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

Did he pass 20 runs of LinX?

This just in: It's still shit

Yep. at 8ghz the thing still cannot keep up with a stock SB i7 2700..

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.

^ 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.

lol, bulldozer supports more instruction sets than cpuz can display.

who cares about the faildozer anymore...?

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.

I find this humoristic.

It can't Handle Crysis, why bother.

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.

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).

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.

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.

No... no he did not.

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

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.

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!"

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




windows 7 was made ground up to support threads in the i processors. wait till win 8 to judge bulldozer fully there.

Dude, I think they are still chasing Yorkfield.

The problem isn't that it can't assign tasks to all 8 cores, the problem is that it doesn't know that it should fill up cores 1, 3, 5, 7 before assigning 2, 4, 6, 8.

lol, and in 5 years when 8 cores are standard then intel will simply have 8 cores instead of some strange freak of nature.

whay hazn't dere been a lolcat meme for dis loldozer!

Windows isn't optimized for Bulldozer. Comparing the processors in the same benchmarks with the same setups is like comparing apples to oranges. I've seen some hack attempts to make windows recognize and use the modules more efficiently. Just wait till Windows 8. Bulldozer is definitely not a loss. Its just not used correctly.

Where Bulldozer fails most is in instructions per clock, where single threaded performance is affected. Tons of programs are still single threaded. Even if the software handles the architecture perfectly, the IPC is still going to be low and single threaded performance suffer.

The problem with this kind of logic from AMD fanboys is that by the time windows 8 is out and bulldozer is performing to its potential Intel will already be significantly ahead with Ivy Bridge and Haswell will be right around the corner.

In the mean time AMD looses a TON of potential customers to Intel. AMD should have held off on releasing bulldozer until they had they act together with Microsoft and instead should have produced die shrunk Phenoms and Thubans.

Not impressive since only 2 core was active and if you guys remmember a old pentium 670 could hit 7.1 ghz and could even run some benchmark. I hope this isnt a marketing tactic to help boost sale lol

things bulldozer is not optimized for

windows 7
gaming
heat efficiency
power efficiency
single core performance
multi core performance
price
lady gaga
mid-east peace
the weather

other then those things, bulldozer is the best CPU you can possibly buy!

my god all the AMD fanboys defending bulldozer sound like the old intel fanboys that defended the Pentium 4 back in the day.

it was sad then and it is even more sad now

speaking of amd's marketing tactics, this one was before bulldozer came out. and the rest is history disappointment.
notice in the at article that bd reaches only 600 mhz(using water cooling) over its max. turbo core unlike sb cpus which usually reach 700 mhz to 1.2 ghz over their max. single core turbo boost(using air cooling).
left out approximate power consumption on purpose.

I can't keep pouring liquid nitrogen in my rig forever...