Intel Ivy Bridge Processor Hits 7GHz Overclock Record 144
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."
Cool (Score:1)
So Ivy Bridge can do something after all! :D
Re: (Score:2)
As it is right now with the huge pipelines the indicated clock frequency doesn't matter all that much. Especially as the clock is often divided into sub cycles. The real issue still is - as it always has been - talking to the memory. And while ever smarter compilers combined with better out of order execution does help. It's still a hassle that you can't directly talk to the memory and need to wait. It really drags down the efficiency of your pipeline if you made a wrong prediction. The actual v
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
http://hothardware.com/News/AMD-Breaks-Frequency-Record-with-Upcoming-FX-Processor/
Intel makes 7Ghz. Yawn.
Come back with your snappy come-back when you hit 8.4Ghz.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Come back when the AMD CPU hits 14Ghz, because as things stand, it'll need to get there to beat the Intel at 7Ghz
Re: (Score:2)
I figure it because that's what the benchmarks show –AMD's CPU cores are currently roughly half the speed of Intel's at the same clock rate.
One core, two threads? (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.
Re:One core, two threads? (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally they disable all cores but one to achieve these clock speeds.
Re: (Score:1)
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?
Re:One core, two threads? (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.
Re:One core, two threads? (Score:5, Informative)
This is not for practical use, it's just to one-up the last guy.
Re: (Score:1)
And to run Crysis.
Re:One core, two threads? (Score:4, Informative)
No, these with these types of overclocks you can normally only run the system long enough to run CPU-Z and get a screenshot. The majority of windows services are not running, only one CPU core is running, and you are cooling it with liquid nitrogen that tends to boil away rather quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was a joke.
The GP's comment or the financial trading system?
Re:One core, two threads? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what sports cars are for.
Re: (Score:1)
And hot women
Re:One core, two threads? (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, keep telling yourself you can't get hot women because you are too confident and have a huge cock.
Re: (Score:3)
Did anyone run the small penis jokes on the explorers that climbed mountains? That's something else that had little practical value, but I don't think climbers were heaped with ridicule for doing useless things. I'm not saying that overclocking is comparable, but it's less ridiculous as the risk of dying is lower.
Re: (Score:2)
said the small-dicked AC
Re: (Score:1)
It's the same performance as a 1.6Ghz quadcore with just air cooling, what you're seeing is how fast one core can go, given that all 4 running would quadruple the thermal requirements.
Generally the purpose of doing this is for shits and giggles, you would not be able to actually use the computer configured that way since the cooling solution would run out pretty quickly. The most you can do for a functional system is to immerse in mineral oil, with SSD drives and not submerge the PSU.This is generally a non
Re:One core, two threads? (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: (Score:2)
The main culprit there is Flash and a normal clocked single core is more than adequate for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
To play Quake at ~9x its rated speed [totl.net], of course.
Why else would you want to do it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
... do it on a dedicated server farm. Cheaper and more reliable.
Yes, I got the joke.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh come on now, he is not doing any calculations. He's not even going to be able to play Warcraft faster than the guy living in the basement next door!
Useless epeen waving..
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for confirming my suspicion. Obviously I have more interest in using rather than record breaking so I'd have liked to also see what it can do on all four cores under liquid cooling.
amd did better with 2 cores on a bulldozer (Score:1)
AMD did better with 2 cores, now I would like to see a side by side comparison of actual tasks.
link [xbitlabs.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Except that AMD's 2 cores aren't actually 2 cores. They're 1 instruction fetch unit, 1 instruction decode unit, 1 floating point unit, and 2 integer units, so this is a very similar result, it's one CPU core that is able to do a bit of stuff at the same time as it does some other stuff, not really 2 cores.
Re: (Score:2)
Then it is not really an i7, might as well over clock an i3.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what I meant. Just as you would not call an i7 binned part that was crippled to be sold as an i3 this should not be called one either.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, and i3 has 2 cores with 4 threads.
Actually, these days even an Atom [intel.com] has 2 cores, 4 threads, and 64 bit code capability now. And all in 10 watts. Blew my mind.
Re:Only 1 core, 2 threads, clocked at 7.03 GHz (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!
Re: (Score:2)
Woah! So if time runs backwards, but you still measure it as going forward, does the cpu end up running at infinite hertz?
Re:Only 1 core, 2 threads, clocked at 7.03 GHz (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
It would run infinitely fast at 0 hertz
Re: (Score:2)
This is essentially the only way to run this experiment, if you run all the cores at this speed, fusion is initiated [...]
So if you overclock all of the Intel's cores at once it turns into an AMD?
Re: (Score:2)
OIC. Deep Thought was overclocked, then. That's why we know the answer, but we still haven't run the computation.
Re: (Score:3)
The results are pretty impressive
I honestly don't understand why. These ridiculous liquid nitrogen overclocks have absolutely no real world implications whatsoever. They completely trash the hardware, and for what? A big number? What the hell good is that?
It's a shame, because the people that should be getting the hype and recognition are the ones that are overclocking their systems while still having a modicum of stability with real-world applications and reasonable up-time, because at least that's useful to enthusiasts and pushes a r
Re:Only 1 core, 2 threads, clocked at 7.03 GHz (Score:4, Insightful)
The results are pretty impressive
I honestly don't understand why. These ridiculous liquid nitrogen overclocks have absolutely no real world implications whatsoever. They completely trash the hardware, and for what? A big number? What the hell good is that?
It's a shame, because the people that should be getting the hype and recognition are the ones that are overclocking their systems while still having a modicum of stability with real-world applications and reasonable up-time, because at least that's useful to enthusiasts and pushes a real envelope as opposed to a bullshit fake one that only a very, very select few can duplicate and even fewer would even bother.
Want to impress me? Crank out stable 5+ GHz on air cooling across all the cores in an always-on machine. Playing games with liquid Nitrogen is not impressive at all. These guys are the ricers of the computer world.
Actually, you are wrong. I'm not speaking for overclockers and in fact, I'm not even one. However, extreme overclocking is very valuable. It tells normal overclockers how much headroom they can expect (at least relative to another chip), it gives an indication of how robust the chip design and the process technology is.
Your car analogy is completely wrong as well. A ricer analogy would be someone who uses a fancy case but does nothing to improve the internals. The analogy would be someone who takes a stock engine and tries to rev it to the maximum possible rpm by using any means. I imagine that many people would find this a valuable metric especially when they are comparing various engines, especially for specialized needs such as drag racing.
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't, because it tells you nothing about the shape of the curve. For example, Sandy Bridge never hit huge liquid nitrogen over clocks, but it did overclock extremely well for enthusiasts (it can generally hit >4.5Ghz on air, 5Ghz on water). Meanwhile Bulldozer hit a record 8.4Ghz, but in practice, it doesn't overclock that well (4-4.5 is about the most you can get out of it even on water).
Re: (Score:2)
It tells normal overclockers how much headroom they can expect
No it doesn't, because it's being demonstrated in completely unrealistic conditions with no real world component at all. Your car analogy failed as well the instant you said "stock", because this chip wasn't stock, nor was the means to o/c it. They disabled all but one core. Who is going to do that? Nobody but an idiot overclocker looking to get a big number. They used liquid nitrogen and completely trashed all of the hardware that went into this o/c. Who is going to do that? Nobody but an idiot over
Re: (Score:1)
Is that a joke? (Score:1, Informative)
Couldn't POWER CPUs do >5 GHz as their normal speed already a loong time ago? (Apart from being a much better architecture to begin with.)
And didn't many people do 7GHz overclockings, using liquid nitrogen, over five years ago?
How meaningless is a overclocking speed? It's like saying: Your Smart will go 400km/h... if only we run it as ten bazillion RPM. It's still a Smart!! And you will never get this in real life!
This is damn close to fraud, to spread such bullshit so people get a false feeling of it be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How meaningless is a overclocking speed? It's like saying: Your Smart will go 400km/h... if only we run it as ten bazillion RPM. It's still a Smart!! And you will never get this in real life!
This is damn close to fraud, to spread such bullshit so people get a false feeling of it being so fast.
So please, tell me your thoughts in regards to auto-racing.
Re:Is that a joke? (Score:4, Insightful)
They have an irrational fear of right turns?
Re: (Score:2)
Odd, I was going to type NASCAR, but I ended up typing auto-racing.
How did you respond to my first draft?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to watch F-1 and the Rolex series. The only interesting part of watching NASCAR are the crashes.
Re: (Score:2)
> you are a Yank
That makes you a Wank.
Re: (Score:2)
The part of the country that is into NASCAR would not appreciate being called a Yankee... entirely different connotation down there - something about the invention of "total war" occurring on their land.
NASCAR started with liquor running during Prohibition, so speed was more important than handling. Given that, I can kind of excuse the initial use of an oval track. But once the speeds got too high, they started restricting the cars and so the oval track was sort of an anachronism... very hard for me to get
Re: (Score:2)
I lost interest in Nascar when they no longer represented real cars. I'd like to see them go to the showroom, pick out a car and race the thing. Some safety upgrades maybe but it must be "stock" at least the fucking shell should be anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
NASCAR is fucking retarded. God, what I would give for some real Rally racing here in the States. It's so much more interesting than watching cars do hundreds of laps around a big fucking oval.
As with realistic overclocking, Rally racing has some relevance to the real world. They're driving on real roads, in varying weather conditions, unlike the stupid NASCAR bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we could get the Canonball run going again?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, that would also be pretty damn cool. I watched the show Bullrun [wikipedia.org] when it was on the Speed Channel a few years ago, but it was annoying with all the added drama nonsense that reality TV does these days, and the challenges were pretty retarded, too.
Just a bunch of teams, drive whatever you want, Point A to Point B. Good stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I hacked the gibson.
7 GHz boot (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
No overclocking configuration could get over sleep(10)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the 1996 usenet thread "Whoa! Win95 boots in only 3 seconds!" crossposted to about a thousand newsgroups and started the biggest flame war in history to that point.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thread (though won't show the original that started the war) Whoa! Win95 Boots in only 3 seconds! From google groups usenet archive [google.com]
Standard speed == 3.5 GHz (Score:2, Interesting)
Not too impressive. My 10-year-old Pentium 4 is almost as fast (3.2 GHz).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
I was being tongue-in-cheek.
I know my P4 isn't as fast..... I know that every time I try to play an HD-quality movie, and it runs at quarter speed. The CPU is fast in cycles but slow in calculations.
And your 10 year old P4 can do 256-bit vector math (Score:2)
Oh wait, no it can't. It also isn't quad core, and does about 20% of the work per clock.
There are limits to GHz scaling. It isn't a situation of "Oh just make it faster," particularly if you want to hit a power budget. What has happened is that CPUs have gotten much more parallel, much more efficient per clock, and have gotten much better at vector math. My Sandy Bridge processor pulls like 80 Gflops on Linpack using AVX. Try that on a P4, let me know how it goes.
CPU companies aren't interested in optimizin
Re: (Score:2)
Things for you to do:
1) Go outside
2) walk to the nearest store
3) by a humor detector.
Re: (Score:2)
Half = almost now.
Good to know.
AMD hit their record with all cores enabled (Score:3, Interesting)
AMD hit their record with all cores enabled.... intel requires one core disabled or else you will brick the CPU regardless if it's LN2 cooling.
Also, Gigabyte gave them this "special" motherboard.
False (Score:2)
Actually AMD had only 2 cores out of 8 running [hothardware.com] to hit their record speeds.
That said I fail to see the excitement for this news. This is only a record for Ivy Bridge chips and AMD's attempt managed to beat it by more than 1GHz.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Gigabyte gave them this "special" motherboard.
So it was like winning in "special" olympics.
Pointless (Score:1)
I remember when modding was interesting and expensive. :(
I now find it pointless. I just want my computer to work, I don't care how fast it is anymore. Sorry
Re: (Score:2)
My middling, mostly working UD5H. (Score:3)
I own the mentioned UD5H motherboard used for the record memory speed; I bought it to replace a very old P5B Deluxe. I am in no way jealous or unappreciative of HiCookie's feat, and the board definitely looks like something that can handle such a thing, but my experience with the board has been middling.
I haven't had the freezes that people have mentioned on its Newegg page [newegg.com] (thank the gods!) and things generally work, but Windows 7 64-bit simply refuses to hybrid sleep or hibernate, and after a non-hybrid standby to RAM, things subtly fuck up (no audio, and other devices I forget at the moment mess up), which means I have to fully reboot (really fun when waiting for big programs like Catalyst) or leave the rig on at FULL POWAH through the night or whatever. Arch Linux was working well at first (RAM standby and even disk hibernate if properly configured and I choose to boot from the Linux drive after the suspend), but updates seem to have made it less compatible with my audio (audio out works except through the standard green line-out...odd) and TV tuner (not detected), for whatever reason. (I left a few more details on a review on the Newegg page, minus the less-compatible part.) The P5B had no such problems: its audio had lots of RF interference through headphones (the UD5H has beautifully clear onboard audio when it works) but it suspended, automatically resumed from the suspended drive, and otherwise worked nicely.
For me, a "middling" board is worse than a "horrible" one, because at least a horrible would be bad enough for me to undo all the cable connections and screw placements and attachments and all that to trade for something better (a very old backup PC I had started getting POST errors as I built the new one so combined with other factors it made referring to the internet kinda impossible...that was fun). With a middling one I simply tolerate the few problems because it mostly works. *shrugs*
Sorry if that came off as a dumb ramble; just my experience with it.
Heat dissipation (Score:1)
I don't have any liquid nitrogen, but I really, really like french toast. On a MacBook Air with an Ivy Ridge CPU, how many slices would I need to cook simultaneously to match the effects of using LN2?
Re: (Score:2)
For maintaining proper cooling, I'd only recommend thawing pre-frozen french toast on your macbook. Do the actual frying on an Itanium2 or something.
You people are embarrassing. (Score:1)
You people are embarrassing. A guy manages to overclock a processor to 7GHz and all you can do is bitch about how you can't do anything with it. Do you make fun of people who climb mountains or build with legos because there's no practical purpose to them?
Nobody is saying this is useful. It's just some guy saying, "Hey look, I got my processor all the way up to 7GHz!", stop taking things so seriously.
Re: (Score:1)
Except 7Ghz isn't that fast...
Others are at 9Ghz.
http://flyingsuicide.net/news/9-ghz-barrier-falls-hard-amd-hits-milestone-with-9062-mhz-validated/
Still 7Ghz is fastish..
Re: (Score:2)
I can remember the days when every Mhz made a difference and you had to turn off Turbo for some programmes.
Back then, reaching 100Mhz was a huge milestone; But then the GigaHertz wars began.
It was actually interesting to see how well someone overclocked their Celeron 300A or their Athlons. As the Mhz crept up to 500Mhz, 600Mhz, 700Mhz, we were all getting excited, waiting for the day that one of the x86 giants would hit the Holy Grail of 1,0
POWER6 was at 6Hz in 2005 (Score:1)
Pretty impressive, although IBM has been shipping 5GHz POWER6's for years, and it has been verified at up to 6GHz.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only do they not do anything at these speeds, they cannot do anything at these speeds except run CPU-Z long enough to get a screen-shot.
Contests to see who can run Superpi the fastest are more interesting.
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=185163 [guru3d.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Then how do they call it stable?
To me it seems like you would want to test it doing some sort of calculation you can check later.
Re: (Score:2)
With the Superpi contests they do, your checksum has to be validated for your score to count.
These max gigahertz records such as tfa, although interesting, are pretty useless. I do have to give them credit for what they do though, it ain't easy.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it means the CPU clock was 63x the bus speed, which means that the bus speed was a dog-slow 111 MHz. The CPU would not be particularly useful running at this speed because of the slow bus speed.
Re: (Score:3)
Standard base clock for Sandy/Ivy Bridge is 100MHz...
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. So Intel is somewhat abusing the traditional meaning of a bus multiplier, and we don't actually know anything about the memory bus speed. *sigh*
However, we do know that they're running that base clock more than 10% faster than normal, which probably means that either their RAM is faster than the spec requires or they are running at a slower bus speed than the maximum. No idea which.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, with Intel putting all the traditional northbridge functions on the CPU die now, that 100MHz only drives the PCIe bus directly. There's no FSB to speak of anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
The multiplier on my processor (2 year old i5) was set around 20x by default. I suspect the i7 starts out higher. I think this is less than twice as fast as the non-overclocked version.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and the CPU multiplier [wikipedia.org] is just how much faster the CPU is than the system bus. It's been a loooong time since any CPU's have run at 1x.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a hell of a cookie crunch
Oh that was pretty lame. Try harder, dont be lazy. Effort spent is wittiness gained.
Re: (Score:1)