Intel overclocks Sandy Bridge CPU to 4.9GHz

By on September 16, 2010, 1:01 PM
Intel has provided quite a bit about its upcoming Sandy Bridge processors, slated for early 2011, but only now do enthusiasts have something to start drooling over. The chip giant this week held a session where it did some impressive Sandy Bridge air-cooled overclocking, according to APC Mag.

Though not many details were allowed to be disclosed, we do know that a new CPU corresponding to the current quad-core Core i7 875K (the K refers to an unlocked multiplier) was overclocked and tested running Cinebench R11.5. With only air cooling, the processor managed to run at 4.9GHz (Intel requested that the original speed of the CPU before overclocking not be disclosed), and apparently outperformed a 12-core AMD Opteron "by a pretty healthy chunk." Considering the Opteron in question easily beats a Core i7 960 CPU on the Cinebench benchmark, this is quite good news for Intel.

The second generation of Intel Core processors definitely looks impressive based on this single result (remember: this wasn't a pre-production chip), though we'll have to wait to get some independent benchmark scores before we can really see how much of a difference Sandy Bridge will make for the upcoming Core i3s, i5s, and i7s, overclocked or not. Expect the first evaluation processors to be benchmarked very soon!





User Comments: 27

Got something to say? Post a comment
seronx said:

That's the Intel 2600K @ 3.4 GHz overclocked to 4.9GHZ the guy didn't do a good job blurring it

it has 4 cores and 8 threads

and they are running it on windows 7 64bit ultimate edition

with a 460GTX

LOL he zoomed in lol nice job guy thanks didn't notice that

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

LOL...excellent detective work, seronx.

seronx said:

LOL...excellent detective work, seronx.

and here I was thinking I had good eyes lul!

It also doesn't look like they actually overclocked the CPU that's at stock speed the losers lol

Guest said:

Yeah, but can it run Crysis 2?

Modena said:

So much for that NDA hahaha. I love how he goes in for the close up of what the guy said to blur out.

@seronx apparently Cinebench won't report the correct reading of anything that uses a multi higher than 25.

princeton princeton said:

So judging by this Intel is still running far ahead of AMD.

seronx said:

So much for that NDA hahaha. I love how he goes in for the close up of what the guy said to blur out.

@seronx apparently Cinebench won't report the correct reading of anything that uses a multi higher than 25.

Not really you can go beyond that but what it says is weird

If you had an AMD Processor and overclocked it to 7.299GHz it would show

AMDAuthenticated CPU @ 7.299GHz

Intel's way of doing that is

IntelGenuine CPU @ 4.9012GHz

Both the model of the cpu would be unknown and the stock speed would be unknown

So judging by this Intel is still running far ahead of AMD.

We have yet to see Bulldozer in action yet or any other fusion/CMT cpu from AMD

Cinebench loves Intel's SMT tech

also it isn't very impressive beating a amd 12-core server cpu that's clock at what 2.2GHz?

Yeah, but can it run Crysis 2?

Yeah, It can

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

We have yet to see Bulldozer in action yet or any other fusion/CMT cpu from AMD

There's an old sporting adage; You can only beat what's put in front of you.

Bulldozer is ~1 year away..and it is (hopefully) competition not for LGA1155, but LGA 2011 and Ivy Bridge on 22nm

Cinebench loves Intel's SMT tech...also it isn't very impressive beating a amd 12-core server cpu that's clock at what 2.2GHz?

While Cinebench will utilise each and every thread/core available it will tend to favour the CPU offering the fastest single thread speed, so it probably isn't the best indicator of CPU productivity. It is, however, a reasonable indication that AMD PR and shareholders might need to have a supply of new underwear close to hand.

Yeah, It can

seronx said:

There's an old sporting adage; You can only beat what's put in front of you.

Bulldozer is ~1 year away..and it is (hopefully) competition not for LGA1155, but LGA 2011 and Ivy Bridge on 22nm

While Cinebench will utilise each and every thread/core available it will tend to favour the CPU offering the fastest single thread speed, so it probably isn't the best indicator of CPU productivity. It is, however, a reasonable indication that AMD PR and shareholders might need to have a supply of new underwear close to hand.

Yeah, It can

A pic

No where do I see the i7 2600k in that benchmark so how can I trust their word?

and if you look really closely

The Opteron beats the i7 960 thats at 3.2GHz debunking your theory

but if you look at the 8C/16T Xeon cpus

running at 2.0Ghz and 2.2GHz ofcourse they beat the Opteron

actually that Opteron is dual cpu

[link]

2435 is only a six-core

[link]

A real 12-core is in the 6000 range

there is so many inconsistencies in that benchmark

I indeed mistook that the .6 as a 2.2 GHz when in acutallity that is 2 cpus running at 2.6GHz

include the XEONs they are also 2 cpus

----

This is not including that the fact that the benchmark closes instantly the test is done....

Thus making everything they say a BS'ed lie

Adhmuz Adhmuz, TechSpot Paladin, said:

A pic

No where do I see the i7 2600k in that benchmark so how can I trust their word?

and if you look really closely

The Opteron beats the i7 960 thats at 3.2GHz debunking your theory

but if you look at the 8C/16T Xeon cpus

running at 2.0Ghz and 2.2GHz ofcourse they beat the Opteron

actually that Opteron is dual cpu

[link]

2435 is only a six-core

[link]

A real 12-core is in the 6000 range

there is so many inconsistencies in that benchmark

I indeed mistook that the .6 as a 2.2 GHz when in acutallity that is 2 cpus running at 2.6GHz

include the XEONs they are also 2 cpus

----

This is not including that the fact that the benchmark closes instantly the test is done....

Thus making everything they say a BS'ed lie

First of all the score is only added after the test is finished running thats why the i7 2600 is not displayed, if you run the bench you would see this for yourself, the reason it closes right away is to attempt to hide the score, so nothing is being "BS'ed" and they are not liars. That being said having freeze framed the video just as its closing I can clearly, or almost clearly see a score of 9.57 pts which beats the Opteron by a healthy margin. So no inconsistency's there at all, just a really bad attempt at covering up whats going on and someone has no idea what NDA means. That said, my current i7 920 @ 4.0 GHz scores only 6.73 pts which is in itself not bad but not even close to this i7 2600. Lastly being a pre-release motherboard and CPU its very possible that the clock speed is not being read properly. But thats just what I can make of this video.

seronx said:

First of all the score is only added after the test is finished running thats why the i7 2600 is not displayed, if you run the bench you would see this for yourself. That being said having freeze framed the video just as its closing I can clearly, or almost clearly see a score of 9.57 pts which beats the Opteron by a healthy margin. So no inconsistency's there at all, just a really bad attempt at covering up whats going on. That said, my current i7 920 @ 4.0 GHz scores only 6.73 pts which is in itself not bad but not even close to this i7 2600.

screen shot plox?

Adhmuz Adhmuz, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Pictured for seronx.

And to compare to what the actual scores are for the other CPUs

Compared

If the links don't work they're in the Techspot Gallery. For some reason the links only work when your in forum mode not the comment view mode...

seronx said:

Thanks it works for me oddly

looks like it can be either 8.57 or 9.57

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_F

Socket F = AM2(Server)

just a reminder that the amd cpu is not a 12 core but 2 six-cores

Socket C32/G34 are AM3(Server) which is the 12 cores

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

No where do I see the i7 2600k in that benchmark so how can I trust their word?

So, rather that take the demo as a possibility...you would automatically believe that the benchmarking is dishonest? Does this go for every public demonstration? How about the behind-the-stage-and-no-we-wont-show-you Ontario demo AMD recently publicised? Will we see your comments on that thread decrying foul play?

and if you look really closely

The Opteron beats the i7 960 thats at 3.2GHz debunking your theory

but if you look at the 8C/16T Xeon cpus

running at 2.0Ghz and 2.2GHz ofcourse they beat the Opteron

Hey, dont take my word for it then how about Johan De Gelas:

[link]

actually that Opteron is dual cpu...there is so many inconsistencies in that benchmark...I indeed mistook that the .6 as a 2.2 GHz when in acutallity that is 2 cpus running at 2.6GHz....include the XEONs they are also 2 cpus...This is not including that the fact that the benchmark closes instantly the test is done....Thus making everything they say a BS'ed lie

Whatever. Life is too short to decipher that train of thought.

But how this is at odds (since you've quoted my post) with what I said regarding Cinebench 11.5 probably not being the most accurate representation of CPU performance seems to be nonsensical at the very least.

But of course you've managed to uphold the proud troll tradition of sidestepping my original point...that Bulldozer is NOT (or will not be) competition for Sandy Bridge LGA 1155.

Adhmuz Adhmuz, TechSpot Paladin, said:

seronx said:

Thanks it works for me oddly

looks like it can be either 8.57 or 9.57

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_F

Socket F = AM2(Server)

just a reminder that the amd cpu is not a 12 core but 2 six-cores

Socket C32/G34 are AM3(Server) which is the 12 cores

It has to be 9.57, not to go to technical but if you look at the math its very simple to calculate. 10.33 - 7.95 = 2.38 so theres 2.38 pts between the two points on the graph, if you go exactly half way between those two points it would be 9.14. But the i7 2600 clearly is further past the half way point between the Opty and the Xenon that much you can make out so it has to be more than 9.14, and lastly because you can see the .57 its without question 9.57. Just wanted to point that out.

seronx said:

divided by zero you obviously mistook what I said...

How dare you call me a troll....!

"So, rather that take the demo as a possibility...you would automatically believe that the benchmarking is dishonest? Does this go for every public demonstration? How about the behind-the-stage-and-no-we-wont-show-you Ontario demo AMD recently publicised? Will we see your comments on that thread decrying foul play?"

All benchmarks are to some degree dishonest they totally void Image Quality for Performance or Processing speed over core amount..blah blah..I have yet to see an AMD Cinebench of the new Fusion APUs so I can't say...I never called out foul play....

"Whatever. Life is too short to decipher that train of thought."

You mean life is to long

Cinebench is not an accurate method of showing cpu performance...as it is meant for intel cpus

http://www.virgilioborges.com.br/hyperpi/

would be a better benchmark

There is many names for the Fusion APU series so many that it is confusing Bulldozer has two sockets FM1 and AM3+

Bobcat also has two sockets which are based on the mobile series of FM1 and AM3+

Adhmuz Adhmuz, TechSpot Paladin, said:

seronx said:

http://www.virgilioborges.com.br/hyperpi/

would be a better benchmark

How is a hyper pie a better test? The overclocked CPU will trash the stock clock CPU any day, Benchmarks like that are single core performance benchmarks, at least Cinebench used all the cores to create one final score. The only way to truly test the performance of a CPU is with a barrage of test not a single test that may or may not favor one CPU maker over another.

Guest said:

So let me get this straight. AMD had no answer for 2008's Nehalem, they have no answer for Sandy Bridge and they are hoping to tackle Intels Ivy Bridge 22nm processors with Bulldozer on 32nm in 12 months? Seriously stick a fork in em people they're done, they will never be able to compete with Intel again.

It's no wonder everytime I see something AMD related I think of that "Yesterdays Hero" song, cause really thats what they are, they are Yesterdays Hero, looking to relive their Athlon glory days as they fall further and further behind and their fanboys slip further and further away from reality.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

It's no wonder everytime I see something AMD related I think of that "Yesterdays Hero" song, cause really thats what they are, they are Yesterdays Hero, looking to relive their Athlon glory days as they fall further and further behind and their fanboys slip further and further away from reality.

Yes, I often can be found sitting on the beach with a tear in my eye....for alas....the unrequited die shrink that haunts my very soul.....

Being a little dramatic, don't ya think?

what I don't understand if you are the Intel fan-boy you appear to be, why you come across as so bent out of shape about it. you should be on the front line cheering and hoping AMD does not make a Cyrix/IBM like demise . Because if they don't, your Ivy Bridge mid CPU is going to be about $400.00

DokkRokken said:

If you're attaching some amount of pride to a two-bit computer chip and its brand which really doesn't care if you live or die, you need new life priorities.

Guest said:

@Guest September 19, 2010 8:45 PM

Mate, you really are a twit, aren't you.

Laugh it up. If AMD goes down you'll be the one that fed the bullying monster that is Intel and you'll be crying, paying twice as much for a range of CPUs that only get slightly better each year.

I'll happily keep buying AMD-centred systems that have 80% performance of an Intel one, for 50% of the cost and feel good about myself while I'm doing it. If and when VIA steps up and does a decent multi-core processor, I'll consider them too.

No fanboyism here. I simply detest Intel.

Guest said:

@ red1776, Not really. Perhaps a fanboi would find it dramatic. Anyway all i did was call it as I see it. If you get your knickers in a knot over it thats not my problem. Although I do agree the demise of AMD would be terrible, the fact is that this is a possiblilty especially if Bulldozer flops Phenom style. I hope this doesn't happen (I dont want to pay $400+ for mid range cpu's) but with AMD's track record of late the fanbois on both sides need to face up to this possibility. kthxbai.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

@ red1776, Not really. Perhaps a fanboi would find it dramatic. Anyway all i did was call it as I see it. If you get your knickers in a knot over it thats not my problem. Although I do agree the demise of AMD would be terrible, the fact is that this is a possiblilty especially if Bulldozer flops Phenom style. I hope this doesn't happen (I dont want to pay $400+ for mid range cpu's) but with AMD's track record of late the fanbois on both sides need to face up to this possibility. kthxbai.

that does not even make any sense. My knickers are not now, nor ever were in a knot, talk about rolling your own. What exactly was it in my post that pointed to "my knickers being in a knot? Your the one with the anger and dramatic melancholy.I think you should not get your bloomers in a bunch.

The dramatic:

It's no wonder everytime I see something AMD related I think of that "Yesterdays Hero" song, cause really thats what they are, they are Yesterdays Hero, looking to relive their Athlon glory days as they fall further and further behind and their fanboys slip further and further away from reality.

and the anger:

Seriously stick a fork in em people they're done,

LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

The intel/amd rivalry has gotten so boring that I've resulted in upgrading stupid ssd drives. I gasp at the thought of AMD not making a comeback. Yeah that's right, intel fanboys should be happy their yangs(amd fanboys) are still around.

Clearly amd fanboys are going to rage and push price vs performance and intel fanboys, well... They just twiddle their thumbs around in circles hoping their 4.5ghz oc will post smashing down on the delete key if they dont get the all might "single beep,"

Rage all you want but every 3-4 years the Ghz war switches hands. Soon it will be the amd fanboys waiting for that black screen to post.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

AMD are going to around for a very long time. Their IP, x86 license and the FTC (and EU equivalent) will see to that. AMD could drown in red ink and all that would change is Mubadala gaining a larger stake in the company and considerably more capital available.

So, to the anti-AMD brigade gloating over AMD's possible demise, bear in mind that if this should come to pass then it will likely transform into a stonger company...albeit with a decidedly middle eastern flavour.

The same note of caution for the AMDphiles also...praying for nvidia's demise gets much the same result. If nvidia goes under I would think it would be all but guaranteed that Intel buys up nvidia's IP and best engineers (maybe hire JHH for night security if he needs the work) which would likely translate into AMD's worst nightmare....Intel with competitive graphics (+drivers) and a not inconsiderable R&D budget.

Guest said:

I keep reading that you cant overclock the i7 2600 (non K) past 3.8 turbo speed but all i did was use the optimal settings on my Asus P8P67 and got speeds up to 4.4 GHz. Did Intel screw up and send me a K on accident?

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.