Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Pentium 4 631 Overclocked to 8 GHz

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Jan 22, 2007 06:15 PM
from the smokin dept.
Hardware Technology
Andreas writes "There are always those who are willing to take things one step further than others. A group of guys known as OC Team Italy is one of them. They recently pushed an Intel Pentium 4 631 to over 8000MHz using an ASUS P5B with modified voltage regulation and liquid nitrogen. Overclocking is cool and all, but this extends beyond what some would perhaps call useful. Still a milestone though."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Pentium 4 631 Overclocked to 8 GHz 25 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.

  • Sheesh... (Score:4, Funny)

    by creimer (824291) on Monday January 22 2007, @06:17PM (#17716238) Homepage Journal
    All the trouble those Italians do to cook sausage without burning it.

  • direct link to photos of setup (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bananatree3 (872975) * on Monday January 22 2007, @06:18PM (#17716244)
    To save thoughs who just want to see the setup pictures [xtremesystems.org]

  • Just in Time! (Score:5, Funny)

    by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Monday January 22 2007, @06:19PM (#17716262)
    Thats just in time!

    Vista is released in a couple of days, we need at least one machine up to spec.

  • The problem with high clock is not just heat ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by vlad_petric (94134) on Monday January 22 2007, @06:19PM (#17716270) Homepage
    It's also how fast your circuits can switch, and how fast the signal can travel on the wires. The execution core of a Pentium 4 also happens to be double-pumped (i.e., it performs operations on both edges of the clock signal). Essentially, those ALUs would be switching at 16GHz ... I, personally, take this with a grain of salt.

    • Re:The problem with high clock is not just heat .. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ettlz (639203) on Monday January 22 2007, @06:25PM (#17716354) Homepage Journal
      Indeed. Light travels just under 2 centimetres in the 16 GHz period. The Pentium 4 core is not much smaller than this... it seems like they're pushing their luck on order-of-magnitude estimates alone.
      [ Parent ]

        • Re:The problem with high clock is not just heat .. (Score:5, Informative)

          by product byproduct (628318) on Monday January 22 2007, @07:06PM (#17716800)
          Obligatory Google Calculator link [google.com]
          [ Parent ]

          • Re:The problem with high clock is not just heat .. (Score:5, Informative)

            by Tim C (15259) on Monday January 22 2007, @07:27PM (#17717038)
            The speed of light in a vacuum (c) is the absolute maximum speed at which information can travel. It doesn't matter how much you cool the chip or what materials you make it out of, given our current understanding of physics* you can't push anything through it faster than 3*10**8 m/s. That gives you an absolute cannot-be-bettered upper limit for the distance that your signal can move in one cycle.

            (* which might be wrong, but no-one's managed to prove it wrong yet)

            *Light* has nothing to do with it, it's relativity and the *speed* of light in a vacuum that's important.
            [ Parent ]

          • Re:The problem with high clock is not just heat .. (Score:5, Informative)

            by Manchot (847225) on Monday January 22 2007, @08:05PM (#17717446)
            The "speed of light," by definition, is the speed at which all electric fields propagate (not just optical ones). Even though the wire is treated as an object with constant voltage on it, physically, the electric field which creates that voltage is outside of the wire. In fact, you'll find that as long as the conductance of the wire is sufficiently high, it has little effect on the speed of signal propagation. This is because at the frequencies being discussed, the wires behave more like transmission lines than the ideal, lumped-element model used in circuit analysis.

            What's actually more important to the propagation speed is the permittivity and permeability of the dielectric (insulator) surrounding the wire. As it turns out, the speed of signal propagation is identically equal to the speed of light in the dielectric medium (not by coincidence, of course). I may be wrong about this, but I believe that modern processors still use undoped silicon as the interconnect dielectric medium, which means that the signal propagation speed is c/3.4.
            [ Parent ]

    • Re:The problem with high clock is not just heat .. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by indigest (974861) on Monday January 22 2007, @06:28PM (#17716378)
      The extreme cooling they are doing is not just for removing the heat generated by the chip. As temperature decreases, the mobility of charge carriers increases, allowing for a faster circuit. In fact, if they were to run a supercooled chip at the nominal clock frequency, they would have hold time violations and the chip would not work. In other words, the data would propagate so quickly that it would corrupt the previous piece of data.
      [ Parent ]

  • Why not 8 GHz? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Snowgen (586732) on Monday January 22 2007, @06:29PM (#17716402) Homepage

    Is 8000 MHz supposed to sound more impressive than 8 GHz?

    I'm just confused as to why it was worded so oddly.

  • "Smoking kills" (Score:4, Funny)

    by feranick (858651) on Monday January 22 2007, @06:39PM (#17716534)
    Funny the pack of cigarettes with the government mandatory sign: "Il fumo uccide" (smoking kills...) besides the smoking board...

    • Re:Hurmph. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Monday January 22 2007, @06:42PM (#17716566) Homepage
      >> Overclocking is cool and all, but [8Ghz] extends beyond what some would perhaps call useful.

      > Come back in a decade or two and trying saying that. :)

      Oh, I'm sure noone would ever need more than 8gHz...
      [ Parent ]

      • Re:8GHZ and still not as fast (Score:4, Funny)

        by Buzz_Litebeer (539463) on Monday January 22 2007, @06:51PM (#17716652) Journal
        I think you have a misconception of how dual processor machines work. I do not think it means what you think it means.
        [ Parent ]

      • Re:8GHZ and still not as fast (Score:5, Informative)

        by be-fan (61476) on Monday January 22 2007, @07:10PM (#17716834)
        It's about performance, not MHz. Let's use SPECint as the metric. SPECint_rate scales almost perfectly with both clockspeed and core count. A P4 gets about 6.5 SPECint_rate/GHz/core, while a Core 2 gets about 11.5 SPECint_rate/GHz/core. So an 8 GHz P4 would get a score of 51.68, while a 3.4 GHz Core 2 would get 78.2.

        The P4's single-core results would be substantially higher than the Core 2's single-core results, though. Interestingly, it points to what the P4 was originally designed to do: achieve high performance through high clockspeed. If process technology had met Intel's original projections, we'd have 6+ GHz P4s by now that would have been competitive with current Core 2 chips.
        [ Parent ]
Check for more

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2008 SourceForge, Inc.