AMD overclocks 45nm Phenoms to 4GHz and beyond

According to AMD’s latest roadmaps, 45nm Phenom II processors are just a few weeks away from launch—they’ll materialize at the Consumer Electronic Show in early January. Not a bad time to start gauging the overclocking potential of these chips, right?

AMD took care of that itself at an event in Austin this morning, where it showcased four overclocked Phenom II systems. TR editor-in-chief Scott Wasson was on the scene, and while AMD didn’t allow attendees to take pictures, he jotted down a few details.

The slowest system—cooled with a heatsink and fan—managed to reach just under 4GHz with a 1.55V core voltage. With liquid cooling, AMD successfully pushed a 45nm Phenom II in another machine just over the 4GHz mark. That required kicking up the CPU voltage to 1.6V, however. For the other two systems, AMD took out the big guns. One was strapped to a phase-change cooler and reached the mid-4GHz range at 1.7V, while the fastest system managed to well over 5GHz using liquid nitrogen (which kept the core temperature down to a chilly -185°C).

Considering the latest leaked roadmaps suggest the fastest Phenom II launch CPU will run at 3GHz, those are pretty decent overclocks. We should note that AMD was using Crysis to test stability, however, and that only stresses a couple of cores at best.

Comments closed
    • pogsnet
    • 11 years ago
    • SPOOFE
    • 11 years ago

    ” but the problem I see is that video cards are not optimally utilized, which is just going to get worse as they continually double in processing power.”

    You’ve just identified the problem and the cause: Why spend effort optimizing for hadware that’s just going to double in processing power in (insert span of time here)? That’s why more optimization goes into console games, essentially by necessity, because you’ll have a static architecture for around five years instead of six months-ish.

    EDIT: This was to be a response to #113. Drain too bamaged this morning…

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 11 years ago

      You have quite a point. If a three year old Xbox 360, which was basically outdated before it even came out, compared to a PC, can do Gears of War and the like, and with all the insanely overkill new things that have come to PCs since, the very most hyped up “next gen” games sometimes can’t run right on ANYTHING, then why bother?

      Doesn’t anyone else think it’s funny that a 9600GT and 8800GT/9800GT perform almost identically, almost all of the time? The 9600GT has fairly close to half the raw processing power, and yet, even though graphics is an area that’s considered to effectively process in parallel, the 8800GT/9800GT rarely gets ANYWHERE NEAR scaling effectively.

      And now there’s the GTX 200s, with yet again twice as many processors, but once again, no clock speed increase, and no real improvement over what was already possible before they came into existence. Kind of the same sort of deal as with Core i7s, too. And you can put FOUR graphics cards in an X58 motherboard?!? LOL!

      This is 64 bit OSs all over again. It’s coming one day, you’ll see how much everything will change and your computer will suck!

      Still waiting…

      Even if we EVER get to standardized 64 bit OSs someday, which isn’t even happening with Windows 7, it’s still going to take a LOT more change than that for all this massively parallel processing to begin to matter. And then EVERYTHING will probably suck, because we’ll have moved on to something else altogether.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 11 years ago

        You pretty much overstate or over-generalize all your points.

      • ish718
      • 11 years ago

      Yeah, I wish they would spend more time working on drivers for the video cards trying to squeeze every inch of potential performance out of it.
      Game developers need to work on better optimization for the video cards as well

    • derFunkenstein
    • 11 years ago

    Wake me up when they don’t need exotic cooling to reach those speeds.

    • SoulSlave
    • 11 years ago

    Has anyone read this?

    §[<http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20081119180239_First_Generation_Intel_Core_i7_Chips_Will_Never_Become_Mainstream__Slides.html<]§ This means that Phenom 2 will be competing with Core2 for a lot longer than we thought. I think they knew it from the beginning, that's why they maintained compatibility with current sockets. A really smart move from them.

    • maroon1
    • 11 years ago

    So, AMD overclocks 45nm Phenoms beyond 4GHz with liquid cooling ?!

    I know some people overclocked their Q9550 beyond 4GHz without liquid cooling. And Q9550 is not really the highest end Yorkfeild

    |

      • Prodeous
      • 11 years ago

      well considering that current phenom has problems with going over 3.2 on air, then 4 on air is good enough. 🙂

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      All you people want is more, more, more, more, more.

      Leave Br- *cough* AMD alone.

      • 0g1
      • 11 years ago

      Most q9450’s only did 3.8 and that’s only with a few special DDR2 mobo’s that allowed high FSB on a quad. Most DDR3 mobo’s only let the q9450’s go to about 3.5Ghz. q9550’s were rare, but they only had 0.5 bigger multiplier for 200Mhz more at most. q9650 uses e0 stepping and overclocks good on most mobo’s and gets about 4-4.2Ghz.

        • Meadows
        • 11 years ago

        Touché.

        • ish718
        • 11 years ago

        You forgot there are some Q9550 that have the E0 stepping and they can break 4.0ghz as well, not on air ofcourse.

          • Konstantine
          • 11 years ago

          Still, 4GHz is good .What Im realy concerned about is how those phenom 2 processors will compete against the core i7 and the 45nm core 2 quads.

      • pogsnet
      • 11 years ago
    • Beastie
    • 11 years ago

    OK this is what I want to see in the next CPU benchmarks.

    920 I7 core (norm & OCed) vs 45nm Phenom II (norm & OCed) on Crysis *with* a med resolution of about 1280×1024 with AAx2 and AAx4
    With a GTX 280 or if the next revision comes out with that.

    This should be what I want/use and play on my dream system and I hate the idea of paying double for Intel CPU+RAM+MB if I can get the same effect on a AMD based system!

      • MadManOriginal
      • 11 years ago

      I feel sorry for you if your dream system with that hardware includes a 1280×1024 monitor.

        • Beastie
        • 11 years ago

        Well you shouldn’t be it is going to be hooked up to MY Samsung 52inch series 6 LCD TV.
        I actually do have a pretty high earning full time job.

        Its just that I have played some games etc on it and found that *around* this resolution gives the sharpest performance in text characters etc when reading web pages and playing games, the screen appears to always run at 1080p and rerenders the lower res images.
        Maybe things will be different when I buy a new PC with a new Video card, the current system is a 7800gtx..
        Trust me it looks fantastic.

        I want AAx2 or AAx4 because no hi-res gives smoother images then simply enabling AA.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 11 years ago

          So why wouldn’t you run it at 1920×1080 or at least a 16:9 ratio, maybe 1680×1050 for performance sake? You probably know but the video card is going to be the limiting factor, idk why running at such a lower 5:4 resolution seems better, for LCD native res is always highly recommended but I’ve never used aq TV and maybe it scales poorly.

            • Corrado
            • 11 years ago

            Running a lower resolution takes the video card out of the equation, as at a low resolution it can render as fast as the CPU feeds it data. Therefore, its a good CPU benchmark. However, Crysis is so poorly coded that no matter WHAT hardware you throw at it, it won’t make much of a difference.

            • Beastie
            • 11 years ago

            Yeah pretty much part of my interest…
            I reckon its hard to argue not to see how it goes in these res senarios, at these slightly lower then max resolutions performance limitations can fade away from being a GPU performance limited thing to a CPU/memory performance limited thing.

            Honestly the more resolutions tests the better, but I do like to have the AA enabled as you see jagged edges no matter what resolution with out AA enabled with different GPUs how AA performances can greatly change.

            Around 70% of the time we see Cyrsis benchmarks on the web with no AA enabled which doesn’t give me an idea of what to expect if I buy such a setup. And I believe its far more to do with the fact the reviewer doesn’t care for the game more then gaining technical insight.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            Yes I understand the point behind CPU benchmarks at lower resolutions bu it does not equate to real-world performance as I’m sure you know, well, aside from people who actually use those low and non-GPU limited resolutions. I’m still not sure why Beatie is i[

      • maroon1
      • 11 years ago

      I really don’t think you need to get Core i7 to beat Phenom II

    • masaki
    • 11 years ago

    Q1 09 looks very interesting now, I am really waiting for the launch and the real thing reviewed. It may not overclock as high as Core 2 at the moment, but things should get better as they produce it every day. So as Core 2 E0 to G0 stepping, better overclock and lower wattage in general. With planned 2 years of product cycle, AMD should really have things to be done to enhance Phenom II even further.

    Although they are chopping off employees, having some critical changes to their managerial personnel, I found that AMD actually does better in PR now. How often and how easy can you see the Pats, Leslie Sobon and co. on the tubes, blogs, etc. They have put in efforts to re-educate the world to deal with Intel-default, Nvidia-default things. They spin off non-profitable things and put all the focus on GPU and CPU designs. The outlook of AMD starts to get better. See if they really get things done according to their vision at the right time.

    (btw, why ‘AMD’ and ‘Nvidia’ are not in your dictionary for this message spell check?)

      • flip-mode
      • 11 years ago

      Eh?

        • BoBzeBuilder
        • 11 years ago

        flip-mode is on point.

          • sdack
          • 11 years ago

          Eh?

          Btw, the spell checker is part of the browser – not TR.

      • Silus
      • 11 years ago

      Haha, you remind me of some guy in [H] forum that said “ATI (AMD) has so much good will”. Truly funny and sig worthy 🙂

    • porov
    • 11 years ago

    Won’t it freeze at -185 c?

      • zaeric19
      • 11 years ago

      Solids don’t freeze, they are already solids. Some metals even become more conductive at extremely low temperatures.

      §[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductor<]§

        • Meadows
        • 11 years ago

        Exactly, and that’s the problem. A processor isn’t supposed to let electricity flow however it wants, it must exert some control, and it needs resistance to do that.

      • Wirko
      • 11 years ago

      When cooled with LN2, the core temperature was probably around 0 °C or even higher; but it would reach +200°C without the nitrogen.

      (and then more, with an exponential curve… anyone remember the experiment made at Tom’s Hardware years ago? They took the heatsink off a loaded Athlon, which then instantly turned into a pocket volcano.)

    • ish718
    • 11 years ago

    Wow, put aside the core i7 comparisons, this is a huge improvement from phenom 9xxx and 8xxx series

    • DancinJack
    • 11 years ago

    That’s pretty well done it. I’ll be ordering a Phenom II when they come out.

      • xtalentx
      • 11 years ago

      Ditto – I am getting tired of running Intel. I have a 1.8G Core 2 Duo and 8800GT and moving to 3+G Phenom and 4870. Very much looking forward to building a new system.

    • bcronce
    • 11 years ago

    excluding the price diff against a Core i7, the Core i7s have been OC’d to 4.5ghz air and 5.4ghz fridge being playable.

    Intel still reigns supreme for speed

      • grantmeaname
      • 11 years ago

      Phenom II and Core i7 aren’t competitors. Phenom II and Yorkfield C2Q’s are competitors.

        • StashTheVampede
        • 11 years ago

        That *may* be the case (with relative architecture), but PhenomII will go head to head against i7’s next year, in the consumer market. AMD has a good value (for a while): sticking with DDR2.

        AM2+ boards, with DDR2 are very fast and Phenom2’s will work in those boxes without any doubt. Once DDR3 comes down more, AMD better have AM3 boards ready to go.

        • 0g1
        • 11 years ago

        I don’t know if you saw many benchmarks, but the Core i7 isn’t really an improvement on Core 2 in games.

      • clone
      • 11 years ago

      with 4ghz oc being playable if the IPC is similiar it’ll come down to price.

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 11 years ago

      Intel also reigns supreme on pretty poor bang for your buck, once you start getting into the higher end. I can guarantee you that realistically close to 99% of people do not care so much about the number that Super Pi displays as to spend twice as much on a computer pretty much exclusively for that reason. Core i7s are faster, but not in a way that is helpful to most people. CPUs in general are becoming overkill now. And that’s why Core i7s are only going to be 2% of Intel’s shipped processors all the way through Q3 2009.

      The vast majority of people care that their computer does what they need it to for an affordable price. Intel does very well there with dual cores, but they’ve just about turned to price gouging on quad cores, which is leaving the affordable quad core market wide open for AMD now.

        • Flying Fox
        • 11 years ago

        The majority of people also don’t need quad cores for general computing tasks, so does that really matter?

          • OneArmedScissor
          • 11 years ago

          That was my point about CPUs in general becoming overkill.

          Building a computer with a Phenom II will be very affordable and still overkill. It’s not so much who can make the fastest CPU, but who can make the most affordable one, because they’re pretty much all too much.

            • sdack
            • 11 years ago

            Just wait until the game makers have found a way to exploit 4 and 8 cores and you will, again, see how weak your PC can become.

            Office applications do not need a lot of CPU power for as long as they exist while other applications scale just perfectly with multi-cores. It is a matter of what you do with your PC. For some people has 3D rendering, graphic & video editing just become interesting.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 11 years ago

            Another starry-eyed gamer waiting for those heavily threaded games that just /[

            • clone
            • 11 years ago

            tangible multi threading improvements likely won’t be realised anywhere near the level of hype or “promise” that doubling and quadrupling the numbers of cores implys all the while becoming all the harder to code for at each step until a hardware solution is created to improve the compiling process.

            exploding development costs alone are killing the industry with developers closing shop at a rapid pace.

            Crysis is a great example of a huge disappointment offering visible flaws and quashing the idea that we were on the cusp of getting somewhere….. the outright horrid performance on the best their is added to the lack of improvement outside of visual which even in regards to was fundamentally flawed made it clear we have so much farther to go.

            physics and interface offer some near term potential but that’s about it.

            as a side note I believe gaming is going to deteriorate overall with more pay per use models and online only becoming the norm.

            we’ve also reached the limit for the multi player experience unless co-op gameplay gets revisited and pushed for FPS…… other than that their isn’t much room to maneuver as human nature limits the potential variety.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 11 years ago

            I’m guessing that most near-term complicated threaded development will target XBox or PS3, and that both of those platforms will find themselves stuck with architectures similar to their current ones for the forseeable future, due to the growing difficulty of “optimal” programming.

            I’ve done a fair amount of threaded programming and even games (just for fun) and the argument against threading that I find most damning is the difficulty of addressing synchronization between physics models of networked gamers. Its rather difficult to thread some of that stuff, but then the need to keep things in lock step makes it another level harder (and makes the threading less effective because there may need to be a lot of inter-thread-synch going on).

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 11 years ago

            r[< Just wait until the game makers have found a way to exploit 4 and 8 cores and you will, again, see how weak your PC can become.<]r I've been waiting. I've been waiting even longer for PC game developers to get their act together and stop making broken "next generation" games like Crysis and Supreme Commander. I'll keep holding my breath so long as they can't get the basics down. Multi-core CPUs will probably become more important for video games in general once DX11 arrives, but the problem I see is that video cards are not optimally utilized, which is just going to get worse as they continually double in processing power. I actually have plenty of use for multi-core CPUs, as I do a lot of mixing music, which is extremely CPU intensive, and any decent program can use 8 cores. And yet, my old E2140 at 3 GHz was still overkill 99% of the time. A 3 GHz STOCK quad core Phenom with triple the amount of cache is pretty much completely nucking futs.

      • asdsa
      • 11 years ago

      Someone just got to come here with pro-Intel attitude and core i7 comparsions to spoil the party. I’m happy that AMD got those Phenoms in shape to give a good competition and look forward for benchmarks.

      • 0g1
      • 11 years ago

      The average person isn’t going to get 4.5Ghz air i7 24×7. Lucky to get 4.0 water 24×7. You’re comparing i7 suicide shots to AMD’s relatively low voltage air scores.

      What you should be looking at is the peak overclocks on LN2. AMD reached over 6Ghz. Core 2 duo’s get to 6.5Ghz … 8% more. Core i7’s struggle to get to 5Ghz … 17% less.

        • green
        • 11 years ago

        and a p4 got up over 7ghz…
        does that make p4 the winner?

          • 0g1
          • 11 years ago

          No, because a 7Ghz P4 is about the same performance as a 4Ghz Core2 in games.

        • SPOOFE
        • 11 years ago

        Is the average person going to reach 4 ghz on air (edit: with a Phenom II)? We’ve seen AMD pull this sort of cherry-picking before and it was not accurate or representative of the average person’s experience at all.

    • Ruiner
    • 11 years ago

    BFD.
    Those are suicide runs given that Vcore at 45nm.
    *Maybe* it will achieve parity with quad Penryns.

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      It’s already faster in server tasks than Core i7, some of that will translate to average users too.

        • SPOOFE
        • 11 years ago

        They said that about Phenom I, and aside from an odd task here or there, it was largely inaccurate.

        • accord1999
        • 11 years ago

        Harpertown you mean and only in some tasks. Nehalem is a different matter entirely.

    • echo_seven
    • 11 years ago

    Do the oc results look a little strange to anyone?

    It seems the Phenom II’s do really well, even on air, right up to 4 GHz. Then, they seem to hit a wall, where the entire range of enthusiast cooling is only good for a few hundred MHz. Then, you break out the LN2 and suddenly that wall is gone again? Any idea what kind of process technology quirk might cause this sort of behavior?

    Nonetheless, breaking 6 GHz is a very good sign that AMD has a solid CPU design/process combo this time around. Penryn’s world-record overclock on LN2 isn’t that far ahead (6.7 GHz).

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 11 years ago

      Lol I don’t really see what’s weird about being able to temporarily push the voltage to extreme levels by taking a CPU from probably close to 100C down to -185C…

      • jdaven
      • 11 years ago

      You are missing a step. They used a phase change cooler between air and liquid nitrogen. There is no mystery here. They went as high as they could go on air before the system became unstable (just shy of 4 GHz), then went has high as they could go on phase change until instability ensued, and finally liquid nitrogen.

      Previous Phenoms and Athlons could only go to about 3.4 GHz no matter what you did (except liquid nitrogen). These 45 nm cores are much better than their predecessors.

    • wingless
    • 11 years ago

    I was just finishing my Core i7 920 build on Newegg.com when I saw this. Something is telling me to wait a while to knock down this $2200 build to $1500 with a Phenom II.

    Also this Core i7 build may cut into my budget for my Nissan Skyline R33 Series II RB25DET swap into my 240sx. The AMD build’s saving would get me an HKS EVC for that much.

    Decisions, decisions…

      • SomeOtherGeek
      • 11 years ago

      Get the car with the AMD in it!! Then, you’ll have the best of both worlds!!

      • no51
      • 11 years ago

      Some dude around here put an LS2 on their S13, supposedly lighter than the KA too. There’s no replacement for displacement.

        • Corrado
        • 11 years ago

        Yes there is. Its called boost.

          • charged3800z24
          • 11 years ago

          Secind that.,, just ask my father n’ law.. as his light weight coupe with a 454 get spanked by my 89 cavalier Z24 with a 3800 Supercharged Series II swap..

            • jss21382
            • 11 years ago

            I seriously question how lightweight anything can be with a big block in it

            • wingless
            • 11 years ago

            jss21382, the stock 240sx engine is a 2.4L iron block, aluminum head in line-4 cylinder engine. A Chevy V8 like an LS1 or LS2 are all aluminum. The engines including all accessories are between 15 and 40lbs lighter than my engine + accessories. Aluminum is far lighter than solid iron blocks. Now the advantage to having an iron block is you don’t have to do any extra block work to sleeve it with iron. A properly built KA24DE (the 240sx engine) can boost very high. Unfortunately people rarely take the time to build them properly since there are better drop-in engine choices like the in line-4 SR20DET and RB series in line-6 engines.

            Its like if you have an LGA775 engine, would you overclock an E7200 if it cost you $1000, or just buy a Q9550 for less than half the price?

            • RagingDragon
            • 11 years ago

            So, I guess your father in law should tubrocharge and intercool the 454!

            • toyota
            • 11 years ago

            well damn Terry Wayne is this a tech site or a white thrash family reunion?

            • Corrado
            • 11 years ago

            What? V8’s and Domestic don’t exactly mean white trash. I’d love to see what you have that would compete with a ZR1, cost considered or not.

            • toyota
            • 11 years ago

            just the whole topic of sticking an engine in another car is what I was joking about. I dont race now nor do I care too. not that I dont like power but swapping engines out and working on cars are the last things I am interested in. funny how when I had a new Mustang GT in high school every thug in the area wanted to race me. I never lost one single race. It wasnt that some of those guys didnt have faster cars but it was the fact they usually could not make it a 1/4 mile without breaking something. every race ended with “just wait till next week”. lol

            • no51
            • 11 years ago

            They hit the NOS too early.

            • NeronetFi
            • 11 years ago

            Its not always how fast the car is….its how well the driver can drive the car.

            • wingless
            • 11 years ago

            Toyota, there are some of us that are pure tech guys. That means we like all technology, whether it be cars, computers or any thing else. I am one of those people and you apparently are not. How about you leave this conversation about cars and computers to people that like cars and computers.

            Toyota, I assure you that we could care less what you care or do not care about. Your post here was really frickin useless LOL.

            • toyota
            • 11 years ago

            I assure you that I know as much or more about the technical aspects of a car as anyone here. I also enjoy discussing cars very much. again my humor was pointed at the fact of someone sticking a different engine in a junky car to go faster. I can guarantee you that the “average person” doing that in their garage or front yard is far from a genius.

            • Fighterpilot
            • 11 years ago

            I agree….nice replacement engine…/[<.not nice<]/ chassis it's being transplanted into. The GTR it derives from is a ruggedly built AWD with a tough drive train and performance suspension setup whereas the SX is a lightly built and softly suspended "pretend sports" type chassis. It's going to require major work to make it handle let alone avoiding the transmission self destructing with hard use.Also it will need uprated brakes, to cope with the increase in front end weight and higher performance available. Like someone once famously remarked about the possibility of raising the Titanic..."It would be cheaper to lower the ocean". No doubt Wingless has done his homework so I guess he knows the technical challenges of the conversion.....best of luck with that Wing. ....wouldn't mind seeing some 1/4 mile times once you have it up and running. Wonder how it would go matched up against my MR2 GT-S Turbo R3 🙂

          • no51
          • 11 years ago

          So… you can’t boost a V8?

            • wingless
            • 11 years ago

            Boosting V8s gets very expensive very fast. If you can do it you’ll make more power than you know what to do with.

            • Gungir
            • 11 years ago

            Case in point – Nelson Racing Engines. They’re in the habit of building 400c.i. or larger Chevrolet V8s with intercooled twin turbos that are getting closer and closer to 2,000 flywheel horsepower.

            • Corrado
            • 11 years ago

            Sure, but technically speaking, boost is a replacement for displacement. If you add 1bar of boost to a 2.0L motor, technically, at 100% efficiency (impossible, but in theory), the motor will perform as if it was a 4.0L motor, since an engine is nothing but an air pump, and at 1bar above ambient, you’re doubling the amount of air in the cylinder, which requires double the fuel, and will double the power output. Again, this is at 100% efficiency, which is not obtainable in the real world.

    • revcrisis
    • 11 years ago

    So, can it play Crysis?

      • Farting Bob
      • 11 years ago

      No. It will /[

        • NeronetFi
        • 11 years ago

        Nice, that made me LOL

        • burntham77
        • 11 years ago

        Well har har.

    • DreadCthulhu
    • 11 years ago

    Any word on the pricing of these chips? Because they do sound like a nice upgrade from my current Athlon 64 x2 4000+.

    • sweatshopking
    • 11 years ago

    i am honestly thinking about getting a phenom II, if it can compete in terms of price, i would be more than happy to go back to amd. i am painfully tired of my crap ass pentium d 830!!

      • moritzgedig
      • 11 years ago

      Quadcore | At first there will only be the quads, they might be more expensive than an intel E8x00 Core2.
      unless you have need for a quad the best bang² for the bug is an intel dualcore.
      The Quad might even use less electricity but buying something new doesn’t save electricity.
      *² (not counting low performing Athlon64 X2 nor Celeron D)

      • Firestarter
      • 11 years ago

      If you have a Pentium D, isn’t a core 2 duo almost a drop-in upgrade for you?

        • dragmor
        • 11 years ago

        While the socket is the same, the voltage standards changed 3 or 4 times for the socket, so a lot of boards can’t be upgraded.

          • Meadows
          • 11 years ago

          As is the rule of thumb with intel.

        • ish718
        • 11 years ago

        Not to mention the FSB limitation, with an older LGA775 mobo you can only upgrade to the lower end core2duos.
        Can’t throw a E8400 in a LGA775 mobo with 800mhz or 1066mhz FSB

    • ssidbroadcast
    • 11 years ago

    SIX GIGA-[

      • ClickClick5
      • 11 years ago

      Notice no wattage was mentioned! lol

        • DASQ
        • 11 years ago

        voltage is of little consequence at -185C

          • MadManOriginal
          • 11 years ago

          I hope you mean wattage since that’s what the post you replied to mentioned. Voltage can damage silicon regardless of temperature.

          • JumpingJack
          • 11 years ago

          This is certainly not true.

      • ssidbroadcast
      • 11 years ago

      All of you failed my movie reference.

      Grade: F-

        • Corrado
        • 11 years ago

        SIX POINT TWENTY ONE JIGGAWATTS!11

        • no51
        • 11 years ago

        Maybe if you spelled it JIGGAWHUTZ?

          • ludi
          • 11 years ago

          No good without a lolcat.

      • ClickClick5
      • 11 years ago

      “Yeah, so I OC’ed it to 4.6Ghz and my neighborhood’s power went out. An hour later the FBI showed up and they thought I was testing some type of underground weapon. I showed them what I was doing and they told me to stop. Apparently at 4.6Ghz, the power consumption and the electrical radiation output is close to that of a small nuclear reactor. Yeah, they took my computer and cut off my power for the month. I’m at my neighbors house now. Dang FBI don’t trust me now after the overclocking and the Bush porn server. I’m also apparently sterile.”

    • henfactor
    • 11 years ago

    Will it be compatible with AM2+ sockets? (Please say yes!)

      • SomeOtherGeek
      • 11 years ago

      Oh man!! I hope so… They haven’t talked about new boards and it is coming out in a few weeks, so I would say, it should work on AM2+ boards??

      Anyone confirm this?

      • jdaven
      • 11 years ago

      The first Phenom II’s are only socket AM2+ compatible (2.8 and 3.0 GHz versions).

        • SomeOtherGeek
        • 11 years ago

        Awesome!! Buying one more my Xmas present! Umm, I mean kids presents… But I get to play with, right?

          • jdaven
          • 11 years ago

          Right! Oh and BTW, the first Phenom IIs might also be socket AM2 compatible but who cares about those guys anyway. 😉

            • wabbit
            • 11 years ago

            hey, I would like one of those Phenom II’s in my machine one day, but my 570SLI motherboard is still really good….

            • SomeOtherGeek
            • 11 years ago

            But…. But, you can always have another plaything! Go for it! I am… Well, I’ll have to beg my wife first, but it I draw a really pretty picture, I think it will fly!! Oh boy, candy, candy!!

        • henfactor
        • 11 years ago

        YYYEEEESSSSSSSS!

        You just made my day 🙂

          • sdack
          • 11 years ago

          Be sure to buy a board with at least 125W support, if not 140W. And a board with a SB7xx south bridge that has the advanced clock calibration feature (i.e. a board with 790FX+SB750) or you can forget about over-clocking.

            • shank15217
            • 11 years ago

            How do you know that? Do you have a Phenom II sample in your hands?

            • bfellow
            • 11 years ago

            You ever seen a SB600 board OC a Phenom well over 3.0ghz (or even at 3.0ghz)?

    • dragmor
    • 11 years ago

    So they got rid of the cold bug in the memory controller?

      • ludi
      • 11 years ago

      Chicken soup and Nyquil.

        • tay
        • 11 years ago

        amazing lol

      • Damage
      • 11 years ago

      Yes, apparently they did. These guys were just pouring in the LN2 and booting/rebooting as needed, and the AMD folks were happy to say the cold bug was not an issue for this CPU.

        • srg86
        • 11 years ago

        According to Bit-Tech, you will need ACC (so SB750) for these kinds of overclocks though.

    • ScythedBlade
    • 11 years ago

    Wait up … can’t i7 go 4.1Ghz on air?

    Anyways … yea finally, AMD gives us some good overclockers. I will always resend them for giving me a 2.3 A64 that only overclocked 200 Mhz …

      • d2brothe
      • 11 years ago

      There are no guarantees made on overclocking so no complaining is allowed.

      Also, raw clockspeeds mean zero between processors, I mean, P-D did 4 ghz years ago, almost that at stock, yet nobody’s claiming it was better for that reason…..

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 11 years ago

      The point is that it’s a dramatic improvement over the 65nm Phenoms, which not too many people are a fan of.

      • Scrotos
      • 11 years ago

      You sound like a very resendful person.

        • Xylker
        • 11 years ago

        ***whoosh*** r[< <]r

    • Mr Bill
    • 11 years ago

    This was a very smart move on AMD’s part. It builds expectations. Remember when Intel did this with liquid nitrogen and stole AMD’s thunder? Good showmanship AMD. 😉

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      With a bit of lobbying now, the next Gigabyte overclocking contest could use Phenoms.

        • SomeOtherGeek
        • 11 years ago

        Oh yea!! The motherboard, RAM and video card (not AMD or maybe so?) companies are laughing all the way to the bank now!

    • Meadows
    • 11 years ago

    How much would those voltages shorten the lifespan of this processor? Can someone guesstimate?

    On another note, same stuff as Core i7, and I guess AMD deserves a pat or two for improving where they were most loathed.

      • designerfx
      • 11 years ago

      Shorten the lifespam? Sure: tons.

      Most people don’t overclock to a level requiring voltage as that will kill your processors fast. We could be talking a couple months to maybe 6 or 8 months lifespan depending on usage in comparison to sometimes upwards of 5 years with processors otherwise. Note I am using maximum conditions in both scenarios.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 11 years ago

      Hard to say since AMD uses a different type of process than Intel. For Intel 45nm though some early extreme oc’ers killed chips or severely degraded by using <1.5V and 1.4V is the commonly recommended ‘max safe 24/7 voltage.’ Anandtech also killed a 45nm quad by setting Vtt too high, again I think above 1.4V did it.

    • Price0331
    • 11 years ago

    So it /[

      • 0g1
      • 11 years ago

      With some of AMD’s latest graphics cards, yeah. Imagine how good its going to be early next year when AMD has their DDR3 platform, 45nm 8MB cache cpu’s, and MCM Radeons (if the rumors are true).

      • pogsnet
      • 11 years ago

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This