bit-tech.net

AMD's A10-5800K hits 7.3GHz under liquid nitrogen

AMD's A10-5800K hits 7.3GHz under liquid nitrogen

AMD's A10-5800K has reached an impressive 7.3GHz under liquid nitrogen with two cores disabled, with 5.1GHz the record so far for air cooling and all four cores active.

AMD's Trinity family of APUs has certainly generated interest, with its top-end A10-5800K proving a worthy product for the budget-friendly lightweight gaming niche - but while we managed to get the company's latest accelerated processing unit (APU) to 4.4GHz, extreme overclockers have been enjoying rather more success with the unlocked chip.

According to validated CPU-Z results first collated by German-language hardware site PC Games Hardware, those willing to risk blowing up their new £90-ish processor have managed to get the chip running as high as 5.1GHz on air, before being blown away with a 7.3GHz overclock powered by liquid nitrogen.

First, the more reasonable air-cooling performance: CPU-Z user NAMEGT reached 5.1GHz with the unlocked A10-5800K based on a 51x multiplier on a 100MHz bus speed at a core voltage of 1.616V. Impressively, that figure was achieved with all four cores active simultaneously - something that the liquid-nitrogen crowd were unable to duplicate.

For those who prefer their cooling a little less practical, CPU-Z user GASBK_TW managed to hit an impressive 7.3GHz using the same A10-5800K chip by boosting the core voltage to a panic-inducing 1.956V. As a result, the chip managed to run at an eye-watering 62x multiplier on a 118MHz bus speed. Although that's certainly impressive, in order to achieve such a high CPU-Z-validated overclock two of the processor's four cores needed to be disabled - crippling the performance for multithreaded applications.

Even with such high overclocks, the Trinity family of APUs is unlikely to make much of an impact against Intel's Core i7 and even i5 family: the weakness of Piledriver's x86 performance means that it struggles to compete even when overclocked. For those looking to build a budget-friendly rig capable of playing most games with the graphics settings dialled down a little, however, it's likely to prove popular - and with figures like these available, a little overclocking could make the chip even more of a bargain.

17 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
MrJay 8th October 2012, 12:57 Quote
Ha, thats awesome!

Looking to do a build with this chip for a friend...dont think ill OC it however.
damien c 8th October 2012, 16:00 Quote
Built a pc using the A8 5600K at the weekend and it's a cracking chip, still won't use it for my own build because they are to slow compared to the Intel chips for what I do but for general use and mild gaming these are fine.
[USRF]Obiwan 8th October 2012, 16:17 Quote
Wondering when they are going to hit the 10Ghz marker. That's like breaking the sound barrier in land speed record terms...
flibblesan 8th October 2012, 16:21 Quote
Overclocked to 7.3GHz and still isn't faster than an i3 :P
[USRF]Obiwan 8th October 2012, 16:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by flibblesan
Overclocked to 7.3GHz and still isn't faster than an i3 :P

So damn funny if you think of it. Speed is nothing without torque :)
fdbh96 8th October 2012, 18:41 Quote
"two of the processor's four cores needed to be disabled - crippling the performance for multithreaded applications."

This maybe stupid, but if two half the cores are disabled but the rest that remain are running at over double the speed, would that not increase performance?
GeorgeStorm 8th October 2012, 19:20 Quote
At that speed, it won't be able enough to actually do anything.
It's done purely to see the maximum mhz it can do.
fdbh96 8th October 2012, 19:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm
At that speed, it won't be able enough to actually do anything.
It's done purely to see the maximum mhz it can do.

I was thinking more in theory, so in the future, what would be better? 2 cores @ 7.3ghz or 4 cores at 3ghz
GeorgeStorm 8th October 2012, 19:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
I was thinking more in theory, so in the future, what would be better? 2 cores @ 7.3ghz or 4 cores at 3ghz

In theory completely depends on the application, and whether it can actually take advantage of multiple cores :)
Gareth Halfacree 8th October 2012, 19:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
I was thinking more in theory, so in the future, what would be better? 2 cores @ 7.3ghz or 4 cores at 3ghz
In theory completely depends on the application, and whether it can actually take advantage of multiple cores :)
And whether the application scales linearly with CPU speed, of course - which isn't always the case. For some applications, it'll be faster running two threads at half the speed; for others, one thread at full speed is preferable. See also: the reason why Hyperthreading can improve performance for some applications, despite having no real extra processor to work with.
Yslen 8th October 2012, 19:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
I was thinking more in theory, so in the future, what would be better? 2 cores @ 7.3ghz or 4 cores at 3ghz

Given that a core is not a completely discrete CPU, i.e. there is resource sharing I would imagine that the higher clock speed would win. Even if a program could use 100% of each core it should still be slower in theory.

Thing is, it will always be easier to add more cores than more speed, so its fairly irrelevant. You'd need a 6.8Ghz dual core to match a stock 3570k. If you can do that, you could just make a 5Ghz quad core for less money which would have even more performance.
rollo 9th October 2012, 12:09 Quote
The Ghz race stopped for a reason, Niether Intel or AMD could keep up with the cooling demands of the chips at the speeds they were pushing, Not to mension the huge power draw from the system.

Dout we will ever see a 5ghz release chip from AMD or Intel in the near future.
Lance 9th October 2012, 12:13 Quote
So do these big overclocks have an affect for those that don't overclock, in terms of research etc? Like the space race making technology move along faster or is it all just for fun?
GeorgeStorm 9th October 2012, 12:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance
So do these big overclocks have an affect for those that don't overclock, in terms of research etc? Like the space race making technology move along faster or is it all just for fun?

Companies more and more are hiring 'pro overclockers' to help them with new products.
Technologies that are in top of the line boards now to do this kinda thing filter down through to lower end products over time.
So while it is for fun, I think there is a benefit.
l3v1ck 9th October 2012, 22:13 Quote
Someone had better tell AMD that the megahertz wars ended a long time ago. Actual performance is the name of the game.
Fizzban 11th October 2012, 21:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
Someone had better tell AMD that the megahertz wars ended a long time ago. Actual performance is the name of the game.

I agree, but willy waving has been a pass-time for a long time. If it wasn't overclockers wouldn't bother.

10Ghz is the mark to hit. Intel is clearly better in most arenas, but it will be a long time before they wave their willy in that particular arena.

Me? I want performance per cycle. But that is a bit like a women saying she prefers a guy with stamina, to a guy with a big...thingamy. It may well be true, but bragging rights are everything.
ShinyAli 11th October 2012, 22:06 Quote
Mmm, liquid nitrogen, pretty pointless exercise but, makes more sense than drinking the stuff
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums