AMD’s Overclocking Record Smashed, Still Held By the FX-8150

22

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

aplusbex1

Congrats AMD you can finally compete with sandy bridge... until it melts after a few hours to a week at most.

avatar

Rikaroo

I wonder if this collumn woulda been reversed, if Intel had set the record,,Amd saying it doesn't matter, while Intel insisting otherwise?

 

avatar

EthicSlave

its not that it will likely fall apart

IT will fall apart given enough time

Did you know that they hand pick and burn through like 10-15 chips before landing a hardcore overclocking chip. Wondering how much money they spend on this? Well take this into factor the 1st overclocking achievement was earned with liquid helium (slightly colder than liquid nitrogen) and this stuff is extremely expensive in comparison to liquid nitrogen about 50x more expensive. Seems quite silly to me considering they fire up the torch to bring the temps back up WHY even use it if they are heating it back up again MAKES ABSOLUTELY no sense. nor does it make sense to see how high a clockspeed you could achieve if its only going to last a few seconds b4 crashing horribly.

so by no means is this efficient in any way, just a way to promote a product and tout a title with no real meaning or substance in real world performance

avatar

rjohnson11

Record breaking is meaningless unless the CPU can show off the same lustre in real life and this does not happen with Bulldozer with the average consumer

avatar

devin3627

YA YOU MOTHERFUCKERS I WENT FROM A 350MHZ PENTIUM 512KB CACHE TO A 1.4GHZ 256KB AND IT FUCKING LAGGED TWICE AS MUCH AND SEEMED 50% INCAPABLE. FUCK YOU IF YOU DISAGREE. I HAD TO DEAL WITH THE EXPENSIVE DOWNGRADE!!!!!

avatar

HiGHRoLLeR038

i wanna know what's 'stable'.  Run Prime95 for a few hours?  or just hope that it boots?  lol

avatar

warptek2010

I think I read somewhere that in the first record breaking it was only stable for a few seconds until it either BSOD'd or the chip shut itself down. Not 100% sure tho.

avatar

biggiebob12345

a) BD doesn't do near as well clock-clock vs SB.  5 ghz SB = 6 ghz BD.

b) BD doesn't overclock as well as SB under normal cooling methods.

 

So BD sucks ^2.

avatar

rawrnomnom

point being? thats kindof like saying a car can go longer distances than a motorcycle even though it travels slower.... we get it, but really AMD is the clockspeed king.

avatar

warptek2010

So Intel admits it's not about clock speed... then it's gotta be about offering the best bang for the buck.

Welcome to AMD Intel!

 

MaximumPC story headline I'd like to see:

Intel Corp. Can't Afford it's own CPU. Uses AMD Instead.

avatar

avenger48

There's a difference between clock speed and performance.  AMD's 8-core CPU's barely match Intel's quads, even in heavily multithreaded benchmarks.  I don't care if some of them can hit 8.5 GHz on LN2 with the ideal motherboard for a few seconds.  That is meaningless, when it's not actually any faster than an intel quad on air.

avatar

warptek2010

You missed the whole point of the record breaking overclock. It was mostly done to test the chip to see if it was susceptible to the cold bug. Breaking an overclocking record was a caveat. 

 

Even AMD acknowledged on its blog that many felt the performance of Bulldozer was not what was expected. AMD expects much better performance when Windows 7 supports the chip through better core scheduling. 

avatar

avenger48

Ok, good, there's no cold bug.  That was proved when AMD set the record.  This guy is just doing it for the hell of it.  Still, I can't say I blame him...

avatar

Marthian

like that's going to happen. Those sandy bridge cpus are faster than most of what AMD's offering, why use theirs?

avatar

w2ed

Intel is right:  It' not about clock speeds.

It's about being able to have time to play your favorite games, surf your favorite websites or (Oh My God, that could be enjoyable?) spending time with your family and friends because you're not waiting on your computer to process that major project.

To most of you, I'd agree that the record being bested by such an insignificant amount is questionable at best, but it's these sort of things that help us get closer to those end results.  While we are a lot closer than we were even 5 years ago, I think we'd all agree it won't be fast enough until those projects can be done in the blink of an eye.  Anything less, and there's still room for improvement.

avatar

Danthrax66

I'm confused by your post. Intel says it isn't about clock speeds because they get 20-30% faster results than AMD with less clock speed. I don't understand how that relates to the other things at all though.

avatar

Jasker

Intel didn't say anything, the author did.

avatar

alexw1234

I still more interested in overclocking done using air, not very many of use regualr people have liquid nitrogen tanks just stockpiled in our basement. And clockspeed matters when running single threaded apps.

avatar

illusionslayer

The record was "smashed" by .04ghz

I'm also dissapointed that you think running at 8.whatever while incredibly unstable with nitrogen is impressive. That's like having a car "that could go 200 but would probably fall apart",

avatar

Wingzero_x

And to think .04 GHz would've been really impressive back in 96-97..Oh wait what's a GHz!!

avatar

biggiebob12345

Take a Prius, strap a turbo on it, and crank the boost up to 20 lbs.  It'll explode eventually but be bad ass for a few seconds.  Same idea here.

avatar

Wingzero_x

LMAO! Just visualizing that Biggie!! What makes it even funnier is picturing the guy behind the wheel(keyboard) with the dumbfounded look on his face.

Oh yeah, my most recent build...Featuring the 8 core Bulldozer did not impress, not even when compared to an old 875K.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.