News AMD overclocks Bulldozer to 8.429GHz

LedHed, didn't you read what I posted earlier, only a couple of guys have got SB chips above 6G, with the top being 6044mhz.
As people have said, it's all very well having the freq but if the performance/mhz is terrible, won't really matter.
Look forward to seeing some reviews, maybe I can get an AMD rig if it actually performs

 

I have just such a set up ready and waiting I just need a CPU to put in it....

 

Big F'N Yawn. Hit a nerve there I see.

 

hoping for AMD to pull back into the CPU game pleeeeease

 

Synthetic benchmark are rubbish, real benchmark are the measure of real world workload.

 

#cut#

 

Blade Runner sprang to mind for me

Bulldozer has just over HALF the IPC of Sandy Bridge? ....more than unlikely.

In the video matey alludes to that chip already having suffered alot of oc'ing abuse.

No. Not even wolfdale would do that. Allendale was a good 10-15% ahead of K8 at the time, I should know I had an e6300, but not even close to 50% better.

CPU-Z also said 56w TDP. CPU-Z could be wrong about half of the values it shows.

Agreed ...CPU-Z isn't a benchmark though.

 

On a Max 4 Extreme no less!

http://hwbot.org/submission/2177360_nickshih_cpu_frequency_core_i7_2600k_6044.3_mhz

Also AMD did the 8GHz on a Crosshair 5 Formula

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

It's all just for a bit of fun.

/marketing done for today

 

The CPU-Z screen shows that they only had 2 cores activated. That really means 1 module/core or whatever we are supposed to call it out of 4. A Celeron can almost reach that clock so I'm not blown away or anything although its good to know that Bulldozer won't hit an overclock wall like Sandy Bridge does at around 5GHz (not that it really matters). I would rather see an overclock on air with non-crazy voltages.

 

Of course the one on air for 24/7 is the most relevant, but stuff like this at -230C is only just for fun

 

I think one of the larger points here is that it was a multi-core setup that broke the record. Yes, the previous record on a Celeron D is mightily impressive, but this was done with two active cores. That's no small feat.

At the end of the day, though, this is an overclocking for the sake of it exercise. It'll be a bit yet before we get a real taste of how BD performs. Either way, though, BD is my next build. It damn well better be an appreciable step up from the Phenom II X3 I've got now. I was more than a little disappointed to find out Llano was just Phenom cores with (an admittedly decent) GPU bolted on.

 

TBH I'm bored of waiting for Bulldozer. I have been waiting for months to see how it performs compared to Sandybridge as I am waiting to upgrade two of my systems. I currently have them priced up for 2600K's and have been hanging on to see BD benchmarks before committing to SB blindly, unfortunately it's rapidly getting to the point that I'm just going to get the Intel setup because I cannot wait much longer due to one system being on it's last legs.

"BD is due out soon" - so I waited. BD has been delayed - I sighed but continued to wait as it wasn't supposed to be that long (2 months approx). Meanwhile there has been lots of discussion on BD: BD will beat SB, BD won't beat SB, BD has 2 cores in one so will be better than multi threading on Intel chips, It won't be better than MT on Intel chips, BD OC's like crazy but so what if we don't know how it compares to SB clock for clock, etc, etc.

I have to say, I'm bored now. Release the chip AMD or shut the **** up about it until it's available because I'm sick of hearing about it for nearly six months without it showing up. It's worse than the pre-christmas "Buy our cool stuff for the person you love or you'll never get laid again" marketing machine - and that starts in October...

IMHO. ^^

 

Our companies health and safety manager had kittens when he saw how they were handling the Liquid N2.
Nice to see AMD condoning safe working practices hehe.

 

I've not been fussed about CPU performance for quite some time.
Price/Performance ratio + low power usage + cool and silent running is what matters most to me.
Does anyone, aside from heavy multitasking power users running seriously CPU intensive tasks and VM's etc, really require more then a Core i3/Phenom 2 these days for word processing, internet browsing and gaming?

 

They are hardly bombarding us with marketing.

But otherwise I'm wig you pal. Just not so angry abouut it as you. Lol

 

I guess people forget that most of the OC records for Ln2 and what not has generally always been held by AMD.

 

Well I've been sitting tight with my Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6000+ running at a nice round 3Ghz and even though there are supposedly faster, better, cooler processors out there on both sides, this one has kept me running well and just starting to show its age and struggling occassionally in new game titles.

Since I am already running at 3Ghz I plan to keep that as my minimum clock speed so my best option from here is clearly more cores and I am hoping AMD's new top k model will be up to the task as its been a long wait and Intel has been tempting me with every new release.

I imagine that by the time I am happy with the tech and the cost to have balanced out, Windows 8 will be out so will be a whole new build and a definitive step forward in performance whether I end up going with Intel or AMD.

 

I forgot to say that I used to be on the edge of my seat waiting for those new releases, that next tiny step forward and the latest improvements in drivers, software and technology. Nowadays I find it tiresome with any performance improvements typically over-hyped and too small to make regular upgrades cost effective or worthwhile.

I can only say that I have disdain for the regular releases intended to milk the market and would much prefer to have fewer releases with more real improvements and greater performance increases. This article certainly had me intrigued but perhaps I have become jaded and shall remain sceptical until the nice tech people out there can give us some real facts, figures and opinions and find those here on BT to be the most informative and well presented.

Other sites may provide more technical data or sometimes get there first but at least here they tell it how it is and disregard how good it might look on paper and theoretical values and give us real world uses in no nonsense clear and most of the time, in a concise manner.

 

AMD Bulldozer FX-81X0 Official Benchmarks

http://lenzfire.com/2011/09/amd-bul...enchmarks-vs-intel-core-i7-980x-i5-2500-2500/

still not much to go on but its a start

 

19% in handbrake.. not too shabby