AMD Phenom II Overclocked To 6.5GHz 303
An anonymous reader writes "During CES a group of overclockers with access to liquid nitrogen and liquid helium for the extra boost of coldness cooled an AMD Phenom II X4 chip to -232 degrees Celsius. Once they got the chip cooled to this frigid temperature, they pushed the clock speed all the way up to 6.5GHz, which is a world record for a quad-core CPU, and then dished out an astonishing 45,474 3DMark05 score!"
The things you have to go through.. (Score:5, Funny)
.. to get a decent score in 3DMark ..
Re:The things you have to go through.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The things you have to go through.. (Score:5, Funny)
It's good to know that I can spend a few thousand on cooling supplies now and get a machine that can run Crysis.
I was worried I'd have to wait a year or two for those kinds of numbers to reach the few hundred dollar range.
Re:The things you have to go through.. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah. The sequel is called Cryo.
Re:The things you have to go through.. (Score:5, Informative)
You got modded funny, but I think you were probably being serious.
I think the reason is that the newer 3DMark suites advanced so much in the realm of GPU-intensiveness, that to overclock a CPU and get a higher score without being GPU-bound, you have to go back to 2005.
Re:The things you have to go through.. (Score:4, Funny)
Now Vista can run decently.... That's a shame, they want to replace it with Win7...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Atom uses 60W???
Why not just get core 2 mobile, then?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A ultralow wattage athlon64x2 with a 780g chipset uses less power than an atom machine last I checked. the 945 chipset is shirts.
Crunchy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
That's -40 degrees Celsius.
http://xkcd.com/526/ [xkcd.com]
from TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
which is a world record for a quad core CPU and they dished out and astonishing 45,474 3DMark05 score! Watch the video below to see how it was done and how history was made:
Truly PHENOMenal, but I can't help but (cynically, I admit) think about how history inevitably mocks overclockers. Cue back to the 90s and a headline might have read "486 overclocked to 500Mhz -- history has been made!". Like Ozymandias, nothing beside remains...
There is no mockery. (Score:3, Insightful)
at the time a 486 might have been overclocked to 500 mhz, it would have been a great deal. more precisely, at the time anything has been overclocked to phenomenonal mhz, it has been a great deal AT THAT TIME.
Stability? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I once bought a specific CPU because I knew it would be good for overclocking. It wasn't a bad idea -- a 1.8 ghz CPU that I could get running at 2.4, at perhaps half or a third the price of a similar CPU at 2.4 ghz, and I'd overclock my RAM, also.
I learned two things:
First, you really have to know your stuff. The RAM I had wouldn't overclock very well, and RAM which would cost a bit more. I had the BIOS helping me out, and I still had to fiddle with timings and voltages.
And second, despite all the stress testing I did, it would still occasionally crash. I never tracked down these crashes until I clocked it back to spec. Once I got a job, I decided that shelling out another hundred dollars or so for a faster CPU was a better use of my time than trying to overclock one, and dealing with the instability once I did.
Now, that's probably a completely different area than overclocking to 6.5 ghz, but if I really needed that, I imagine it would be much more cost-effective to buy two or three of them. It won't really help rasterized games (that'd be video-card bound), and raytraced games should scale to multiple machines.
Re: (Score:2)
First, you really have to know your stuff. The RAM I had wouldn't overclock very well, and RAM which would cost a bit more. I had the BIOS helping me out, and I still had to fiddle with timings and voltages.
My experience has been similar. I've managed to overclock CPUs but to get them runing stable I had to fiddle with voltages and even then the overclock had to be pretty mild (2.4 Ghz to 2.6 GHz for instance).
Ignoring stability performance did increase, yay, but so did the heat and the noise of the CPU fan. Not worth it.
Celeron 300A (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bought two Celery 300A cpus - both overclocked to 450. Conversely, I had an Athlon 2800 that kept crashing until I underclocked it.
Re:Stability? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always been more of a fan of underclocking, myself. Or as you say, regular-clocking.
ten or even thirty percent just isn't that much of a difference in performance to justify a stability headache OR paying an extra couple hundred bucks.
To be interesting, the performance improvement per dollar ought to be significantly better than linear, and at least double. Or you need an application that is CPU bound, time sensitive, and has large processing chunks. 30% isn't going to make much difference in UI performance. Spend that money on RAM.
Re:Stability? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I have purchased a brand new homebrew Amiga clone within the last year, and have purchased 2 C64 clones within the last 5 years. I certainly know what it means to enjoy a hobby that the vast majority of people "don't get".
The biggest problem with overclocking for the masses is that if you don't enjoy the act of overclocking in and of itself, you can achieve better results through procrastination.
Re: (Score:2)
Same boat for me. When I was younger (and cheaper) I would always try a little bit of overclocking. Overclocked a Celeron 366 to 550 and it worked pretty good after some tweaking. After that I overclocked my next chip as a Celeron 566 to 850. Again though, took some tweaking. I used "slockets" back then and constantly was looking for high quality HSF's, slockets that offered voltage or FSB adjustments via jumpers, etc. Took a lot of work to get them stable. After that I tried several different chips
Re: (Score:2)
And just as an addendum: while I think overclocking is a fine hobby (like I said, I used to do it), and wish overclockers all the best, I must admit that sometimes they can be annoying with user-generated reviews. With processors, countless times when looking through user reviews I have to wade through a ton of reviews which rate the chip poorly simply because it didn't overclock as well as they'd hoped, or even worse, write that they are returning the product because it didn't overclock well.
Do as you wan
Re:from TFA (Score:5, Funny)
Like Ozymandias, nothing beside remains...
"My name is G1G4BY73_PU5H3R, Overclocker of Overclockers:
Look on my 1337 benchmarks, ye n00bs, and despair!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Two vast and shapeless puffs of smoke
Fill the basement. Near them on the floor,
Half black, a shatter'd hard disk lies,...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is one thing to know that in two years you can regularly buy a system twice as fast as today's fastest system
I doubt it. CPU speeds haven't really increased that much in the past few years. We're reaching the limits of what we can do
with a CPU as far as speed goes. Even shifting to 32nm wont increase the speeds that much... mostly just lower power usage.
They wont be running too much faster but we'll have CPUs with many more cores and it'll take more than a couple of years to shift
to properly distribut
Re:from TFA (Score:5, Interesting)
What you're talking about isn't really "speed" or "faster". The term you are looking for is "more powerful". The GHz is how many hertz per second the CPU runs at... or in other words, its speed. Newer CPUs get a lot more done per cycle than the first 2-3GHz CPUs. And because they get more things done per cycle, they get things done faster, but that's not the actual CPU speed.
OP is probably right - 3GHz is probably about the practical limit of what CPUs can run at for everyday use. Speeds higher than that so far seem to increase heat too much to be useful for most applications. Think of GHz like RPMs for a car engine. Most car engines run somewhere between 2000-6000 RPM at driving speed, however some get a whole lot more horsepower at the same RPMs and therefore make the car go faster... but the engine is still running at the same speed. There WAS a time though when they were getting more horsepower by increasing RPMs.
first post! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:first post! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm fairly sure 'epic fail' doesn't even begin to describe your post
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But... (Score:4, Funny)
Can you run FSX and Cryis at 60FPS?
Re: (Score:2)
Can you run FSX and Cryis at 60FPS?
No.
Re: (Score:2)
New York weather... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not sure if it's quite -232 Celsius in my apartment but it's pretty close. They probably could have achieved 6.0GHz overclocking using an air-cooled system in my living room alone.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You can't be married. Any woman would have turned on the central heating to max by now, and filled every room with electric heaters on top.
And they'd still complain about it being cold, even as you sat there sweating like a pig, wearing a wife-beater, with your feet in cold water, and a cold can of wife-beater in your hand.
I was there (Score:5, Informative)
I was there, too. The coolest it got was approximately -242 degrees C; the warmest was approximately -218 degreesC, at least while I was watching.
The party was the XtremeSystems.org [xtremesystems.org] party at its LV headquarters, and it was sponsored primarily by AMD, DFI, Gigabyte, Cooler Master, and Thermaltake. It seems to me that Commodore had a presence there, too.
See ThinkComputers' blog [thinkcomputers.org] for some more pictures (disclosure: my article).
Re:I was there (Score:4, Informative)
Why doesn't -242C exist? -273C exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero
Phillip.
Re:I was there (Score:4, Funny)
I can vouch for that one. Just come take a trip up to Canada!
Re: (Score:2)
Absolute zero is -273.15C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Both I and Wikipedia disagree (edited to make the degrees and negatives display correctly): [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, in the real world, absolute zero is -273.15 Celsius.
Your -242C might be considered balmy compared to that.
Metric ? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know what weird kind of units you are using in your part of the world. But the rest of the planet is using Celsius for everyday temperature measures and Kelvin for scientific measures (same step size, different zero).
And on our scale, absolute zero [wikipedia.org] (0K) is -273C.
Thus -242C (aka 31K) is pretty legal and possible temperature. (Although maybe not a very common one outside university labs and mad overclocker's basements)
Now please stop using Réaumur scale and start using what everybody else is using around.
--
PS: I checked, -242Ré is indeed impossible on Réaumur scale - 0 K is -218Ré
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I was there (Score:5, Funny)
-242C is a temperature that doesn't exist, unless your religion allows temperatures below absolute zero. All we need now is a campaign for Intelligent Cold. ;)
In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
Re:I was there (Score:4, Informative)
Not only are you wrong about where 0K is, you're also wrong about negative temperatures. Temperature is a statistical measure. A positive temperature corresponds to an equilibrium population distribution across a bunch of energy levels, which will have occupancy probabilities decreasing exponentially with energy. A negative temperature is obtained when the population distribution is inverted, for instance in a 2-level system where an external energy source resonantly pumps up the occupancy of the higher level. Presto, $\exp(-\beta E)$ greater than 1 requires negative $\beta$.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, and this was the mistake I made. 237, 273... Ah the price I pay to make a joke about "Intelligent Cold"! :)
Shoulda got me some "Intelligent Dumb!"
Reliability? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Reliability? (Score:4, Funny)
Ah, it runs hot and cold. Mostly cold.
FIRST POST (Score:5, Funny)
Apple IIe (Score:2)
That's pretty impressive, but right now I'm posting using my overclocked apple IIe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah? Did you get it up to 10 MHz?
Re: (Score:2)
MHz? Try GHz.
Anyone know (Score:2, Interesting)
Or it that even possible with doped/diffused Si? Would it still work as a semiconductor?
Would it give you even better benchmarks? Did someone already try?
Someone should...
200% is pretty decent (Score:2)
Considering that chip is rated to run at 3Ghz and you can OC only around 5 - 15% at room temperature, I'm pretty impressed by >200%. Also that the chipset held up while the CPU was running that as well.
Wonder what kind of power requirements that would translate to... Current leak becomes a significant loss above 3Ghz (which is pretty much why no one really makes 4Ghz+ chips), do the low temperatures keep those leakages under control, or does it just keep the hemorrhaging from making the system unstable?
Re: (Score:2)
Leakage is not a direct function of speed. Thin gates and short transistors leak, and they are necessary for high speeds. Higher voltage increases speed and dramatically increases leakage. Lower temperatures decrease leakage.
The primary effect of low temperature is to make FETs conduct better. This reduces switching time, so the CPU can be run faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Also that the chipset held up while the CPU was running that as well.
The chipset was running at its usual speed. You don't need to overclock the chipset to overclock the CPU -- that's only the case when the multiplier is locked and you have to get the FSB/HT running higher to get the CPU to run higher... and nobody uses those CPUs for serious overclocking.
3DMark? (Score:2, Insightful)
On the summary and grammar.... (Score:2, Informative)
During CES a group of overclocker's
a group of overclocker's what exactly? Is it just me or is the correct use of apostrophe's [sic] starting to become a lost art these days?
Light Distances (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Light Distances (Score:5, Informative)
You're off by two orders of magnitude. 6.5ghz is 153 picoseconds per cycle.
Re:Light Distances (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Real world results (Score:2)
I'm more curious to see real world results. How well can you overclock this on air?
I just ordered the same proc, a 790GX mobo, and a 1 gig HD 4850 yesterday on the cheap. The cpu+mobo combo was $295, and the video card was $161.
Intel still has the top end market, but at these prices, I'm pretty happy with what AMD is offering.
I'm suprised it even worked (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm also intrigued by the possibility this chip could have gone faster, it may have become bound by motherboard reference clock and multipliers at this speed. It's not uncommon for the motherboards ability to deliver current to become the limiting factor.
8ghz is reportedly the outright world record http://www.nordichardware.com/news,5505.html [nordichardware.com] Although I think this was reset to 8.2ghz not long after.
Coming soon, to a mobile phone near you (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:3, Funny)
Imagine a Beowul... oh, never mind.
I heard (Score:2, Funny)
that it still only scored 4.7 on the Vista Performance Index...
Re:Zomg (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, only 6.5GHz too.
Call me when it goes up to 11
Re:Zomg (Score:5, Funny)
Don't we already have CPUs running at 3GHz?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No x86s in this space. IBM has POWER6 running at 5 GHz.
Re: (Score:2)
P4? Core2Duo E-series?
Re:Zomg (Score:5, Funny)
i cant tell but is there an incredibly large whoosh goin over my head? (or just your head?). 6.5Ghz is faster than 3. And in other news six is afraid of 7, because 7, 8, 9
Re:Zomg (Score:5, Funny)
And in other news six is afraid of 7, because 7, 8, 9
Oh, that makes sense! I always thought 6 was just a big pussy.
Re:Zomg (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yea, the poster must have gotten confused - they actually overclocked it to 6500+
Re:Zomg (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow.
People use liquid nitrogen to over clock a CPU, news at 11.
Well, really they used liquid helium. When you use liquid helium (which has a boiling point of about 4.2K at 1 atmosphere), you're using the liquid nitrogen (boiling point of 77K) just to keep the liquid Helium cold longer. Using liquid nitrogen is sort of boring - you can store it in an insulated jug for a good long while even, but using liquid helium is, well, pretty damned cool!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Your Windows EULA prohibits operation in such an environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it won't heat up that much.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
An slightly overclocked Core i7 965 (Extreme Edition) in a similar rig (in terms of video cards, etc) scored about 26,000 in the same benchmark (3DMark05).
So, no, they didn't have to go to liquid helium to be competetive, but going to liquid helium did allow them to set a world record (although I don't see any Guiness Book or other "official" information about this).
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you post something like this to Slashdot and nobody contests it, that's about as official as you can get :-)
Phillip.
Re:A cat has gotten my tongue (Score:5, Insightful)
AMD doesn't make any $1200 chips.
Like it or not, that's just not the market they're in. They're doing well at the $200 level, though.
I'm not particularly concerned that there's little competition in the segment I'd never pay for anyway. I mean, it's nice that there are Maybach Mercedes and McLaren F1's, but that doesn't mean I'm worried about competetiveness in the segment.
Whereas I'd be worried if there was only one mid-priced performance sedan, especially if it was sub-expectations in some way.
I don't think AMD is ashamed to have set a record with a $235 chip, in a world previously dominated by $1000+ chips.
Re: (Score:2)
Priced any high end Opterons lately?
Re: (Score:2)
yeah but Intel's $200 chips (see Q6600) can compete with AMD's expensive stuff.
Normally, I'd be amazed that got marked troll... but this is Slashdot afterall.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They do have a $950 processor, the Opteron 2384.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A cat has gotten my tongue (Score:4, Informative)
As of this afternoon, they /do/ make chips that expensive, and more:
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16298 [techreport.com]
Their new top-of-the-line chip:
Opteron 8386 SE 8 sockets max 2.8GHz 105W $2,649
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
cheaper than milk (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You laugh, but I talked to the welding supply guy not too long ago, and two things were apparent:
Re: (Score:2)
Why travel to the moon? The average person has no purpose there.
For that matter, why design the ICE? Walking or horseback is just enough for anyone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
(a) Some people just enjoy this sort of thing. I don't really pay attention to who is the fastest at driving a car around a track, but some other people do. So, one answer to your question: maybe it's not exciting at all, to you, and no one says it must be.
(b) Epic overclocks like this presage the chips to come. While I won't be using anything but stock air coolers in my own computers, I'm happy to know that the Phenom II overclocks this well, because that means there is headroom in the design and that A
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sure does, and so well that it can do an infinite loop a second faster than Linux!
Re:NASA Processors? (Score:4, Informative)
Deep space may be cold, but vacuum is a superb insulator. The chips can't be pushed hard without extensive and expensive heat sinks. Considerations on deep space probes are reliability and low power consumption, and there isn't a lot of need for speed. Reliability, radiation hardness, and low power consumption all have requirements that oppose speed.
Furthermore, since space probes take a long time to develop and use only very well established technology, they are using nearly-obsolete semiconductors by the time they're launched. They're really old when they get where they're going. It's not fast stuff by today's standards.
Re:Okay.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Okay.. (Score:4, Insightful)
'Unfortunately, faster hard drives only make a bit of difference.'
I suppose a 'faster' hard drive doesn't make a big difference compared with a 'fast' hard drive. But a fast hard drive compared with a slow hard drive makes a HUGE real world performance difference. Clunky and slow drives are the primary reason that laptops are so doggedly slow compared to desktops.
Of course 'speed' is defined by rpm's in this case, not throughput.