Intel Ivy Bridge Processor Hits 7GHz Overclock Record

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Ivy Bridge Processor Hits 7GHz Overclock Record

Posted by timothy on Thursday May 31, 2012 @08:35AM from the who-ordered-this-keg-of-nitrogen? dept.

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."

9 of 144 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

One core, two threads? by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-05-31 08:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
1. Re:One core, two threads? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 08:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Generally they disable all cores but one to achieve these clock speeds.
2. Re:One core, two threads? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 08:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
3. Re:One core, two threads? by Jeng · 2012-05-31 09:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This is not for practical use, it's just to one-up the last guy.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
4. Re:One core, two threads? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-05-31 09:08 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
5. Re:One core, two threads? by LtGordon · 2012-05-31 11:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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 by Genda · 2012-05-31 08:49 · Score: 5, Funny

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 by value · 2012-05-31 09:07 · Score: 5, Funny

7 GHz processor speed and it still takes 10 seconds to load Windows. . .
Re:Only 1 core, 2 threads, clocked at 7.03 GHz by FrootLoops · 2012-05-31 09:34 · Score: 4, Funny

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.