Slashdot Mirror
Intel Ivy Bridge Processor Hits 7GHz Overclock Record
MojoKid writes "Renowned Overclocker HiCookie used a Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H motherboard to achieve a fully validated 7.03GHz clock speed on an Intel Core i7 3770K Ivy Bridge processor. As it stands, that's the highest clockspeed for an Ivy Bridge CPU, and it required a steady dose of liquid nitrogen to get there. HiCookie also broke a record for the highest memory speed on an Ivy Bridge platform, pushing his G.Skill Trident X DDR3-2800 memory kit populated in four DIMM slots to 3,280MHz. Not for the faint of heart, the record breaking CPU overclock required that HiCookie pump 1.956V to the processor, according to his CPU-Z screenshot. The CPU multiplier was set at x63."
Can someone explain why it's reporting one core, two threads?
Is this:
1. Set to one core to get a better heat profile?
2. Only using one core for the test?
3. Using all cores for the test but only reporting one core's results?
Because if it's 1 or 2 I think I see some problems with this benchmark.
This is essentially the only way to run this experiment, if you run all the cores at this speed, fusion is initiated, a black hole forms and time runs backwards!
Couldn't POWER CPUs do >5 GHz as their normal speed already a loong time ago? (Apart from being a much better architecture to begin with.)
And didn't many people do 7GHz overclockings, using liquid nitrogen, over five years ago?
How meaningless is a overclocking speed? It's like saying: Your Smart will go 400km/h... if only we run it as ten bazillion RPM. It's still a Smart!! And you will never get this in real life!
This is damn close to fraud, to spread such bullshit so people get a false feeling of it being so fast.
Woah! So if time runs backwards, but you still measure it as going forward, does the cpu end up running at infinite hertz?
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
7 GHz processor speed and it still takes 10 seconds to load Windows. . .
Not only do they not do anything at these speeds, they cannot do anything at these speeds except run CPU-Z long enough to get a screen-shot.
Contests to see who can run Superpi the fastest are more interesting.
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=185163
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
No, it means the CPU clock was 63x the bus speed, which means that the bus speed was a dog-slow 111 MHz. The CPU would not be particularly useful running at this speed because of the slow bus speed.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The multiplier on my processor (2 year old i5) was set around 20x by default. I suspect the i7 starts out higher. I think this is less than twice as fast as the non-overclocked version.
Oh, and the CPU multiplier is just how much faster the CPU is than the system bus. It's been a loooong time since any CPU's have run at 1x.
Not too impressive. My 10-year-old Pentium 4 is almost as fast (3.2 GHz).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
AMD did better with 2 cores, now I would like to see a side by side comparison of actual tasks.
link
Then how do they call it stable?
To me it seems like you would want to test it doing some sort of calculation you can check later.
With the Superpi contests they do, your checksum has to be validated for your score to count.
These max gigahertz records such as tfa, although interesting, are pretty useless. I do have to give them credit for what they do though, it ain't easy.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
AMD hit their record with all cores enabled.... intel requires one core disabled or else you will brick the CPU regardless if it's LN2 cooling.
Also, Gigabyte gave them this "special" motherboard.
Woah! So if time runs backwards, but you still measure it as going forward, does the cpu end up running at infinite hertz?
You made my brain hertz.
That's a hell of a cookie crunch
Oh that was pretty lame. Try harder, dont be lazy. Effort spent is wittiness gained.
Standard base clock for Sandy/Ivy Bridge is 100MHz...
0 1 - just my two bits
Oh wait, no it can't. It also isn't quad core, and does about 20% of the work per clock.
There are limits to GHz scaling. It isn't a situation of "Oh just make it faster," particularly if you want to hit a power budget. What has happened is that CPUs have gotten much more parallel, much more efficient per clock, and have gotten much better at vector math. My Sandy Bridge processor pulls like 80 Gflops on Linpack using AVX. Try that on a P4, let me know how it goes.
CPU companies aren't interested in optimizing for high GHz at the expense of thermal and computational efficiency. They want CPUs that do more, and do it on a power budget.
It would run infinitely fast at 0 hertz
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Things for you to do:
1) Go outside
2) walk to the nearest store
3) by a humor detector.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This is essentially the only way to run this experiment, if you run all the cores at this speed, fusion is initiated [...]
So if you overclock all of the Intel's cores at once it turns into an AMD?
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
The results are pretty impressive
I honestly don't understand why. These ridiculous liquid nitrogen overclocks have absolutely no real world implications whatsoever. They completely trash the hardware, and for what? A big number? What the hell good is that?
It's a shame, because the people that should be getting the hype and recognition are the ones that are overclocking their systems while still having a modicum of stability with real-world applications and reasonable up-time, because at least that's useful to enthusiasts and pushes a real envelope as opposed to a bullshit fake one that only a very, very select few can duplicate and even fewer would even bother.
Want to impress me? Crank out stable 5+ GHz on air cooling across all the cores in an always-on machine. Playing games with liquid Nitrogen is not impressive at all. These guys are the ricers of the computer world.
I remember when modding was interesting and expensive. :(
I now find it pointless. I just want my computer to work, I don't care how fast it is anymore. Sorry
You mean other than kicking the crap out of AMD?
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I own the mentioned UD5H motherboard used for the record memory speed; I bought it to replace a very old P5B Deluxe. I am in no way jealous or unappreciative of HiCookie's feat, and the board definitely looks like something that can handle such a thing, but my experience with the board has been middling.
I haven't had the freezes that people have mentioned on its Newegg page (thank the gods!) and things generally work, but Windows 7 64-bit simply refuses to hybrid sleep or hibernate, and after a non-hybrid standby to RAM, things subtly fuck up (no audio, and other devices I forget at the moment mess up), which means I have to fully reboot (really fun when waiting for big programs like Catalyst) or leave the rig on at FULL POWAH through the night or whatever. Arch Linux was working well at first (RAM standby and even disk hibernate if properly configured and I choose to boot from the Linux drive after the suspend), but updates seem to have made it less compatible with my audio (audio out works except through the standard green line-out...odd) and TV tuner (not detected), for whatever reason. (I left a few more details on a review on the Newegg page, minus the less-compatible part.) The P5B had no such problems: its audio had lots of RF interference through headphones (the UD5H has beautifully clear onboard audio when it works) but it suspended, automatically resumed from the suspended drive, and otherwise worked nicely.
For me, a "middling" board is worse than a "horrible" one, because at least a horrible would be bad enough for me to undo all the cable connections and screw placements and attachments and all that to trade for something better (a very old backup PC I had started getting POST errors as I built the new one so combined with other factors it made referring to the internet kinda impossible...that was fun). With a middling one I simply tolerate the few problems because it mostly works. *shrugs*
Sorry if that came off as a dumb ramble; just my experience with it.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Ah. So Intel is somewhat abusing the traditional meaning of a bus multiplier, and we don't actually know anything about the memory bus speed. *sigh*
However, we do know that they're running that base clock more than 10% faster than normal, which probably means that either their RAM is faster than the spec requires or they are running at a slower bus speed than the maximum. No idea which.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I don't have any liquid nitrogen, but I really, really like french toast. On a MacBook Air with an Ivy Ridge CPU, how many slices would I need to cook simultaneously to match the effects of using LN2?
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
The results are pretty impressive
I honestly don't understand why. These ridiculous liquid nitrogen overclocks have absolutely no real world implications whatsoever. They completely trash the hardware, and for what? A big number? What the hell good is that?
It's a shame, because the people that should be getting the hype and recognition are the ones that are overclocking their systems while still having a modicum of stability with real-world applications and reasonable up-time, because at least that's useful to enthusiasts and pushes a real envelope as opposed to a bullshit fake one that only a very, very select few can duplicate and even fewer would even bother.
Want to impress me? Crank out stable 5+ GHz on air cooling across all the cores in an always-on machine. Playing games with liquid Nitrogen is not impressive at all. These guys are the ricers of the computer world.
Actually, you are wrong. I'm not speaking for overclockers and in fact, I'm not even one. However, extreme overclocking is very valuable. It tells normal overclockers how much headroom they can expect (at least relative to another chip), it gives an indication of how robust the chip design and the process technology is.
Your car analogy is completely wrong as well. A ricer analogy would be someone who uses a fancy case but does nothing to improve the internals. The analogy would be someone who takes a stock engine and tries to rev it to the maximum possible rpm by using any means. I imagine that many people would find this a valuable metric especially when they are comparing various engines, especially for specialized needs such as drag racing.
http://hothardware.com/News/AMD-Breaks-Frequency-Record-with-Upcoming-FX-Processor/
Intel makes 7Ghz. Yawn.
Come back with your snappy come-back when you hit 8.4Ghz.
You people are embarrassing. A guy manages to overclock a processor to 7GHz and all you can do is bitch about how you can't do anything with it. Do you make fun of people who climb mountains or build with legos because there's no practical purpose to them?
Nobody is saying this is useful. It's just some guy saying, "Hey look, I got my processor all the way up to 7GHz!", stop taking things so seriously.
Because they both have the same IPC?
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Come back when the AMD CPU hits 14Ghz, because as things stand, it'll need to get there to beat the Intel at 7Ghz
No it doesn't, because it tells you nothing about the shape of the curve. For example, Sandy Bridge never hit huge liquid nitrogen over clocks, but it did overclock extremely well for enthusiasts (it can generally hit >4.5Ghz on air, 5Ghz on water). Meanwhile Bulldozer hit a record 8.4Ghz, but in practice, it doesn't overclock that well (4-4.5 is about the most you can get out of it even on water).
Pretty impressive, although IBM has been shipping 5GHz POWER6's for years, and it has been verified at up to 6GHz.
It tells normal overclockers how much headroom they can expect
No it doesn't, because it's being demonstrated in completely unrealistic conditions with no real world component at all. Your car analogy failed as well the instant you said "stock", because this chip wasn't stock, nor was the means to o/c it. They disabled all but one core. Who is going to do that? Nobody but an idiot overclocker looking to get a big number. They used liquid nitrogen and completely trashed all of the hardware that went into this o/c. Who is going to do that? Nobody but an idiot overclocker with either deep pockets or a corporate sponsor.
What the hell good is pumping jet fuel through an engine on a stand to see how fast you can rev it until it explodes? How useful is that measurement? How many people are going to push their engines that far? How many people are going to look at that measurement and try and apply it to a real world situation? Nobody, just other idiots doing the same meaningless things, too. Oh, he got 20k, I'll get 21k, that's moving the technology forward! Except not, 99.9% of people aren't buying engines to blow them the fuck up.
I bet even drag racers aren't pushing their engines to the point where they are completely trashed at the end of every single race. Maybe the Tony Stark billionaire playboys (there's so many of them, am I right?) are doing that because they don't give a shit about exploding an engine at the end of every quarter-mile, but most drag racers are trying to find the fastest speed they can coax out of an engine without totally trashing it. Hell, how many drivers would even want to be behind the wheel of a car that was probably going to explode at the end of the race?
That's why these o/c events need to be tied to the real world to impress me. No disabling cores, no fucking liquid nitrogen. You o/c with off the shelf components, you put the machine under load, and you show me your o/c running, under the same load, 24 hours from now. That is an impressive o/c. This is nothing more than wanking off for bragging rights.
Actually AMD had only 2 cores out of 8 running to hit their record speeds.
That said I fail to see the excitement for this news. This is only a record for Ivy Bridge chips and AMD's attempt managed to beat it by more than 1GHz.
Reminds me of the 1996 usenet thread "Whoa! Win95 boots in only 3 seconds!" crossposted to about a thousand newsgroups and started the biggest flame war in history to that point.
Here's the thread (though won't show the original that started the war) Whoa! Win95 Boots in only 3 seconds! From google groups usenet archive
You are on the wrong side of town man.
Yes, with Intel putting all the traditional northbridge functions on the CPU die now, that 100MHz only drives the PCIe bus directly. There's no FSB to speak of anymore.
0 1 - just my two bits
True story!
As it is right now with the huge pipelines the indicated clock frequency doesn't matter all that much. Especially as the clock is often divided into sub cycles. The real issue still is - as it always has been - talking to the memory. And while ever smarter compilers combined with better out of order execution does help. It's still a hassle that you can't directly talk to the memory and need to wait. It really drags down the efficiency of your pipeline if you made a wrong prediction. The actual value we should be looking at is the amount of instruction launched per second. If possible half floating point, half integer. That should lead to far more interesting performance evaluations than the just the clock frequencies. Might lead to funny results and a lot of sad gamers.
I figure it because that's what the benchmarks show –AMD's CPU cores are currently roughly half the speed of Intel's at the same clock rate.
Well, yes, that would be impressive. Because if it could run and stay stable at that speed with off the shelf components, surely it would just be sold at that speed for a nice $50 premium or whatever? Not that I'm saying I think it's impressive or even worth their time. But I think it's probably the only kind of overclocking which is really possible (except for really small amounts, and then still a bit of loss in stability over time). I'm no insider in the industry but I can only assume these chips are tested pretty extensively...
OIC. Deep Thought was overclocked, then. That's why we know the answer, but we still haven't run the computation.
I speak England very best