AMD Fx-8150 CPU Scores 8GHZ+ Record Breaking Overclock

A new overclocking record has been reached with AMD's FX-8150 chip, by a user on the Overclockzone forums known as Ksin. The result has been CPUZ validated, suggesting that this is a legitimate OC.

Performed using liquid nitrogen as its coolant to keep the CPU at very sub zero temperatures, the eight core Zambezi chip went all the way up to 8.8056Ghz. It achieved this with a bus speed of 303.64Mhz and a multiplier of 29. The required core voltage was quite monstrous, sitting at 1.86v.

Other hardware used as part of the record breaking overclock include an Asus Crosshair V Formula motherboard, twinned with 4GB of Dual Channel DDR3 from A-DATA and an AMD Radeon 7900 series graphics card.

While Intel might still hold the overall performance crown, when it comes to raw clock power, AMD certainly comes out on top. This has made the company's chips the darling of overclockers around the world, showing there is a market for them despite the fact that the series looked doomed to failure when first revealed under the Bulldozer banner.

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


amd fx cpus

amd fx cpus have turbo core tech 2.0 when turbo core is activated you can set the cpu to run from 2,4 or 6 turbo charged cores, whick actually my fx 8120 isnt overclocked but i set the turbo core to disabled and set the multiplier to my fx 8120s turbo core frequecy of 4.0ghz as the main multiplier... in other words im running 8 4 ghz cores, or i can set it to disable my other 6 cores and then in turn as im running my fx cpus turbo core frequency and disable the 0ther six cores it actually forcly enables the fx cpu to run in 2 turbo charged cores, whcich is actually 4 cores per core with on core/thread on a pair of 4 cores and same with the other remaining cores, so it will only show 2 cores/2 threads, but in turbo charged core mode which is why this dudes image is only showing 2cores/2threads ect.. any one get it now i can run mine the same way or maybe i found a better way to run my fx chip and it actually outperforms intels ivy bridge chips @ the same clock speed even tho my cpu shows only 2 cores 2 threads ect set the fx cpus stock mult. to the fx cpus turbo core mult. and disable the other 4 or six cores if im explaining it correctly if you disable 6 cores you will have only 2 cores/2 threads but you are actually running all 8 cores but in a combined state,you are actually running 2 dual core modules together, meaning its is still 8 cores but the 1st set of four cores are combined together and the 2nd set of 4 cores are set together only really showing 2 cores/2 threads but are all combined together in only 2 cores/2 threads.... i forgot actually how i pulled it off but i did get it working very well, i brought life back to my Fx cpu, i was very dissipointed with amd at first but i brought lie back to my FX 8120 cpu, and its been doing extremely well...

problem is

from what i can gather the performance for the fx chips are not that good in comparison i guess it means is say a intel running at 4ghz and a fx running at 4ghz the intel (and even the phenom II in some cases) are actually performing better per cycle

think clock speeds are a bit misleading now as performance can still vary wildly even if there running at similar speeds

really hope the piledrivers do better though as i have a am3+ system


woWOwOWOwoOWo that thing is 8 core? 8 x 8 = 64ghZ of computing....holy ****. When games become more threaded, whoa !

thats not what 8 core means.

thats not what 8 core means..8x 8ghz must work at BestBuy, cause they tried pulling the same thing on me. What this means, is that, for simple terms...a 8 core CPU was putting out 8ghz, that means, each of the 8 cores, were putting out 1ghz

cpu core

yes each core is running at 8 ghz. not 8 cores at 1 ghz. ****://

Each core does run at the

Each core does run at the specified clock frequency. A core i5 at 3.3GHz is 3.3GHz per core. Depending on the application used, performance doesn't scale 100% with each core used however, because of overhead and bandwidth limitations. Clock frequency isn't everything though, the Bulldozer has extremely slow/inefficient cores even at high clock frequencies and in this case, 6 of them were disabled in order to reach a higher overclock.

That's not what 8 cores means

That's not what 8 cores means either. It means that you can run 8 hardware threads in parallel with a maximum throughput of 8 ghz - same speed, but more things at once (not queued by the OS and executed one-by-one). If it were a ghz-per-core rating you would be seeing the market flooded with 6 and 8 ghz CPU's - my last single core CPU (God I feel old now :/) was a 3.4 ghz Pentium 4 - by your logic we should have 16 ghz CPU's in cheap consumer laptops. And oh boy am I jealous of your logic :(

Add new comment