Hmm... Skulltrail hits 6 GHz (with serious overclocking)

[Firefly2002]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Skulltrail-6GHz-Overclocking,5208.html

Just thought it was interesting. Obviously, that's probably a combination of not only serious efforts that most wouldn't even attempt, and an unusually lucky pair of CPUs, but still, it's neat.

 

[iGrant]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Skulltrail-6GHz-Overclocking,5208.html

Just thought it was interesting. Obviously, that's probably a combination of not only serious efforts that most wouldn't even attempt, and an unusually lucky pair of CPUs, but still, it's neat.

Yeah I even admit that is amazing, but seriously how reliable is that and what software is honestly going to be able to use all of that power and furthermore who really needs that much power? I am not saying people don't need it, but I am just wondering who hear would benefit that much from that much increase in cpu speed?

-iGrant

 

[krye]

That's just nuts.

 

[Eidorian]

Record setting != sustainable

It's a nice accomplishment though.

 

[QuantumLo0p]

Interesting. That is in Power6 territory.

 

[iGrant]

Interesting. That is in Power6 territory.

When I heard about the Power6 from IBM, all I could think of was this:
Power Mac G6 Dual 4.7Ghz . . . yeah . . .

-iGrant

 

[PlaceofDis]

impressive, but the stability and cooling must be insane.

 

[Firefly2002]

I'm sure the stability is just fine... it's overvolted and supercooled. Granted, the CPU's life might be another thing. Lol.

Yeah I even admit that is amazing, but seriously how reliable is that and what software is honestly going to be able to use all of that power and furthermore who really needs that much power? I am not saying people don't need it, but I am just wondering who hear would benefit that much from that much increase in cpu speed?

-iGrant

Well, on the PC it's practically a complete waste, since almost nothing even takes advantage of 4 cores, much less 8.

Either way though, I don't even get why anyone would need 8x3.2 GHz to be honest. But that's just me.

When I heard about the Power6 from IBM, all I could think of was this:
Power Mac G6 Dual 4.7Ghz . . . yeah . . .

What do you guys mean? I tried finding out about IBM's Power6 a while ago, but couldn't get any real info on it. Is it superfast? By Dual 4.7 GHz G6, do you mean like, dual CPU quad core = 8 cores or something? PowerPCs generally scaled significantly higher in CPU frequency than their POWER counterparts... right..?

 

[iGrant]

I'm sure the stability is just fine... it's overvolted and supercooled. Granted, the CPU's life might be another thing. Lol.



Well, on the PC it's practically a complete waste, since almost nothing even takes advantage of 4 cores, much less 8.

Either way though, I don't even get why anyone would need 8x3.2 GHz to be honest. But that's just me.




What do you guys mean? I tried finding out about IBM's Power6 a while ago, but couldn't get any real info on it. Is it superfast? By Dual 4.7 GHz G6, do you mean like, dual CPU quad core = 8 cores or something? PowerPCs generally scaled significantly higher in CPU frequency than their POWER counterparts... right..?

When I say, I mean dual core, so it would be 2 x 4.7Ghz Power6 on a single processor card. IBM has several servers running them and from everything I have read it has been fast.

On the 8 cores, I do not have an 8-core machine. I have a Power Mac Dual G5 I love, I encode a ton of video and I find that setup works amazingly well for what I do! Its so nice to be able to encoding a video and at the same time recording another video and also watching a video that has been recorded and edited at the same time.

 

[xraydoc]

Either way though, I don't even get why anyone would need 8x3.2 GHz to be honest. But that's just me.

And 640K should be enough for anyone!

Actually, I'm just teasing, since a typical Mac Pro 8 core @ 2.8GHz each is pretty insane for a personal computer, considering just 4 years ago to have even two cores at any speed was a might bit impressive. (Yes, I know a Mac Pro is more "workstation" than "personal computer" but that's just splitting hairs)

But none the less, as the saying goes, "If you build it, they will come." Or, as Software engineers like to think, "If resources are available, we should use them."

But do realize that 99% of the buying public doesn't need and will never buy such a powerful (and expensive) machine, as only a few specialized applications one might use in their homes/small businesses will make good use of all the spare cycles - video/audio encoding, etc.

The benefit of all this is faster bottom-end machines. This lets $400 laptops perform at the same level as $3000 machines from just a couple years ago. Look at the success of the Asus EEE and the (upcoming) Intel Atom platform. Let the race to the bottom commence!

 

[Firefly2002]

And 640K should be enough for anyone!

I can't remember if that's a myth, or if the guy (Gates, right?) knew he was full of it when he said it, and said it anyway, but it's one of those, hehe. But yeah, it's a classic.. I had 640 MB of RAM for a time...

anyway....

I agree, 8x2.8 is redonkulous.

The Mac pro isn't really a workstation. I mean, it's Xeon-based, yeah... but I dunno. It just seems like overkill.

"If resources are available, we should use them."

No kidding. Or as Microsoft sees it, the greater the resources, the less careful we have to be with our coding... CPU power will take up the slack! =\

I still say it sucks that there's no Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad (non-extreme) available in the Mac Pro case with all the expandability. It would probably beat the Mac Pro in games, lol, with higher clocks and faster, non-ECC/non-FBDIMMs.