Slashdot Mirror
Skylake Breaks 7GHz In Intel Overclocking World Record (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes: Intel's latest generation of processors built on the Skylake architecture are efficient as well as seriously fast. The flagship, Core i7-6700K, is an interesting chip as it's clocked at a base 4GHz, and can peak at 4.2GHz with Turbo Boost. Of course, as fast as the 6700K is, overclocking can always help take things to the next level, or at least temporarily explore future potential. In Chi-Kui Lam's case, he did just that, and managed to break a world record for Intel processors along the way. Equipped with an ASRock motherboard, G.SKILL memory, and a beefy 1.3KW Antec power supply — not to mention liquid nitrogen — Lam managed to break through the 7GHz barrier to settle in at 7025.66MHz. A CPU-Z screenshot shows us that all cores but one were disabled — something traditionally done to improve the chances of reaching such high clock speeds.
This is a very fun experiment as it lets you play with liquid nitrogen.
However, the CPU has now only 1 core instead of 8 and only about 1.6 times the clock frequency. This means a huge decrease in performance...
I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
The skylake broke the record for OCing a skylake CPU, big whoop.
Awesome for single-thread performance. As long as the other LLC slices are still caching for that last core running.
... and one eighth of the total performance. Nice try.
What a useless waste of time.
Admit it Chi-Kui, the only reason you did this is so you could play with liquid nitrogen. **SAY IT!!**
What is this 7GHz barrier? Is it like the sound barrier or something for CPUs?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I believe the official Guinness record is 8.429GHz on an AMD pre-release bulldozer in 2011. Another record was set at 8.723GHz on an AMD FX-8370 in 2013, but I don't recall it being "official".
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/bulldozer-amd-overclock-guinness-record,13431.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/02/amd_fx_series/
Yeah that's feasible for everyday use with all but one core disabled. Not. This is a plateau of unusable.
I'm curious to see how it performs with all cores enabled at that multiplier/voltage?
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
As impressive as 7GHz is, it's not the highest frequency we've ever seen. Over at HWBOT, we can see that the overall world record belongs to The Stilt, who pushed an AMD FX-8370 to a ridiculous 8,722.78MHz
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Windows 10 still took 20 minutes to boot and send it boot time telemetry.
CAP === 'irrigate'
In 2000, Intel predicted they'd have 10GHz chips by 2011. Here it is, 2016, and they've been going backwards since around 2006 with a peak roughly 3.8GHz production chip.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Overclocked processor pops bag of popcorn in next room.
Back when I had a Celeron single core, I used to overclock it up to 3Ghz. The only problem is that anything above 10% OC would kill the audio. So what use is this if it kills something else on your MB? It might be fine for Boinc projects, but for everyday use nothing gained, a lot to loose.
"4 times less performance" than what?
I HATE that wording on tech and science sites.
1/4 the performance is the correct wording, unless comparing to a difference.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It's actually only 4 cores, so the super fast overclocking isn't as bad as you say, it's almost half as fast as pre-overclock.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Are Intel chips named after the temperature in kelvins that they reach without a heat sink?
Wonder how high it would go. The base clock operates at 5GHz... and it can be overclocked.
worth doing. Give me a cooler than can give me 1Ghz more for about $100 and I am good.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/...
Intel figured out that high clock speeds bring all kinds of other problems like clock propagation delays across the chip and high power consumption.
The mobile computing revolution simply did not warrant that kind of clock speed - so here we are at around 4GHz.
4 times less... times is multiplication, less is subtraction.
So without overclocking, its performance is a base of "100%".
After overclocking, its performance is 100% - (4 * 100%), making it -300% now.
75% less would be correct.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
However, the CPU has now only 1 core instead of 8 and only about 1.6 times the clock frequency. This means a huge decrease in performance...
Amdahl's law says that depends on what you're doing. Also it has 4 cores/8 threads but yeah. This is obviously just for doing it. As someone who started with a 0.985 MHz C64 and got a 1.2GHz Athlon not so long into the new millennium I'm quite underwhelmed though, despite the IPC improvements.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
People point out AMD but the title of TFA is is breakig "Intel World Record".
But how is this a world record, even for Intel? There were several 8 GHz results for Intel processors for several previous generation, starting at least in 2007, and even TFA mentions a Celeron record from 2013... So please, someone explain what record is this?
...Adobe Flash would still eat 100% of that usage.
Nobody has ever been able to make an ASRock motherboard do anything other than cause a fit of rage while you get an RMA.
I'm curious also if that one core was even running at full tilt. Processors these days sleep by default. So is this test one of "boot up and run some cpu measuring utility" or did it at least run at 100% utilization for a while?
I come here for the love
Yeah but think about how amazingly fast javascript would run.
Yeeeeessssss, and 100-400 = -300
They probably would have hit 10GHz if they got 7GHz on some garbage Asrock board. If you're not familiar, it's a budget spin-off of ASUS and I've had nothing but problems with defective Asrock motherboards at my computer repair shop.
You're making the ridiculously optimistic assumption that users are running software that can actually make use of more than one core. (It's 2016; why do all mainstream languages still generate single-threaded code by default?)
Circuits using liquefied gases for cooling passed 20 GHz over 40 years ago, so this fun experiment is the equivalent of strapping a JATO onto a bicycle.
It be like: strip a car down to its bare chassis, removing all extraneous weight, seats, anything that's there for comfort or convenience, then keep cutting out more metal - panels, half the floor, roof. Bolt on a huge turbo and nitrous and watch it do a ¼ mile in 8 seconds. Great, but it ain't going to get you to the shops and back.
Run it at something like 4-5GHz and save on the power consumption. Hope that the multi-core helps here
This is single thread 7GHz, it's entirely useless today.
circuits != processors
One benefit I find to online news is that it happens faster than the newspaper variety.
I read about this on Flipboard FIVE days ago.
I remember back when even 4Ghz required liquid cooling. This was when people were doing it to Pentium IV chips. It's surreal knowing that 4Ghz is now the "stock speed" while 7Ghz is the new threshold to reach.