performance.



Why is that dumb, I think chew or someone else mentioned that the batches are changing on weekly basis so the chips could actually be improving, and if you take a look of how much cherry picking it took the Celeron guys to get the right one! Same thing.
Cherry picked or not they overclock like nothing before.

And also, it's a god damn world record, records are usually broken in abnormal conditions.

I already stated in my previous post that sometimes these high clocks can translate in high stock clocks.


----------



## trickson (Sep 13, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> So they got lucky speculating they could have gone higher because they got a cherry chip on the 4th try is dumb.
> 
> It's sad how many people are willing to make performance based on a best of the best ideal conditions OC that has 0 basis on real world performance.



Maybe AMD need it to be this way for a reason ? I mean really if they knew that they had a far better chip than there rival and it was faster wouldn't AMD be posting up BM and test scores not just this ? If not this is a great gimmick and will get them supper-clocking geeks interested at best . I seam to remember the Athlon days when AMD was on top they would put out test scores and BM this crap was not part of there marketing ! Well time will tell . AMD I am looking to build another setup in a couple of months I hope to GOD that BD can take the crown ! I do not want to know if a Cherry picked engineering sample ( I will NEVER see ) can reach 8GHz ! It is NOT some thing I am interested in , Great job on that OC and all but I need real world performance and I fail to see this YET !


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 13, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Found some really neat pictures if anyone is interested:
> 
> http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/mac/articles/AMDFXWordRecord/50th.jpg



That looks like Mr. Freezes fleshlight.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 13, 2011)

I'll tell you all what.

Let's see a nice round number....


*IT'S OVER 9000!!!*


----------



## Casecutter (Sep 13, 2011)

Who thinks they should be catching L-N without gloves?  

Marketing exploit that probably bubbled-up with bad timing, but it is at least substantiate story.... it does constitute “news”.

The right thing was like cadaveca said, “AMD should have saved it for launch day” as just a "hey by the way"... But this was going to come out, trying to keep it hush with that many “named OC’rs” hoping to keep quiet.  
I think AMD just figured let it out (rather than rumor) and collaborate that it was done.

It doesn't mean much IMO, but if it is a record that has stood for 5 years that’s an achievement.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 13, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Why is that dumb, I think chew or someone else mentioned that the batches are changing on weekly basis so the chips could actually be improving, and if you take a look of how much cherry picking it took the Celeron guys to get the right one! Same thing.
> Cherry picked or not they overclock like nothing before.
> 
> And also, it's a god damn world record, records are usually broken in abnormal conditions.
> ...



I never said anything about celeron, I am saying this is nothing to be excited about now had it been 5ghz on air stable on all 8 cores, paired with a release date people might actually give a damn.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 13, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I never said anything about celeron, I am saying this is nothing to be excited about now had it been 5ghz on air stable on all 8 cores, paired with a release date people might actually give a damn.



Oh well...



> Brian and Sami mentioned doing 5Ghz on air running fully multi-threaded benchmarks.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 13, 2011)

BTW has anyone seen this???

_AMD accidentally leaks FX-8150 price tag_
http://news.techeye.net/chips/amd-accidentally-leaks-fx-8150-price-tag


----------



## xenocide (Sep 13, 2011)

I love that a handful of people posted saying they didn't really care and wanted actual performance numbers, and that they wanted to see the chips available before AMD started talking about breaking records.

Then there were 2 pages of posts whining about AMD bashing.  Seriously?

To be honest, it doesn't matter if the chip can go to 20GHz.  If it underperforms it underperforms.  P4's with Netburst clocked a LOT higher than Athlon XP's, but they were still weaker when it came to performance.  As stated, Intel has already released some stuff for LGA2011, why can't AMD push out even 1 performance metric for Bulldozer?


----------



## trickson (Sep 13, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I never said anything about celeron, I am saying this is nothing to be excited about now had it been 5ghz on air stable on all 8 cores, paired with a release date people might actually give a damn.



I would have , But this is just , Well I do not know . what this was meant to do . It has us talking but not much beyond that . Nothing is really known other than with 2 cores ( Or One ) you can get high over clocks with MASSIVE power and the use of LN . I think that AMD is letting out this because much beyond that OC there is nothing . Sad but what else is there to go on ? I will wait , I am hopping the crown is taken from Intel but if not then so be it .


----------



## trickson (Sep 13, 2011)

xenocide said:


> I love that a handful of people posted saying they didn't really care and wanted actual performance numbers, and that they wanted to see the chips available before AMD started talking about breaking records.
> 
> Then there were 2 pages of posts whining about AMD bashing.  Seriously?
> 
> To be honest, it doesn't matter if the chip can go to 20GHz.  If it underperforms it underperforms.  P4's with Netburst clocked a LOT higher than Athlon XP's, but they were still weaker when it came to performance.  As stated, Intel has already released some stuff for LGA2011, why can't AMD push out even 1 performance metric for Bulldozer?



You miss the point .


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 13, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Oh well...



And I have a gold plated toilet I really do but I can't be bothered to prove it, if your willing to believe spin go for but no proof = untrue.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 13, 2011)

xenocide said:


> To be honest, it doesn't matter if the chip can go to 20GHz.  If it underperforms it underperforms.  P4's with Netburst clocked a LOT higher than Athlon XP's, but they were still weaker when it came to performance.  As stated, Intel has already released some stuff for LGA2011, why can't AMD push out even 1 performance metric for Bulldozer?



True but, AFAIK P4 had lower IPC than P3 with higher clock, that's why it failed. BD has higher clock and higher IPC than Phenom II.

Well AMD is not Intel and they have their own policies on what to show and what not to show




> And I have a gold plated toilet I really do but I can't be bothered to prove it, if your willing to believe spin go for but no proof = untrue.



I just quoted it from the guys that did the OC what more do you want?


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 13, 2011)

repman244 said:


> I just quoted it from the guys that did the OC what more do you want?



I believe I have been pretty clear, some proof would be a step in the right direction. No CPU-Z validation, no benchmarks nothing, just some random dude saying he clocked an engi sample.  ..  very trust worthy source.:shadedshu


----------



## trickson (Sep 13, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I believe I have been pretty clear, some proof would be a step in the right direction. No CPU-Z validation, no benchmarks nothing, just some random dude saying he clocked an engi sample.  ..  very trust worthy source.:shadedshu



Yeah agreed . :shadedshu


----------



## repman244 (Sep 13, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I believe I have been pretty clear, some proof would be a step in the right direction. No CPU-Z validation, no benchmarks nothing, just some random dude saying he clocked an engi sample.  ..  very trust worthy source.:shadedshu



Random dude? You have to be joking, right? They just happen to be one of the best AMD OC'ers in the world.
Let me quote AT then since you don't believe the "random" guys:



> AMD was conducting overclocking experiments at the tech day and had three different stations setup for us to look at. The first used a sub-$100 closed-loop waster cooling solution from Antec (Kühler series). I can't tell you much about the chip itself other than it is an 8-core FX processor that AMD was able to overclock to 4.8GHz using the Antec Kühler.


http://www.anandtech.com/show/4770/...cking-record-with-8429ghz-bulldozer-processor

And I bet that some CPU's will have no problem being stable at 5GHz with some tweaking.


----------



## trickson (Sep 13, 2011)

repman244 said:


> And I bet that some CPU's will have no problem being stable at 5GHz with some tweaking.



Will see , But I am not going to put much stock in this till they launch the thing !


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 13, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Random dude? You have to be joking, right? They just happen to be one of the best AMD OC'ers in the world.
> Let me quote AT then since you don't belive the "random" guys:
> 
> 
> ...



If you don't understand that if you can't prove it, then it's not true I don't know what to say to you. I'm saying it's fud no matter who says it unless they have proof to back it up which they do *NOT*! Like AMD would admit anything negative, of course they will promise the moon, it's what they deliver that matters, and as of this moments they haven't even given a release date, only FUD!


----------



## zenlaserman (Sep 13, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> <snip>I'm saying it's fud<snip>only FUD!



You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 13, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> If you don't understand that if you can't prove it, then it's not true I don't know what to say to you. I'm saying it's fud no matter who says it unless they have proof to back it up which they do *NOT*! Like AMD would admit anything negative, of course they will promise the moon, it's what they deliver that matters, and as of this moments they haven't even given a release date, only FUD!



And I don't know what to say to you either other than you clearly have no ideas who these guys are and how much have they accomplished.

I'll end here since I see you aren't interested in listening/reading anything.

Over and out.


----------



## Casecutter (Sep 13, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF - That's all BS... 

"Guinness World Record" means they would not able to say that unless it is verified and ‘substantiated by representatives’ from Guinness 
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/faq/


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 13, 2011)

zenlaserman said:


> You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.



Inconcievable!!!


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 13, 2011)

Hmm, I can set my APU to like 10 GHz, doesn't mean it's actually running @ 10 GHz...CPU-Z shows it as whatever is set.










 I think AMD hired a bunch of goons to pull a fast one on Guinness.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 13, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Inconcievable!!!


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 13, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> http://www.strategicdc.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/inconceivable.jpg



I love that movie.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Sep 13, 2011)

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/search/

I can't find any relevant Guinness World Record that AMD has beaten.

And if I google I can find faster "processors". 

So do they mean "the fastest overclocked x86 architecture"?  And do they INTEND to make this a "Guinness world record" thing? Because there isn't one out there to beat! Amazing how "PR" goes viral.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 14, 2011)

repman244 said:


> And I don't know what to say to you either other than you clearly have no ideas who these guys are and how much have they accomplished.
> 
> I'll end here since I see you aren't interested in listening/reading anything.
> 
> Over and out.



LOL okay, because I point out there is no proof to their claims because they can't or won't prove it, I'm not listening, I think you don't understand what I am saying.



Casecutter said:


> [H]@RD5TUFF - That's all BS...
> 
> "Guinness World Record" means they would not able to say that unless it is verified and ‘substantiated by representatives’ from Guinness
> http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/faq/



No one was questioning if the "record" was legit, people were saying they didn't care or that they weren't impressed. Did you even bother reading the thread before you came to QQ ?



Completely Bonkers said:


> http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/search/
> 
> I can't find any relevant Guinness World Record that AMD has beaten.
> 
> ...



I don't think it matters.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Sep 14, 2011)

Reads page 1 





> bitching and whining


 oh  skips to page 4 





> same people bitching and whining about the same shit as on page 1


 for gods sake if you people are just going to keep saying the same thing in a different way at least go and do it in GN where 3 pages of this crap belong, I am off to bed


----------



## Steevo (Sep 14, 2011)

Mommy look at the trained monkeys on the forum arguing over if something is real or not!!!!


Do you think AMD would really lie and throw this out to the enthusiast community just for the lulz? Really?


If you can say that then I propose that Intel has bought off every major benchmark and review site the same way they bought their products into OEM's machines. 

And there is no one to STOP ME!!!!! mwahahahahaha.


----------



## trickson (Sep 14, 2011)

So when will it be logged into the book of records ?


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 14, 2011)

trickson said:


> So when will it be logged into the book of records ?



Everyone knows that it will be officially  recorded  the same day as its official launch day


----------



## trickson (Sep 14, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Everyone knows that it will be officially  recorded  the same day as its official launch day



LOL !


----------



## cdawall (Sep 14, 2011)

I for one think this is a nice stepping stone if this proves true with the overall clocking of these chips and we can get some stable 5-6ghz water clocks i will be quite happy. AMD has already announced these will take a step up in IPC which means these should perform better clock for clock than phenom II does. If that rings true and we get chips with similar performance, similar overclockability and a good price point i see nothing but win for the consumer. That kind of competition is why I can get a 6970 for under $400 anyone remember X8X00 days and dropping $500+ on a good card? 6950s run well under $300 I know for a fact the X800 vanilla cards didn't. This could be a game changer I for one will be quite happy to get one of these chips and a CHV to play with. I for one hope this knocks Intel on its ass and we have another core 2 style release. More performance for less money is always awesomesauce 



Completely Bonkers said:


> Er, how is revving your 50cc motorbike/vespa to breaking point anything of interest. Seriously, if they had all 8 cores blowing and stable with world record benchmark numbers, then that would be worth noting. This isnt. Q. Can it run minesweeper? A. No.
> 
> Message to these boys: Listen. If you want to be a geeky nerd, fine. But do something to impress us. Don't have a camera focused on yourself like you are doing something that will put us in awe. When it didn't. Fail. Even bigger fail to AMD that thinks this is worthy. Corporate Fail. (And that's even worse!)



when revving it makes more power i would do it. I have personally clocked individual cores attempting to make records. It works and it does accomplish things. Previous records have all been on netburst based chips. No other manufacturer has come close to this speed in a while. AMD has been slowly building since Phenom II hit in the 7ghz range with each batch leading to high max clocks and higher stable everyday overclocks. Back when they first came out 4ghz on an AMD chip was HUGE on air now you have guys hitting 4.6ghz+ on the same generation of chips. If all these new chips do is give a solid 5ghz+ air stable clockspeed with a the smidge more performance promised AMD will have done good. 




1Kurgan1 said:


> I don't understand the flaming here. Anyone with half a brain knows this isn't a performance test, this isn't showing anything about what we will be receiving. They are just breaking a number that has stood for I believe 5 years or so, which is a long time for records to stand in the ever evolving PC world. You will see benches soon enough, if anyone was to go out and base their processor purchase (for daily use) on benching done using anything above water cooling, thats your own fault.



Me either no one flames when a celeron pops a couple more mhz. I however do base my purchases on benching done on above water cooling 



Tatty_One said:


> Nice to know, but as some have said, AMD would have impressed me more personally, if they simply also did some overclocking with 8 cores at say 1.4V and acheived lets say 4.5gig stable on high end air.  Nevertheless, like it or not it is a record, one I suspect that a few will try to beat pretty soon.



Why? AMD did something good they set a good solid record and did so with a board that will go retail and chips that very well could have been sold publicly. Chew* has proven time and time again that retail chips do just as well as cherry picked ones with a little luck and a whole bunch of skill.


----------



## ViperXTR (Sep 14, 2011)

wanna see how it overclocks with 4 modules enabled >8D, 5-6Ghz perhaps?


----------



## ViperXTR (Sep 14, 2011)

meh, wish the FX series can go head to head or even surpass Intel tho, so that prices will go down and i can grab sandy chips cheaper XD


----------



## linoliveira (Sep 14, 2011)

Produced or not, some machines will get released tonight!
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/new...lds-fastest-amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-system.aspx
I hope we see benches in the next few days so we can get to a point in here (performance issue).


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 14, 2011)

Way to thread crap everyone. I don't see how your Intel/AMD bitchfest is relevant to this topic.

Let me help out.

1. AMD holds the record for highest overclock. Intel doesn't.
2. We still don't know a damn thing about Bulldozer's performance.
3. It doesn't matter what you guys are whining about because of #2.

If AMD holding the record bothers you, tough, because they hold it.
If not knowing about Bulldozer bothers you, tough, because nobody is going to tell you.

Now can we please get this thread back on track?


----------



## trickson (Sep 14, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Way to thread crap everyone. I don't see how your Intel/AMD bitchfest is relevant to this topic.
> 
> Let me help out.
> 
> ...


If AMD holds the record when will it be posted on the books of the Guinness world record ? Were there officials there from Guinness ?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 14, 2011)

trickson said:


> If AMD holds the record when will it be posted on the books of the Guinness world record ? Were there officials there from Guinness ?



It will be there soon. They don't pass out these certificates for nothing.


----------



## trickson (Sep 14, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> It will be there soon. They don't pass out these certificates for nothing.
> 
> http://www.brightsideofnews.com/Dat...50-Powered-System/IBUYPOWER_Darren_Su_689.jpg



SWEET !!!!!


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 14, 2011)

U gotta admit that this is one of the most fun/exciting times in recent history  of  the tech world.  When sb-e comes out everybody will b making jokes abount selling lungs and kidneys to afford one and bd wll be pushed back to the 2nd quater of 2013


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 14, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Way to thread crap everyone. I don't see how your Intel/AMD bitchfest is relevant to this topic.
> 
> Let me help out.
> 
> ...



Seeing as how my last post was removed due to lack of humor I will say this.

Good for AMD you got a record that means nothing, now hurry up and give me a processor, I can't overclock a world record . . ..


----------



## cdawall (Sep 14, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Seeing as how my last post was removed due to lack of humor I will say this.
> 
> Good for AMD you got a record that means nothing, now hurry up and give me a processor, I can't overclock a world record . . ..



The record means something they have a faster highest clock. Just like Intel has some worthless records such as superpi. They mean nothing, but it is a competition nonetheless and a fun one at that. If you don't like competing in these then why post in a thread entirely about that. Seems stupid and counter productive IMO.


----------



## Neuromancer (Sep 14, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Gotta agree, more over they were engi samples not consumer chips, if it's so close to launch why not use consumer chips ?



Um oh yeah cuz Intel world records are done on retail chips right? (minus the cedar mills)

Pshaw.

Poopooing AMD for using an ES is like claiming that all 980X results over 6 GHz do not count. (cuz they are all ES)


----------



## Neuromancer (Sep 14, 2011)

cdawall said:


> The record means something they have a faster highest clock. Just like Intel has some worthless records such as superpi. They mean nothing, but it is a competition nonetheless and a fun one at that. If you don't like competing in these then why post in a thread entirely about that. Seems stupid and counter productive IMO.



Worthless records indeed. Intel excels at 16 bit app computing. Dunno why but it is true, superpi. wprime, pifast, all 16 bit apps. If I want to run a decade old software, I will spend $50 on a p4 computer. (seriously, thinking like a bang for buck here... $50 for a PC to run software that is a decade old.. intel absolutely is the way to go, why spend $3 grand on a cutting edge machine when for 50 bucks you can calculate in 20 times the time).


----------



## trickson (Sep 14, 2011)

I do not think this is worthless . I think this is great . I just want MORE . I guess . Man this is great news indeed !


----------



## cdawall (Sep 14, 2011)

Neuromancer said:


> Um oh yeah cuz Intel world records are done on retail chips right? (minus the cedar mills)
> 
> Pshaw.
> 
> Poopooing AMD for using an ES is like claiming that all 980X results over 6 GHz do not count. (cuz they are all ES)



Not all of the 980X of 6ghz are ES chips go spend ten minutes on XS there are plenty of high clock retail chips floating around. Same goes on AMD, both companies have standards it just so happens certain vid chips clock higher. It has always been that way hell there are people who argue certain spots on the wafer will clock higher due to location and manufacturing process.


----------



## red-die (Sep 14, 2011)

well i can see majority here dont deal in big business well
i too aw not

but what i can see is that 
this is a PR stunt, it is a stunt to satiate not the user
but the higher-upper level
I would assume that BD still need time for refinement
but in a big corp such as AMD, there are various dept other than the engineering
what is time required by engineer to refine their stuff may not necessary time given by the marketing

For me
i will wait for proper launch with proper review
the talk of "no importance" "not indicative to RL usage" for me is also blowing hot air


----------



## Disruptor4 (Sep 14, 2011)

Pretty good feat but we just need to know real world performance on stock clocks etc. Sure they can OC well with all but 1 core disabled, but how do they hold up performance wise stock and OC in real world environments?
Good marketing though imo.


----------



## Neuromancer (Sep 14, 2011)

cdawall said:


> Not all of the 980X of 6ghz are ES chips go spend ten minutes on XS there are plenty of high clock retail chips floating around. Same goes on AMD, both companies have standards it just so happens certain vid chips clock higher. It has always been that way hell there are people who argue certain spots on the wafer will clock higher due to location and manufacturing process.



Vantage stable 6+ GHz. I am not doubting there are some like to see the receipt of those guys that claim they bought it though in the store . By and large they are all ES. sorry if my exclusionary comments offended you, I meant 90% of not all  It is a known issue, please do not try and minimize it to disclaim the AMD results posted here.

I find it odd you are calling me out for claiming that ES samples are okay when so many exist in our world.  HWbot allows it, so its all good.

PS: XS might be great place to read, but filled with too much animosity, no thank you.
PSS: Should be pointed out that ln2 only resulted in less than 8GHz


----------



## cdawall (Sep 14, 2011)

Neuromancer said:


> Vantage stable 6+ GHz. I am not doubting there are some like to see the receipt of those guys that claim they bought it though in the store . By and large they are all ES. sorry if my exclusionary comments offended you, I meant 90% of not all  It is a known issue, please do not try and minimize it to disclaim the AMD results posted here.
> 
> I find it odd you are calling me out for claiming that ES samples are okay when so many exist in our world.  HWbot allows it, so its all good.
> 
> PS: XS might be great place to read, but filled with too much animosity, no thank you.







not against them  was just saying they do in fact exist in the wild more than people think since so few people clock with LN2 or LHe. That being said with the correct retail chip ES chips can be beat.


----------



## Neuromancer (Sep 14, 2011)

roger that kemosabe. 

they do exist, just rare 

AMD ES chips are usually easy to beat, so I am hopeful without LHe 

EDIT: I need LN2 and 8150 FX chip!!!!


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 14, 2011)

How about merging instead of stealth closing. 

PS - XS has GREAT information, its just to Sloooooooooooooooow to looooooooooooooooooad.


----------



## Over_Lord (Sep 14, 2011)

wayy to go!


----------



## Aevum (Sep 14, 2011)

Ok, heres the thing. 

When a car does the world speed record down at laguna seca they are required to run a speficic course and they to do the return run. the record speed is the avarage of both runs. 

I said the same when intel pulled the same stunt at toms hardware a few years back. they took a northwood P4 and Liquid nitrogen cooled it to 4.something ghz. 

The record is usless unless its stable. any idiot can get a CPU to post at ridiclous speeds with the right tweaking. i want to see them complete a prime95 run or a 3dmark run. shutdown. restart the system and complete a 2nd prime95 or 3dmark run. i doubt that machine could do 2+2 in calc.exe let alone a prime95 run.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 14, 2011)

Aevum said:


> Ok, heres the thing.
> 
> When a car does the world speed record down at laguna seca they are required to run a speficic course and they to do the return run. the record speed is the avarage of both runs.
> 
> ...



Well, the car you mentioned, does the driver go to a store and buy some food and then get back to finish the run? Not really does he. The car has been specifically designed for that run. It wouldn't finish a race of 50 laps.
It's the same thing here, this is how the frequency records have *always* been broken, the same way you do anything you can to be able to make a 3dmark run the same way you do everything you can do get a frequency record.
That's the reason why all of those records are in separate "categories", every benchmark has it's own WR. Spend some time here: http://hwbot.org/


----------



## makwy2 (Sep 14, 2011)

Impressive!  Now I want one... cheap... and with a wide range of benchmarks avaliable!


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Sep 14, 2011)

What a waste of our precious, finite helium.


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Sep 14, 2011)

Cool story, bros!

Now I can't wait for these to be released.


----------



## Assimilator (Sep 14, 2011)

Steevo said:


> Do you think AMD would really lie and throw this out to the enthusiast community just for the lulz? Really?



No-one said it was a lie, they said it was irrelevant. Learn reading comprehension.



Damn_Smooth said:


> Now can we please get this thread back on track?



No.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 14, 2011)

Assimilator said:


> No-one said it was a lie, they said it was irrelevant. Learn reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> No.



It's significant in the fact that for the last 5 years AMD has not held the record. Nothing more, nothing less. If you fail to grasp that, it is you that needs to work on your reading comprehension.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 14, 2011)

If this was an Intel chip a lot of the people on here would be saying "Game over AMD" and "Bulldozer just got bulldozed by Intel" and crap like that.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 14, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> If this was an Intel chip a lot of the people on here would be saying "Game over AMD" and "Bulldozer just got bulldozed by Intel" and crap like that.



Probably, but listening to AMD fans play the victims every time the mud-slinging comes their way is just as sad as the Intel fans slinging said mud.  I just want to know *something performance-related* about Bulldozer.  The World Record is cute and all, but as I said earlier, if the CPU doesn't perform well who cares how high it can clock?


----------



## Hunt3r (Sep 14, 2011)

great processed..


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 14, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> If this was an Intel chip a lot of the people on here would be saying "Game over AMD" and "Bulldozer just got bulldozed by Intel" and crap like that.



True.  But ain't that the fun of competition? My teams better than your team?  Nobody should be taking any of this personally.  Even if bd mops the floor with eveything out right now, they'll still b someone saying naaaah it ain't that good.  Haters gonna hate.  Everyone agrees on the fact that they want more info and the chip itself though.  Amd's exit from the benchmarking... whatever and the  above top secret treatment on bd performance is something to think about though.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Sep 14, 2011)

Assimilator said:


> No-one said it was a lie, they said it was irrelevant. Learn reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> No.



God Every Single Post (other then Positives) Has Been This 16 Year Old Bull doody They Put Irrelevant As A Likely Term To Justify Something They Have No Interest In, And Probably Never Compete Even Close To There Level. (Capital's for every word so you can read).


What AMD***EDIT*** And the Overclockers(showin some respect) was trying to DO was achieve a new FREQUENCY WORLD RECORD, LET ME RESTATE. 
NEW FREQUENCY WORLD RECORD.

They did a great job to, Considering that INTEL has been the Previous Record Holder for the HIGHEST FREQUENCY CLOCK (CPU-Z).

They were holding that record with a I. CELERON 352  LGA 775 with 1.9 volts @ 8308.9Mhz. For a while also. 

But AMD Just took an ENTIRE NEW PLATFORM, Used a Multicore FX, Disabled only but 2 CORES. Pumped 2+ Volts in it, and got a stable VALIDATION of 8.43Ghz. 

Thats a feat.






^^^^ WIN.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 14, 2011)

Everyone's opinion is just as valid as the next. Reported.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 14, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Probably, but listening to AMD fans play the victims every time the mud-slinging comes their way is just as sad as the Intel fans slinging said mud.  I just want to know *something performance-related* about Bulldozer.  The World Record is cute and all, but as I said earlier, if the CPU doesn't perform well who cares how high it can clock?



Intel did back in the p4 days. They got their asses stomped by K8, but intel still sold it as the fastest, highest clock etc. Even if amd is slower clock for clock if it clocks higher and then outperforms intel its still the fastest.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Sep 14, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Everyone's opinion is just as valid as the next. Reported.



Yes it Is.

Your Funny .


----------



## DannibusX (Sep 14, 2011)

I like AMD.

I like Intel.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 14, 2011)

The fact that the previous record was held by a Netburst Celeron should tell you something about how relevent or rather irrelevent this record is.

The point that you seem to be missing that others are trying to make, and you helped show even though you didn't know it, was that just because the processor can overclock like a bat out of hell, that doesn't mean it is a good processor.

The Celeron 352 is hardly a good processor.  The netburst processors themselves were hardly good processors at that time.  AMD was stomping all over them with their 939 processors at the time, despite lower clock speeds.  The fact that you could push the celeron to 8GHz, and push it to 4GHz easily on air, didn't make up for the fact that the processor performed so terriblely clock for clock.

The reason people are saying it is irrelevent is because no one is going run it at those speeds 24/7 and more imporantly without knowing how they perform clock for clock clock speed is irrelevent.


----------



## catnipkiller (Sep 14, 2011)

RED CAPS LOCKS makes you more important.


----------



## trickson (Sep 14, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> The fact that the previous record was held by a Netburst Celeron should tell you something about how relevent or rather irrelevent this record is.
> 
> The point that you seem to be missing that others are trying to make, and you helped show even though you didn't know it, was that just because the processor can overclock like a bat out of hell, that doesn't mean it is a good processor.
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more !


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 14, 2011)

a warning has been given out. please refrain from acting like children. kthxbye.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Sep 14, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> The fact that the previous record was held by a Netburst Celeron should tell you something about how relevent or rather irrelevent this record is.
> 
> The point that you seem to be missing that others are trying to make, and you helped show even though you didn't know it, was that just because the processor can overclock like a bat out of hell, that doesn't mean it is a good processor.
> 
> ...




Celeron. Intel Celeron family is a line of budget x86 processors based on Pentium designs. Thanks for telling me what I already new. It was made budget, features disabled, disabled cache. 

I don't think they were trying to break any records with a celeron when it comes to clock vs clock ratio performance. They were promoting mobile versions also, but calling out a Celeron for its terrible competition against clock for clock vs AMD's 939 brethren is hilariousness. I can understand completely about the 939 Low budget processors for more performance per clock but at same estimated market values. 

I understand when everybody says its irrelevant that fx bulldozer overclocked to 8.43Ghz, and its epicly ironically obvious no one's gonna be throwing liquid hydrogen on the CPU's 24/7 so ..   

We all know that Bulldozer is going to perform decent, and its not going to be overpriced, and probably be a cheaper platform overall. But many people can argue, find deals, and speculate. 

The threads title is about a Guinness Record clock speed, on how they achieved a record clock awesome, . I did flame slightly because all I read in this thread was more speculation, free post about Ironic irrelevance about the clock speed, and 30% cheered on the OC feat itself. It is everybody's viable opinion to post what you want, but its just the plane statements about bulldozer and its worth as mostly bad compared to Intel Competetion. Where did Intel and Speculation come out of no where. 

But, no arguing. Because I realized (havnt loged on in couple months) there is just talk bash talk of bulldozer vs i72xxx k's.


----------



## twicksisted (Sep 14, 2011)

can it play crysis?


----------



## Frick (Sep 14, 2011)

twicksisted said:


> can it play crysis?



Someone please answer I HAVE TO KNOW!


----------



## erocker (Sep 14, 2011)

That phrase needs to be banned from the internet. Everyone's heard it, it serves no purpose, it's not even close to being humorous anymore. Please, get new material or better yet, stick to the topic.


----------



## twicksisted (Sep 14, 2011)

They will never ban it, not while Goatse and Lemonparty are still floating around! 
Ok, now on topic, wow just wow, over 8ghz very impressive


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 14, 2011)

3volvedcombat said:


> But, no arguing. Because I realized (havnt loged on in couple months) there is just talk bash talk of bulldozer vs i72xxx k's.



It's more that you took it personal. Rant and rave about whatever PRODUCT you like, leave people and their opinions out of it. you even stated you understand why people are posting that they don't particularily care..it's not that they don't care about Bulldozer, it's that people want PERFORMANCE metrics, so they can relate what they see to their own personal uses.

We do have a verified AMD rep here, so I am fairly confident those opinions were stated so that AMD would see it. I mean, this event proly cost a pretty penny..potentially money that could ahve been spent better elsewhere.

I think it's cool, but am very upset it didn't happen to coincide with launch. The fact it's ES, too, has me raise a few questions, as we know that early samples didn't exactly function correctly...nor will the same chips be out in the "wild".


But, Guinness did verify it, it seems, so it's all good, just poorly executed. I've called myself ATI's #1 fanboy for years, and now, ATi no longer exists, but AMD does.


In the end, as someone said, nearly every site is talking about htis, so it's as effective as AMD wanted it to be...we're talking MORE about Bulldozer!


----------



## trickson (Sep 14, 2011)

Yep with all this talk and nothing but a supper over clock not much there really .


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Sep 14, 2011)

With all this "I want real world benchmarks so badly QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ"

"QQQQQQQQQ" 

People are bashing because they dont have patience. 

Of all the processors AMD has released, do you think this processor is going to be an absolute fail.

If you answer yes, im confused. 

I think bulldozer might just rip a new asshole beyond any of your speculations. Just because.

"flame baby flame" "flame baby ffflllaaaammmeee"




Damn_Smooth said:


> I see your point, but everybody here has bitched about wanting performance numbers for a long time, myself included. How long is it going to take people to realize that we won't get any until AMD decides to give us some? And when will people quit crapping on threads with points we've all heard, and made, a million times?



+1,000,000,000,000. And thats what my first flame post was for, because after reading the entire thread, that's what it was. Even quoted what sounded like blatant fact posting and hard headed flame bate.

But hey Everybody's opinion counts (heavy heavy irony)


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 14, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> It's more that you took it personal. Rant and rave about whatever PRODUCT you like, leave people and their opinions out of it. you even stated you understand why people are posting that they don't particularily care..it's not that they don't care about Bulldozer, it's that people want PERFORMANCE metrics, so they can relate what they see to their own personal uses.
> 
> We do have a verified AMD rep here, so I am fairly confident those opinions were stated so that AMD would see it. I mean, this event proly cost a pretty penny..potentially money that could ahve been spent better elsewhere.
> 
> ...



I see your point, but everybody here has bitched about wanting performance numbers for a long time, myself included. How long is it going to take people to realize that we won't get any until AMD decides to give us some? And when will people quit crapping on threads with points we've all heard, and made, a million times?


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 14, 2011)

I dunno. I think some may be disappointed, no matter what happens. Me, I'm gonna buy regardless, and this "event" didn't affect that decision one bit.

What I find really interesting is how people cannot just accept other's opinions without having to knock them as being wrong, when really, it's a bit foolish to think that way.

Perhaps, if AMD actually confirmed a release date, people would stop being so impatient. there's nobody to blame here for that but AMD themselves, given the mixed messages they have been giving the last year or so.

So, great, they can set a Guinness record, but not set a public release date?

Am i impatient?

YES!!! I wanted to be reviewing AM3+ boards, but refuse to do so with  phenom-based chip, as I do not feel using such a chip will give an accurate representation of the AM3+ socket based on how my reviews are done.

You all are asking me to review AM3+ boards...ain't gonna happen until bulldozer is out. I'm dealing with the impatience, too.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 14, 2011)

erocker said:


> That phrase needs to be banned from the internet. Everyone's heard it, it serves no purpose, it's not even close to being humorous anymore. Please, get new material or better yet, stick to the topic.



Can you run Crysis?


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 14, 2011)

3volvedcombat said:


> Celeron. Intel Celeron family is a line of budget x86 processors based on Pentium designs. Thanks for telling me what I already new. It was made budget, features disabled, disabled cache.
> 
> I don't think they were trying to break any records with a celeron when it comes to clock vs clock ratio performance. They were promoting mobile versions also, but calling out a Celeron for its terrible competition against clock for clock vs AMD's 939 brethren is hilariousness. I can understand completely about the 939 Low budget processors for more performance per clock but at same estimated market values.
> 
> ...



Again, people think this record is irrelevent because they know clock speed is irrelevent.  Why hasn't that record been broken since the days of Netburst?  Because no one has cared to do it, because performance records are important not clock speed records.

If you want to break some records, do it on records that the world actually cares about.  Break a PCMark record, break a SuperPi record, break a GFLOP record, break a 3DMark CPU score record.  Break a record that actually matters.

What scares me is that when Intel was behind, the started touting clock speed and breaking speed records.  Now AMD is doing it, that is not a good sign for them IMO.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 14, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Again, people think this record is irrelevent because they know clock speed is irrelevent.  Why hasn't that record been broken since the days of Netburst?  Because no one has cared to do it, because performance records are important not clock speed records.
> 
> If you want to break some records, do it on records that the world actually cares about.  Break a PCMark record, break a SuperPi record, break a GFLOP record, break a 3DMark CPU score record.  Break a record that actually matters.
> 
> What scares me is that when Intel was behind, the started touting clock speed and breaking speed records.  Now AMD is doing it, that is not a good sign for them IMO.



Yeah but AMD has been behind for so long I dont think its the same thing. Intel was more a knee jerk reaction IMO. Could be wrong.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 14, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Again, people think this record is irrelevent because they know clock speed is irrelevent.  Why hasn't that record been broken since the days of Netburst?  Because no one has cared to do it, because performance records are important not clock speed records.
> 
> If you want to break some records, do it on records that the world actually cares about.  Break a PCMark record, break a SuperPi record, break a GFLOP record, break a 3DMark CPU score record.  Break a record that actually matters.
> 
> What scares me is that when Intel was behind, the started touting clock speed and breaking speed records.  Now AMD is doing it, that is not a good sign for them IMO.



Nobody gives a shit about SuperPi. I would like it to break some of those other records though.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 14, 2011)

Lulz.. Nobody gives a hoot about ANY of those outside of benchers, which this place obviously has few people that understand what its about (information gathers via ad nauseum vomiting of 'fluff', and needs to be stable, and who cares it just broke a record that has stood on an architecture several years old). 

Can someone just restrict my access to the Classies and news please? (joke)


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 14, 2011)

Wow never seen so much news and info that says........ nothing.  Total fanboy when it comes to amd gpus but man this bull...dozer thing  starting to rub me the wrong way


----------



## cdawall (Sep 14, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Nobody gives a shit about SuperPi. I would like it to break some of those other records though.



lol I already brought that up once.


----------



## erocker (Sep 14, 2011)

SuperPi can be a good indicator of single threaded performance. Plus, it's simple and quick to use. WPrime? Okay, it is multi threaded, however the CPU with the better single thread performance will still come out on top.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 14, 2011)

erocker said:


> SuperPi can be a good indicator of single threaded performance. Plus, it's simple and quick to use. WPrime? Okay, it is multi threaded, however the CPU with the better single thread performance will still come out on top.



Its no more important than max clockspeed is if we are going to question the ability of these chips with no reason. AMD has never done well with superpi and would be a stupid benchmark to show any form of initial AMD performance. It hasn't been a useful program since netburst days. The only way to show a good performance review is to do a full review. This isn't this is a good job AMD for setting a new WR. Its a good PR push for this product release.


----------



## trickson (Sep 14, 2011)

All we have is some BD chip over clocked to insane speed . Great job . How about some real news about you crap now AMD !


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 14, 2011)

3volvedcombat said:


> With all this "I want real world benchmarks so badly QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ"
> 
> "QQQQQQQQQ"
> 
> ...



Do GTFO plz


----------



## Steevo (Sep 14, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> *And I have a gold plated toilet I really do but I can't be bothered to prove it, if your willing to believe spin go for but no proof = untrue.*





[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> *I believe I have been pretty clear, some proof would be a step in the right direction. *No CPU-Z validation, no benchmarks nothing, j*ust some random dude saying he clocked an engi sample.  ..  very trust worthy source.​*:shadedshu





[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> If you don't understand that if you can't prove it, then it's not true I don't know what to say to you. I'm saying it's fud no matter who says it unless they have proof to back it up which they do *NOT*! Like AMD would admit anything negative, of course they will promise the moon, it's what they deliver that matters, and as of this moments they haven't even given a release date, only FUD!





Completely Bonkers said:


> http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/search/
> 
> *I can't find any relevant Guinness World Record that AMD has beaten.*
> 
> ...





Assimilator said:


> No-one said it was a lie, they said it was irrelevant. Learn reading comprehension.




I'll get right on that boss.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 14, 2011)

Can we lock this thread already ? We have had 7 pages of AMD trolls QQ'ing, and flaming people, for not having the same opinion as them.

/thread


----------



## trickson (Sep 14, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Can we lock this thread already ? We have had 7 pages of AMD trolls QQ'ing, and flaming people, for not having the same opinion as them.
> 
> /thread



But this is news


----------



## Steevo (Sep 14, 2011)

I have read some good posts, and some others where people just flame on AMD for doing something. Now we know something.

1) We know it has higher IPC
2) We know it has more cores.
3) We know it clocks like a mother.


Beyond all that there was flaming, accusing AMD of lying, accusing chew* of being a faker, and general asshattery.


----------



## trickson (Sep 14, 2011)

Steevo said:


> I have read some good posts, and some others where people just flame on AMD for doing something. Now we know something.
> 
> 1) We know it has higher IPC
> 2) We know it has more cores.
> ...



Yes we some thing this is for sure . But more Fluff than any thing really .


----------



## Steevo (Sep 14, 2011)

trickson said:


> Yes we some thing this is for sure . But more Fluff than any thing really .



If you can't understand that a 8 core, with a 15-20% IPC improvement, and 1Ghz boost in speed compared to current offerings is a better deal for the majority of users than the Intel priced equivillant....... I dunno what to tell you, other than perhaps this isnt the thread you are looking for.


----------



## trickson (Sep 14, 2011)

Steevo said:


> If you can't understand that a 8 core, with a 15-20% IPC improvement, and 1Ghz boost in speed compared to current offerings is a better deal for the majority of users than the Intel priced equivillant....... I dunno what to tell you, other than perhaps this isnt the thread you are looking for.



Oh no don't get me wrong I can see all this and it is great . I just haven't seen any thing concrete as of yet . It may blow Intel away but this is all just pure speculation right now and I want more than that . I am getting nervous waiting for news to trickle out of AMD . It some times is just annoying .


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 14, 2011)

Steevo said:


> I have read some good posts, and some others where people just flame on AMD for doing something. Now we know something.
> 
> 1) We know it has higher IPC
> 2) We know it has more cores.
> ...



According to you 

1) saying meh is flaming
2) being unimpressed is bashing
3) pointing out there was no CPU-Z validation and saying your taking the 5ghz on air claim with no proof as hearsay is flaming and calling people a liar


According to me you and many others can't accept others having a view that is not your own. Just let it go, and quit playing the victim.


----------



## trickson (Sep 14, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> According to you
> 
> 1) saying meh is flaming
> 2) being unimpressed is bashing
> ...



Yeah I am sorry I am one of them too .


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Sep 14, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Do GTFO plz



Your Trolling has been Diagrammed above (red text.)


----------



## Steevo (Sep 14, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> According to you
> 
> 1) saying meh is flaming
> 2) being unimpressed is bashing
> ...



If you want a philosophical discussion on what is truth there is generalnonsense, for the rest of the world in the "know" certain businesses and people are "known" to be truthful, so we take it as such until proven wrong. Casting unbased doubt on their character causes ruffled feathers and can unfortunately cause certain said people to stop sharing their feats.


I also believe there is something about useful posting, and the lack thereof known as flame-baiting, or thread crapping.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 14, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> According to you
> 
> 1) saying meh is flaming
> 2) being unimpressed is bashing
> ...



Yeah because if they can validate 8ghz there is NO WAY they can do 5ghz! THATS MADNESS! Oh and those Guinness World Record guys are noobs. They never validate anything. 



Steevo said:


> If you want a philosophical discussion on what is truth there is generalnonsense, for the rest of the world in the "know" certain businesses and people are "known" to be truthful, so we take it as such until proven wrong. Casting unbased doubt on their character causes ruffled feathers and can unfortunately cause certain said people to stop sharing their feats.
> 
> 
> I also believe there is something about useful posting, and the lack thereof known as flame-baiting, or thread crapping.



I don't normally agree with Steevo. But when I do, I agree.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Sep 14, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yeah because if they can validate 8ghz there is NO WAY they can do 5ghz! THATS MADNESS! Oh and those Guinness World Record guys are noobs. They never validate anything.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't normally agree with Steevo. But when I do, I agree.



To epic to understand, 

Stares at Avatar >.>


----------



## trickson (Sep 14, 2011)

Steevo said:


> I have read some good posts, and some others where people just flame on AMD for doing something. Now we know something.
> 
> 1) We know it has higher IPC
> 2) We know it has more cores.
> ...





Steevo said:


> If you want a philosophical discussion on what is truth there is generalnonsense, for the rest of the world in the "know" certain businesses and people are "known" to be truthful, so we take it as such until proven wrong. Casting unbased doubt on their character causes ruffled feathers and can unfortunately cause certain said people to stop sharing their feats.
> 
> 
> I also believe there is something about useful posting, and the lack thereof known as flame-baiting, or thread crapping.




Ok lets start this then . 
1. Higher IPC + We do not know how this performs in real world applications . 
2. More cores , Ok it has 8 cores ( That is a start . ) . 
3. It clocks like a mother Trucker . On One core ( or was it 2 cores ) Never the less NOT on ALL 8 cores for sure ! 
4. Just how is this going to help me in making a logical sensible buy on a product ? 
5. They broke the world record . That is awesome ! Great job . 

Am I flame baiting or thread crapping ? Or are you being a tad bit too over the top ? I want more information but it just ekks out of AMD . And I think that all the Fluff is not going to make me change my mind about this BD chip . I want more than a world record holding over clock chip .


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Sep 14, 2011)

trickson said:


> Ok lets start this then .
> 1. Higher IPC + We do not know how this performs in real world applications .
> 2. More cores , Ok it has 8 cores ( That is a start . ) .
> 3. It clocks like a mother Trucker . On One core ( or was it 2 cores ) Never the less NOT on ALL 8 cores for sure !
> ...



hey I know exactly what will help you make a logical sensible buy on a product!!! 

*epic echo voice* "Patience patience" and a positive attitude. 
Best answer I can give.

I want to see bulldozer to, but in the mean time I have work and responsibility's


----------



## trickson (Sep 14, 2011)

3volvedcombat said:


> hey I know exactly what will help you make a logical sensible buy on a product!!!
> 
> *epic echo voice* "Patience patience" and a positive attitude.
> Best answer I can give.
> ...



Yeah I have been patient for some time now . I am getting annoyed at AMD's Fluff fest ! Give me some meat not just the veggies !


----------



## repman244 (Sep 14, 2011)

trickson said:


> Ok lets start this then .
> 1. Higher IPC + We do not know how this performs in real world applications .
> 2. More cores , Ok it has 8 cores ( That is a start . ) .
> 3. It clocks like a mother Trucker . On One core ( or was it 2 cores ) Never the less NOT on ALL 8 cores for sure !
> ...



1. I think you don't fully understand the meaning of IPC, good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_cycle Good line: 





> A given level of instructions per second can be achieved with a high IPC and a low clock speed (like the AMD Athlon and Intel Core 2), or from a low IPC and high clock speed (like the Intel Pentium 4).


Higher IPC + high clock translates in high performance
2. It has 4-6-8 cores, don't know why people get hooked on the 8 core and say it sucks for games (I don't mean you).
3. 





> Brian and Sami mentioned doing 5Ghz on air running fully multi-threaded benchmarks.


 So my guess is it does quite well.
4. ...
5. .


----------



## Steevo (Sep 14, 2011)

trickson said:


> Ok lets start this then .
> 1. Higher IPC + We do not know how this performs in real world applications .
> 2. More cores , Ok it has 8 cores ( That is a start . ) .
> 3. It clocks like a mother Trucker . On One core ( or was it 2 cores ) Never the less NOT on ALL 8 cores for sure !
> ...



1) IPC, Instructions Per Clock. A defacto standard meaning if we compare A to B and both have the same frequency and A is faster or slower than B the resulting difference is a direct result of IPC efficiency. So, if we know that a competitive model has a 30% higher IPC on average than the previous Phenom II, and this has a roughly 15-20% increase in IPC we can guesstimate its clock performance. 

2) Yep, 8 cores. Good job on locating that information. 

3) Yep on two cores, and considering Intel did it with celerons, the lowest of the low dank and dirty chips they make, almost no cache to slow it down, and cherry picking. The equivlilant would be a athlon X2 or a single core under LN. But it is not, their premiere line clocks this high.

4) If you can't figure it out, again, this hardware is not the hardware you are looking for. 

5) Exactly the point of the thread!!!!!!!! AMAZING!!!! On topic posting!!!!!!


----------



## DannibusX (Sep 14, 2011)

I guess I'll just stop reading anything past the initial news post from now on.

Christ.

Edit:

Also, I'll be building a Bulldozer rig because AMD pulled off the most epic troll I have ever seen on TPU.


----------



## trickson (Sep 15, 2011)

Steevo said:


> If you can't figure it out, again, this hardware is not the hardware you are looking for.



I guess you are right .


----------



## breakfromyou (Sep 15, 2011)

I haven't seen anybody try to explain why the Bulldozer chip was only running 2 cores. Easy! Less cores means higher clocks. They were going for maximum clock speed on any amount of cores, not just a ridiculous overclock on all 8 cores. 

I had an i7 860 for a while but it ran too hot to keep on for more than a couple hours in my little hot bedroom. On 2 cores without hyperthreading, it would hit 4.5 GHz with chilled air without a problem. Stock with all 4 cores and HT, it would top out at about 4.1 GHz. Same thing applies to the FX overclock.

If these things are hitting 5+ easy on water, that's definitely nice. Something to look forwards to. Hitting 6 on water in 6 months? that'd be REAL nice even if it's only 5-10% faster per clock than current Phenom II's.

All we know is that it's quicker per clock cycle than Phenom II, has more cores, clocks better and this is all from silicon that isn't even up to par with retail silicon, just an engineering sample...so the clock speeds should get better once it releases, as well as us finally having performance numbers.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 15, 2011)

It was explained in this thread, and in the other thread that was stealth closed and not merged with this one. 

WHoever said no proof (Steevo?)...been up since the release. 

http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2206528_macci_cpu_frequency_fx_8150_8429.38_mhz



trickson said:


> Yeah I have been patient for some time now . I am getting annoyed at AMD's Fluff fest ! Give me some meat not just the veggies !


If I send you $20, can you go buy a thesaurus and look up a different word for fluff?


----------



## trickson (Sep 15, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> If I send you $20, can you go buy a thesaurus and look up a different word for fluff?



How about useless bullshit just to get your face out there ? This is like looking at a great stake , You look at it , It looks great it smells great but you can not have a taste so all you have is an empty hole that drools ! When you finally get to taste it it will be stale and unappealing . Why you are all so jacked up on some thing like this is beyond me other than the fact that the AMD fanboy ego got a stroking , All I see smoke and mirrors ! Fluff all over the internet of AMD this AMD that , not interesting to me .


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 15, 2011)

trickson said:


> How about useless bullshit just to get your face out there ? This is like looking at a great stake , You look at it , It looks great it smells great but you can not have a taste so all you have is an empty hole that drools ! When you finally get to taste it it will be stale and unappealing . Why you are all so jacked up on some thing like this is beyond me other than the fact that the AMD fanboy ego got a stroking , All I see smoke and mirrors ! Fluff all over the internet of AMD this AMD that , not interesting to me .



It must be of some interest to you, you've made more posts in this thread than I have.


----------



## trickson (Sep 15, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> It must be of some interest to you, you've made more posts in this thread than I have.



Yes you are right . I am done now good luck with your Chip !


----------



## Thefumigator (Sep 15, 2011)

Guys why so much stress on this thread
Its a world record... if you can break it, why not breaking it? its just good news. Intel breaks superpi records and its equally useless because its not a benchmark that represents general performance, but again, if you can break the record, why not?

some people may be unimpressed with this record because bulldozer was delayed so much, and because it doens't mean stability or performance, or a real product you can buy in a shop. But its ok to feel unimpressed. While its perfect to break a record. It depends in each soul out there how to take this news.

I mean, a guy could drive his testarrossa, and I wouldn't be impressed because I'm just not into cars.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 15, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> It must be of some interest to you, you've made more posts in this thread than I have.




LOL...stake.


----------



## Athlonite (Sep 15, 2011)

I would have liked to see some results from the 5GHz benching they did but nooooooooo all we get is a whopping great 2 of 8 core suicide run OC result mmmmmm big deal doesn't mean squat to me...

notice not much was said at all about how it did at 5+GHz no temps no results from benchies way to peak interest AMD


----------



## trickson (Sep 15, 2011)

Athlonite said:


> I would have liked to see some results from the 5GHz benching they did but nooooooooo all we get is a whopping great 2 of 8 core suicide run OC result mmmmmm big deal doesn't mean squat to me...
> 
> notice not much was said at all about how it did at 5+GHz no temps no results from benchies way to peak interest AMD



LOL ! Another one !


----------



## Athlonite (Sep 15, 2011)

yeah so what good O they got a WR OC still doesn't mean squat to the majority on here when they said they did multi threaded bench runs at 5+ GHz but fail to show us any of it... That is what we want to see


----------



## Goodman (Sep 15, 2011)

I look around the web to find the highest overclock speed score for Intel CPU (other than the Celeron score at 8.308) & find one on Youtube Intel 990X at 7.146ghz with all the six (6) cores enable 
I guess if they use only 2 cores on the 990X like they did on Bulldozer they may have a good chance of beating the new WR of Bulldozer?

Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6ioJVxvb3s&feature=related

I can see lots of people busy (on the Intel side) trying to beat the WR , it should prove interesting in the weeks or months to come...

EDIT: Found all the highest scores on this link-->http://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/
Looks like Celeron & P4 are/was really good at overclocking....lol!


----------



## HammerON (Sep 15, 2011)

Why all this fussing? The damn thing reached 8.429GHz I don't care how many cores it was utilizing. That is some fast shit


----------



## Goodman (Sep 15, 2011)

Well now that you don't have to have all cores enable to get the WR...
Maybe all the guys that do heavy overclocking should go back to it & use only one core on the cpu (mostly on AMD side)...

Me think i could probably do 5ghz on air with only 1 core enable , hmmm!...


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 15, 2011)

Goodman said:


> Well now that you don't have to have all cores enable to get the WR...
> Maybe all the guys that do heavy overclocking should go back to it & use only one core on the cpu (mostly on AMD side)...
> 
> Me think i could probably do 5ghz on air with only 1 core enable , hmmm!...



Don't think. Do.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 15, 2011)

Goodman said:


> Well now that you don't have to have all cores enable to get the WR...
> Maybe all the guys that do heavy overclocking should go back to it & use only one core on the cpu (mostly on AMD side)...
> 
> Me think i could probably do 5ghz on air with only 1 core enable , hmmm!...


Now? Its always been that way (well since multi cores were out). When shooting for highest clocks you should always disable cores.


----------



## HTC (Sep 15, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> Now? Its always been that way (well since multi cores were out). *When shooting for highest clocks you should always disable cores*.



Let me quote hipro5 from XS:



> *Well yes - you read it well!......
> 
> An EASY way to KILL your i7 980X cpu is VERY SIMPLE...  and
> 
> ...



And this is why they stopped searching single thread frequency records for 980x and such.


On topic: congratz AMD for a new frequency record 

Here's to hoping performance comes along with frequency: frequency without performance isn't much to hope for, IMO.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 15, 2011)

Way to find the exception to the rule! That was a known problem with gulftowns. Too bad nobody in their right mind would shoot for a CPUz record with one of those in the first place.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 15, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> Way to find the exception to the rule! That was a known problem with gulftowns. Too bad nobody in their right mind would shoot for a CPUz record with one of those in the first place.



Right, that's why HiPro and others were killing them.




I stayed far away from 6-core iNTEL CPUs because of that thread...


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 15, 2011)

Well, as you should have been able to see from that thread, they were trying to rock single threaded benchmarks, not CPUz...and of course after this was confirmed that all stopped...though some of those were good for 7Ghz+ which is more than we can say for a lot of CPU's.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 15, 2011)

Sure. But it does say something very interesting about how AMD deals with disabled cores, if they are pushing so much wattage through them.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 15, 2011)

That, my mousey friend (your avi), is well above my head on how the architecture works inside the silicon. But you are correct. 

I just wonder (and this is bet for another thread at possibly another site) why that only happened with Gulftown... 32nm process? Not sure thats it as my 25/2600k works fine down to 1c/2c...


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 15, 2011)

6-core INtel chips are 32nm, like SB. I seem to recall something about current run-off.

Can the 6-cores adjust core speed independantly? Pretty AMD's can.

I mean, as already stated, keeping that 8 GHz+ frequency stable is a big thing, just kind of a useless thing for me personally. My reviews won't cover stuff like that.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 15, 2011)

trickson said:


> Ok lets start this then .
> 1. Higher IPC + We do not know how this performs in real world applications .
> 2. More cores , Ok it has 8 cores ( That is a start . ) .
> 3. It clocks like a mother Trucker . On One core ( or was it 2 cores ) Never the less NOT on ALL 8 cores for sure !
> ...



Actually we do know how higer IPC works in the real world. Conroe vs K8, conroe had a higher IPC and outperformed at lower clocks, K8 vs netburst opposite of K8 vs conroe, netburst vs mobile P3 based P4 the mobiles performed better with a higher IPC, K10 vs sandybride again higher IPC lower clocks better performance. So if we were to extrapolate said common knowledge hmmm I wonder if higher IPC makes a difference. There are plenty of clockers that disable cores including all of the high amd clocks as it stands the most anyone has really seen with all 6 or all 4 cores going on ANY manuf's chip is in the mid/high 6ghz. this is not designed to make YOU buy this chip it is to increase awarness and basically be a PR stunt before release.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 15, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> 6-core INtel chips are 32nm, like SB. I seem to recall something about current run-off.
> 
> Can the 6-cores adjust core speed independantly? Pretty AMD's can.
> 
> I mean, as already stated, keeping that 8 GHz+ frequency stable is a big thing, just kind of a useless thing for me personally. My reviews won't cover stuff like that.


Right, but SB doesnt have this issue, so its not the process... I do not believe gulftown can do that, no.

Our reviews do... sort of. We arent as standardized as you all are, so it depends on the reviewer. We ALL overclock, some brink overclock on water, others brink overclock on LN2 for theirs. But again our user/reader base is a bit more geared towards overclocking.


----------



## trickson (Sep 15, 2011)

cdawall said:


> Actually we do know how higer IPC works in the real world. Conroe vs K8, conroe had a higher IPC and outperformed at lower clocks, K8 vs netburst opposite of K8 vs conroe, netburst vs mobile P3 based P4 the mobiles performed better with a higher IPC, K10 vs sandybride again higher IPC lower clocks better performance. So if we were to extrapolate said common knowledge hmmm I wonder if higher IPC makes a difference. There are plenty of clockers that disable cores including all of the high amd clocks as it stands the most anyone has really seen with all 6 or all 4 cores going on ANY manuf's chip is in the mid/high 6ghz. this is not designed to make YOU buy this chip it is to increase awarness and basically be a PR stunt before release.



I get the ICP stuff I know that with more there will be more performance , Thing is Just how MUCH more will it have over the SB ? THAT IS THE QUESTION ! All AMD can do is stupid stunts and give out useless crap on there chips at this time . This is all I am saying . :shadedshu


----------



## cdawall (Sep 15, 2011)

trickson said:


> I get the ICP stuff I know that with more there will be more performance , Thing is Just how MUCH more will it have over the SB ? THAT IS THE QUESTION ! All AMD can do is stupid stunts and give out useless crap on there chips at this time . This is all I am saying . :shadedshu



How is it a stupid stunt they took some of the best AMD clockers handed them a handful of new cpu's and they set a WR. Thats not a stunt thats a PR win.


----------



## trickson (Sep 15, 2011)

cdawall said:


> How is it a stupid stunt they took some of the best AMD clockers handed them a handful of new cpu's and they set a WR. Thats not a stunt thats a PR win.



I guess your right , It will go good with this . And means about as much . But it is a great thing to see done . Congratulations AMD ! A job well done indeed .


----------



## cdawall (Sep 15, 2011)

trickson said:


> I guess your right , It will go good with this . And means about as much . But it is a great thing to see done . Congratulations AMD ! A job well done indeed .



I mean its not like its the first high end cpu to break the top 10 fastest chips or anything


----------



## trickson (Sep 15, 2011)

cdawall said:


> I mean its not like its the first high end cpu to break the top 10 fastest chips or anything
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110915/Capture134.jpg



So this looks to be the first AMD record for over clocking .


----------



## a_ump (Sep 15, 2011)

i think its awesome. its the beginning of a new architecture. Few more family releases of it and i wonder how far it'll take AMD. My hopes and expectations are high.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 16, 2011)

6Ghz SS and 6.8Ghz DI. 

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...-info-fans-!&p=4950616&viewfull=1#post4950616


----------



## Steevo (Sep 16, 2011)

Interesting that chew says its a 4 core 8 threaded CPU. If that truly is the case (or at least how AMD plays it if the market allows) they will be killing Intel on IPC.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 16, 2011)

Steevo said:


> Interesting that chew says its a 4 core 8 threaded CPU. If that truly is the case (or at least how AMD plays it if the market allows) they will be killing Intel on IPC.



In some situations, yes, it is just a quadcore. 




In fact, it IS just four MODULES. But the OS recognizes each module as 2 cores, like Intel's HT, but it's so much more than just HT, they have to make that distinction somehow.



For most instances, I think, for most users, it'll effectively be a 8-core CPU.

But it's still just a quad. Module. But quad.


----------



## Goodman (Sep 16, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Don't think. Do.



You didn't notice... i was sarcastic 




EarthDog said:


> Now? Its always been that way (well since multi cores were out). When shooting for highest clocks you should always disable cores.



Well all CPU-z scores on HWBot are all full cores enable except for Celeron & P4 which are single core CPU , anyway Celeron still/was single core cpu... as far as i know



cadaveca said:


> In some situations, yes, it is just a quadcore.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You'll still get 8 threads 

Also i wonder if we're going to see some 4-6 cores FX unlock in to 8 cores FX?
That would be so cool...


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 16, 2011)

> Well all CPU-z scores on HWBot are all full cores enable except for Celeron & P4 which are single core CPU , anyway Celeron still/was single core cpu... as far as i know


All. Hardly.

Most any CPU with HT, at minimum HT is disabled, in a lot, cores are disabled. This is the best way to achieve the highest clocks. If someone didnt disable HT and some cores, they likely havent maxed out their CPU. Its the way it is and there isnt any getting around that.

2600k - http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_2600k/
i7 920 - http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_920/

I can go on...and on, but hopefully you get my point.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 16, 2011)

Goodman said:


> Well all CPU-z scores on HWBot are all full cores enable except for Celeron & P4 which are single core CPU , anyway Celeron still/was single core cpu... as far as i know



well all of the P4's on the list have HT disabled since most are P4 631's. the P4 631's on the >8ghz list are very very single core single thread. As is seen here and here.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 16, 2011)

Goodman said:


> You didn't notice... i was sarcastic



I actually think you might be able to pull it off. I wasn't trying to be a dick or anything, I just wanted to see how close you came.


----------



## twicksisted (Sep 16, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I actually think you might be able to pull it off. I wasn't trying to be a dick or anything, I just wanted to see how close you came.



I nearly came!


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 16, 2011)

twicksisted said:


> I nearly came!



Too much info!!!


----------



## Goodman (Sep 17, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> All. Hardly.
> 
> Most any CPU with HT, at minimum HT is disabled, in a lot, cores are disabled. This is the best way to achieve the highest clocks. If someone didnt disable HT and some cores, they likely havent maxed out their CPU. Its the way it is and there isnt any getting around that.
> 
> ...



I didn't look at every CPU-z shot on HWbot just the highest ones ~40 , but both #1 in the links you posted shows 4 cores 4 threads on CPU-z 
Anyhow i always thought that to be able to have your overclock record with CPU-z that you must have all core enable otherwise it is rejected , i guess i was wrong...

Still wonder why so many people , most of them (from what i see so far) try the highest score with all cores enable , when much simpler with only 1-2 cores?
maybe most of them like me don't know that you don't have to have all cores enable?

Anyways case close & watch out for next CPU-z shot...



Damn_Smooth said:


> I actually think you might be able to pull it off. I wasn't trying to be a dick or anything, I just wanted to see how close you came.





twicksisted said:


> I nearly came!



I'll let you two discuss that in PM , i don't wont to know anything about it....


----------

