Last week, we reported that Andre Yang had managed to overclock AMD's FX-8150 CPU to 8.46GHz, breaking the former record set by AMD. Andre Yang has now been able to break his own record by roughly 120MHz, which is fairly notable increase given that the previous record he set was only 30MHz greater than the record before that. The new world record is 8584.8MHz to be exact, 123.3MHz greater than the previous. The record is not official yet, though, as it has not appeared in CPU-Z's validation database. 

Andre used the same Crosshair V Formula motherboard and the only difference seems to be the higher core voltage, which was 2.076V in the new record (1.992V in the old one). Andre used liquid nitrogen for cooling, so even higher overclocks could be achieved with liquid helium, which liquefies at -269 Celsius while it's -196 Celsius for nitrogen in atmosphere pressure. Bulldozer's upcoming B3 stepping could also improve the overclock-ability, possibly making 9GHz plausible. 

Source: XtremeSystems

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Shining Arcanine - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    How does AMD's SMT implementation equal two cores? It is one core.
  • SlyNine - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    Because much of the chip logic including the integer core is doubled. Saying one core is further off then saying to cores. More like 1.5 cores.
  • DigitalFreak - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    Two cores in marketing terms. No different than saying an Intel SB chip with 4 physical cores + hyper-threading = 8 cores. Of course, Intel doesn't do that.
  • SlyNine - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    Oh yea, Way different.
  • N4g4rok - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    They aren't the same. Each BD module contains two physical integer cores, as opposed to the two logical cores in SB's hyperthreading. Big difference.

    Four modules, 2 physical cores a piece = 8 cores.
  • DigitalFreak - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    So at what point does a core stop being a true core?
  • silverblue - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    It's an octo-core if you're running integer workloads, and a quad-core for floating point (albeit eight threads).
  • cfaalm - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    So what are you doing here?
    We're counting cores </rainman>
  • Belard - Friday, November 4, 2011 - link

    Who cares? This 8 core AMD is still slower than a dual core intel 2600k.

    No more waiting... I'm going intel.
  • Landiepete - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    What is it exactly all these experiments are supposed to tell me ? That, yes, the standard performance on bulldozer is significantly slower than on i7, but I can (and am supposed to) easily overclock it to 4GHz or more, thus making it competitive ? Or that I have to treat the extra cores as spare tires in case I get a flat ?

    I simply fail to see the real world significance. Please enlighten me.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now