Ryzen 7 1800X Overclocked to 5.8GHz, Breaks Cinebench R15 World Record at 5.36GHz

16-core Ryzen rumored

It’s only been a couple of days since AMD launched their next-gen Ryzen 7 processors and overclockers are already trying to push the new chips to break world records. Recently, overclockers broke two frequency world records with the flagship Ryzen 7 1800X.

The AMD 1800X is an 8-core, 16-thread processor that runs at 3.6GHz base and 4.0GHz boost clocks. You can get an extra 100MHz out of the chip thanks to AMD’s Extended Frequency Range (XFR) technology that allows it to achieve frequencies above and beyond default boost clock speeds.

Furthermore, the Ryzen 7 1800X features 16MB of L3 cache and 4MB of L2 cache, with the whole package rated at 95W TDP. Priced at $499, the chips comes in with fully unlocked multipliers, offering overclocking support right out of the box via the AMD Ryzen Master overclocking utility or motherboard BIOS.

Read More: AMD Shares Fall over 6% after Ryzen 7 Gaming Performance Disappoints

Ryzen 7 1800X Pushed to 5.8GHz and 5.36GHz – Breaks Two World Records

The German overclocker Der8auer pushed the Ryzen 7 1800X to 5.8GHz on an insane voltage of 1.97v, and officially claimed the frequency world record on HWBot. Der8auer achieved this feat using the liquid nitrogen, with test bench featuring an Asus Crosshair VI Hero motherboard and 16GB of 2400MHz DDR4 CL11 memory.

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Overclocked to 5.8GHz

The other Ryzen 7 frequency world record was achieved by the Swedish overclocker Elmor. He used LN2 to push his Ryzen 7 1800X to 5.36GHz on all 8 cores. The CPU scored 2454 points in the Cinebench R15’s multi-threaded test, breaking the previous world record by 9 points which was achieved with an Intel Core i7 5960X overclocked to 6GHz.

Ryzen 7 1800X Cinebench R15 World Record

This is pretty impressive considering the fact that Ryzen 7 1800X is clocked at over 600MHz less than the i7 5960X, but it’s still able to outperform that latter. Not only this but the i7 5960X also has the advantage of featuring quad-channel DDDR4 memory compared to Ryzen’s dual channel.

The Ryzen 7 benchmarks point to some performance bugs and memory compatibility issues on the CPU’s microcode. In this regards, the motherboard makers are in the process of updating their BIOS profiles to iron out all the kinks. So overclockers could see even better results in the near furture.

  • Bloodeagle

    Oh yes, I have been an AMD fan all this time…yes…that is it…yes.

  • Jacob Smith

    Yet it is still worse than Intel processors in game benchmarks. . .

    • Christoffer

      It seems like you don’t really understand benchmarks. The 7600K outperforms the 5960X in game performance. Doesn’t mean the 7600K is a better CPU. It simply means that you can clock it higher and it will perform better in single core operations. 5960X lacks behind in that regard because it has 10 cores and not 4. That’s why the 1800X performs similarly. It has 8 cores, which is way too many for games.

      It’s not designed for games, so why would you use games as a metric for how good it is?

      • Strazdas

        What is it designed for, then? Its not for workstations, Xeon blows it out of the water there, its not for workspace, workspace does not need this kind of computation power, Its not for gaming, the 7700k performs better at half the price. Whats left, some parts of video editors that for some reason need CPU (VP9/10?) but cant afford a render farm time? Looks like AMD had no aim with this CPU.

        Oh, and it was advertised for gamers, so game benchmarks are totaly fair.

        • empirebuilder1

          “Xeon blows it out of the water there”

          ..Sure, for maybe 4x the price.

        • RedRaider

          if you don’t want to get it, don’t buy it.

          But Xeon’s blow the 6900K and 6950K out of the water also, right? Then why does the 6900k have 8 cores? Those are not designed for games either. What were those designed for? So are you saying it’s ok if Intel designs pointless and aimless CPUs but not if AMD supposedly does?

  • MotherRussia

    My Xeons are second in that Cinebench screenshot. Time for an upgrade…

    • Soothsayer

      The fact they’d compare Ryzen benchmarks to X5650 is what’s really hilarious. That’s seven year old hardware. Ryzen is “Sort of, but not really” an alternative to Intel’s gaming processors, but it can’t touch the server market. Xeons are just far ahead with lower prices, lower wattage, and more performance.

      • Jacob Latham

        Ryzen isn’t AMDs server lineup. Naples is. I think they released some video on it today, may be wrong on the date though.

      • RedRaider

        One, just wait for the software to catch up. Two, if you don’t want to buy it, don’t buy it if you hate AMD that much. This is a huge jump for AMD and even if it is merely them catching up to Intel, that’s still a good thing, even for you, even if you don’t realize it.

        But check out the story on this site concerning Nvidia cards and Ryzen processors dated 04/03/2017. You will see you are jumping the gun on your conclusions made barely a month ago.

  • Dibs

    The point of Ryzen went over a lot of people’s and reviewer’s heads. It wasn’t necessarily about crushing Intel. It was about catching up and being reasonably priced in a monopolized desktop CPU market.

    • Strazdas

      But its neither. Its IPC, while improved, still 20% bellow intels and it costs almost twice as much as a 7700k that outperforms it.

      • RedRaider

        Software, just wait for the software that caters to other than just Intel.

  • empirebuilder1

    ITT: “OMG it sucks in gaming AMded why they even try LOLOLOL intel4lyfe”