6GHZ barrier broken

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2004-09-27 08:26am

Nice, massive overclock reached 6GHZ in a presscott 3.6GHZ CPU

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/sho ... hp?t=42655

Nitrogen cooling and all, I wonder, how much could they OC the rest of the system?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-09-27 06:44pm

Sheesh, and I thought they had actually made a commercialy viable 6 GHz CPU. Hmph.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-09-27 06:54pm

I wonder how much a real-world performance increase that sort of OC would entail.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-09-27 06:55pm

Yeah, I saw that on Slashdot a few days ago.

Amusingly, to get a Pentium 4 to that level they had to liquid cool it with liquid nitrogen at -105 C.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-27 07:28pm

SPOOFE wrote:I wonder how much a real-world performance increase that sort of OC would entail.

It would need to include a proportional bus/memory increase to be of any value, but the P4 design takes to additional clockspeed quite well.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-09-27 07:37pm

Yeah. And you know why that is? Because each clock cycle does less work on a p4...

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-09-27 07:39pm

What chips tend toward more work per clock?

EDIT: Work* Typodemons FFS...

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-27 07:46pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:What chips tend toward more work per clock?

EDIT: Work* Typodemons FFS...

That's a hard to answer question, especially since you have to define what you mean by "work". The chips that do the most work per clock cycle aren't necessarily the best either, the trick is to strike a balance between clockspeed and Instruction Per Clock. The P4 actually had a great balance going for it during the Northwood days, but since 90nm has stunted clock scaling, the less-work-per-clock Athlon 64 has overtaken the P4 in performance.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2004-09-27 08:37pm

With that setup I could run Doom 3 at medium quality! Woot!

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-09-28 12:35am

Yeah. And you know why that is? Because each clock cycle does less work on a p4...

It doesn't matter HOW it's done, just how WELL.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-09-28 01:32am

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:What chips tend toward more work per clock?

EDIT: Work* Typodemons FFS...

AMD systems (2.4 GHz in an Athlon 64), and PowerPC processors like those in Macs.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-09-28 04:02am

The Kernel wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:What chips tend toward more work per clock?

EDIT: Work* Typodemons FFS...
That's a hard to answer question, especially since you have to define what you mean by "work". The chips that do the most work per clock cycle aren't necessarily the best either, the trick is to strike a balance between clockspeed and Instruction Per Clock. The P4 actually had a great balance going for it during the Northwood days, but since 90nm has stunted clock scaling, the less-work-per-clock Athlon 64 has overtaken the P4 in performance.

You mean more-work-per-clock

.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-09-28 04:14am

Now if only someone would also overclock a GPU to 166%

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2004-09-28 08:42am

Pu-239 wrote:Now if only someone would also overclock a GPU to 166%

Thats more limited by the memory and efficiency of the chip, in the end, the OC will give diminshing results.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-09-28 02:03pm

I wonder how much the internal resistance went down when the cooper was cooled down to that temperature?