>His CPU doesn't currently hold the CPUID record

AMD also holds the record for shittiest products
nice try Pajeet

>still slower than a stock i7

>>57192414
Let's talk about the megahertz myth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPBtXUUeFK0

>>57192480
lol AMD FX sucks, but G4s heat up like a bitch. we had a room with some powermacs in elementary school and they heat our computer lab up.

>>57192637
Good for the winter.

>>57192414

I couldn't care less about frequency. I care about performance and reasonable energy consumption.

File: AMD User's Worst Nightmare.jpg (50KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 640x480px

>>57192414
Ahem.

>>57193916
>AMD User's Worst Nightmare
>Chip expensive as shit
>Boards expensive as fuck unless you use a lame ass chipset
>1150 socket abandoned by Intel because dickheads

Sure.

>>57192414
better bump before AMD's old ass 32nm architecture goes out the door.

>>57196648
You certainly do, your socket was at least relevant to the company who made it for more than a year or two, not phased out for the next overpriced piece of shit.

Will AMDs new CPUs support M-ITX boards? I want to make a small computer but also want to support AMD

>>57196678
It's not the CPU that supports mitx. It's the Mobo manufacturers.

>>57192414
i have a 1THz CPU tyvm

>>57196678
dont be too hard on yourself for not supporting the underdog. There's a point where performance matters too and you want your computer to perform well. You can't just be handing out charities.

>>57192414
>My I5 4690 clocked @ 4.3 GHz
>half of the best FX 8350
>still better

Heh

Okay, I would really like to see the Cinebench score of that FX 8350

>>57196678
the problem is not the cpu its the mobo manufactures. atm they dont want to produce "new" mobos because the socket is too old
zen will have itx and maxt boards many mobomanus already confirmed

>>57196805
it probably couldn't even run cinebench stable, the clock speed is purely epeen, and I made the thread to poke fun at the AMD FX even though I'm building one.

>>57196805
>4,3gigalets

top kek intel cpus go up to 6,6ghz

File: 8005_src.jpg (159KB, 1000x753px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1000x753px

>>57196826
>couldn't even run cinebench stable
Shit stuff
I want to get the highest possible clock for Cinebench but I have absolutely no idea how to overclock
My best was 4.6 GHz stable on Cinebench

Anyone has advises how to OC a Haswell CPU on a Gigabyte Z87 board?
>pic related
>yes it has up to 10 USB 3.0 ports
>no, I didnt pick it
http://www.gigabyte.de/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4518#ov

>>57194312
>150~200 for a decent mobo
>Lg1150 everywhere

You're retarded.

>>57196892
Muhfugga I've seen 990fx gigabyte UD3s on sale for 89.99, it's $109 now for the mid range, but you can get a really decked out UD7 board you can for not much more.

Aren't there mobile celeron CPUs that could hit 7GHz+ under liquid nitrogen?

>>57196821
Oh I always thought it was something to do with the AM3+ chipset

>>57196782
ikr but I just feel like they need the money more and I won't lose out on much by choosing them over intel and nvidia

>>57192414
yeah, nice, im sure my base clock intel processor is faster

>>57196912
>mobile celeron CPU
Nah they don't even have the power delivery for that.

>>57196908
Scratch that, the UD5 was the one you can get for $150 and its a bit better.

>>57192414
>gigahurtz = performance xD

>>57196805
>Okay, I would really like to see the Cinebench score of that FX 8350
That CPU probably died moments after successfully uploading the CPU-Z result

>>57197032
This t.b.h, the board would be all fucked up around the socket from all the voltage even if it is a 1337 gamer edition.

File: i4fn4j.png (109KB, 415x411px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 415x411px

>>57196927
I was wrong, it wasn't a mobile celeron. It was a desktop celeron.

Here's the full listing:
http://hwbot.org/submission/2520659_power_vano_cpu_frequency_celeron_d_356_8322.44_mhz

File: image.jpg (149KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1000x1000px

>8.5GHz Celery Processor

>>57197055
That base clock overclock tho

>>57197162
I saw that shit, pretty impressive seeing 45nm core 2 fsb speeds on a crappy cedar mill.

>>57197032
>>57197043
Not to mention that fully loading the CPU would fry it instantly

This shit has just barely managed to sustain the 1% CPU usage necessary to have a running Windows with CPU-Z open. As any overclocked knows, there's a world of difference between having windows boot and surviving a CPU stress test.

>>57193916
I like my 4790k, but them pinky-swearing to fix the TIM issue was a load of shit, as mine turns into a space heater under any sort of load, even with a Fuma and that Thermal Grizzly paste everyone was memeing over for a while

>>57193916
4790k barely overclocks for shit

>>57197262
This
My CPU would always go back to stock clock when using Prime 95
I dunno why

>>57192414
Yes, but how is the single threading at those speeds?

>>57197364
I did some math, and I multiplied the average passmark 8350 score times the overclock percentage.

The multi core would be 19653
The single core would be 2456

>>57197358
Thermal throttling or power limits

Niggers, they disable all but one core for overclocking. Just quit it with the cinebench and multithread memes. Retards.

File: vytt61.png (114KB, 415x411px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 415x411px

>>57198608
Oh, what was you sayin?

>>57192414
>shitty processors they click the crap out of to reach the performance of higher tier processors

>>57198623
Found the source of global warming.

>>57198623
Cute, now run prime95 on it

>>57198907
I never claimed it was stable, but 8 cores at over 8ghz is possible without a load on the bastard.

>>57198928
I'm pretty sure no one gives a fuck what you can clock a processor to if you can't run a load on it without it spewing errors.

>>57198955
Oh Anon, no one would run something like that even if it were stable, extreme OCing is for richfags who can buy those gimmicky gaming motherboards for a shit ton of money, the 8350 and fry them both in one go.

>>57198983
But that's boring, isn't it? Why not see how fast you can get them to compute actual work? Go for the highest benchmark scores, not the highest MUH GIGHAIHRUHTZ scores

File: 1296866337801.jpg (20KB, 294x384px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 294x384px

>his cpu isnt made by jews

>>57198995
I guess some guys are into that sort of thing, I'm not, I like to OC as much as it can go while being stable on the stock voltage, and use that.

>>57196918
>Oh I always thought it was something to do with the AM3+ chipset

It's not the chipset, it's the FX lineup; they draw too much power to shrink the board. An 8350 can already melt the socket of a full ATX board if not cooled properly, and so cramming everything into a smaller space would make it even worse, not to mention that an ITX machine will almost always run hotter than a full ATX machine just because of the reduced airflow in smaller cases.

You can get ITX AMD boards, but they're all low-power stuff.

>>57199184
This, you just can't fit more than 95w of power delivery on a board, it's like those small form factor Dell Optiplexes that melt their capacitors because they're boards and cases are too tiny to dissipate the heat.