AMD overclocks an unreleased FX processer, shatters world record [over 8 Ghz]

[ShadowsfeaR]

Nvidia consumers can cry more.

Have fun cooling the card though, probably need like three liquid cooling units or some stuff.

[Ad Bot]

[Night Fox]

Nvidia consumers can cry more.

why are you comparing Nvidia (GPUs) and AMD (processors)

[TheChaosCarrier]

now Intel has nothing to be proud of.

B)

I'm an AMD user and I support this.
'cept mine is older and AMD doesn't make them anymore.

AMD Athlon Dual Core 2.30 GHz

[Headcrab Zombie]

why are you comparing Nvidia (GPUs) and AMD (processors)

Well, AMD does own ATI

[HerpaDerp]

Ghz!=better
This is from last year,cure its a eat feat, but this over locking is only done by pros with a stuffton of money just to get your money's worth out of the FX, it's much more effective to buy an intel i7 with high speeds and easy overlooking
AMD is amazing for low budget, but high budget intel is the way to go

[TheChaosCarrier]

Well, AMD does own ATI

He does have a point.
Since AMD now gets this spike in popularity, and owns ATI, consumers will feel more inclined to purchase ATI GPUs instead of nVidia

"Oh wow AMD made an amazing processor, that must mean they make better GPUs too!" ~Typical Consumer Base

It's called economics, people.

Ghz!=better
This is from last year,cure its a eat feat, but this over locking is only done by pros with a stuffton of money just to get your money's worth out of the FX, it's much more effective to buy an intel i7 with high speeds and easy overlooking
AMD is amazing for low budget, but high budget intel is the way to go

You are handicapped.
GHz ========= Better

Gigahertz are what determine the speeds at which the Processor can, simply put, process information.
1 GH is about 1,000,000,000 cycles per second. Which is slow as forget by today's standards.
Multiply that by 8.

Yeah, a little ridiculous, nobody needs 8 GHz of power, but still.
Why would I spend more on an Intel when I can buy the same from AMD for less.

Intels require certain motherboards that are compatible with that processor, AMD does not. Therefore I would end up spending a lot more unnecessary money when I could just smack an AMD on the motherboard I have now.

[Arnold]

He does have a point.
Since AMD now gets this spike in popularity, and owns ATI, consumers will feel more inclined to purchase ATI GPUs instead of nVidia

"Oh wow AMD made an amazing processor, that must mean they make better GPUs too!" ~Typical Consumer Base

It's called economics, people.
You are handicapped.
GHz ========= Better

Gigahertz are what determine the speeds at which the Processor can, simply put, process information.
1 GH is about 1,000,000,000 cycles per second. Which is slow as forget by today's standards.
Multiply that by 8.

Yeah, a little ridiculous, nobody needs 8 GHz of power, but still.
Why would I spend more on an Intel when I can buy the same from AMD for less.

Intels require certain motherboards that are compatible with that processor, AMD does not. Therefore I would end up spending a lot more unnecessary money when I could just smack an AMD on the motherboard I have now.

Except you are leaving out an unbelievable amount of information, as there is much more to clock speed then the number printed on the box. The list of features you can compare on either end goes on for miles. Most of it comes down to architecture.

You could simply note this by looking at benchmarks online.  
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

The difference comes down to architecture of the CPU, which Intel is just plain better at. All of my proof goes to practically any benchmarks on the internet.

Also, because Intel uses smaller architecture, its able to fit more into the cpu itself, providing more power. This is why you cannot just compare the clock speeds between intel and AMD right off the box. Its also why some Intel CPUs far surpass AMD cpus at similar or higher clock speeds.

[Darkness ZXW]

they do realize GHz isn't everything right

GHz ========= Better

you're a dumb one aren't you

it's not how much RAW MOTHERloving POWER WOO MONSTER TRUCKS it has, it's how it handles the power

[Arnold]

they do realize GHz isn't everything right

you're a dumb one aren't you

it's not how much RAW MOTHERloving POWER WOO MONSTER TRUCKS it has, it's how it handles the power

Not only, but as I mentioned above, you cant even compare the clock speeds since they use different sizes for the CPUs themselves. As in the nanometer measurements that are outlined on the boxes themselves. Intel makes much smaller technology, and therefore can "pack more of a punch" per each GHz then an AMD CPU.

[TheChaosCarrier]

I was mostly getting at him for stating GHz isn't important.

But yes, I suppose I did lack architecture of the CPUs in my wall of text.
Honestly though, the FX does look promising to win a big spot on the benchmarks, not just because of the recent record breaking.

they do realize GHz isn't everything right

you're a dumb one aren't you

it's not how much RAW MOTHERloving POWER WOO MONSTER TRUCKS it has, it's how it handles the power

Okay.
So if I had a 0.5 GHz single core processor but it had amazing architecture and handled the power like a boss, it was supposedly better than a 2.90 GHz processor that handled it less efficiently?

I believe you are missing the point. GHz plays a major role in how well a CPU cycles information.
Yes, all other factors are important as well, but still. It's absurd to state that GHz has no importance.

[Darkness ZXW]

Okay.
So if I had a 0.5 GHz single core processor but it had amazing architecture and handled the power like a boss, it was supposedly better than a 2.90 GHz processor that handled it less efficiently?

I believe you are missing the point. GHz plays a major role in how well a CPU cycles information.

yeah

but if i have 8GHz and it's running dual core it's stuffty as forget

[TheChaosCarrier]

yeah

but if i have 8GHz and it's running dual core it's stuffty as forget

Well no stuff.
I wouldn't buy an 8 GHz CPU that is only a dual core. No computer-intelligent person would.
You wouldn't buy a 1 GHz 8-core either.

It's like giving a guy a sports car and no gas.

[Arnold]

I was mostly getting at him for stating GHz isn't important.

But yes, I suppose I did lack architecture of the CPUs in my wall of text.
Honestly though, the FX does look promising to win a big spot on the benchmarks, not just because of the recent record breaking.

I was pretty sure those AMD Processors have been out for quite some time now? The record breaking changes nothing, and you obviously do not understand what benchmarks are if you think it will have any affect on them. Most Benchmarks are for normal clock settings, and if they are not, they are compared with CPUs of similar clocks. Most people cannot get the 8GHz clock anyways.

Intel really has no reason to overclock there CPUs that high, because all it will do is make small news for a day. No one is ever going to run that, and even if they did, they would need someone to constantly be feeding liquid nitrogen.


You did leave out architecture, and its unbelievably important. Clock speed is irrelevant if you are not taking into affect the difference in architecture, which Intel wins at hands down.

[Arnold]

Well no stuff.
I wouldn't buy an 8 GHz CPU that is only a dual core. No computer-intelligent person would.
You wouldn't buy a 1 GHz 8-core either.

Cores are irrelevant as well, since most programs dont need more than 4. Only lately have games actually started requiring more then dual core processors for normal settings.

Just throwing that out there, I know neither one of you was arguing for cores any ways.

[KoopaScooper]

So if I had a 0.5 GHz single core processor but it had amazing architecture and handled the power like a boss, it was supposedly better than a 2.90 GHz processor that handled it less efficiently?

Actually, yes. Some of yesterday's P4 models are greater than some of today's Celerons. Stop trying to sound like a pro when you have no idea what you're saying.