Saturday, October 29th 2011
AMD OC Record Broken, Still Powered by AMD FX-8150
In mid-September, earlier this year, a team of overclockers sponsored by AMD set a new Guinness Record for clock speed by a silicon processor, setting an AMD FX-8150 processor to run at a staggering 8429.38 MHz. If anything, the coveted Guinness Record feat helped cement the general notion that AMD FX processors are good at overclocking. Sadly, AMD's record didn't last long, with renowned overclocker Andre Yang breaking it with his 8461.51 MHz feat. At this point we don't know if Andre had Guinness covering his feat to he could officially break AMD's record. AMD wouldn't mind it at all, because the new record was set using an AMD FX-8150, too. Andre did it single-handed, or at least he is the only person in the "Submitted by" field on the CPU-Z Validation page.
According to the validation page, 8461.51 MHz was achieved using a base clock speed of 272.95 MHz, with 31.0X multiplier, and a brutal core voltage of 1.992V (almost 2 volts!). As with AMD's record feat, an ASUS Crosshair V Formula motherboard was used. A single 2 GB Corsair-made memory module was used doing 909.8 MHz (1818.16 MHz DDR) with timings of 9-9-9-24T. Like with AMD's feat, only two out of the FX-8150's eight cores were enabled. More details are awaited.
According to the validation page, 8461.51 MHz was achieved using a base clock speed of 272.95 MHz, with 31.0X multiplier, and a brutal core voltage of 1.992V (almost 2 volts!). As with AMD's record feat, an ASUS Crosshair V Formula motherboard was used. A single 2 GB Corsair-made memory module was used doing 909.8 MHz (1818.16 MHz DDR) with timings of 9-9-9-24T. Like with AMD's feat, only two out of the FX-8150's eight cores were enabled. More details are awaited.
110 Comments on AMD OC Record Broken, Still Powered by AMD FX-8150
If only AMD could lower the tdp...
*Imperial March plays*
Crap, too late...just run for it. Use women and children as decoys to slow them down!! :eek:
Also there is a typo in the 2nd to last sentence in the first paragraph, seems "to" should be "so".
I wonder if it uses less power/tdp overclocked that way than it does at stock with all core/modules running
The Bulldozer range is still a pile of shit and should never have been brought to market in its current state.
I'm saying your initial post insinuated that AMD should "give it up". When AMD had nothing to do with this OC record.
But this is all irrelevant. We'll eventually get new design materials in mass production and finally see clocks much much higher than any of this. Been a lot of promising research over the past decade that is being put towards this.
And gratz to the OC guy with his record!
Now bench that.
It's sad to see what we have to deal with today, it's still a one hell of an score there.
Bulldozer is an epic pile of steaming shit.