Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD Breaks Overclocking Record With Bulldozer

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the overkill-kill-kill-kill dept.

AMD 193

MojoKid writes "AMD recently held a press event at their Austin headquarters, offering hands on time with the company's upcoming Bulldozer-based FX-line of processors. Many of the details disclosed are still under NDA embargo, but AMD is allowing a sneak peek today to go along with a claimed Guinness World Record announcement. A team of overclocking enthusiasts and AMD engineers had a sampling of early AMD FX processors running at around 5GHz with high-end air and water-cooling, in the 6GHz range with phase-change cooling, and well over 8GHz on liquid-nitrogen and liquid-helium setups. Voltages of over 1.9v were used as well for some of the more extreme tests. The team had access to dozens of early FX processors and methodically worked through a batch of chips until ultimately hitting a peak of 8.429GHz using liquid-helium, breaking the previous world record of 8.309GHz for modern processor frequency." Update: 09/13 13:54 GMT by T : Adds user Vigile: PC Perspective was there and took some photos and video of the event.

cancel ×

193 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

8ghz (1)

Ruin666 (1027352) | about 3 years ago | (#37386404)

8ghz sounds quite sexy. lets see how it goes with an old corsair h70 tho...

Re:8ghz (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#37386532)

Is their any word yet on how much punch the bulldozer cores get for their MHz? If this is AMD's version of Netburst, 8GHz will likely end up being merely competitive. If it does well per-clock and hits 5Ghz on air...

Re:8ghz (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#37386684)

Installed an H-80 in a build I just made for my dad. They don't make the H-70 anymore. The H-80 is kinda cute and even better. The manual sucks though.

Protection (1)

suso (153703) | about 3 years ago | (#37386722)

Does anyone else think that for handling liquid nitrogen and liquid fucking helium that these "experts" seem to be throwing caution to the wind? Seems more like a rave than a science experiment.

Re:Protection (1)

Tim C (15259) | about 3 years ago | (#37386786)

One of the lab experiments in the first year of my physics degree involved using liquid nitrogen. If you're quick you can scoop a little out of the container with your fingers and splash it over the bench; it really isn't that dangerous unless you're a complete idiot (and no, sticking your bare fingers into it to splash it over the bench in this case does not quite constitute complete idiocy).

Re:Protection (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 3 years ago | (#37386870)

Even if it was dangerous... what a cool story to share. "Yeah, I was overclocking a new line of processors and I spilled this all over my arm."

Re:Protection (3, Funny)

Kvasio (127200) | about 3 years ago | (#37387126)

Next on Fox News:
"My CPU overheated while I watched porn. Wanted to add some nitrogen and that's how I lost my John Thomas"

Re:Protection (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 3 years ago | (#37387456)

Is that part of the Republican debate?

Re:Protection (1)

suso (153703) | about 3 years ago | (#37386944)

That's possible via the Leidenfrost Effect [wikipedia.org] , but not for long.

Re:Protection (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 3 years ago | (#37387046)

This makes me wonder why you'd use such cooling on hot processors then. You'd have to maintain a close relative temperature across the entire processor in order to prevent that vapor barrier.

Re:Protection (2)

wisty (1335733) | about 3 years ago | (#37387062)

Liquid nitrogen vaporizes, forming a gaseous layer which protects exposed skin. You *can* put it in your mouth, and look like you are breathing steam, but you can't swallow it (as the gaseous layer gets forced aside causing you frostbite when the liquid presses against your internal linings, and it rapidly expands in your stomach, which makes you expand too, possibly fatally). See http://darwinawards.com/personal/personal2000-25.html [darwinawards.com]

You can wash your face with it, but your hair / body hair *can* perforate the gaseous layer, resulting in localized frostbite, and hair loss. If you jumped into a pool of it, it would kill you, but *just don't do that*. Geez.

It's like the difference between a hot coal, and a pot of hot coffee. Drop the hot coal on your lap, and it will vaporize the top layer of your clothes, causing no real damage (and creating lots of comic relief for observers), unless you leave it there for a significant period of time. Drop a pot of boiling coffee on your lap, and you may no longer be able to reproduce. But people just assume that the hot coal is more dangerous, because it is hotter.

Re:Protection (2)

blueg3 (192743) | about 3 years ago | (#37387286)

No. Liquid nitrogen is easy to use safely. It's common in undergrad-level labs, can be reasonably easily purchased (like dry ice) by just about anyone, and only requires minor safety procedures. Liquid helium is more dangerous, but is common in graduate-level labs and is not particularly hard to work with if you know what you're doing. It is really quite expensive, though, and a complete waste to use for cooling something that's producing ~100W of heat, since it doesn't have a very high heat capacity.

It's probably easier to injure yourself with home power tools than with liquid helium. It's just that fewer people have experience properly handling the latter.

Re:Protection (1)

MrHanky (141717) | about 3 years ago | (#37387334)

Yeah, if you get too excited during the 'hands-on time', you'll end up losing your willy.

Re:Protection (2)

mikael (484) | about 3 years ago | (#37387402)

It's not that dangerous - the system operates just like a regular refrigerator. The cooling system is filled with helium gas at room-temperature. A compressor is used to compress the gas to high pressure - this causes heat to be emitted. As the pressure decreases, the helium liquefies before reaching the processor where it then heats up again and becomes gas again and the cycle is repeated.

It's not like some dude is standing on a wheeled office chair above the PC, with a flask of liquid helium in one hand, a funnel and some rubber tubing in the other trying to keep the end of the tube aligned with top of the CPU.

Re:8ghz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37387098)

Sadly this was my thought as well. Over 9000GHz on liquid unobtainium cooling is fine and great, but I'd be more interested in max OC and actual performance using methods easily obtained by the masses (as well as feasibly used, since tanks of chilled mineral oil are not).

Re:8ghz (1)

santiagodraco (1254708) | about 3 years ago | (#37387128)

Might as well ask how it would do with a Zalman CPU fan. Corsair is no yardstick in Water Cooling by ANY stretch of the imagination. What it is is decent consumer level WC, but we are talking enthusiast here which means real deal WC components.

Two links to one article (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37386408)

What's the point?

Hmmmm...... (1)

robthebloke (1308483) | about 3 years ago | (#37386416)

... Although I'm sure it's no easy feat, I'd be kinda more interested if they couldn't break the record (thereby implying we may be at the end of moores law)

Re:Hmmmm...... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37386454)

Moore's law has to do with number of transistors on a chip, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with processor frequency.

Re:Hmmmm...... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#37386484)

Given that Moore's law deals with transistor density, rather than transistor switching speed, I assume that that question will be settled in the fab, long before the overclockers ever get their hands on the goods...

Re:Hmmmm...... (1)

I.M.O.G. (811163) | about 3 years ago | (#37386526)

In regards to frequency scaling for Moore's Law, that came to an end in 2004 essentially. It's one topic wikipedia has right if you want to read the details. These days, moore's law only holds true for transistor density, which is why everything is multicore, power efficiency, and integrating more features on chip - there are extra transistors they can fit on the chip and they are finding more things to use that die area for.

Re:Hmmmm...... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 3 years ago | (#37386682)

Like integrating the GPU. Granted you can't play l33t games at uber settings but for casual games it's acceptable. Given the graphic demands of average consumers focusing on video is the better choice for integrated GPUs.

Just like the FPU (0)

Viol8 (599362) | about 3 years ago | (#37386830)

For the same reason that the FPU was first integrated into the 386DX. People forget that it used to be on a seperate chip (287). It would seem perverse to have a seperate chip for the FPU these days and I suspect in 5 or 10 years the same will be said for standalone GPUs.

Re:Just like the FPU (2)

paedobear (808689) | about 3 years ago | (#37386882)

486 (and it was only enabled for the DX) - the 386 series still needed a separate FPU. The difference between the 386 SX and DX was the size of the data bus.

Re:Just like the FPU (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 3 years ago | (#37387070)

Thank you - I was sorta scratching my head on that one. I had a 386 SX, then a 486 DX, and I was pretty sure that the FPU was separate on the 386.

Re:Just like the FPU (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 3 years ago | (#37386894)

I happened to grow up on a 386SX... I know that pain all too well.

Re:Just like the FPU (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37386918)

It would seem perverse to have a seperate chip for the FPU these days and I suspect in 5 or 10 years the same will be said for standalone GPUs.

Was there ever a competitive market for FPUs, or did only one FPU make and model work with each CPU? GPUs are meant to be replaced.

Re:Just like the FPU (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about 3 years ago | (#37387106)

There was only one manufacturer at the time, really, Intel. Although Cyrix did start off as a match co-processor developer, come to think of it.

Re:Just like the FPU (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | about 3 years ago | (#37387110)

Was there ever a competitive market for FPUs, or did only one FPU make and model work with each CPU? GPUs are meant to be replaced.

Well, there was Weitek [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Just like the FPU (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 3 years ago | (#37387292)

For average consumers though, discrete graphic cards are almost not necessary anymore. Sure gamers will always want more FPS with moar shaders but average consumers have far less stringent requirements. The next step I see is going to 4k but that won't be for a while.

Re:Just like the FPU (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 3 years ago | (#37386932)

Ahh no.
The FPU was integrated in the 486DX you could get a cheap 486SX that didn't have an FPU because heck who needed one except for CAD users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X87 [wikipedia.org]
For the history of the x87 family.
10 years? Naw I give it five max. Once APUs can play games at 1080p with all the eye candy almost no one will buy a separate GPU. They day that they can driver two 1080p displays at that level it will be all over.

Intel GMA (Graphics My ...) (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37387214)

Once APUs can play games at 1080p with all the eye candy

Given Intel's history of lagging behind NVIDIA and AMD in GPU capability, I don't see Intel GMA becoming able to "play games at 1080p with all the eye candy" any time soon. Does Sandy Bridge change this? Or were you talking about AMD CPUs with an AMD GPU on-die?

Re:Just like the FPU (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | about 3 years ago | (#37387318)

Early 486SX processors were DXes from batches where some had failed the FPU tests. The power and ground connections to the FPU part were burned so that part would not function, and the rest of the chip just took this as meaning the FPU was not present (they were still separate units linked like a 386 and 387 were, they just lived on the same bit of silicon instead of in separate packages - in the Pentium class chips onwards everything was more tightly integrated so just disabling the FPU units this way would not work).

Much to the annoyance of some people 487 chips that added the FPU to a system with a 486SX were actually full-blown 486DX chips internally - when installed the 486SX unit was completely turned off (if it wasn't surface mounted, you could remove it completely). The irritation was that the 487 was often sold cheaper than a 486DX even though they were internally exactly the same part. IIRC some people found that you could cut off the extra pin a 487 had so it would function as a 486DX, if you didn't mind voiding a warranty or two.

Re:Just like the FPU (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 3 years ago | (#37387570)

And when Intel began integrating the math chips on all future processors, I was sad because the IIT math chips I'd had in my previous systems was much more capable than those integrated by Intel. See all about x87s [cpu-info.com] here.

Re:Just like the FPU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37386946)

For the same reason that the FPU was first integrated into the 386DX. People forget that it used to be on a seperate chip (287). It would seem perverse to have a seperate chip for the FPU these days and I suspect in 5 or 10 years the same will be said for standalone GPUs.

The 486 was the first to have an intergrated FPU. The 386 and the 486SX used a copressor.

Re:Just like the FPU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37387112)

FPUs work in synchronous with the CPU. The program has to wait the result of the FPU instruction before going on with the program. Having an FPU outside of the chip increases the communication overhead and makes the system slower.

GPUs in contrast work asynchronous with the CPU. The CPU sends a batch of commands (today it is more of uploading a program to execute) to the GPU and goes on with its other tasks. The separate memory bus and modules of the GPU makes it possible that the GPU program executes without any performance impact on the CPU. This makes the system much faster. This advantage will be important for long. At least in the high-end gaming and parallel computation market.

Certainly it has disadvantages. The worst is that all textures (arrays of data) must be copied from CPU-RAM to GPU-RAM. But this movement is a linear transfer of huge chunks of data that can easily be optimized by hardware. Better than blocking the CPU with random access of bytes in the RAM.

Re:Just like the FPU (1)

Ferzerp (83619) | about 3 years ago | (#37387282)

I see this argument over and over, but it isn't analogous. The very first x86 integrated FPU was *faster* than the i387. Right now, the integrated GPU is an order of magnitude less capable than the top end discrete GPU.

Your comparison does not hold true.

Re:Just like the FPU (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#37387352)

It would seem perverse to have a seperate chip for the FPU these days and I suspect in 5 or 10 years the same will be said for standalone GPUs.

The FPU didn't use 300W.

Putting a high-end GPU onto a CPU would double the cost, require adding a huge memory bus to support the required bandwidth, make it insanely difficult to cool and force you to upgrade the CPU whenever the GPU got too slow for new games.

Goatsehertz record. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37386420)

Re:Goatsehertz record. (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 years ago | (#37387618)

I at least lol'd at your creativity.

Also Goatse is on a Russian domain now? In Soviet Russia, Goatse disgusted by YOU!

No New Egg Warranty (2)

Dareth (47614) | about 3 years ago | (#37386430)

I bet these liquid-helium cooling kits do not come with a warranty from New Egg!

No New Egg Warranty...but... (1)

David_Hart (1184661) | about 3 years ago | (#37386522)

... the kit includes a free pair of thermo insulated mitts, just pay for shipping and processing... (grin)

Re:No New Egg Warranty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37387508)

At least when there's quench, you talk real funny for a while, so its not a total waste.

Signal propagation limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37386440)

Due to the speed of light, isn't there a limitation on how fast you can clock a CPU die? As I know, eventually you will run into problems maintaining synchronicity.

Re:Signal propagation limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37386470)

Everyone knows light moves faster when it's cold!! That's why they cool them!!

Re:Signal propagation limits (4, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | about 3 years ago | (#37386504)

I though the Police solved the Synchronicity problem in 1983....

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Synchronicity_(album) [wikimedia.org] - a wiki article about their research.

Re:Signal propagation limits (4, Funny)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37386904)

Their solution won a Grammy, but the public won't be able to make full use of it until 2078.

Re:Signal propagation limits (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | about 3 years ago | (#37386674)

>>Due to the speed of light, isn't there a limitation on how fast you can clock a CPU die? As I know, eventually you will run into problems maintaining synchronicity.

A nanosecond = one foot. (Take that, metric system!)

You can calculate the theoretical maximum thereby, by just plugging in clock rate and die size.

Re:Signal propagation limits (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#37386780)

Luckily, the design limit, depending on how clever you are and what sort of work is being done, can be slightly less dire than it appears:

It isn't necessarily a problem if you have multiple signals "in flight" on the same line; but it is a problem is signals that are supposed to arrive simultaneously on different lines stop doing so as increasing clock speeds ratchet up the requirements for what "simultaneous" means.

You can already see it happening with external busses: check out the traces between the CPU socket and the DIMM sockets on any remotely recent motherboard. Some of them are about as straight as routing allows, some are densely squiggled, because they all have to have almost exactly the same delay.

As clock rates get faster still, the acceptable deviation in delay between "identical" lines gets smaller and smaller and the penalty(in clock cycles) for accessing a piece of silicon some distance away(ie. RAM connected to a different CPU in a multi-socket system) rises.

Re:Signal propagation limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37386966)

Second is a metric system unit...

Re:Signal propagation limits (1, Funny)

ShakaUVM (157947) | about 3 years ago | (#37387060)

>>Second is a metric system unit...

Yeah, but a foot isn't. That's the funny thing. A foot is a better natural unit for distance than a meter.

We really ought to be using kilofeet and millifeet rather than meters. =)

Re:Signal propagation limits (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about 3 years ago | (#37387204)

The speed of light is a limitation. Like a sibling commenter says, the speed of light is one foot per nanosecond. Propagation time through transistors is slower than this, but it's a good estimation tool. However, you don't have to have an operation go all the way through the system in a single clock cycle. Hence, pipelining.

Distraction. (0, Flamebait)

Zeek40 (1017978) | about 3 years ago | (#37386476)

Is AMD hoping this impractical PR stunt will distract us from the fact that their chips have been lagging behind Intel's for the past two years?

Re:Distraction. (5, Insightful)

pinkj (521155) | about 3 years ago | (#37386542)

To almost a tenth of the price? I'll take it. I don't need the fastest. Just fast enough for my needs.

Re:Distraction. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 years ago | (#37386558)

I was going to say something similar but you beat me to it.

Re:Distraction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37386650)

Then why did you post instead of just modding him up?

Re:Distraction. (2)

Albert Sandberg (315235) | about 3 years ago | (#37386740)

Then why did you post instead of just modding him up?

You need mod points for that stunt.

Re:Distraction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37386750)

If only you'd bought Intel (bing bong bing bong) TM.

Re:Distraction. (1, Flamebait)

wye43 (769759) | about 3 years ago | (#37387158)

Because your "needs" are clearly defined and measurable, right?
You need your Notepad to open up between precisely 200 and 400 ms. In no way you could use a blazzing 15ms loading time, or you could settle for a lousy 450ms. RIGHT?

Not that processor speed is the most influential on loading time of a program, but you get the picture. Most of the users don't have a precise measurement for what they "need". And my most I mean pretty much mean ALL personal users, including myself.

Please stop with "this is WAY too much processing power, its overkill" lines. Its getting boring, and we all know you crave it too, you just down-rate what you can't have. Its hypocrisy. Any stupid little user on this planet could have a very nice use for a 1 Petahertz processor, or more.

Re:Distraction. (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 3 years ago | (#37387482)

Do you often launch into rants that have no relation at all to the post you are replying to.

Said post didn't mention "too much processing power" or "overkill" or the requirement of any other person than themselves.

In fact all they said is that they'd take the one with 50% of the performance for 10% of the price since it seems good enough. Obviously faster would be better, but that poster happens get more utility spending the money on something else.

Why would you get so worked up about someone elses simple economic choices?

Re:Distraction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37387626)

Uh, the too much processing power lines probably come from (1) talking about processors with enough cores that some will always be idle or (2) talking about processors with such a high clocks speed that the processor is almost never the bottleneck. CPU-bound tasks are relatively rare these days, especially for your common web/e-mail/office user.

Re:Distraction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37387454)

Not only that, but there's also Intel 'Product Differentiation'. Things like hardware virtualization extensions only work on Intels higher-end or server models while on AMD every cpu has the same basic features. If you don't care about performance-per-watt, AMD is still the best value for money.

Re:Distraction. (0)

Calos (2281322) | about 3 years ago | (#37387596)

This is modded insightful? Sheesh.

A TENTH of the price? Yeah, maybe if you compare the most expensive Intel part to the least expensive AMD part, and completely ignore all those other Intel SKUs. I'm not sure if you're being dishonest, or are just really that obtuse.

I don't see any pricepoint where AMD offers a better value than Intel. They do have parts that are just plain cheaper - a quick search of Newegg indicates that only AMD has a new chip for under $40, an older Sempron. Above that, you can find similarly priced Intel and AMD chips right on up. Have you taken the time to look? Have you taken the time to compare? Or are you just a fanboy spreading FUD, or a non-fanboy who just hasn't changed their song in about 8 years? For reference, look at a chart like this one: http://techreport.com/articles.x/21208/18 [techreport.com]

A specific example from that chart: Intel's i5-2400, destroying the AMD lineup, yet priced the same as the X6 1075T and X4 980, and less than the X6 1100T, which it soundly trounces.

This is the case right down to the $100 range, too, about the lowest that chart goes.

I just don't understand how people can support AMD, except out of a root-for-the-underdog mentality, ignoring all else. Intel has design superiority, process capability superiority, technology superiority, manufacturing volume superiority. Given those advantages, you really think Intel is going to just leave a whole segment of the market to AMD? Sure, they're going to sell their parts at the highest prices they can first, but not everyone is buying $300 processors.

Re:Distraction. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#37386808)

I doubt it, most new architecture releases have some sort of little overclocker party, whether sponsored by the CPU manufacturer, or a bunch of gamer-gear motherboard, power, and cooling widget outfits...

The OEMs who ship the bulk probably don't even notice them, and I'm guessing that the market for ludicrously overclocked servers is pretty much nonexistent.

Re:Distraction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37386988)

I'm guessing that the market for ludicrously overclocked servers is pretty much nonexistent.

I think that no one in is right mind would risk overclock a server, the failure risk is not acceptable.

Of course that can be appealing to some but to risk downtime for some GHz... its just crazy.

Re:Distraction. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#37387102)

I could imagine that the "stack-em deep, sell-em cheap" fault-tolerant cloud guys considering the possibility(at least during the mature phases of a given chip's lifecycle, where the likelihood that a chip has been binned down purely for market segmentation, not for failing validation, is much greater); but the energy costs would keep them from doing much more than, possibly, cranking a lower speed grade chip up a tier or two, since energy use tends to spike pretty badly once you get outside of a given design's marketed speeds.

Cranking it up straight into nutty overclocker territory would be counterproductive(if your overclock involves custom modifications to the motherboard VRM, you are probably blowing the datacenter's energy budget...); but being able to trade a warranty for a free model number or two bump might be worth it, depending on the maturity of the chip.

Re:Distraction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37386876)

Maybe at 8.4GHz they finally have better single-core performance than Intel.

Re:Distraction. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 3 years ago | (#37387082)

Okay excluding the L33T gamers, super heavy CAD users, HD video producers, Movie F/X houses, and research labs no one needs the power of Intel's high end desktop chips. Frankly some of those users like the video and science users do most of their stuff on the server CPUs anyway.

Impractical... Well yes today but I thought the same thing when I heard about Intel running a cpu at 100 mhz with ln2 cooling back in the 80s. Of course that was when we thought an 8 Mhz system was fast. They where getting 5 mhz on air so that is of interest to the normal enthusiast community. What this really shows is that the new core is both fast and has a lot of head room built in. The old record was held by an Intel CedarMill core. It does look as if the Bulldozer will be interesting.
And please cut the fanboy crap. AMD makes good CPUs in their price points. They don't play with Intel at the high end in the desktop but then I don't know many people that pay $1000+ for a desktop CPU.

Re:Distraction. (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | about 3 years ago | (#37387226)

Okay excluding the L33T gamers, super heavy CAD users, HD video producers, Movie F/X houses, and research labs no one needs the power of Intel's high end desktop chips.

I'm none of the above, but I don't like waiting more than a minute for a program to compile. And I compile often.

Re:Distraction. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 3 years ago | (#37387312)

Get an SSD and more ram.
Even then unless you are writing giant modules which are you are not supposed to do you will not need to wait more than a minute to compile. After all you only compile the module you are working on.
I use a Core2 and my compile times are well under a minute. Now if I do a clean and build it is longer but no one does that often.

Re:Distraction. (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 3 years ago | (#37387612)

I believed not so long ago that CPUs were way over the speeds the average consumer needs, that is until I watched processor usage on a modern laptop doing live high resolution video chat.

For people who want to do face to face teleconferencing, high speed real-time video encoding at good resolutions and framerates will really eat up your CPU power. Its not an edge-case anymore either as more and more people expect to be able to do high quality video calls (and not the crap MSN pawned off on people for years).

Re:Distraction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37387372)

Okay excluding the L33T gamers, super heavy CAD users, HD video producers, Movie F/X houses, and research labs

...what have the Romans ever done for us?

Re:Distraction. (1)

Shinobi (19308) | about 3 years ago | (#37387558)

"Okay excluding the L33T gamers, super heavy CAD users, HD video producers, Movie F/X houses, and research labs no one needs the power of Intel's high end desktop chips. Frankly some of those users like the video and science users do most of their stuff on the server CPUs anyway."

Bull fucking shit.

Many non-geek amateurs/home users definitely want as much CPU performance as possible. In fact, as someone else wrote in a comment on this site a few months back, many software dev geeks need less CPU/RAM/disk than many home users plugging away at their hobbies these days. Many home users do video editing, music production, heavy duty graphics work, just as a hobby. There are people who don't give a fuck about computers other than as a tool, but it helps them do their other hobbies more efficiently.

As for the price of the CPU? When I upgraded my gaming/hobby rig, I went from Athlon 64 to Intel Sandy Bridge i5-2500... Because for the games and hobbies I do, it outperformed the at the time more expensive AMD X6 1055T, and I needed a new mobo+new RAM anyway. And Sandy Bridge is Intel's low/mid end. Ivy Bridge will be the top end. Bulldozer is competing with the now 9 months on the market mid end from Intel.....

Re:Distraction. (1)

KingMotley (944240) | about 3 years ago | (#37387602)

They don't play with Intel at the high end in the desktop but then I don't know many people that pay $1000+ for a desktop CPU.

They don't play with Intel at the "high end" of $280 http://www.electronics-emporium.com/products/Intel-Core-i7%252d2600K-Processor-3.4GHz-8-MB-Cache-Socket-LGA1155-%252d%252d-1FO004ROHKFN06.html [electronics-emporium.com] , which quite a few people do pay for.

Re:Distraction. (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 3 years ago | (#37387174)

Impractical PR stunts have their uses. They help to focus attention on what is possible today, and what will become commonplace in years to come. 8 Ghz may remain impractical for another two years, or ten years. But, eventually, people will come to expect that, and more. Someone has to do the early experimenting!

Re:Distraction. (1)

Ferzerp (83619) | about 3 years ago | (#37387436)

And someone did. Back in the NetBurst era, 8Ghz was attained. Must mean NetBurst was a great architecture.... :snicker:

Re:Distraction. (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 3 years ago | (#37387346)

Intel and AMD are both massively lagging behind in the state of the art. PPC whoops their ass

Re:Distraction. (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 3 years ago | (#37387580)

Would you care to do the math on FLOPS per dollar? Because if you care about money at all, AMD has been winning the performance game for a while now.

Another use for liquid nitrogen right now... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37386492)

Great achievement, however most Texans are more interested in using the liquid-nitrogen cooling on their home A/C units than their computers right now. Can we please stop breaking 100 degree records?

Re:Another use for liquid nitrogen right now... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 3 years ago | (#37386880)

Well considering that the highs have been in the 110F range with heat index, 100F is what Texans should call a "cold front". Remember in Texas there are only 2 seasons: Hot and Not Hot. ;)

And memory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37386508)

Bottlenecks only become more noticeable.

Overclocking a what? (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 3 years ago | (#37386616)

This is like supercharging a Pinto. Sure, it's the fastest a Pinto has ever gone, and maybe the highest RPM ever seen, but it's still a Pinto. AMD is two generations behind now on its fabrication facilities and chipset designs. Extreme overclocking is interesting, but hardly useful except as a PR stunt, unless they plan on selling liquid helium with every CPU purchase.

Re:Overclocking a what? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37386708)

Give away the processor, and sell the liquid helium. The gillette model all over again.

Re:Overclocking a what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37386954)

AMD has been far ahead of Intel in chip design. They have been behind in core design. AMD had gotten rid of the FSB with a NUMA earlier, real quad cores with L3 cache earlier, and properly integrated graphics earlier (Intel's CPU performace goes down quick when the integrated GPU is used in SB).

Re:Overclocking a what? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#37387290)

AMD has been far ahead of Intel in chip design. They have been behind in core design. AMD had gotten rid of the FSB with a NUMA earlier, real quad cores with L3 cache earlier, and properly integrated graphics earlier (Intel's CPU performace goes down quick when the integrated GPU is used in SB).

And in the real world Intel has still been ahead of them for most uses since at least the Core-2.

As for this demo, good luck running your CPU at 1.9V for more than a few weeks.

E-peen (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#37386652)

Just like drag racers - exactly how practical are they to get to and from work? I want a reasonably fast reliable chip that will last me the 5 years or so till my next upgrade, not something I can run at 8GHz on liquid nitrogen for maybe an hour before the chip dies from thermal stress.

Re:E-peen (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 3 years ago | (#37386936)

Just like drag racers - exactly how practical are they to get to and from work?

It's not even that, since the record is not for processing speed - just clock speed! One hopes they at least ran some benchmarks, but the article doesn't say anything about it. So, this is more like "highest RPM for an internal combustion engine" or something like that. (Which, not coincidentally, is most easily done on a small-displacement engine with little torque).

Re:E-peen (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 3 years ago | (#37387148)

Umm... Just about any CPU will run for 5 plus years. Depending on what you are using your PC for just about any CPU you get from Intel or AMD will do that for.
And if this CPU will handle this level of abuse odds are that it will last for a very long time on your desktop system.

Hothardware ? (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 3 years ago | (#37386890)

Shouldn't this be really, really cool hardware instead if they are using liquid-helium and all that ?

Providing additional utility ... (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | about 3 years ago | (#37386934)

... these setups can replace several small, kitchen appliances.

Plastic deformation of the motherboard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37387020)

From an article [overclockers.com] : "The PCIe section of the motherboard curling from extreme temperatures" (complete with a picture)

Aha, so this is why motherboards are generally mounted to the case with lots of screws?

Manufacturer should be disqualed from OC records (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37387198)

Overall clocking a CPU the fastest (that we know of) (for right now): cool. Congratulations, dudes. You did something awesome and we all recognize how nifty that is.

Over-clocking a CPU the most: AMD employees ought to be disqualified, at least when they're using AMD chips. For an overclocking record, you shouldn't be connected to the organization that rated the chip in the first place. If I were to make my own 3-GHz-worthy Pentium 4 then I could rate it as a 100 MHz processor and I would win an overclocking record too. How do we really know these aren't 6 GHz Bulldozer chips to begin with, but under-rated, other than AMD's word that they're not? Not that I seriously believe shenanigans are happening, but the potential for it makes it not cool. AMD employees going for an OC record should have to use an Intel chip (or ARM or whatever, but not AMD) and vice-versa.

2.4Ghz in the 90's (1)

bmwEnthusiast (1384289) | about 3 years ago | (#37387208)

Big deal, I had a cordless phone that was 2.4GHZ in the 90's. :)

Obviously (1)

DinDaddy (1168147) | about 3 years ago | (#37387216)

You can break almost anything with a bulldozer. Records are especially easy.

Letdown (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37387300)

I was hoping they actually overclocked a bulldozer.

It's been a long time.. (1)

Peter Cooper (660482) | about 3 years ago | (#37387364)

But.. imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!

Other benchmarks (1)

Aggrajag (716041) | about 3 years ago | (#37387476)

I am still waiting for actual benchmarks.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>