Fx-8150 highest air overclocks
- Thread starter Frizzo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- CPUs Processors
welshmousepk
Distinguished
- Sep 12, 2009
- 3,437
- 0
- 21,160
you might be interested in this:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/31/amd-bulldozer-breaks-own-world-record-overclocked-to-8-46ghz/
doesn't necessarily mean much for us regular folk, but it says something about BD overclockability.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/31/amd-bulldozer-breaks-own-world-record-overclocked-to-8-46ghz/
doesn't necessarily mean much for us regular folk, but it says something about BD overclockability.
welshmousepk
Distinguished
- Sep 12, 2009
- 3,437
- 0
- 21,160
from the fx8150 reviews i've read,
4.4-4.5 on avg. on air, typically 4.4 ghz.
using water cooling it goes higher.
4.5-4.8-.9, sometime 5+ (2 reviews iirc), typically 4.5-4.6 ghz.
fx8150's max turbo core speed is 4.2 ghz iirc so the oc speeds are not that much.
even on those speeds fx 8150 was slower or nearly at par with 2600k oc'ed @ 4.6 ghz, sucked up a LOT of watts. 2500k on 4.4-4.6 ghz could keep up with the oc'ed fx8150. 2600k's max turbo boost speed is 3.8 ghz on single core and 2500k's is 3.7 ghz iirc.
imho amd's ghz and cpu cpec numbers are sorta deceptive compared to intel's. they always look more from a spec perspective but they always end up being slower in tests/benches.
4.4-4.5 on avg. on air, typically 4.4 ghz.
using water cooling it goes higher.
4.5-4.8-.9, sometime 5+ (2 reviews iirc), typically 4.5-4.6 ghz.
fx8150's max turbo core speed is 4.2 ghz iirc so the oc speeds are not that much.
even on those speeds fx 8150 was slower or nearly at par with 2600k oc'ed @ 4.6 ghz, sucked up a LOT of watts. 2500k on 4.4-4.6 ghz could keep up with the oc'ed fx8150. 2600k's max turbo boost speed is 3.8 ghz on single core and 2500k's is 3.7 ghz iirc.
imho amd's ghz and cpu cpec numbers are sorta deceptive compared to intel's. they always look more from a spec perspective but they always end up being slower in tests/benches.
- Sep 17, 2010
- 599
- 0
- 19,010
If these processors had an average oc of over 5ghz, with some hitting 6ghz on air. (already seen a handful of 8120's at 4.9ghz)...I think AMD could make a real push against Intel. Even with the benchmarks showing no gains. As long as the performance margin is ballpark range, people would buy just to have an 8 core computer @5ghz+ , regardless. Trust me, I know Intel has a better product, but we don't want a monopoly in the computer processor world.
Any? No. Although it has 8 cores there are many mutlithreaded games/applications that bulldozer could not even beat 2500k in. I think it was metro? Not sure. Bulldozer does excel in some things but IMO overall its not worth it. Bad performance per watt and per dollar. I read an article somewhere where an old employee admits that bulldozer was botched because bulldozer wasn't hand-designed or something so there were many efficiency issues.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 21
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram