Slashdot Mirror


AMD Overclocks New Phenom II X4 To 7 GHz

CWmike writes "Advanced Micro Devices on Thursday introduced the latest member of its Phenom II X4 family of high-performance quad-core CPUs, which the No. 2 chip maker said it had run as fast as 7 GHz in extreme overclocking tests. Out of the box, the new X4 955 Black Edition, which is aimed at gamers and hobbyists, runs at 3.2 GHz, giving it similar performance to Intel's fastest desktop chips at lower cost, AMD says. The company was able to more than double the CPU's speed during its tests using extreme cooling technology that is not safe at home, said Brent Barry, an AMD product manager. The Web site Ripping.org notes that hobbyists with early access to the X4 955 chip have been able to clock it at up to 6.7 GHz. AMD said the chip was safe with fan cooling at up to 3.8 GHz."

50 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. that is not safe at home by captnbmoore · · Score: 5, Funny

    So what am I supposed to do with the tank of liquid nitrogen I have in my back yard?

    --
    The Navy Motto "IF it ain't broke Fix It" "A day is wasted if you don't learn something new"
    1. Re:that is not safe at home by buckadude · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, not exactly... FTA - "Key to achieving such speeds is the use of exotic cooling materials, primarily liquid nitrogen and liquid helium" But your point remains valid.

  2. Cross application by mc1138 · · Score: 4, Funny

    With new devices on the horizon being capable of recharging via heathttp://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/20/1915223, how long till we're able to capture the heat from processors and use them to cut power requirements for computers exponentially?

    1. Re:Cross application by GaratNW · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh my god! You killed entropy!
      You bastards!

    2. Re:Cross application by Petrushka · · Score: 2, Informative

      how long till we're able to capture the heat from processors and use them to cut power requirements for computers exponentially?

      Heat cannot of itself pass from a cooler body to a hotter body.

      Altogether now: heat can't pass from the cooler to the hotter! You can try it if you like, but you'd far better notter. Ah yes ...

      Heat is work, and work's a curse;
      and all the heat in the universe
      is gonna coooooool down. 'Cos it can't increase!
      And there'll be no more work ... and there'll be perfect peace.
      Yeah, that's entropy, man.

      -- Flanders & Swann

  3. Has to be better than my other stock picks. by tjstork · · Score: 5, Interesting

    AMD has been going belly up for so long now it was easy to write them off for dead. Yet, I'm tempted to pick up their stock. Has to do better than my NBFAQ.

    I think there's still some brand loyalty in Opteron - I love mine and I still think an Opteron will be my next pick of CPU.

    And, the newest go around of Ubuntu Linux has some new drivers for ATI cards that should improve those matters.

    A 7ghz chip is a very healthy prize for AMD. I wouldn't expect them to advertise the power usage on such a thing, but hey, its engineerings, you can't have everything at once.

    I like AMD a lot, and I just hope they succeed. I know that Nehalem from Intel is a strong series of parts, and AMD has a lot of work to do, but the capital costs are so high in chipmaking that it is doubtful we would see another competitor to Intel emerge in a generation if AMD goes out.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Has to be better than my other stock picks. by ausekilis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I like AMD too, they've always been affordable, have pretty powerful chips, and amazing customer support. I picked up a Phenom 9550 around the time they hit the market, and either the mainboard or the CPU was flawed. I called them up, told them my trials, they sent me a new one within a week.

      Now, concerning the AMD/Intel battle that's going on. I'd have to say that Intel would be in for a bunch of monopoly lawsuits if AMD were to ever go belly up. It's really in there best interests to maintain competition.

    2. Re:Has to be better than my other stock picks. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'd have to say that Intel would be in for a bunch of monopoly lawsuits if AMD were to ever go belly up. It's really in there best interests to maintain competition.

      That's really not true. Intel already maintains a monopoly-sized market share on CPUs, and they've been caught abusing it already (the intel compiler disables a lot of optimizations if code built on it doesn't detect an intel genuine cpu, for example.) It's still certainly in the best interest of the market, especially with child-company ATI being the only competitor to nVidia as well.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
    3. Re:Has to be better than my other stock picks. by NemosomeN · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apr 27, 1995, .5 cents/share, at $18/share. Around 30 seconds of research.

      --
      I hate grammar Nazi's.
    4. Re:Has to be better than my other stock picks. by xouumalperxe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That ain't true! Company gets monopoly only when there is not a single competitor on that market.

      That is patently false. Under that definition, Microsoft never had a monopoly on PC Operating Systems, because at any point in time you've had DR-DOS, OS/2, 386BSD, Linux, etc available. I don't think there was ever only a Microsoft operating system available.

      From Wikipedia: In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. The key here is "sufficient control". Microsoft, through its position, had enough clout to effectively lock out competitors (by altering the pricing for OEMs who don't sell enough windows boxes), and Intel also had (and, really, still has) enough pull in the PC market to exert that sort of influence if it so chooses (irrespectively of whether they do, or did).

      Legal definition may vary a bit from there, but US antitrust bears out these principles.

  4. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So they got (m)Ann Coulter to plop her bony, frigid ass on the thing?

    It's not nice to make fun of the undead.

  5. Honestly though by moniker127 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who cares what kind of rates you can get with a vat of liquid nitrogen on the damned thing? You're not going to be using that for anything practical.

    1. Re:Honestly though by Icegryphon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It just shows that it has the potential, which means that without liquid nitrogen it still has alot fo potential just not as much.
      Even a small bump in overclocking can reduce huges jobs by hours. [i.e. video encoding]
      OVERCLOCKER FTW!!!

    2. Re:Honestly though by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who cares what kind of rates you can get with a vat of liquid nitrogen on the damned thing?

      It's usually more honest. Despite what their release schedule says, the CPU producers don't get even increases in speed of 100MHz. New architectures often makes for big bumps, but if they maxed it immediately they could only sell the big bump once and they don't want that. Sometimes they got headroom, sometimes they're pushing the last MHz out of the chip to keep a steady release of slightly faster processors for a healthy profit and steady cash stream. These tests push the chips to their real maximum, making it very tough to throw up a marketing smokescreen. If your chip isn't overclocking well or at all, you're in deep shit. This is basicly just showing off that the architecture is good and got room to grow, nothing more.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Honestly though by DiegoBravo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree. For example, the Pentium IV could be overclocked to 8Ghz but that fact was of little practical use, so Intel dumped the architecture at all.

      from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4 :
      BEGIN EXCERPT --
      Overclockers did not break the 8 GHz barrier until the end of the Pentium 4 line on 3.0-3.6 GHz CPUs, which by then had a dwindling enthusiast user base.
      END --

      Honestly, GP was insightful.

  6. Oblig. by Vertana · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, but can it run Windows 7? //Burn the Karma baby!

    --
    "The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec^2" -Marcus Dolengo
    1. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Windows 7 runs on my grandma, and she's been dead for 30 years.

    2. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Windows 7 runs on my grandma, and she's been dead for 30 years.

      You should try running one of the BSDs on her.

      She's Catholic and rejects daemons, you ignorant clod.

  7. Not without a down side by AK+Dave · · Score: 3, Funny

    With that much helium for coolant, all your audio will sound like Alvin and the Chipmunks

    1. Re:Not without a down side by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oddly enough, that's what happens when you overclock your sound card.

  8. Great, until... by Rayeth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    you realize that most of the applications you use are actually constrained by something other than your CPU speed (probably memory bandwidth or hard drive write speed).

    1. Re:Great, until... by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think it's all a ploy. Most of the motherboards now come with overclocking options built right into the BIOS, and even tell you how to configure it in the manual. I've lost quite a bit of hardware to overclocking myself, and I will never do it again. It isn't worth the instability, or the broken parts. You're much better off to just spend the extra $100 for the better processor than to spend $400 on parts when everything else dies.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Great, until... by i.of.the.storm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think they probably locked the clocks on the memory though, as most good overclocking motherboards will let you do. I'm not sure whether there actually exists RAM that will let run stabley at twice its normal clock speed, since on AMD chips the RAM speed is directly proportional to the CPU clock speed. The same probably goes for the PCI-E buses, those probably had to be locked as well.

      --
      All your base are belong to Wii.
    3. Re:Great, until... by coxymla · · Score: 3, Informative
      I don't agree with that assertion considering recent technology.

      If your CPU gets too hot it will shut down, if the voltage gets to high the mobo will force a reboot, and if the BIOS doesn't POST a few times in a row then it automatically reflashes the BIOS with fail-safe defaults. You have to try very hard indeed to actually break parts.

      As far as value for money goes, take the popular Q6600 as an example. Quad core, 2.4 GHz, which can usually get up to 3-3.2 GHz on stock cooling and 3.6-4 GHz on a nice HSF. The 3.2 GHz CPU will cost you a lot more than an extra $100 and there's no 3.6 GHz part at all.

  9. How little progress we are making by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To me the takeaway is just how little progress chipmakers are making.

    Compare to the 1990s. x86 processors started the decade with the 80486 @ 33MHz and ended with the Athlon @ 1GHz mark and was doing more per clock for even more improvement than pure clock ratings would indicate.. Now in the decade we are about to close out we have managed to push that to around 3.5GHz and by the end of '10 we might hit 4GHz and eight cores (for those willing to spend serious coin) but work per clock doesn't seem to have improved at all and if anything have even slid back a bit.

    RAM improvement have slowed down as well, probably because of Windows inability to get large deployment of 64bit editions limiting demand. The 1990s saw average ram go from 1-4MB to 64-128MB. It has only been recently that 2GB sticks went from exotic server stuff to mainstream.

    Speed also isn't getting faster as fast as capacity is growing. Compare how many seconds it would take a 1990 vintage 486 to write to every memory location vs a modern machine. Same goes for disk access. Hibernation on a modern laptop is pretty much a dead issue since the time to write the whole memory load to disc is unworkable.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:How little progress we are making by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Insightful

      GPUs are where the real action is. Look at video games ten years ago. Then look at Left 4 Dead on a GTX280. WOW.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    2. Re:How little progress we are making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The mhz argument is lame. The difference between the top-end 486 of 1990 and a top-end 1ghz athlon is similar to the difference between that same top-end 1ghz athlon and a top-end Corei7 right now. That 1ghz athlon is one core; while a corei7 (to set aside the vast improvement of a single core) has 4 and soon 6.

      Mhz isn't everything, it does generate a LOT of heat; which is why Netburst didn't scale up to 10ghz well like Intel thought it would. I think you lack the understanding of how fast modern CPUs are and you're still clinging to the mhz argument (which is really lame).

      Nothing needs more than 2 or 4 gigs of ram in the normal desktop market. The SPEED of the RAM is growing. Tri-channel DDR3 is pretty impressive

      I find your arguments very ignorant and uninformed.

    3. Re:How little progress we are making by i.of.the.storm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you serious? CPUs are doing a lot more per clock than they did in the past. In case you haven't noticed the sort of invisible 4ghz wall that we've been staring up at for the past 4 or 5 years, clock speeds actually have stayed pretty constant but raw performance as measured by benchmarks and such has been improving drastically - look at Core i7 benchmarks vs Core 2 Duo, or Phenom II vs Phenom vs Athlon X2. Really though, most people don't need more processing power than what a 2ghz dual core provides, if that, so it seems like things aren't improving, but they really have been making significant strides each year.

      I do agree on the hibernation bit though; it takes forever for my laptop's 3gigs to get written to disk. Now I just resort to sleep mode in Vista, which actually works, so it's not too big of an issue.

      --
      All your base are belong to Wii.
  10. Interesting processor name by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Funny
    While the summary read

    955 Black Edition

    I saw it to say

    955 Brick Edition

    Which I think is a CPU I would prefer to stay away from...

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  11. Re:That's no Nitrogen. by Narnie · · Score: 5, Funny

    I personally like using liquid oxygen to cool my pc. It makes running dailies more thrilling knowing that I'm just a few centigrade away from leveling the block.

    --
    greed@All_Evils:~#
  12. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    With [Clinton's] saggy ass, I had her pegged...

    I stopped at this point, violently threw up, and now thanks to you I'm going to have to wash the mental image of Hillary making a pegging video out of my brain with a bullet.

  13. If you're going to use liquid nitrogen... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... - for cooling or anything else - be sure to install an oxygen level alarm.

    A nitrogen leak will dilute the oxygen content of the air to the point that you'll pass out - then die - without noticing what is happening.

    Nitrogen is the bulk of normal air so it has no smell. Your breathing is controlled by the CO2 level, not the oxygen content, so you don't notice it when both are being diluted (and the dilution of the CO2 slows your breathing, exacerbating the problem with the oxygen level.)

    This made evolutionary sense because the O2 and CO2 level are normally related - CO2 goes up as oxygen is consumed - and the CO2 level starts from a low baseline and affects pH, making it FAR easier to detect. But it doesn't work very well when people start taking the atmosphere apart into its components and remixing them differently.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:If you're going to use liquid nitrogen... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 5, Informative

      Candle. If it goes out stick your head out a window.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    2. Re:If you're going to use liquid nitrogen... by stfvon007 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or just do what the coal miners did and get a canary. If it dies, RUN!

      --
      All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
    3. Re:If you're going to use liquid nitrogen... by JumpDrive · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This was illustrated by a Saturn V rocket test. After the test the space below the rocket was flush with Nitrogen to remove/dilute the harmful gasses, which could still explode in oxygen. Unfortunately they didn't flush the area with Air(79% N2 21% O2) before allowing 12 - 18 technicians walk into the area. They died before they even knew what was wrong.

      I'm amazed at how many people work around the stuff and don't realize how dangerous it is. See parent for discussion of CO2.

      That 21% Oxygen is really important.

    4. Re:If you're going to use liquid nitrogen... by linzeal · · Score: 5, Funny

      That is what the wife is for.

    5. Re:If you're going to use liquid nitrogen... by evanbd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You need more oxygen than it does. Really, an oxygen detector isn't that expensive. Neither is overkill ventilation. And for small experiments, you just ignore the problem -- at a kilogram per cubic meter (roughly), you'd have to boil off more than a liter of the stuff to cause a problem as long as you're not working in a well-sealed closet.

    6. Re:If you're going to use liquid nitrogen... by Lcf34 · · Score: 3, Funny

      No. Make children. With little chance you'll get twins, then get (expensive) mirroring when using nitrogen. Having wife redundancy in active/active mode is (still) forbidden in our western countries.

    7. Re:If you're going to use liquid nitrogen... by orzetto · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm pretty sure your body reacts to the lack of oxygen, not the excess of carbon dioxide.

      You are in fact pretty wrong. The body uses what we control engineers call "inferential control", i.e. watches a certain variable (carbon dioxide) rather than another (oxygen); I am not sure of the advantages, but may have to do with ease of measurement, response time, or simple evolutionary randomness. See the Wikipedia article on hyperventilation.

      In normal conditions this works all right, since when there is little oxygen there is also a lot of carbon dioxide; in conditions for which we did not evolve, like a 100% nitrogen atmosphere, the strategy fails.

      This phenomenon has a number of implications: if you hyperventilate before swimming underwater, you do not feel as much the need for oxygen because of the reduced carbon dioxide in your blood, but you still have it just like before: that's how free-divers used to die, not noticing they were lacking oxygen and passing out under water.

      Also, I work at a research institute, and at my first course in laboratory safety I was told loud and clear that nitrogen is the main laboratory killer, because everyone assumes it is harmless, while in fact it can easily kill without any warning. Every lab using liquid nitrogen has big yellow signs with "asphyxiation danger" written on them.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
  14. Just couldn't help myself. by SnarfQuest · · Score: 5, Funny

    Could someone help me? I just tried licking my processor, and now I can't get unstuck...

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:Just couldn't help myself. by cjfs · · Score: 2, Funny

      Could someone help me? I just tried licking my processor, and now I can't get unstuck...

      Sure, just turn on the computer and fire up SETI. It'll fix it right up :)

  15. Still can't run Crysis! by GlobalColding · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh Snap!

  16. In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... how long till we're able to capture the heat from processors and use them to cut power requirements for computers exponentially?

    Look up the second law of thermodynamics.

    Power goes in on the "work" side of the Carnot Cycle and comes out on the "heat" side. You can salvage a small percentage by running the heat through a heat engine on the way to the heat sink - more if you let the chip get hotter. But not a lot.

    Further, the current technology can't stand being allowed to heat up - and its power consumption per unit of computation goes UP when it gets hotter. So even if you COULD put a bottleneck in the cooling (where you're normally spending more power to pump the heat away faster) to try to salvage some of the energy, you'll be running at a net loss.

    Now if somebody wants to use ceramic, high temperature metal alloys, and low work-function oxides to build integrated circuits based on vacuum-tube technology they might be able to get away with it. But electrons tend to be even larger and fuzzier in vacuum than in condensed matter so you might not be able to get your scale down to that of even current integrated circuits, limiting your speed due to signal propagation time.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  17. Re:A bit embarrasing... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think you've got it backwards - Intel was the Mhz fanboy, while AMD had its work cut out telling people that they had faster processors with a smaller number on the die. Now AMD is saying "hey look - we do more per clock, and our clock goes up to 7000".

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  18. How many beetles in a 747? by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

    From TFA:

    To cool a PC for 90 minutes requires 250 liters of liquid helium inside a aluminum vat the "size of a VW Beetle,"

          Once again the "technical" journalism community reminds us of that indispensable unit of volume measurement, the Volkswagen Beetle. As a purist, however, I must ask if that is in "new" Beetles or "old" Beetles.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  19. Re:A bit embarrasing... by default+luser · · Score: 3, Informative

    In addition, there's nothing all that wrong with AMD's latest processors. Shanghai is clocked very fast, and has improved single-threaded IPC decently over Barcelona, and dramatically over the Athlon 64. It almost keeps pace with Core 2 Quad processors, and that's a hell of an improvement.

    Sure, you might call it "too little too late" because of Intel's i7, but think about it this way: i7 is a very expensive platform to buy into, with a premium on processors and motherboards. For some applications this premium is well-justified, but for the average user who occasionally watches videos or plays a game, Shanghai is just as good for half the price.

    I admit that AMD is screwed on the server arena - anything I/O-bound just loves the i7's triple-channel memory and SMT threads. But in the consumer space, AMD still has a decent product to sell, so they're gonna do whatever it takes to market to budget computer users/enthusiasts.

    --

    Man is the animal that laughs.
    And occasionally whores for Karma.

  20. The bigger issue by MaXintosh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The bigger issue, here, is that cycles are getting cranked out faster than it's useful (or are getting to the point where an increase in speed is useless). Here's a little equation for you:
    (speed of light)*(1/(7 GHz))
    That solves to 4.282 cm. That's 1.6 in for people who don't speak metric. In the time that the processor does a single clock cycle, light in a vacuum can only go 4.282 cm. Electrons on a circuit can't propagate a voltage any further/faster than that.

  21. Re:The I7 at 8220.1 MHZ by Microlith · · Score: 2, Informative

    Click the link, it's a P4. His i7 topped out at 5.6GHz.

    If anything could go that high, it'd be the P4. That ridiculously long pipeline is what they were designed for.

  22. Re:Its a pity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And how much more was your i7 + DDR3 + motherboard than this chip + RAM + mobo? Oh, right... a LOT.

  23. Re:CO2 *and* O2 levels. by uglyduckling · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wow, if you're an MD then I'm scared.

    Most people's respiration works on a hypercapnic drive, in other words, when you have a raised blood CO2, respiratory drive increases. Some people with COPD chronically retain CO2 and hence their chemoceptors adjust to the high CO2 level and can no longer drive respiration. They switch to a hypoxic drive whereby hypoxaemia drives respiration. This works, but is less effective than hypercapnic drive and gives rise to the possibility of iatrogenic apnoea when high-flow oxygen therapy is used.

    Your statement "CO2-level is what keeps them breathing" is utterly wrong, and if you are an MD then you need to go back to the textbooks and do some reading before you go anywhere near an emergency room or respiratory ward.

    An information leaflet might help you understand a bit better.