AMD "Vishera" CPU sets a World Record 8.67GHz frequency

Click image to see the full scores.

The overclocking scene has wasted no time putting AMD's 8-core "Vishera" FX-8350 processor through its paces and it looks like AMD is king for speed, at least for now.

First bragged about by MSI in a press release yesterday after one of their consumers set a record-breaking 8.37GHz on the 990FXA-GD80 motherboard, it was then trumped twice to set the current 8.67GHz record, which still stands at the time of writing.

Overclocker AndreYang used just two of the eight cores enabled on the FX-8350 on a Asus Crosshair V Formula Z motherboard, with 2GB of G.Skill DDR3 memory, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 graphics card, and Liquid Nitrogen for cooling, topped off with an extremely high vCore of 2.064V.

The FX-8350 chip, which was only launched recently, comes clocked at 4GHz Base with 4.2GHz Turbo. Packing 1.2 billion transistors, 1MB of L2 cache (per core, so 8MB total), 8MB of L3 cache, and a rated TDP of 125 watts. 

Source: MaximumPC

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

BT and Talk Talk broadband outages, cable damage to blame

Next Story

TechSpot: The Rise and Fall of AMD

24 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Detection said,
Could have sworn 8.6GHz was beaten a while ago, could be wrong

you mean by the same AMD cpu ?
otherwise ya prob that's not the point though unless teh story was called highest clock of any cpu of all time etc..

I am Not PCyr said,

you mean by the same AMD cpu ?
otherwise ya prob that's not the point though unless teh story was called highest clock of any cpu of all time etc..


Yea by a different AMD CPU, but "World Record Frequency" means highest OC ever, not specifically with that particular AMD CPU

Detection said,
Could have sworn 8.6GHz was beaten a while ago, could be wrong

I think you mean the Zambezi 8150 which reached 8.4GHz. It turns out that the 9GHz was a bogus tho

psionicinversion said,
another useless thing to get some attention. What is the point in doing stuff like that? i dont get it

Its a goal to beat and set a record, or just something people like to do. Just like you posting your comment on Neowin. Some people could argue that's pointless, however other people like to comment on News / Forums.

InsaneNutter said,

Its a goal to beat and set a record, or just something people like to do. Just like you posting your comment on Neowin. Some people could argue that's pointless, however other people like to comment on News / Forums.

I like the story and would like to see more of these and your comment makes me wonder if you have ever overclocked your computer parts ?
I'd overclock my toaster or coffee maker if i knew how
Seriously though we all know most of it useless but it s called fun..
Like overclocking a graphics card how useful is that ?
Yet how popular is it ?

I am Not PCyr said,

I like the story and would like to see more of these and your comment makes me wonder if you have ever overclocked your computer parts ?
I'd overclock my toaster or coffee maker if i knew how
Seriously though we all know most of it useless but it s called fun..
Like overclocking a graphics card how useful is that ?
Yet how popular is it ?

I was basically arguing you could say a lot of thing are pointless, depends on how you view things. What is pointless to one person might be worthwhile to another.

I've overclocked my Core2Duo E4500 from 2.2 to 2.93ghz, very nice performance boost and has run great for years.

Soldiers33 said,
Why is intel making really good cpu's? Is it their method? or types of components? And this is a serious question.

R&D plus skilled staff + experience i bet
When they we're starting to slip against AMD back when Pentuium D's were new
their staff have stated puclicly that they went back to the drawing board and managed
to reuse a bunch of methods from the P3 line of chips. allowing them drastic more efficient cpu's with way lower temps. I have right now some quad core AMD's and a PD 3.3ghz and some C2D's and its hillarious just how bloody hot those Pentium D's get.
What AMD needs is a breakthrough to give them the edge like Intel got..
When the C2D's started coming out i switched over like many people lol

I am Not PCyr said,

R&D plus skilled staff + experience i bet
When they we're starting to slip against AMD back when Pentuium D's were new
their staff have stated puclicly that they went back to the drawing board and managed
to reuse a bunch of methods from the P3 line of chips. allowing them drastic more efficient cpu's with way lower temps. I have right now some quad core AMD's and a PD 3.3ghz and some C2D's and its hillarious just how bloody hot those Pentium D's get.
What AMD needs is a breakthrough to give them the edge like Intel got..
When the C2D's started coming out i switched over like many people lol


There's also the fact that CPU performance is tightly tied to cache performance, and AMD has been regressing on cache latency ever since the Brisbane Athlon X2's came out. Worse part of the story, not only Zambezi regressed compared to Zosma, but Vishera regressed even more, on an architecture with a deep pipeline where branch mispredictions are very expensive and loading data as fast as possible from L2 and L3 cache is crucial. This is also why AMD is pushing clocks like Intel did in the P4 era, it's the only way to counter the penalties from cache misses and branch mispredictions on achitectures with a deep pipeline and sloppy caches.

TL;DR: it's not just Intel doing things ok, it's AMD doing things wrong by not fixing one of its most aggravating issues.

And in other news, world's fastest AMD chip still performs on a par with an i7 clocked at 4Ghz..

Seriously, clock speed means very little these days.

Wakers said,
And in other news, world's fastest AMD chip still performs on a par with an i7 clocked at 4Ghz..

Seriously, clock speed means very little these days.

That's just not true. If each core in a quad core cpu ran at twice the frequency, the entire chip would be able to perform twice as much work in the same amount of time. To drive my point home, a hypothetical 100 core cpu would be pretty awful if each core only ran at 10MHz. It's gotten difficult to ramp up clock speed so manufacturers have increased core count, but that doesn't mean clock speed is unimportant.

psyko_x said,

That's just not true. If each core in a quad core cpu ran at twice the frequency, the entire chip would be able to perform twice as much work in the same amount of time. To drive my point home, a hypothetical 100 core cpu would be pretty awful if each core only ran at 10MHz. It's gotten difficult to ramp up clock speed so manufacturers have increased core count, but that doesn't mean clock speed is unimportant.

If that were the case, AMDs would be competing with i7s. They don't, unless their clock speed is ramped up significantly. That was my point. FYI, to get the AMD to this speed, cores had to be disabled.

Wakers said,

If that were the case, AMDs would be competing with i7s. They don't, unless their clock speed is ramped up significantly. That was my point. FYI, to get the AMD to this speed, cores had to be disabled.

AMD cpus lag Intels for architectural reasons so yes I agree that they need to run at a faster clock speed to close the gap. All I was saying was that I don't agree with making a general statement that clock speed is unimportant since if every every Intel chip today ran at 2x the frequency, they'd all be 2x as fast. If you just meant that cpu architecture is more important that clock speed, then we're in agreement

psyko_x said,

That's just not true. If each core in a quad core cpu ran at twice the frequency, the entire chip would be able to perform twice as much work in the same amount of time. To drive my point home, a hypothetical 100 core cpu would be pretty awful if each core only ran at 10MHz. It's gotten difficult to ramp up clock speed so manufacturers have increased core count, but that doesn't mean clock speed is unimportant.

If each of those cores could calculate a goniometric function in one clockcycle it would be amazingly fast (at least for calculating goniometric functions). Which is of course a ridiculous example just to say that architecture is at least (if not more) as important as clockspeed.

Wakers said,

If that were the case, AMDs would be competing with i7s. They don't, unless their clock speed is ramped up significantly. That was my point. FYI, to get the AMD to this speed, cores had to be disabled.

And this is the typical brainwashed understanding of an Intel customer. Every suecide overclocker disables all but 1 core to achive the best result, that goes to Intel aswell so my question is, why bring that up? Do you really think that Intel goes anywhere near that speed on all cores? Secondly 8150 went near that speed with 1 module/ 2 cores in AMD sence.

When Intel was on top of the overclocking charts with CELEORNS (not even the i-series) everybody praised them on all fronts but now when no Intel can actually get close it doesn't matter nothing anymore? Meh?

AMD does not compete with i7's, even the roadmap clearly states that the top of the line 8350 is supposed to be on bar with an i5 (Can't remember which Ivy it was but it wasn't even close to 3550k nor any K series). Altho tests show clearly how 8350 is 90% of the speed of an 3770k for a lot less money which shows that AMD is making good progress with only minor tweaks to BD, Steamroller is fully handly optimized arch from BD which should (Yes, should) improve the IPC and the Cache latencies.

You need to keep in mind that these are called suecide overclocks for a reason, these are not done for performance upgrades, purely just to see how high an arch can get, the CPU is usless after it's done.

I know we all got something that we want to defend and so to say "fanboy" about but at least do it with facts next time not with some kinda crap that a site feeds you.

Edited by alwaysonacoffebreak, Nov 25 2012, 10:13am :

TruckWEB said,
Sad thing is, it was probably only marginaly faster than the fastest Intel i7....

But, can't beat the price of AMD CPU...

don't forget to add in the cost of liquid nitrogen cooling...

I'm glad AMD is getting SOME good news, we need them to survive and thrive. Looking at the useable speeds though, My 3770k on just air cooling is running at 4.5ghz...8ghz is great for headlines but actual buyers want that kind of speed with all cores operating...