Print 45 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Sep 16 at 7:50 PM

FX CPU ran at 8.429 GHz with liquid nitrogen cooling

AMD has been content to let Intel offer the pricier and often faster processors to the enthusiast desktop crowd for a while now while AMD focused on the lower price crown. In fact, the company’s value-oriented Fusion processor has been a great performer for the company.

Today, however, AMD announced that its FX 8-core desktop CPU has grabbed a Guinness World Record for the highest frequency for a computer processor to date. The processor was able to run at 8.429 GHz, beating the previous record of 8.309GHz.

The team had to resort to some extreme measures to cool the processor enough to hit that record-breaking frequency. Air or water-cooling was out and Team AMD FX had to resort to liquid nitrogen for cooling. The team included some overclocking gurus along with AMD folks in the effort. 

The clock speed of the processor was validated using CPU-Z and will go into the record book. Although AMD was able to overclock the FX CPU to "well above 5GHz" using air or liquid cooling systems that cost under $100, the team used a three-phase system to make its record run.

 “The record-breaking processor speed that resides in the AMD FX CPU clearly demonstrates performance gains for the new AMD Bulldozer multi-core architecture, which will provide x86 computing power for this CPU and future AMD Accelerated Processing Units,” said Chris Cloran, corporate vice president and general manager, Client Group at AMD. “Along with world-record frequencies, the AMD FX processor will enable an unrivaled enthusiast PC experience for the money – extreme multi-display gaming, mega-tasking and HD content creation.”

AMD has a video posted that shows the overclocking process and the record run.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Cool, but...
By Motoman on 9/13/2011 1:38:56 PM , Rating: 1
...while I'm all for AMD vs. Intel, and think that this is a nifty bit of achievement, we all know it's not the pure clock speed that makes a CPU "fast."

Sure, they got the clock speed up to stratospheric heights, but that's not a sure indicator that it was fast than the Intel chip that previous held the terms of actually doing work.

It probably didn't run at that speed long enough to do any "work," but it would have been interesting to at least see some benchmarks along the way...although even that is kind of academic. Instructions per clock scale linearly with clock if Chip X has an IPC greater than Chip Y at 2Ghz, it'll still have a higher IPC at 8Ghz.

RE: Cool, but...
By AMDftw on 9/13/2011 2:00:05 PM , Rating: 1
I want to go see the demo. It was held here in Austin, TX. There is a video of it on PC perspective website. What i didn't understand is why in the hell did they use Win XP...? Their is rumors of a benchmark @8.3 but couldn't find a score or vid on it. I'm pro AMD and that's it. I have tried (3 times)Intel but just didn't seem to run as smooth as my AMD systems. I don't want to hear anyone bashing my post because I didn't post nothing bad about Intel its just my opinion.

RE: Cool, but...
By Kurz on 9/13/2011 2:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
Well... honestly it comes down the stability of the motherboard. Those issues with intel boards probably because of the BIOS/UEFI, though if you were to try those systems again and update the firmware and the BIOS I bet it'll run much smoother.

RE: Cool, but...
By AMDftw on 9/13/2011 2:25:20 PM , Rating: 1
for Intel I've use EVGA, Intel, And Gigabye. I built a E8400, Q6800 and I7 920. I'm a firm believer of updated BIOS and software and out of all of them the E8400 was the best. I still ended up switching back to AMD no matter if Intel was faster. I guess using AMD from the Thunderbird era kind of grew on me.

RE: Cool, but...
By bug77 on 9/13/2011 5:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
Ironically, the Thunderbird era is when the legend of AMD's "instability" was born. All because of VIA's KT266 chipset which in turn evolved into the legendary KT400(A).

RE: Cool, but...
By Clauzii on 9/13/2011 6:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
The KT266 chipset was already fixed with the KT266A. The fault was that the KT266 got instable with the AGP at x4. Run @ x2 is ok in most cases.

I still have a KT266A with a 9600Pro @ AGP x4. Solid as a rock.

RE: Cool, but...
By Alexvrb on 9/13/2011 11:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah and before that you had the KT133 which was junk, and was fixed with the KT133A. Noticing a pattern? The only VIA chipset from those days that was able to skip needing an "A" revision was maybe the KT333. Which in and of itself wasn't that much different in design from the KT266A.

Although to be fair, VIA did clean up their act over time, and they were still *usually* better than SiS. Not to mention even Nvidia had quite a few problematic chipsets.

RE: Cool, but...
By silverblue on 9/14/2011 2:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
I loved my KT266A board. It was stable, had plenty of BIOS options, and outperformed the unstable K7S5A board (SiS 735) which died on me. The only bad thing VIA could do at that point would be to release bad drivers (and they did; one release damaged hardware, but at that point I'd gotten an nForce 2 board).

RE: Cool, but...
By FaceMaster on 9/13/2011 5:20:54 PM , Rating: 3
But... using a certain company's processor doesn't change things like, say, driving a different car does. Do you really use a random PC and go 'URGH I don't like this one, it's clearly powered by Intel!' or anything like that?

RE: Cool, but...
By Targon on 9/14/2011 10:36:16 AM , Rating: 1
When you run into problems caused by low end Intel chipsets, yes, I DO feel like that. Intel may make a great CPU, but their chipsets leave a LOT to be desired.

RE: Cool, but...
By FaceMaster on 9/14/2011 12:53:35 PM , Rating: 2
Can't say I've ever had that problem myself, could you link me to information about this since I've been unaware of it until now?

RE: Cool, but...
By Belard on 9/13/2011 6:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm okay with my Intel system and my ThinkPads all come with Intel... hopefully on my next ThinkPad purchase, it'll come with an A-Series CPU in a T-Series body.

But I hope to replace my Quad core intel with an AMD FX/bulldozer setup.

RE: Cool, but...
By Targon on 9/13/2011 6:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
Windows XP has a lower overhead compared to Windows XP, so for CPU related workloads would be better. For testing of combined CPU+GPU results, then a stripped down Windows 7 would be a better bet.

RE: Cool, but...
By Alexvrb on 9/13/2011 11:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
But they're not benchmarking it. They're just pushing clocks up as hard as possible and running CPU-Z to validate. I suspect running Windows XP has to do with it being slightly more forgiving of unstable overclocks than even Win7.

RE: Cool, but...
By Da W on 9/13/2011 3:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
It means a lot since:

1. from technical previews it doesn't look like bulldozer has such an extended pipeline and low IPC as netburst had.

2. almost every preview and (real or false) leaked benchmark is confident about bulldozer multitreading potential

3. almost every rumors about the cause of bulldozer delay and almost every concerns was about AMD not being able to achieve high enough clock speed. I think they proved wrong.

4. Even the 8,4 Ghz running on only 2 cores (1 module)is important since 1 module is almost the same a Intel's core i3 being a dual core with hypertreading and turbo boost disabled. A single module bulldozer could make a great low-power laptop chip. And it shows how agressive turbo mode on an 8 core chip can be.

RE: Cool, but...
By someguy123 on 9/13/2011 9:14:40 PM , Rating: 3
I don't see any preview benchmarks showing good performance. On the contrary, the only tests that haven't been proven fake are those leaked by the chinese.

In theory it would seem like the design would offer better performance for out of order tasks, but we've yet to see any real testing. I don't see how you can compare it directly to another processor like the i3 when legitimate benchmarks don't even exist.

Also, that bulldozer delay wasn't a rumor. AMD themselves said that they weren't hitting turbo spec with their last stepping.

RE: Cool, but...
By 2bdetermine on 9/14/2011 3:31:44 PM , Rating: 1
Let's see, loading windows, executed CPU-Z if that was not actual work I don't know what then...

RE: Cool, but...
By mindless1 on 9/16/2011 7:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
IPC doesn't scale linearly with clock speed when doing real "work" because you still have variable bus speeds involved, data moving to do... though I do agree, all else being equal (but when is that ever really true?), one with higher IPC at 2GHz would retain it at 8GHz, except that to hit a particular speed you may be fiddling with raising or lowering the bus speeds to hit a particular CPU clock speed.

"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki