Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

AMD's Bulldozer Pushed to 8.46 GHz, Breaks Own Record

By - Source: AnandTech | B 127 comments

Another handful of megahertz, another record.

AMD's Bulldozer has the honor of being in the Guinness Book of World Records for achieving the Highest Frequency of a Computer Processor.

The record set on August 31, 2011, in Austin, Texas by "Team AMD FX," a group comprised of overclocking specialists working alongside top AMD technologists, reached 8.429 GHz, breaking the previous record of 8.308 GHz.

Now that Bulldozer is available for public consumption, an overclocker named Andre Yang claims to have pushed the chip to 8.462 GHz. He did so with a core voltage of 1.992V on an Asus Crosshair V Formula motherboard.

Somebody call Guinness.

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 31 Hide
    ross_mitchell , November 1, 2011 3:15 PM
    lol, bulldozer supports more instruction sets than cpuz can display.
  • 27 Hide
    flclkun , November 1, 2011 3:11 PM
    This just in: It's still shit
  • 25 Hide
    dragonsqrrl , November 1, 2011 3:20 PM
    This was achieved with only one of the four modules active. And the only validation required for the overclock was a boot-up into windows and CPU-Z. No further stability or burn-in tests were done. While this is cool and all, I think its relevance is relatively limited, even as extreme overclocking goes.

    What gets me far more interested is an extreme, fully-stable overclock on a fully functioning processor (yes, these do exist).
Other Comments
    Display all 127 comments.
  • 17 Hide
    fomoz , November 1, 2011 3:10 PM
    Did he pass 20 runs of LinX?
  • 27 Hide
    flclkun , November 1, 2011 3:11 PM
    This just in: It's still shit
  • 19 Hide
    tical2399 , November 1, 2011 3:14 PM
    IDC what kinda insane speeds they got it up to in a controlled environment, the fact that my old 1st gen I7 920 still outperforms it in certain things equals fail for these chips.
  • 23 Hide
    ozzy702 , November 1, 2011 3:15 PM
    flclkunThis just in: It's still shit


    ^ This. It needs to run at 5.5-6ghz to come close to SB in per core speed. In five years when all the software is written to utilize 8 threads it'll do just fine, until then it's a flop flop flop.
  • 31 Hide
    ross_mitchell , November 1, 2011 3:15 PM
    lol, bulldozer supports more instruction sets than cpuz can display.
  • 5 Hide
    phatbuddha79 , November 1, 2011 3:15 PM
    who cares about the faildozer anymore...?
  • 10 Hide
    geekapproved , November 1, 2011 3:18 PM
    Until software like Windows 7 can actually recognize BD's architecture and knows where and when to place the threads in order, it's not going to look good compared to Intel chips. FACT.
  • -7 Hide
    sublime2k , November 1, 2011 3:19 PM
    I find this humoristic.
  • -9 Hide
    de5_Roy , November 1, 2011 3:19 PM
    meh.
    the 2 bd cores are equivalent to intel's 1 core. this speed is comparable to that oc'ed celeron, if i remember right.
    anyone complaining about asus' crosshair mobo being bad for bd should look at the cpu-z screeny and realize that it's a very good mobo for bd even if the cpu sucks.
    btw, this cpu would still get beaten by a lynnfield 750 in efficiency analysis. :lol: 
  • 25 Hide
    dragonsqrrl , November 1, 2011 3:20 PM
    This was achieved with only one of the four modules active. And the only validation required for the overclock was a boot-up into windows and CPU-Z. No further stability or burn-in tests were done. While this is cool and all, I think its relevance is relatively limited, even as extreme overclocking goes.

    What gets me far more interested is an extreme, fully-stable overclock on a fully functioning processor (yes, these do exist).
  • 1 Hide
    officeguy , November 1, 2011 3:22 PM
    If this Andre Yang did indead break this record, why have a screen shot. This should have been documented (recorded on some type of media). Sorry Andre I don't believe a screen shot because it could have been altered.
  • 4 Hide
    getreal , November 1, 2011 3:24 PM
    phatbuddha79who cares about the faildozer anymore...?


    I don't want to overreact, but I have to say this is one of the top technology blunders and disappointments of all time. I was really disappointed when I saw the leaked benchmarks were real.
  • 15 Hide
    dragonsqrrl , November 1, 2011 3:25 PM
    fomozDid he pass 20 runs of LinX?

    No... no he did not.
  • -8 Hide
    amk-aka-Phantom , November 1, 2011 3:27 PM
    geekapprovedUntil software like Windows 7 can actually recognize BD's architecture and knows where and when to place the threads in order, it's not going to look good compared to Intel chips. FACT.


    This AGAIN? Why, then, 8-threaded i7-2600 outperforms it? Somehow Win7 CAN place all the threads in Intel's case.
  • 9 Hide
    tipoo , November 1, 2011 3:28 PM
    Looking at this optimistically, I think they could do a four core/two module Bulldozer chip with higher base clock speeds if this is possible. It may not have the IPC that Sandy Bridge has, but at say 4.5GHz it could still be competitive.
  • 21 Hide
    Stardude82 , November 1, 2011 3:32 PM
    These overclocking records are lame. It's also complete hypocrisy that AMD has a whole team dedicated to achieve entirely pointless clock speeds. These were the people who fought the "Megahertz Myth" so hard. Marketing tag should be "MOAR COREZ! MOAR MEGAHURTZ! IZ BETTAR!"
  • 4 Hide
    alidan , November 1, 2011 3:33 PM
    ozzy702^ This. It needs to run at 5.5-6ghz to come close to SB in per core speed. In five years when all the software is written to utilize 8 threads it'll do just fine, until then it's a flop flop flop.


    not just threads, the things that make the bulldozer look bad is the applications that are still single core, much less thread.

    amk-aka-phantomThis AGAIN? Why, then, 8-threaded i7-2600 outperforms it? Somehow Win7 CAN place all the threads in Intel's case.


    windows 7 was made ground up to support threads in the i processors. wait till win 8 to judge bulldozer fully there.
  • 16 Hide
    Stardude82 , November 1, 2011 3:35 PM
    de5_roy...still get beaten by a lynnfield 750 in efficiency analysis.


    Dude, I think they are still chasing Yorkfield.
Display more comments