Just before the launch of Bulldozer, AMD demonstrated it at 8.43GHz, which was the world record back then. Now an overclocker named Andre Yang has achieved an overclock of 8.46GHz, beating AMD's record by ~30MHz. 

Above are the CPU-Z screenshots of the new and former record. The exact frequency is 8461.51MHz, which is 32.13MHz faster than the previous record. As shown in the pictures, both CPUs had only two cores enabled and ASUS's Crosshair V Formula motherboard was used. Andre applied a core voltage of 1.992V, whereas AMD had a voltage of 2.016V in their setup. Cooling method of Andre's setup is unknown, but most likely either liquid nitrogen or helium was used. 

Source: CPU-Z Validation Database

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Wierdo - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link

    No they don't, Hyperthreading uses the same core to semi-process two threads, it tries to fit a core's pipeline with the second thread when there's a hiccup in processing the first one more or less, basically taking advantage of unused processing windows when possible.

    Bulldozor uses two cores, with their own integer pipelines and the related per-core goodies to do so. So it's two cores in the true sense of the word from a technical point of view.

    Performance of those cores, on the other hands, is another matter.
  • Wierdo - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link

    Thought this was an interesting page, showing performance of Bulldozer with 1core/module vs 2core/module settings:


    Seems that vs 1core/module the Bulldozer actually loses some performance in games, about %5 usually. But in well threaded applications the Bulldozer gets up to ~%80 of the benefit of having the second core.

    Also compared performance gains from Hyperthreading vs Bulldozer's 2cores/module approach, in HT providing a gain of %5-%36 vs %36-%80 respectively.

    I'd suggest putting the page through google translator since it's in French, but the charts are easy to understand without translation.
  • joe4324 - Saturday, October 29, 2011 - link

    I know its purely academic, but this bodes well for first gen scalability correct? Can we get a benchmark of this chip at say 6ghz? somehow just to see how it stacks up? This is the reason for the long pipe design right?
  • Aphelion02 - Saturday, October 29, 2011 - link

    Funny thing is, it will still lose to a stock i7 2600 in benches.
  • Obsoleet - Saturday, October 29, 2011 - link

    No, a stock i7 2600 wouldn't beat an 8ghz Bulldozer at anything.
  • piroroadkill - Saturday, October 29, 2011 - link

    Actually, with only one module enabled, it would have just less than half of the resources a 2600 starts with.

    I'm not sure having it at 8GHz would offset that enough.
  • Obsoleet - Saturday, October 29, 2011 - link

    He said an 8ghz Bulldozer. Not with the setup used in this article.

    Countering over the top, idiotic slander that "Haha, even an 8ghz Bulldozer would lose to a stock 2600K" is a necessity.
  • neotiger - Saturday, October 29, 2011 - link

    The only 8GHz Bulldozer in existence is one that only has 1 module enabled.

    So when someone says "8GHz Bulldozer" it is understood to mean the real 1-module CPU instead of the imaginary 4-module 8GHz Bulldozer that does NOT exist that you seemed to have in your mind.
  • squizz - Sunday, October 30, 2011 - link

    Nope. It does exist:
    In fact disabling 3 module gives you upmost 50 MHz gain. The reason why there are low nomber of 8c 8000MHz results is because everyone wants that +50 MHz gain.
  • Aphelion02 - Sunday, October 30, 2011 - link

    The one slandering is you. I said 'it", which can only be the chip mentioned in this article. YOU are the only one who mentioned this hypothetical 8ghz bulldozer.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now