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."

Comments

One core, two threads?

[ZeroSumHappiness]

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.

Re:One core, two threads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally they disable all cores but one to achieve these clock speeds.

Re:One core, two threads?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you really understand the purpose of this. He's not "running" anything, so it doesn't matter how many threads. An overclock like this is only done to say that it can be done and that you did it, it's not practical in any way shape or form. You would never try to run an actual application on this, odds are you couldn't maintain system stability for more than a few minutes, and even if you did the cooling and power requirements are well beyond reasonable.

Re:One core, two threads?

[Jeng]

This is not for practical use, it's just to one-up the last guy.

Re:One core, two threads?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

So... what's the advantage to having one core running at 7GHz versus four at standard clock speeds, assuming that whatever you're running takes full advantage of all the threads?

Probably this tiny little inner satisfaction of having one's feeling of insufficient manliness adequately compensated by non-anatomical means.

Re:One core, two threads?

[Jeng]

No, these with these types of overclocks you can normally only run the system long enough to run CPU-Z and get a screenshot. The majority of windows services are not running, only one CPU core is running, and you are cooling it with liquid nitrogen that tends to boil away rather quickly.

Re:One core, two threads?

[geekoid]

Yes, keep telling yourself you can't get hot women because you are too confident and have a huge cock.

Re:One core, two threads?

[LtGordon]

It's the same performance as a 1.6Ghz quadcore with just air cooling

Except that it's not. For some theoretical computations that could be made perfectly parallel, this might be nearly true. However, in most cases (presently), the limiting factor in computation speed is the clock speed of an individual core.

Re:Only 1 core, 2 threads, clocked at 7.03 GHz

[Genda]

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!

7 GHz boot

[value]

7 GHz processor speed and it still takes 10 seconds to load Windows. . .

AMD hit their record with all cores enabled

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Only 1 core, 2 threads, clocked at 7.03 GHz

[FrootLoops]

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.

Re:Is that a joke?

[wmbetts]

They have an irrational fear of right turns?

Re:Only 1 core, 2 threads, clocked at 7.03 GHz

[asliarun]

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.