• What
    is this?

    You've landed on the AMD Portal on AnandTech. This section is sponsored by AMD. It features a collection of all of our independent AMD content, as well as Tweets & News from AMD directly. AMD will also be running a couple of huge giveaways here so check back for those.

    PRESENTED BY

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

POST A COMMENT

58 Comments

View All Comments

  • menting - Sunday, October 30, 2011 - link

    i'm sure you bought Rambus then back in the days when it was like 5x the price for 1% more performance over DDR then? Just to be farsighted?

    you should buy based on what's the best performace to ratio, and only decide on brand loyalty if prices were at par. Companies who do not have a loyalty towards their consumer base should not be rewarded with consumer loyalty.
    Reply
  • frozentundra123456 - Saturday, October 29, 2011 - link

    I am so tired of all the people that think AMD is some white knight that is out to help the consumer, while Intel is some evil corporation only bent on making money. They are both businesses. AMD wasnt so morally upright as to not charge outrageous prices when they had the performance advantage with the original Athlon X2 chips.

    My "moral compass" tells me to buy the best product, since I dont really believe either AMD or Intel is more moral than the other. So I support the company that makes the best product, not rewarding the company that makes an inferior one.

    And if intel wanted to, with the resources they have, and the cash on hand, they cut cut prices even further and decimate AMD.
    Reply
  • Eridanus - Sunday, October 30, 2011 - link

    Increasing prices when the market lets you do so and being illegal knowingly is still two very different things. Avarage people are rewarded by jail sentences in the latter case. Reply
  • Eridanus - Sunday, October 30, 2011 - link

    And not to forget, a weak AMD is good for Intel, a bankrupt AMD is not, because then they are going to get separeted into two companies. Reply
  • kilkennycat - Sunday, October 30, 2011 - link

    Wishful thinking wins over logical reason.....?
    And demand exceeding supply? Sure, since Global Foundries has major 28nm. yield problems, and in the case of Bulldozer not exactly helped by the wasteful silicon-.inefficiency of the design. AMD is currently flushing $$ down the drain with every Bulldozer they sell. For the part to be even acceptably profitable, it would need to be priced ~ 3x the price of the i7-2500.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link

    I think you mean TSMC with the yield issues.

    AMD only pay for each acceptable product and not everything GloFo produces, luckily.
    Reply
  • dgingeri - Saturday, October 29, 2011 - link

    yeah, well, 20% won't get it past the i7-2600k. It's going to need a lot more than that, and the new IB chips will beat it down even further.

    Don't get me wrong, I would like to see AMD succeed. I was really hoping for BD to be a great chip, but they let me down. BD is just garbage, and should be scrapped in favor of keeping around the current 6 core Phenoms, and perhaps expanding that to 8 cores on the desktop. (Server 8 and 12 core chips already exist, but they're too expensive to use on the desktop.) BD might do well on the server end, but they're garbage for desktop or gaming work. Even a 20% boost in performance won't help that.
    Reply
  • Obsoleet - Saturday, October 29, 2011 - link

    The issue isn't that Intel is faster for most things, they are and are expected to be.

    The issue is that the CPU has taken a back seat to the GPU, and now the APU.
    i5/7s, Phenoms and Bulldozers are all grossly overpowered for the tasks people do.

    The advancements Intel makes are meaningless.
    Where it's at is technologies like CUDA and AMD's Fusion APUs. In fact, Intel's SSD developments are more important than their CPU developments.

    Intel's winning a race against itself, in a market segment that mostly matters only to forum-goers. The real market competition is with ARM and APUs.

    I'm sticking with my Q9450 for a reason, it has more power than I need and I use it more than most people would.

    When I upgrade, it will be more in cost-consideration than anything in regards to a CPU purchase, since all modern CPUs are more than enough.
    Reply
  • nofumble62 - Saturday, October 29, 2011 - link

    I am sure graphic is important in games and but in a lot of benchmarks, the score was just measured in the time it took to complete a task. And Intel systems just finished it faster.

    If you are doing work, you know time is very important.
    Reply
  • kilkennycat - Sunday, October 30, 2011 - link

    Grossly overpowered?... nope..certainly not for PC gaming....
    Take a little time studying Battlefield 3's innovative use of **CPU** resources.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now