Skip to main content

Overclockers Take AMD A10-5800K APU to 7.87 GHz

Gigabyte's 'The Killers' team, which consisted of HiCookie, S.Dougal and John Lam, used a F2A85X-UP4 motherboard and demonstrated the CPU at an AMD Extreme OC show November 20 in Taipei. "We are extremely excited with this OC result because the F2A85X-UP4 is the first motherboard from Gigabyte to use our new Ultra Durable 5 technology - so the OC record is a testament to the high caliber of components that we use on our products," said Henry Kao, vice president of the company's Motherboard Business Unit, in a prepared statement.

Gigabyte said that The Killers also overclocked an AMD FX8350 processor to 8.47 GHz on a Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 board.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

  • yialanliu
    That's cool and all that, but can it run Crysis? as in, did they double the graphics core speed as well? Which would rock!

    I had to...sorry haha
    Reply
  • wanderer11
    I would really like to see a single benchmark from one of these overclocks to see how much of a difference this makes. Until then it is just a number in a cpuz screenshot.
    Reply
  • weaselman
    Take a close look at the bus speed though, it may be ok to clock a cpu up to or close to 8Ghz but it wont do much with a bus speed of 128Mhz or a front side bus of 129Mhz. bottle neck.
    Reply
  • jn77
    So, specs are only "half the story"...... In "real world" day to day use, my intel based computers out perform amd cpu's hands down...... (not that I want to support intel). So why bother. There is a balance of engergy use vs. performance...... You consume less electricity with amd and you get less performance., you suck your electric bill dry with intel, but you get the added benefit of the extra performance....

    I will take my "faster" computer over a slow one, why do we upgrade our pc's in the first place? to make them slower? :-) right.....
    Reply
  • deadlockedworld
    So that makes it as fast as ... a sandy bridge i3?
    Reply
  • bustapr
    jn77So, specs are only "half the story"...... In "real world" day to day use, my intel based computers out perform amd cpu's hands down...... (not that I want to support intel). So why bother. There is a balance of engergy use vs. performance...... You consume less electricity with amd and you get less performance., you suck your electric bill dry with intel, but you get the added benefit of the extra performance....I will take my "faster" computer over a slow one, why do we upgrade our pc's in the first place? to make them slower? :-) right.....here, have a cookie
    Reply
  • twelve25
    deadlockedworldSo that makes it as fast as ... a sandy bridge i3?
    A10 is already faster than i3 at most things at stock speed.

    Reply
  • arnoldlouie
    up on oc'ed benchmarks..or maybe it shut downs just after the screenshot...hehehe.. hey! I smell something burning...
    Reply
  • friskiest
    Through word of mouth, An AMD CPU overclocks to 7.87GHz,. its "fast",. that's what would probably get the low-techie into buying an AMD chip. The bigger the GB of a videocard, the faster it would be type of consumers.

    Not to be troll, but I really don't think this would help AMD that much,. if only they could put more effort and resources in increasing the IPCs of their desktop CPUs, that would definitely put them in a better stand against Intel.

    A 100W APU vs a 65W i3 is actually a significant consideration. A "dramatic" increase in the efficiency of their CPUs would make them an ideal for system builders- especially on ASIA where electricity charges is higher.
    Reply
  • dscudella
    Most of you are missing the point. This has nothing to do with trying to prove that AMD OC's better than Intel or that they're faster. This was a show of skill by the Overclocking team that did it, to prove they could do it.

    In a real world setup this is not possible as I'm sure EXTREME cooling measures were in place. Liquid Nitrogen being #1. This just shows that anything is possible.

    Good article.
    Reply