Gigabyte's X79-UD3 With New F7 BIOS Sets X79 Records

lol, a SB-E at 5.6GHz can beat out a Bulldozer at 8GHz. That speaks very poorly for AMD's design.

I checked on XtremeSystems and yeah dgingeri your right. Looks like at 8Ghz Bulldozer does 1M Super Pi in 10.8 seconds where this guys 5.6 Ghz overclock did it in 6.1 seconds(rounded up).

Don't knock Bulldozer to hard AMD has been way behind Intel on Super Pi for a long time and even more so with Bulldozer since Super Pi is single threaded. To be honest Super Pi is a relatively meaningless benchmark other than when comparing the same CPU to the same overclocked CPU.

Well, I guess this proves it was only a BIOS issue afterall. That is an awesome overclock!

do you see the smoke?....wait....yes i see it

AMD is for little girls....if you want a real CPU get an INTEL

dude hicookie made it, my overclocker hero i've got a pic with him lol

Why is there so many ppl who pick companies over product?

Really? really?
No if you buy something it's about the product I will always the product best suited for my needs, no matter the brand, performance and quality speaks loudest to me.
So I say to all the people screaming for one company or another, stfu and look at what the product really is this is your hard earned money, don't fall for marketing.

Six cores at 5.6GHz is indeed impressive.

No.. 2 cores, 2 threads. Look at the CPUZ image.

In the case for CPUs, I am pretty sure we are picking the product. And in that case, the product is the Intel CPUs. They are clearly superior in every way and only getting better with every new release. IVB is going to be even better @ 77W.

Can AMD say they are getting better with every new release. BD is worse at single threaded benchmarks than the previous cpus they put out.

So the product of choice is Intel for serious PC builders. And before anyone talks about budget, I look at the PC i'm building as an investment. Id rather pay 1 or 2, maybe 3 hundred more and get a lot more future proofing for my money. But as it is, Bulldozer is actually a bit more platform wise than Intel SB at the moment.

AMD has always sucked at SuperPi. Bulldozers' single core performance is too close to the old Phenom II's to match SB clock for clock, so it's not so surprising to see AMD fail that hard at 8GHz.


In regards to the article, I thought part of the problem were poor components? I also thought the F7 bios throttled the CPU back so it wouldn't damage those same poor components. Guess you can't believe everything you read. I'll be looking for anyone overclocking the 3930 with the new bios over the coming days.

not really, it speaks more to the maturity of the Sandy Bridge then to the bulldozer.




future proofing, no, back what was dual core Quad core yeah it existed, right now future proofing doesn't mean anything. Any Quad core CPU out right now is fast enough to run any application, some may run faster than others I'll give them that, but there's nothing I know of in the consumer market that requires a Quad core. Were probably getting another good 4 to 6 years although the quad core before it completely goes away. And with more probable to happen is everything goes threaded, and in the case of everything going threaded, it would actually be a better investment than AMD and Intel.

Now hear me out on this. Intel has a mature threading solution, and it works. AMD's threading solution on paper provides far better threading that Intel, but it's not mature. When AMD's threading option matures, it will most likely surpass Intel, not clock for clock but in threading applications AMD's threading solution will provide better performance than Intel. Not every mainstream CPU shipping with threading options of some kind, you'll see being integrated more more in software. And the arm ever takes off, threading will be pushed farther and farther. There will probably be a time when the CPUs we know that they don't exist instead their smaller CPUs and active threads. Granted I'm talking far own future with that one.

This generation of the bulldozer architecture is… Crap, at least in user applications, and not fully sure of the Windows integration would really help that too much, don't get me wrong what help a lot but not as much as people are thinking.

A failure turned into something beautiful, this is how it should always be.

Ok i hate AMD bashers, i currently have an intel CPU in my PC so i'm hardly the biggest AMD fan but people need to remember that AMD has a tiny fraction of the staff and money of Intel, the fact that they can dish out any chips at all amazes me and if you look that the last decade or so they have done more for the CPU industry than Intel, i mean the core architecture that Intel made that was so good and pwnt AMD was only built because the P4 couldnt stand up to the Athlon if AMD hadnt out performed Intel do u really think Intel would have completely redesigned their chips?

What about 64 bit? i bet you have more than 3gb of ram in your PC but Intel failed miserably at their own 64 bit design, it was AMD that got it right.

How many cores does your CPU have?

AMD pushes Intel to change its game and if it didnt we would be far worse off so even if i do have an Intel CPU i still respect AMD for their efforts and hope that with windows 8 (and maybe the windows 7 patch if it works) and with teh next generation of AMD processors then intel will once again have to move adapt and move forwards

I buy a product not a name. I won't buy any AMDs CPUs because they are obsolete before they are released.

I have the deepest respect for Intel engineers. They are some of the most brilliant engineers in the world. I have an issue with Intel's marketing and business decisions.

Irish_admin is correct, had it not been for AMD's constant biting at Intel's heals then we'd still be doing 33~66mhz micro improvements every year. Without the threat of someone surpassing them Intel wouldn't be spending as much money in R&D. R&D is after all a sunk cost that accountant's and MBA's absolutely hate on their spreadsheets.

performance and quality go very nice with INTEL....i don't know about performance when it comes to AMD

arent bulldozer record was only on 1 core or 2 core ?

Hey, anyone know what the Expansion slot contains? I mean , what is that card in the third PCIe Slot? with the LED Display showing 88 and 1125?
It has that old style fascinating jumper switch array on it.... If anyone does know what it is..... Can they please post a PM to me... would be thoroughly grateful....
Ah!! The OC and the Board.... well, just goes to show that not all the boards are bad eh....

Only 2 cores! Son I'm disappoint :\

I have a bad feeling that the BD architecture won't "mature" enough to close the gap.

The last AMD chip I had was a Athlon way back when... never again....

I have always bought what fit my budget and worked for me.
My first PC build was based around Athlon XP 2400+, than i upgraded to the 3200+ later on.
my next build was based on the AMD64 X2 5000+ blackedition. im still useing that now,
but im saving my money, and keeping a open eye on processor prices now.
after ivy bridge changes the prices of the processors on the market il decide what im getting next.

Only 2 cores active? =/

I happen to agree with you up until you use the word investment referring to a computer LOL Maybe it's an investment if you are using it to make money with it otherwise it is strictly a money pit. I do love my money pit though!!!! and I love sinking more money into it

This is a load of crap. There are only two active cores and somehow this machine has 640MB of RAM running with huge latencies at almost 1200MHz. How can the RAM run at 1180MHz with a BLCK of 99MHz? I admit I don't have a sandy bridge machine but my memory multiplier doesn't go to six.

And seriously, this is an LGA 2011 machine with a radeon 5570?

This crap should have at least mentioned in the article. All of this gives me doubts about the authenticity of this article and really should have been noticed.

Yeah.. now that you have the specs for the fastest desktop, just go ahead a buy those part so you'll have a fast and usefull computer. Because we all know that great benchmarking machine means great user experience on desktop. And with this machine, you don't have to ask, you know it will run Crisys...

whats so great about crysis?

To the guys commenting on 2 cores, have you seen hwbot testing full 6 cores with HT on with 3DMARK11 and wprime at 5.4 and 5.5Ghz with 1.6 and 1.68vcore!

http://gigabytedaily.blogspot.com/ [...] d7-to.html

The pictures in this article show only two active cores. Whether or not similar overclocks have been reached with all cores active is not the point nor is it what we complained about. We complained about only two cores being active in the overclocking attempt covered by this article and the article not mentioning the fact that not all cores were active.

By not telling us that not all cores are active anyone whom didn't check would probably think this overclocking attempt was done with all cores active, a false assumption. Sure it's not like its illegal but it is annoying and misleading for those whom didn't check.

Although I am grateful for the link it does not prove any of us wrong for complaining nor does it prove anyone else right.