The new Intel Ivy Bridge hits 7.0 GHz OC

[Deleted]

E5200 to 2500K. Beat that. ;p

Celeron M 1.5ghz (not sure code name) to 2500k

[kidsafe]

E5200 to 2500K. Beat that. ;p

E5200 came out after the Q6600.

[dacoolist]

Celeron M 1.5ghz (not sure code name) to 2500k

lawl, cel's are single core right haha!?!

But yeah the quad core at that OC is insane... I am almost going crazy over how cell phones are going to be quad core in late april... I just purchased a dual core phone (my first smart phone)... its insanely fast running any game etc... and some of these droid games are pretty intense! Anyways, but yeah computers with all these cores being up that high is just out of this world. Each core can computer X1 of a single core - making them just awesome. I am using a dual core and I love it. I can't even imagine a quad, or some of these new ones... 6 core etc...

[Thoragar]

E5200 to 2500K. Beat that. ;p

Went from an E2200 to 2500k lol... 2.0 Ghz dual core to 4.6 Ghz quad.

[Oxyra]

Celeron M 1.5ghz (not sure code name) to 2500k

Dang, I remember my AMD Duron 800 and Celeron 1500 (I think it was the Celeron).

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Dang, I remember my AMD Duron 800 and Celeron 1500 (I think it was the Celeron).

Pentium 1 166 to a 1.67 GHz AMD single core chip (can't remember its name) to an Intel E8400 c2d (@stock 3.0 GHz). And will be upgrading to a 3570K in (hopefully) 5-6 weeks time.

Anyway, getting back to the topic; AMD had to turn off 6-7 of the cores on the FX to get that 8.7 GHz clock on liquid He, Intel didn't have to turn off (from what I understand) any cores for their CO2 cooled 7 GHz. But what would the implications of a 112.11 MHz base clock be for the PCI-E devices attached to the motherboard? I remember reading in a Sandy Bridge overclocking guide that you shouldn't push the base clock beyond ~104 MHz because of the graphic cards and what-not.

[DeltrusDisc]

E5200 came out after the Q6600.

Yet the Q6600 was far superior. ;P

[kidsafe]

Anyway, getting back to the topic; AMD had to turn off 6-7 of the cores on the FX to get that 8.7 GHz clock on liquid He, Intel didn't have to turn off (from what I understand) any cores for their CO2 cooled 7 GHz. But what would the implications of a 112.11 MHz base clock be for the PCI-E devices attached to the motherboard? I remember reading in a Sandy Bridge overclocking guide that you shouldn't push the base clock beyond ~104 MHz because of the graphic cards and what-not.

The Ivy Bridge CPU-Z report is still unofficial as far as I'm concerned...was it Intel? Was it on dry ice? Seems like nobody is sure. As for turning off cores, AMD shut off as many cores as they possibly could, all but two cores (one module). I'm sure the Ivy Bridge system would be completely unstable at 112MHz BCLK. The intention wasn't to achieve stability, but to boot into Windows and open CPU-Z... It's not like AMD or Yang ran any benchmarks at 8+ GHz with their AMD FX chips.

[pansertjald]

The Ivy Bridge CPU-Z report is still unofficial as far as I'm concerned...as it Intel? Was it on dry ice? Seems like nobody is sure. As for turning off cores, AMD shut off as many cores as they possibly could, all but two cores (one module). I'm sure the Ivy Bridge system would be completely unstable at 112MHz BCLK. The intention wasn't to achieve stability, but to boot into Windows and open CPU-Z... It's not like AMD or Yang ran any benchmarks at 8+ GHz with their AMD FX chips.

i think you guys are forgetting to look at my second link.......... it did becnh and it bench REALY good at 7 GHz
http://hwt.dk/Nyhed/22062/Ivy-Bridge-viser-taender

[kidsafe]

Is 5 seconds of SuperPi really worth mentioning?