• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

7 GHz Ivybridge OC (allegedly)

1.9V is insane, still at least they managed it with all four cores active... I bet this thing could easily break the world record if they cheated like AMD and disabled 3 of the cores.
 
mmj_uk said:
1.9V is insane, still at least they managed it with all four cores active... I bet this thing could easily break the world record if they cheated like AMD and disabled 3 of the cores.
Click to expand...

I doubt it.
SB-E hasn't been breaking records, nor did SB, their max OC's under extreme cooling weren't all that great tbf.
 
Martini1991 said:
I doubt it.
SB-E hasn't been breaking records, nor did SB, their max OC's under extreme cooling weren't all that great tbf.
Click to expand...

TBH,the six core Core i7 CPUs could hit 6GHZ to 7GHZ already on LN2:



http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2159430

These were among the first Intel 32NM CPUs and for the time was quite a large CPU with 1.17 billion transistors.

Hence,the much smaller IB hitting 7GHZ is not that shocking especially since it has some extra upper multipliers over SB.
 
Last edited:
That's not SB-E.
Or SB.
Irrelevant.
The 8GHZ world record previously was held by a Celeron, does that mean Cele's were the pinnacle of overclocking?
 
Martini1991 said:
That's not SB-E.
Or SB.
Irrelevant.
The 8GHZ world record previously was held by a Celeron, does that mean Cele's were the pinnacle of overclocking?
Click to expand...
Not really.

Early 32NM Intel CPUs could already hit 7GHZ with LN2. So its not a big deal that a 22NM CPU can hit 7GHZ especially with a smaller CPU section with less power hungry cache.

If you look at the link in the OP,the chap is trying to make a big deal of it - it isn't. It has no bearing on real world overclocking ability. We also have no clue of what the safe voltage is too.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Not really.

Early 32NM Intel CPUs could already hit 7GHZ with LN2. So its not a big deal that a 22NM CPU can hit 7GHZ especially with a smaller CPU section with less power hungry cache.

If you look at the link in the OP,the chap is trying to make a big deal of it - it isn't. It has no bearing on real world overclocking ability. We also have no clue of what the safe voltage is too.
Click to expand...

The way you come across is weird.
You're agreeing with my original point, it's not impressive.
I interpreted it as you disagreeing.
 
I'm just surprised that they can take 1.8v on a smaller process without burnout. The figure if true is impressive but has no real bearing on the factors that most of us base our purchasing on: 24/7 overclockability and performance.
 
lollyhayes said:
I'm just surprised that they can take 1.8v on a smaller process without burnout. The figure if true is impressive but has no real bearing on the factors that most of us base our purchasing on: 24/7 overclockability and performance.
Click to expand...

It's almost 1.9V and there's no indication of how long the CPU will last at that voltage.

They may have reduced the lifespan of the CPU from years to a very short time indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom