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.
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
Maybe it's a dedicated Dwarf Fortress machine.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
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.
Fastest python box in the world.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
"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.
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
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
systemd has electrolytes?
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?)
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
circuits != processors
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.