AMD breaks world record for fastest clocked microprocessor ever built

Just got back from college.
Checked google news for "AMD", and found this, seems everyone all over the internet is talking about this.
It's been a long time coming for AMD, they were taking a beating by Intel, for the past 7+ years, but it seems like they did good with Bulldozer.
Just waiting for the benchmarks now.
Now, this is noteworthy, how often is a world record shattered!
Looks like the competition is back.

AMD



Theyre in the Guinness book of world records now!

Is this their new AM3+. I've been told to wait for this one, not to upgrade just yet, but was forced to rearrange the computers and build myself a new one recently anyway, as the parts between the two needing work meant one extra would be there if I bought a case and power supply. So completed it, and bumped the computers down the line. amd 1, amd2, and 2 amd3. Heard the new one was going to be impressive. It looks perfect for ridding yourself of windows which I've already done for 2 of them, and will do for the others when there is more ram.

16 gigs of ram. You could put on pclinuxos, one of the best, vmware, or virtual box, and run everything you could ever want, ie. windows, mac, all the various distros of linux, sharing the ram equally. No need to dual boot either, just a big hardrive and virtualization.

Mind you, something came to me that seemed like an interesting concept. Quartz grown not harvested. Its programmable, and makes permanent hardrive/storage. Why couldn't an entire virtualized computer be inserted and a current run through it. Imagine a virtulalized, holographic design in a pretty holder on your desk, powering a screen.

Yes!
It's the new AM3+ chip based on the 990FX chipset, it's been a long time coming, i think they've been working on this since 2003.
I prefer windows myself, for the gaming support, and app support, but when i buy Bulldozer i'll prolly get some new HDD's and install Ubuntu and OSX.

You built a new one?
Same here, i used a fill in chip, the dual core Phenom II 555 BE by AMD, whilst im waiting for Bulldozer to come out, anytime now!

Good to know that the Bulldozer FPU can be split and used by both cores at the same time, better executions per cycle, hopefully this helps in gaming and video editing.
I see they brought in the SSE4 instruction sets this time too, so that will help greatly in video editing.
8 integer cores that can be executed per cycle v Intel 4, and their hyperthreading technology.
AMD definitely built a Bulldozer with this.

Eagerly awaiting the mobile version of Bulldozer now...i think they're calling it "Trinity".

this is an overclock with nitrogen cooling... from OP i was thinking you ment stock speeds.

Originally posted by Unity_99
Mind you, something came to me that seemed like an interesting concept. Quartz grown not harvested. Its programmable, and makes permanent hardrive/storage. Why couldn't an entire virtualized computer be inserted and a current run through it. Imagine a virtulalized, holographic design in a pretty holder on your desk, powering a screen.

Quartz being used as a storage channel?
Never heard of that concept before, just googling it right now.

Originally posted by gougitousakusha
this is an overclock with nitrogen cooling... from OP i was thinking you ment stock speeds.

edit on 14-9-2011 by gougitousakusha because: (no reason given)

Yes, overclock.
They achieved the worlds fastest (over)clocked processor in history.
Pretty good milestone for AMD

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien


I used a am3 6 core filler, a fairly good one I was told. Well my one son, got one too many virus's on windows, about 2 weeks apart. He uses facebook and social networking like IMVU and Ovoo. Fed up, enough was enough. I put on my favorite OS, and I've tried many. Pclinuxos. And spent a little time backlisting a driver and getting his wireless to work. Then with wine installed his two favorite games, World Of Warcraft, and Perfect World. Then coudln't use wine for those two above no matter what so used virtual box to give him wndows in a vault, contained safely, and installed those two. So I pimped his desktop.

The other two will follow as soon as we up them to systems with more ram.

I'm not impressed.

If they created a single processor that was equal to at least a quad 4 and made it dirt cheap say 50 bucks and did the same for the most powerful graphics on board chip (getting rid of the need for shared ram or a graphics sister board) then I would be impressed.

Heck if the processor they had was not overclocked was going into mass production to hit the stores next spring and was 100 bucks I'd be impressed.

Intel Can do this I am sure.. they can beat this record. There is nothing so special about the processor they used that gives it special abilities over anything Intel can create.

reply to post by gougitousakusha


Liquid Helium cooling actually. They started with Liquid Nitrogen but then changed to Liquid Helium. They had to wait until all of the Nitrogen evaporated before they started with the Helium, otherwise it would get too cold that the Nitrogen would freeze and impede transfer of heat.



reply to post by JohnPhoenix

If they created a single processor that was equal to at least a quad 4

What exactly is a quad 4?

nd made it dirt cheap say 50 bucks and did the same for the most powerful graphics on board chip (getting rid of the need for shared ram or a graphics sister board) then I would be impressed.

???

Outside of low-end systems integrated graphics doesn't make sense. To start, modularity is lost. Having a card for graphics is what makes sense which is why it's done.

Heck if the processor they had was not overclocked was going into mass production to hit the stores next spring and was 100 bucks I'd be impressed. p.

???

It's 8 cores, 3.6ghz base clock with 4.2ghz turbo and costs $265. It is going to come out in October or November of this year.

If the only thing that would impress you is a fast 8-core for $100 then you have absolutely nothing but unrealistic, fantasy expectations that will most likely not be met for several years..

Intel Can do this I am sure.. they can beat this record. There is nothing so special about the processor they used that gives it special abilities over anything Intel can create.

But Intel did not create it. Intels modern processors are usually limited to a max of 57 multiplier and the base clock is essentially fixed @ 100mhz. Sure they could create one if they really wanted to but if they did it would still be impressive. Just because another company can do it doesn't mean it's not impressive. A Core i7 2600K overclocked to 4.8ghz on air is impressive.

wow.
i actually found that to be very impressive.
i remember how excited i was to build my first 1ghz machine...and here we are now.

Originally posted by C0bzz
Outside of low-end systems integrated graphics doesn't make sense. To start, modularity is lost. Having a card for graphics is what makes sense which is why it's done.

Heck if the processor they had was not overclocked was going into mass production to hit the stores next spring and was 100 bucks I'd be impressed. p.

???

It's 8 cores, 3.6ghz base clock with 4.2ghz turbo and costs $265. It is going to come out in October or November of this year.

If the only thing that would impress you is a fast 8-core for $100 then you have absolutely nothing but unrealistic, fantasy expectations that will most likely not be met for several years..

Modularity? Really? Big Whoop. If the graphics chip was powerful enough you would never need to upgrade it. The ability to upgrade is just a cheap ploy to gain more money. I'm talking about a high end system that's good enough so you never have to do that. Having a card for graphics only makes sense now because of the limitations of the current technology. But imagine a laptop with an onboard chip that's as good as your demo chip and so affordable everyone can get one. That would impress me.

My expectations are not unrealistic at all. I'm telling you what would impress me is having such a large leap in technology that these things become possible much sooner than expected. Your 8 core at 265 is not much better off than my 4 at 100 'cept that the 4 at 100 is not being made/sold.

I am sure the government can do and has done much better they aren't letting the private sector in on. It has been said for years the Gov has technology at least 30 years in advance as everyone else.. this was coined years ago. With Moores law and technology doubling every so many months the Gov could have busted this record years ago in a chip the size of a pocket calculator - and we just aren't hearing about it.

So these guys overclocked a chip in a test lab that don't impress me. It's not anything you can duplicate at home.. it has no meaning for normal computer users.. what did they get.. bragging rights? So what I say.. to me, I'm not impressed.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenixModularity? Really? Big Whoop.

It's better than having to buy the whole machine from scratch each time you want to upgrade.

If the graphics chip was powerful enough you would never need to upgrade it.

Never gonna happen. Researchers and developers make do with what's on the market. For researchers and developers, there is a massive gap between a hardware "ideal" and the reality. This gap isn't going to close any time soon.

The ability to upgrade is just a cheap ploy to gain more money.

No it is not. nVidia and ATI invest heavily in algorithmic research. Like i said, there is still a massive gap between the ideal and the reality. No one's holding a gun to your head forcing you to upgrade.

I'm talking about a high end system that's good enough so you never have to do that.

Such systems do not and are unlikely to ever exist. See my above responses.

Having a card for graphics only makes sense now because of the limitations of the current technology.

The limitations of general purpose CPUs, yes. Steps are being made towards convergence, but how that pans out is yet to be seen.

But imagine a laptop with an onboard chip that's as good as your demo chip and so affordable everyone can get one. That would impress me.

Sure, we'd all love that, though. Add a supercar that's under $10,000 to that list whilst you're at it

My expectations are not unrealistic at all. I'm telling you what would impress me is having such a large leap in technology that these things become possible much sooner than expected. Your 8 core at 265 is not much better off than my 4 at 100 'cept that the 4 at 100 is not being made/sold.

Your expectations are unrealistic. Unless you fancy stepping up the plate and leading the research in the field?

I am sure the government can do and has done much better they aren't letting the private sector in on.

Nope. Not only would that make little sense but there's also absolutely no evidence for it.

It has been said for years the Gov has technology at least 30 years in advance as everyone else.. this was coined years ago.

It's a statement that makes a good soundbite but has no inherent meaning. Sure, there is military tech like fighter craft that is way advanced and classified but the idea that there's "secret science" is simply nonsense.

With Moores law and technology doubling every so many months the Gov could have busted this record years ago in a chip the size of a pocket calculator - and we just aren't hearing about it.

Again, unless you present evidence along with a compelling, logical case, this is unsubstantiated conjecture that has no basis in reality.

So these guys overclocked a chip in a test lab that don't impress me. It's not anything you can duplicate at home.. it has no meaning for normal computer users.. what did they get.. bragging rights? So what I say.. to me, I'm not impressed.

I'm not overly impressed myself, but it didn't warrant such a rather informed tirade against the industry as a whole

moar.





They seem to clock well. I'm hoping for 5ghz on air. But with that said, let's hope they're fast clock for clock. The leaked benchmarks are not that impressive but they may be fake or engineering samples.

Your 8 core at 265 is not much better off than my 4 at 100 'cept that the 4 at 100 is not being made/sold.

???

You want a quad core at $100???

www.tigerdirect.com...

The octo-core at 3.6 will likely be over twice as fast which is why it's $260 not 100$.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien


Bit off topic but I have to ask because you have the same processor that I do, the Phenom II X2 555.
How many of the cores were you able to unlock and still be prime95 stable? I was only able to unlock one but hey, three cores are better than two.

AMD just posted some benchmarks for their high end FX chip......Bulldozer out performed Intels, $1000, 6 Core, 990x, in gaming, and it beat Sandy Bridge in encoding.
A Sub $300 chip, beating a $1000 chip!
Reminds me of Core 2 v Athlon.

Toki, i wasn't able to unlock any of the disabled cores, i set ACC to Hybrid, and enabled Core Unlocker, changed the voltages etc, then saved and started up windows, it froze on me each time i was at the log in screen.
So i went back to the bios, and set ACC and Core unlocker and the voltages to default.

Oh well, Bulldozer's right around the corner, i'll pick that up on launch, probably my last desktop chip before Intel brings out their 22nm mobile chips.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien


I had a bit of a problem when I tried to unlock mine, too.
I found that unless I had the HT Link speed set at 1.6ghz that it would not POST.
Oh, and can you pick and choose what cores you have active with the 990FX?
I'm still rockin the 790GX

ETA: the stock voltages should be fine for the extra cores, I only had to bump them up when I started overclocking.

Ahhhh HyperTransport Link Speed....haha i never changed that.
Changed it after you mentioned it...bam!
4 cores all running @ 3.2Ghz and 1.5volts

I'm using the 970 chipset. you can pick and choose what cores you have active in the BIOS, and in Win7.
Currently have all 4 abled.

The processor was released yesterday. And honestly it's not very good - it is priced between Core i5-2500 and Core i7-2600 yet performance in heavily multi-threaded applications is between Core i5-2500 and Core i7-2600 despite having significantly higher power consumption. In the average desktop application it is far slower than the Core i5-2500 due to bad per-core performance and because most applications can not utilize 8-cores effectively. Sometimes it does not even beat AMD's old flagship processor - the Phenom II x6 1100T 3.3ghz hexcore, despite having around double the transistor count. Overclocking is mediocre as it needs an enormous amount of power to get to high frequencies.

This is why you have to be skeptical of marketing folks.




Review:
www.anandtech.com...

Unless you're using one of the few areas this thing excels in, then in this price range you're better off going Intel. And it pains me to say that.

I bet it still can't play Microsofts Flight Simulator X on high settings.