Read more.Quote:
Yes, hyperthreading and cores were disabled, voltage set high, and lashings of LN2 applied.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Yes, hyperthreading and cores were disabled, voltage set high, and lashings of LN2 applied.
I am confused.
In the 2nd screenshot, it seems two cores have been switched off somehow and then 7GHz has been achived on two remaining cores.
7GHz x 2 = 14Ghz
4.2GHz x 4 = > 14GHz on stock speeds ?
Yeah it's basically making single/dual thread performance as good as possible... personally I'd rather have more cores than pure clock speed, there's a point where the rest of the system won't keep up.Quote:
Originally Posted by OilSheikh
That's not how Ghz works.Quote:
Originally Posted by OilSheikh
Do you sell computers on ebay as a side project ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by OilSheikh
Haha I've seen plenty of those dodgy adverts, they should have been stopped for misadvertising a long time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by BiscuitDo you sell computers on ebay as a side project ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by OilSheikh
Lol. No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
So, by reducing the number of active cores, you can increase single core clock speed?
By disabling cores you are reducing heat production so it will be easier to cool the chip.Quote:
Originally Posted by OilSheikh
And looks like hyper-threading was disabled. 4 core, 8 thread -> 2 core, 2 thread.
I think it's fine. They're challenging themselves to see how high they can get the clock-speed and still do some stable computation, but it's not a good way to get more compute power in most cases. I don't think real super-computers run their 1000s of CPUs with significant overclocks like this.
Power scales with f*v^2, so running a few processors at crazy high clockspeeds takes much more power than a wide & slow design. They're just doing this for the sake of doing it, there's no actual application of this in the real world.
AMD still hold the world record of 8+ GHZ with a fx 8350