Intel Core i9-13900K Breaks Overclocking World Record at 8.8 GHz

[Wolverine2349]

fx8350 history now
congrats intel

True though those FX chips had embarrassingly horrific IPC and were less than half clock for clock compared to Intel counterparts of that day let alone now. The record breaking overclock was more symbolic than anything on those horrible performing chips

Now breaking the record GHz record on a great Raptor Cove core is special as a chip with great and even the best IPC in the X86 space broke an overclocking record.

 

[ymdhis]

Not so impressive nowadays when stock clocks are near 6GHz. The old records on the Bulldozer and the Pentium 4 were from a time when the standard clockspeed was around 3-4GHz. Compared to that, this record is a mere 50% bump instead of over 100%.

Also remember the Celeron 300A which could go as high as 700MHz.

 

[vmarv]

True though those FX chips had embarrassingly horrific IPC and were less than half clock for clock compared to Intel counterparts of that day let alone now. The record breaking overclock was more symbolic than anything on those horrible performing chips

Now breaking the record GHz record on a great Raptor Cove core is special as a chip with great and even the best IPC in the X86 space broke an overclocking record.

The FX series came out when the OS, the programs and the games weren't optimized for multithreading. Still today, if you install one with windows 8 and 10, the OS will put half of the cores to sleep by default and you have to use something like coderbag quickcpu to wake them up. Probably 90% of the customers don't even know this.
Nowadays they are perfectly good for everyday usage, browsing and 1080p gaming. I moved from the FX 8320E to an i7- 5930K first and now an i7-5960X. I can tell that the FX @4.5 was like the 5930K in everyday usage and browsing. Can't tell about gaming, because I changed the gpu, but with the RX 480 mine was fine. The fact that now the OS and the programs are better optimized for multithreading, gave to those chips a second life in my opinion.
Unfortunally the low IPC is what kill them. As soon as one moves from Firefox to programs that make good use of single core performance, like 3DS Max or ZBrush, there is the need for more powa!!

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
So just posting is now all it takes ?
1.35v for 8.8 with no load that is impressive wonder what happens with 100% load

 

[Wolverine2349]

The FX series came out when the OS, the programs and the games weren't optimized for multithreading. Still today, if you install one with windows 8 and 10, the OS will put half of the cores to sleep by default and you have to use something like coderbag quickcpu to wake them up. Probably 90% of the customers don't even know this.
Nowadays they are perfectly good for everyday usage, browsing and 1080p gaming. I moved from the FX 8320E to an i7- 5930K first and now an i7-5960X. I can tell that the FX @4.5 was like the 5930K in everyday usage and browsing. Can't tell about gaming, because I changed the gpu, but with the RX 480 mine was fine. The fact that now the OS and the programs are better optimized for multithreading, gave to those chips a second life in my opinion.
Unfortunally the low IPC is what kill them. As soon as one moves from Firefox to programs that make good use of single core performance, like 3DS Max or ZBrush, there is the need for more powa!!

Does not really matter. The cores were embarrassingly bad. Sure for fully threaded apps, a bunch of weaker cores can exceed or even beat half of far superior cores. But the Intel HEDT 8 core chips mopped the floor so badly with the AMD FX chips it was not even funny. Yeah they cost way more, but the performance was so head and shoulders superior it was not even funny.

Even Intel HEDT 8 core chips whipped the original Zen CPUs by a decent amount but the gap was not nearly as bad as they whipped those FX crap chips. The Zen chips actually had value in them being a lot less money and performance that was so superior to AMD's PileDiver and and Evacuator garbage they only lost to Intel 8 core counterparts by 15-25% instead of the like 50% + performance those prior AMD chips lost to Intel equal core counts by even at all core same clock speed for both.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

The FX series came out when the OS, the programs and the games weren't optimized for multithreading. Still today, if you install one with windows 8 and 10, the OS will put half of the cores to sleep by default and you have to use something like coderbag quickcpu to wake them up. Probably 90% of the customers don't even know this.
Nowadays they are perfectly good for everyday usage, browsing and 1080p gaming. I moved from the FX 8320E to an i7- 5930K first and now an i7-5960X. I can tell that the FX @4.5 was like the 5930K in everyday usage and browsing. Can't tell about gaming, because I changed the gpu, but with the RX 480 mine was fine. The fact that now the OS and the programs are better optimized for multithreading, gave to those chips a second life in my opinion.
Unfortunally the low IPC is what kill them. As soon as one moves from Firefox to programs that make good use of single core performance, like 3DS Max or ZBrush, there is the need for more powa!!

Yeah.....uh, no.

When a pentium 5500 is able to b*tchslap your 8 core monster, your CPU sucks. The OS isnt putting cores to sleep, and there is no magic software to make them faster. Personally I do not consider a CPU with worse 1% lows then a console, that needs to pull excessive power to do so, to be perfectly good for just about anything today. (and for regular tasks, AMD construction cores are regularly used in low end chromebooks. They ROYALLY suck, being unable to handle google hangouts with more then 8 people before lagging out. And dont you dare ask them to decode HD video...)



Bulldozer, at launch, was losing gaming benchmarks to dual core i3s, and was in fact losing to the Phenom II. The Piledriver chips were slightly faster then phenom, but couldnt catch sandy bridge. Today, these chips are total garbage for anything but nostalgia. These cores were crap, their IPC was total trash. There is a very good reason AMD dropped out of the high end CPU race for several years after this....

 

[aQi]

Yeh I saw this post hovering over Asus rog social media accounts. Thanks tpu for more details on this.

 

[caroline!]

No vid? hmmmmm sussy.

True though those FX chips had embarrassingly horrific IPC and were less than half clock for clock compared to Intel counterparts of that day let alone now. The record breaking overclock was more symbolic than anything on those horrible performing chips

Now breaking the record GHz record on a great Raptor Cove core is special as a chip with great and even the best IPC in the X86 space broke an overclocking record.

I have one to play around with overclocking, stock it scores like 100 points in CPU-Z single core benchmark, and when I tried an Intel 9350K it scored over 500 lol I know it's newer but it was hilarious

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

No vid? hmmmmm sussy.


I have one to play around with overclocking, stock it scores like 100 points in CPU-Z single core benchmark, and when I tried an Intel 9350K it scored over 500 lol I know it's newer but it was hilarious

FX WAS fun to OC. Also, way easier to cool then modern hardware, you could FEEL the heat pouring off of AIO radiators.

 

[Bones]

Just checked to see how many of these have made it to the top 100 and there are (As of this post) exactly 3 that's done it, all by guys with ties to the industry (Elite league - Sponsored) so you can bet these chips were binned by Intel and furthermore by the guys doing it to select the exact chips with a chance at the record before the WR attempt was done.

Now - it's possible to find a golden example out in the wild but chances of finding one that way are extremely slim to say the least of it. The thing that's impressive about FX was for how long the record was held, done by a chip arch that is now over 10 years old and that's just fact.
Intel's new chip with this shows plenty of promise for further records and possibly the first to hit 9GHz, ATM that remains to be seen but certainly possible, esp since the record was broken by a newly released chip arch and you know further improvements will be done as time goes by.

One reason why guys like myself happen to like FX is you can find 8GHz examples in the wild today that's actually cheap to get, friendly for use with Ln2 (No CB/CBB issues) and will continue to run all day frozen under Ln2 unlike so many others.
It's also a platform that seems to always give a tad more vs what was done by it before and doesn't matter if it's slow by the results vs other chips, the fact you can always seem to get a little more out of it just makes it fun finding it's limits and that is an important part of it.
If you ain't having fun doing it, it's just not worth doing in the first place and I've never known guys to be into a hobby because they hated doing it - Have you?
I doubt it.

I'm not taking anything away from what was done, it is what it is and well deserved too.

 

[rlifeh]

useless numbers

 

[AnotherReader]

Yeah.....uh, no.

When a pentium 5500 is able to b*tchslap your 8 core monster, your CPU sucks. The OS isnt putting cores to sleep, and there is no magic software to make them faster. Personally I do not consider a CPU with worse 1% lows then a console, that needs to pull excessive power to do so, to be perfectly good for just about anything today. (and for regular tasks, AMD construction cores are regularly used in low end chromebooks. They ROYALLY suck, being unable to handle google hangouts with more then 8 people before lagging out. And dont you dare ask them to decode HD video...)

View attachment 266979View attachment 266980View attachment 266982

Bulldozer, at launch, was losing gaming benchmarks to dual core i3s, and was in fact losing to the Phenom II. The Piledriver chips were slightly faster then phenom, but couldnt catch sandy bridge. Today, these chips are total garbage for anything but nostalgia. These cores were crap, their IPC was total trash. There is a very good reason AMD dropped out of the high end CPU race for several years after this....

While you're right about Bulldozer being a bad fit for desktop workloads, the benchmarks you've chosen aren't single threaded. A Javascript benchmark would be better, and fortunately, AnandTech tested Bulldozer when the original Zen was unveiled. Despite clocking 200 MHz higher than the 1800X's top boost clock, the 1800X is much faster; the IPC increase for this task is 54%.

 

[bogami]

I completely agree that theoretical results are completely useless nonsense. The beneficial results for permanent use are much more interesting. With liquid cooling, I achieve permanently better results than the given basis, the product will , be more popular with useful attributes!

 

[vmarv]

Yeah.....uh, no.

When a pentium 5500 is able to b*tchslap your 8 core monster, your CPU sucks. The OS isnt putting cores to sleep, and there is no magic software to make them faster. Personally I do not consider a CPU with worse 1% lows then a console, that needs to pull excessive power to do so, to be perfectly good for just about anything today. (and for regular tasks, AMD construction cores are regularly used in low end chromebooks. They ROYALLY suck, being unable to handle google hangouts with more then 8 people before lagging out. And dont you dare ask them to decode HD video...)

View attachment 266979View attachment 266980View attachment 266982

Bulldozer, at launch, was losing gaming benchmarks to dual core i3s, and was in fact losing to the Phenom II. The Piledriver chips were slightly faster then phenom, but couldnt catch sandy bridge. Today, these chips are total garbage for anything but nostalgia. These cores were crap, their IPC was total trash. There is a very good reason AMD dropped out of the high end CPU race for several years after this....

Lol, that guy never said a good word about the FX chips in his entire and useless youtube career, just like the one of hardwareunboxed. TekSyndicate and Jayz did a better job showing the good of these chips, despite the low IPC, proving to be more honest persons.
Having used the FX6300 and the FX8320E, and Intels too, I can have a better idea of what those cpus are and can do. But I guess synthetic benchmarks count more than real life usage for someone. The FX can be kept @ 4.5 on air without any hassle, without catching fire or breaking your energy bill. Pair it with an SSD, 16 GB of ram and a gpu like the RX580 or the GTX1060 and you have a 1080p gaming machine.
Again, now I have a core i7-5960X @4.3 and it opens the programs and games at the same speed of the FX8320E @4.5, using the same SSD. I can feel the difference in the IPC only when using something like 3DS Max. The main difference between the two chips in everyday usage, browsing, 7zip and winrar, handbrake and gaming is given by the core counts. Believe it or not. I played Arma 3 and Stalker with the Misery mod without any problem using a RX 480. So whenever I read comments like yours, I can only guess that they are coming from persons who spent very little (or none) time with the FX chips.
I'm not saying they were monsters, but they weren't crap at all.
Oh, and I paid the FX 130€ many years ago (MSRP 145$ in 2015) and 100€ the i7-5960X the last summer (MSRP 1.050$ in 2014).

 

[The red spirit]

How about 16 E cores @ 9Ghz....

Superfast windows updates...

Ecoboost

Again, now I have a core i7-5960X @4.3 and it opens the programs and games at the same speed of the FX8320E @4.5, using the same SSD.

You know it's not true, stop lying to others and to yourself.

 

[phill]

Its only taken them how long?? Hope it comes with a nice CPU-Z Validation link as well Think that was the minimum requirement for it wasn't it? Suicide clock?? Hope they tried Super Pi 1m at that speed too!

 

[ThrashZone]

Its only taken them how long?? Hope it comes with a nice CPU-Z Validation link as well Think that was the minimum requirement for it wasn't it? Suicide clock?? Hope they tried Super Pi 1m at that speed too!

Hi,
Sure didn't show one
Guessing hwbot script was used ?

 

[mechtech]

Congrats on finally beating bulldozer

 

[simlife]

amazing the cs go community is praising it saying they have super human eyes and monitors that are form the future to run 4k at 900fps.... 7.5 out of 10 gamers are gpu bottelnecked so this is just a queen/golf clap gfu... this lvl will never be needed the most popular system in the world is the 300 dollar switch that is much much weaker then the 2013 consoles at 8 cores 8 threads doing 1.6 GHz the 4090 could be cpu limited here...

"and you have a 1080p gaming machine" cell phone are past 1080 for a few years the sires x and ps4 pro can do 2k easily 1080p is like bragging about getting laid at 30.... its old news and tech

 

[[XC] Oj101]

1.35v for 8.8 with no load that is impressive wonder what happens with 100% load

1.85v.

No vid? hmmmmm sussy.

Its only taken them how long?? Hope it comes with a nice CPU-Z Validation link as well Think that was the minimum requirement for it wasn't it?

Intel Core i9 13900K @ 8812.85 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR

[k3dwcu] Validated Dump by elmor (2022-10-14 07:15:16) - MB: Asus ROG MAXIMUS Z790 APEX - RAM: 32768 MB

valid.x86.fr

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Lol, that guy never said a good word about the FX chips in his entire and useless youtube career, just like the one of hardwareunboxed. TekSyndicate and Jayz did a better job showing the good of these chips, despite the low IPC, proving to be more honest persons.
Having used the FX6300 and the FX8320E, and Intels too, I can have a better idea of what those cpus are and can do. But I guess synthetic benchmarks count more than real life usage for someone. The FX can be kept @ 4.5 on air without any hassle, without catching fire or breaking your energy bill. Pair it with an SSD, 16 GB of ram and a gpu like the RX580 or the GTX1060 and you have a 1080p gaming machine.
Again, now I have a core i7-5960X @4.3 and it opens the programs and games at the same speed of the FX8320E @4.5, using the same SSD. I can feel the difference in the IPC only when using something like 3DS Max. The main difference between the two chips in everyday usage, browsing, 7zip and winrar, handbrake and gaming is given by the core counts. Believe it or not. I played Arma 3 and Stalker with the Misery mod without any problem using a RX 480. So whenever I read comments like yours, I can only guess that they are coming from persons who spent very little (or none) time with the FX chips.
I'm not saying they were monsters, but they weren't crap at all.
Oh, and I paid the FX 130€ many years ago (MSRP 145$ in 2015) and 100€ the i7-5960X the last summer (MSRP 1.050$ in 2014).

LOL cope and seethe. "muh useless youtuber, muh fake benchmarks". I guess GTA V is a synthetic benchmark now?

 

[ThrashZone]

1.85v.

Intel Core i9 13900K @ 8812.85 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR

[k3dwcu] Validated Dump by elmor (2022-10-14 07:15:16) - MB: Asus ROG MAXIMUS Z790 APEX - RAM: 32768 MB

valid.x86.fr

Hi,
Wholly crap that dude is on win-7

 

[caroline!]

Lol, that guy never said a good word about the FX chips in his entire and useless youtube career, just like the one of hardwareunboxed. TekSyndicate and Jayz did a better job showing the good of these chips, despite the low IPC, proving to be more honest persons.
Having used the FX6300 and the FX8320E, and Intels too, I can have a better idea of what those cpus are and can do. But I guess synthetic benchmarks count more than real life usage for someone. The FX can be kept @ 4.5 on air without any hassle, without catching fire or breaking your energy bill. Pair it with an SSD, 16 GB of ram and a gpu like the RX580 or the GTX1060 and you have a 1080p gaming machine.
Again, now I have a core i7-5960X @4.3 and it opens the programs and games at the same speed of the FX8320E @4.5, using the same SSD. I can feel the difference in the IPC only when using something like 3DS Max. The main difference between the two chips in everyday usage, browsing, 7zip and winrar, handbrake and gaming is given by the core counts. Believe it or not. I played Arma 3 and Stalker with the Misery mod without any problem using a RX 480. So whenever I read comments like yours, I can only guess that they are coming from persons who spent very little (or none) time with the FX chips.
I'm not saying they were monsters, but they weren't crap at all.
Oh, and I paid the FX 130€ many years ago (MSRP 145$ in 2015) and 100€ the i7-5960X the last summer (MSRP 1.050$ in 2014).

Jayz is so cringeworthy though. Tried watching a few vids but the guy is at Louis Rossmann level of delusions of grandeur, constantly boasting and gaslighting people who don't have the latest super high end chips with bitter comments, ugh, can't be helped.

When it comes to chip reviews and benchmark results I'd rather read an article and watch the graphs with the results here at TPU or in some other site.

 

[vmarv]

Jayz is so cringeworthy though. Tried watching a few vids but the guy is at Louis Rossmann level of delusions of grandeur, constantly boasting and gaslighting people who don't have the latest super high end chips with bitter comments, ugh, can't be helped.
When it comes to chip reviews and benchmark results I'd rather read an article and watch the graphs with the results here at TPU or in some other site.

Agree with you, I can't stand most of them and I use tech websites for reviews. But both Logan and Jayz tested those chips more than once and described the good and the bad. For someone instead there was no good at all, which is a clear lie and helps understand what kind of person is the author of the video.

 

[DerrickOlley]

Technology is advancing incredibly fast and the Intel Core i9-13900K processor is a breakthrough! Just as Elon Musk has created and is testing the Hyperlook, this processor is also creating the future now!