Overclocking the Core i7-4790K

Like lots of things in personal computing, overclocking has progressed mightily since its early days. Back when we first started experimenting on Celerons, CPU performance was a scarce and precious resource, doled out in small increments for hundreds of dollars each. Those of us who dared to violate the specs on our processors were viewed with suspicion by our peers and those in the PC industry alike. Sure, what we were doing wasn’t technically illegal, but you’d think it might have been, given how some folks reacted. CPU makers talked about the voiding of warranties and, worse, warned ominously of the dangers of electromigration ending your chip’s life early.

None of it slowed us down, of course, because PC enthusiasts saw a chance to grab more of that sweet, sweet computing power essentially for free. Raising the clock speed from 300 to 450 MHz meant 50% more oomph for, you know, decompressing those JPEGs that really fly down the pipe over a V.90 modem. For decoding those beefy 192Kb MP3s. For pushing higher frame rates in QuakeWorld. For, uh, making Outlook Express feel extra snappy.

Yes, you could feel the speed difference in a mail client. Those were dark days.

Back then, we truly needed more speed in the worst way, and overclocking was a means of obtaining what you couldn’t buy—either because it was too expensive or just couldn’t be purchased.  As a result, a great many PC DIYers overclocked their systems. The “free” extra speed was one advantage of having built your own box.

Somewhere between then and now, overclocking sold out. I know how strange it sounds to hear that a quirky practice, something people do, could succumb to the allure of fame and fortune, but somehow, that’s what happened.

Specific products became tailored for overclocking, especially motherboards. Companies introduced “overclocked in the box” video cards, which weren’t overclocked at all but borrowed the word shamelessly. Meanwhile, overclocking became a competitive endeavor, complete with world records, celebrity practitioners, and corporate sponsors. Liquid nitrogen got involved. Over time, even Intel and AMD got into the act, creating “overclockable” versions of their chips with unlocked multipliers, available for a slight price premium.

The real kiss of death had to be when “overclockers” cooled and hardened into one of the handful of terms used by product marketing people to describe the PC market. You’ve got your “mainstream” buyers, your “enthusiasts,” “gamers,” and “overclockers.” Individual products are built to appeal specifically to each of these segments. I’ve seen the PowerPoint slides. I’ve gotta admit, I’ve been doing this job for a long time, but I don’t know what those terms actually mean. I’m pretty sure that means they’re perfectly integrated into the corporate lexicon, which is about talking without saying things.

All of which leads me, implausibly, to Devil’s Canyon.

You see, Intel says the new CPUs under this code-name are intended for “overclockers.” Does that mean me? Or does it mean some guy with a LN2 pot, a modified motherboard, and a stack of six chips to try while pursuing the SuperPi world record? Honestly, I’m confused on that point. I dunno whether I qualify for this product’s target demo.

Then again, as a PC enthusiast and tinkerer, I don’t much care either way. I just want to know if there’s more free speed to be squeezed out of these things. So let’s have a look.

The Devil’s Canyon chips

Under the metal cap of a Devil’s Canyon processor is the same 22-nm Haswell silicon that drives any other recent Intel Core i5/i7 CPUs. The differences are at the package level, and the biggest one is literally right under that cap: a new thermal interface material, or TIM, between the cap and the chip. Intel switched to a different thermal interface with its first 22-nm chips, and some folks blamed the new TIM for the Ivy Bridge chips’ unwillingness to overclock as well as the 32-nm Sandy Bridge processors before them. They claimed the prior TIM arrangement, known as fluxless solder, transferred heat more efficiently. Devil’s Canyon has switched to a third option, a “next-generation” polymer TIM known affectionately as NGPTIM. Its goal is to transfer heat more efficiently between the CPU and the cap above it—and thus to the cooling solution sandwiched on top of it all.

Is the stock TIM for Ivy Bridge and Haswell really a problem? I dunno. Many substances (even toothpaste) can serve competently as the thin layer ensuring solid contact between two surfaces. This TIM issue is a matter of debate, but Intel does seem to have validated its critics by adopting another TIM in these new products.

The Core i7-4770K (left) and the “Devil’s Canyon” Core i7-4790K (right)

The other change to the Devil’s Canyon parts is visible in the picture above. The package has a modified power delivery arrangement, with more capacitors than in the regular Haswell substrate. Intel says the added caps will “smooth power delivery to the die,” which in turn should increase stability and thus frequency headroom. That’s the theory, at least.

To its credit, Intel went off of its established roadmap and made these tweaks to Devil’s Canyon pretty quickly in direct response to the perceived desires of PC enthusiasts. These products are an olive branch, the first step in a renewed commitment to desktop CPUs.

Model Base

clock

Max

Turbo

clock

Cores/

threads

L3

cache

Intel HD

Graphics

Max

graphics

clock

TDP Price
Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz 4.4GHz 4/8 8MB 4600 1250MHz 88W $339
Core i7-4770K 3.5GHz 3.9GHz 4/8 8MB 4600 1250MHz 84W $339
Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz 3.9GHz 4/4 6MB 4600 1200MHz 88W $242
Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz 3.8GHz 4/4 6MB 4600 1200MHz 84W $242

The two models highlighted in bold in the table above are Devil’s Canyon parts. Only these two products will get the special treatment, and both of them belong in the unlocked, overclocking-friendly K-series lineup.

The Core i7-4790K essentially replaces the 4770K at the same price, and if you have zero plans for overclocking your CPU, the 4790K is still worthy of your attention. Intel has raised the base and peak Turbo clock speeds by 500MHz, so the 4790K’s baseline operating frequency is an even 4GHz. This is Intel’s first 4GHz desktop processor, and more importantly, this clock speed bump ensures the largest desktop CPU performance increase we’ve seen in several generations (at stock speeds, at least.)

The 4690K is less exciting, since it’s just 100MHz faster than the 4670K before it.

Both of these chips are rated for 88W of peak power draw, up 4W from the prior models. Intel says any motherboard based on the new Z97 chipset ought to support them. Happily, the firm has allowed older Z87 boards to host Devil’s Canyon processors, as well, provided they can deliver the additional power needed. We expect most mobo makers to provide firmware updates to enable support.

Oh, one more thing. Intel has evidently been listening to our complaints on another front. The ARK listings for the 4690K and 4790K say these CPUs support Haswell’s new TSX instructions for transactional memory and VT-d for virtualized I/O. In a baffling move, the older K-series parts didn’t support these advanced features, apparently because “enthusiasts” and “overclockers” shouldn’t care about… performance? I dunno. Like I said, baffling, but happily, Intel made things right in the new models.

 

Our attempt at overclocking the 4790K

I wanted to see what a regular dude could get out of the 4790K when overclocking, so I used a fairly typical sort of desktop PC setup, pictured below on our nifty open-bench platform.

That’s an Asus Z97-A motherboard, which Geoff reviewed not long ago, and a Thermaltake NIC C5 dual-fan air cooler. Nice stuff, but not the most expensive gear by any means. That’s the sort of thing we’d recommend in one of our System Guide builds.

My approach to overclocking this thing was simple. I used the firmware to do everything, not Windows tweaking software, and configured all four of the cores to run at the same speed. Then I raised the multiplier in order to change the clock speed. I fed the chip more core voltage as needed in order to improve stability. There are a number of secondary voltage settings one can tweak in order to increase the odds of a stable result, but I didn’t mess with them. Asus’ firmware auto-adjusts those voltages to some degree. I left those settings in “Auto” mode and accepted the extra help. Oh, and I cranked the CPU cooler’s fans to their top speed and used the “Turbo” cooling profile in the Z97-A firmware.

I then tested stability in Windows by running Prime95 and using Asus’ AI Tweaker software to monitor the CPU’s state.

After a little trial and error, I was able to get our sample of the i7-4790K running all four cores stable at 4.6GHz with 1.375V. The Asus utility reported that the CPU was using 141W under load, a pretty dramatic increase from the 88W used at the stock voltage and frequency. With the NIC C5 fan cranked, the CPU temperatures settled in at about 71°C. The cooler’s fans were spinning at around 2125 RPM, and as a result, they buzzed and whined very audibly with Prime95 going.

I then tried rebooting and pushing to 4.8GHz, but the system quickly locked. I dialed back to 4.7GHz, but still, no dice.

In the end, I had to push the core voltage up to 1.45V in order to get something approaching reasonable stability at 4.7GHz. The system would run Prime95 at those settings. AI Tweaker reported the CPU power draw ar 157W, but I don’t think I trust that assessment. The NIC C5 is rated for 230W of cooling capacity, and the 4790K at 1.45V appeared to be right on the edge of what the cooler could handle. The CPU temperature creeped up slowly over time. After about 10 minutes, CPU temps ranged into the mid to high 80s Celsius, and then the Blue Screen of Death made an appearance.

Also, throughout the load test, I could hear the system reporting USB disconnects and reconnects, apparently involving the mouse and/or keyboard. Funky.

The 4790K was stable enough at 4.7GHz to run some benchmarks, but I’d say 4.6GHz is the more reasonable overclocking limit for daily use, unless you have a much beefier cooler than this one. The amount of extra voltage needed—and the resulting thermal load—isn’t worth it.

For comparison, I then dropped my year-plus-old pre-release sample of the Core i7-4770K into the same system and cranked up its clocks. Guess what? It was happy to run at 4.7GHz using only 1.4V, a smidgen less voltage than our Devil’s Canyon sample required. I tried to push higher, to 4.8GHz at 1.45V, but the 4770K wasn’t having it. In the end, the 4770K was a little more comfortable at 4.7GHz than the 4790K, but the two were essentially equivalent in terms of max stable clock speeds. The temperatures of the two CPUs were comparable under load, too, although the 4770K was getting 0.05V less juice.

Of course, we’re comparing just two pre-production samples in a world of possibilities, so your mileage may vary. Heck, it almost certainly will vary somewhat. I should note, though, that Nate’s 4790K peaked at 4.7GHz, Marco’s at 4.8GHz, and Hilbert’s at 4.7-ish. So we are not alone on this front.

Anyhow, let’s tale a quick look at how the 4790K performs, both at its stock speeds and overclocked.

Our testing methods

The test systems were configured like so:

Processor AMD FX-8350 AMD A10-7850K
Motherboard Asus Crosshair V Formula Asus A88X-PRO
North bridge 990FX A88X FCH
South bridge SB950
Memory size 16 GB (2 DIMMs) 16 GB (4 DIMMs)
Memory type AMD Performance

Series

DDR3 SDRAM

AMD Radeon Memory

Gamer Series

DDR3 SDRAM

Memory speed 1600 MT/s 2133 MT/s
Memory timings 9-9-9-24 1T 10-11-11-30 1T
Chipset

drivers

AMD chipset 13.12 AMD chipset 13.12
Audio Integrated

SB950/ALC889 with

Realtek 6.0.1.7233 drivers

Integrated

A85/ALC892 with

Realtek 6.0.1.7233 drivers

OpenCL ICD AMD APP 1526.3 AMD APP 1526.3
IGP drivers

 

Processor Core i7-3770K Core i7-4770K

Core i7-4790K

Motherboard Asus P8Z77-V Pro Asus Z97-A
North bridge Z77 Express Z97 Express
South bridge
Memory size 16 GB (2 DIMMs) 16 GB (2 DIMMs)
Memory type Corsair

Vengeance Pro

DDR3 SDRAM

Corsair

Vengeance Pro

DDR3 SDRAM

Memory speed 1600 MT/s 1600 MT/s
Memory timings 9-9-9-24 1T 9-9-9-24 1T
Chipset

drivers

INF update 10.0.14

iRST 13.0.3.1001

INF update 10.0.14

iRST 13.0.3.1001

Audio Integrated

Z77/ALC892 with

Realtek 6.0.1.7233 drivers

Integrated

Z97/ALC892 with

Realtek 6.0.1.7233 drivers

OpenCL ICD AMD APP 1526.3 AMD APP 1526.3

They all shared the following common elements:

Hard drive Kingston HyperX SH103S3 240GB SSD
Discrete graphics XFX Radeon HD 7950 Double Dissipation 3GB with Catalyst 14.6 beta drivers
OS Windows 8.1 Pro
Power supply Corsair AX650

Thanks to Corsair, XFX, Kingston, MSI, Asus, Gigabyte, Intel, and AMD for helping to outfit our test rigs with some of the finest hardware available. Thanks to Intel and AMD for providing the processors, as well, of course.

Some further notes on our testing methods:

  • The test systems’ Windows desktops were set at 1920×1080 in 32-bit color. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled in the graphics driver control panel.

The tests and methods we employ are usually publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.

 

Rendering and video encoding

Please note that I’ve left the overclocked 4770K at 4.7GHz out of the test results below. That’s simply because it performs exactly the same as the 4790K at 4.7GHz. They’re the same Haswell silicon. I just wanted to keep things simple. Also, I’ve included the two AMD processors solely for reference. They’re AMD’s fastest CPUs in its “extreme” and high-volume desktop platforms (save for those crazy 220W FX chips), but neither one costs as much as a 4790K, so they’re not direct competitors.

Like I said earlier, the 500MHz clock speed boost for the 4790K versus the 4770K is a fairly notable generational increase. Overclocking the thing adds another step up in performance, but remember that it comes at the expense of nearly twice the power consumption (and probably more cooling noise, as a result.)

Crysis 3

 



If you just glanced at the FPS average in our gaming test, you’d say all of these CPUs must be GPU-limited and therefore I must be a bozo for testing in this fashion. I won’t dispute the bozo thing, but a closer look at the individual frame rendering times will tell you there’s a real difference between these CPUs.

To get smooth gameplay, you want to eliminate momentary slowdowns. As you can see in the frame time plots, those slowdowns are present in a few places during the course of our test session—mainly as I’m shooting dudes with exploding arrows.

Our more sensitive frame-time-focused metrics capture the differences between the CPUs quite nicely. Flip through the results for our “badness” metric, which looks at time spent beyond various thresholds. The 4790K spends less than half the time that the 4770K does working on frames that take longer than 33 milliseconds to produce—and at 4.7GHz, those long frame rendering times are further reduced. I could feel the difference during play-testing—not always, but consistently in the same spots during combat when things were exploding onscreen. The 4.7GHz CPU felt best, followed by the stock 4790K. Even at the very same FPS average, the faster CPU produces measurably and subjectively smoother gameplay.

These aren’t the dark days of computing any longer, but there’s still something to be said for having the fastest per-thread performance possible.

 

Conclusions

I said earlier that I don’t know who exactly is Devil’s Canyon’s target market. Now that you’ve seen the overclocking results, perhaps you can understand my dilemma. Our review sample doesn’t appear to have any more headroom than our year-plus-old Core i7-4770K. Others in the press have seen the same. If the overclocking tweaks in Devil’s Canyon are aimed at the average DIY PC builder, it’s mighty tempting to conclude that these changes are pretty much pointless.

You know, because there’s no apparent point to them.

When I let slip on Twitter that Devil’s Canyon overclocking didn’t look much different from Haswell overclocking, I got a reply from one particularly vocal Intel employee who told me, essentially, two things. One, wait for the production units and see how they do overall. And two, the big gains will come when “overclockers” find those special, magic chips capable of especially high clocks. Those should happen more often with Devil’s Canyon.

Fair points, I suppose, but again: I’m not that guy with a liquid helium pot and a stack of chips to test. If you’re not, either, then perhaps the new TIM and capacitor layout won’t mean much to you.

Then again, Devil’s Canyon chips have juuust started hitting retail shelves here in the U.S. Perhaps we’ll see something different out of the production parts on a wider scale. We should know more very soon, as folks start dropping them into their systems. I just wouldn’t count on any miracles, given what we’ve seen here.

Fortunately, you can count on the Core i7-4790K delivering a very nice clock frequency bump over the 4770K at stock speeds—for the exact same price. And both Devil’s Canyon parts come with TSX and VT-d enabled, making the choice to go with an unlocked K-series penalty-free. Sorta makes me think Devil’s Canyon’s most receptive audience may be folks who don’t overclock at all. So the news is good, even if it’s not quite what we expected.

The even better news, I think, may be another CPU that Intel is introducing any day now: the Pentium G3258 Anniversary Edition. This puppy is an unlocked $72 dual-core Haswell that just screams potential. That’s the sort of overclocking a regular dude could get into. We have one on order and will begin abusing it as soon as we can.

Comments closed
    • Sabresiberian
    • 5 years ago

    Never made much sense to me that a change in TIMs would make a big difference. I mean, it’s like saying you are going to see a huge difference in overclocks using top quality thermal pastes. No. Small differences, not big ones.

    The previous heat spreaders were soldered on – now THAT could make a big difference. The die shrink may still be the biggest issue – but we won’t know unless Intel actually provides CPUs with soldered-on heat spreaders.

    • ptsant
    • 5 years ago

    This is the first exciting Intel product in a while. I don’t care about overclocking, although I like the idea of an unlocked processor (=future headroom). Most importantly, though, it provides a noticeable speed bump and it enables the TSX and VT-d stuff. I always found the feature fragmentation in Intel products ridiculous. A premium product should be premium in all ways.

    Anyway, looks good to me. If it had ECC I would buy it today.

    • USAFTW
    • 5 years ago

    It’s stunning to think that reading a review for a brand new Intel Haswell 4790K CPU could lead me [url=http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=ancient%20Scottish%20tradition%20of%20basing%20your%20food%20on%20a%20dare<]here.[/url<] I should stop clickin' hypers.

    • green
    • 5 years ago

    … ok i’ll bite. on page 2:
    [quote<]AI Tweaker reported the CPU power draw ar 157W, but I don't think I trust that assessment[/quote<]

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 5 years ago

    I look at Devil’s Canyon and the Pentium Anniversary and I can’t help thinking this is all one big market experiment. It’s like they needed to do a massive beta test on a new kind of TIM plus improvements to power circuitry, so they had one line in the fab retasked with producing said beta tests.

    By the time they were done, they thought, “Hey, we could sell these and get updated data based on the enthusiasts field testing this stuff for us.” So they sell what was once going to be just an early test of new ideas they have for making Broadwell go farther than just a die shrink would allow it to.

    Meanwhile, Pentium Anniversary looks like a field test for an unlocked dual core and how it will affect the marketplace of the low end. I think there is a faction inside Intel that is saying, “If you release an unlocked dual core to combat AMD on the low end, you’re going to gut our higher end sales.” So they do a “one-off” special edition chip to see if that actually happens. If it does, they can end the line after this go-round and no harm, no foul, it was just a special edition.

    If it doesn’t damage their K-line sales or if it improves profits, then hey they can say they’re listening to users and are continuing on with the line in a new form tailor-made for the cheaper overclockers among us.

    The best part about all of the above is that it makes Intel sound responsive when in fact they’re just serving their own interests across the board and users came in a distant second. I think if they intend to push chips hard with Broadwell, they’d need to improve the TIM and the power delivery, so field testing it in Haswell chips seems like the logical extension.

    There’d no better way to field test it than to sell it to users who are going to push them as hard as possible and then see what happens across a wide range of systems, configurations, and temperatures. I feel like if they were really listening to US, they’d have just went back to fluxless solder straight-up without trying this untested third option.

    The best part is we’re paying them for the pleasure of doing their job for them.

      • aianta
      • 5 years ago

      So, what is wrong with this? I mean what you said made sense, if I owned a hardware company I would do this exactly. A company needs to be profitable to operate, and the more profitable it is the more it can expand and extend their products, via R&D etc. They are being honest about the specifications of the 4790k and it is a stable solid product. I don’t see any foul play here really. Even if this is a test, I am paying to get a taste of some new improvements ahead of time. If as a customer you dislike the idea, then waiting for the broadwells is a clear course of action.

      [quote]The best part is we’re paying them for the pleasure of doing their job for them.[quote]

      Well no, their job is to provide us with a product that works as per the specifications they claimed. If we like the specs and agree on the price and the product works as expected then their job is done. I understand the “put your customers interests at heart” mentality but this is ridiculous. They wouldn’t be able to keep a float if they released a chip every 5 years that had crazy new features. They’d have to price them at obscene amounts, no one would be able to pay for all that R&D. They’d be over taken by AMD who would release every year or so.

      I never really never understood the hate some get for a company for making money, its like the second they make more than a few Billion in revenue they must be evil corporate overlords. In the real world things have to be profitable, if you keep setting standards like that for companies you will only every be happy in your fantasies.

    • LoneWolf15
    • 5 years ago

    Due to a great price at Microcenter (I could drive there on a day when work takes me in that direction) and an instant rebate when purchasing a mainboard/CPU combo of like $40, I was tempted for the first time since my i7-2600K.

    Then I read the article. Thanks Scott for the information; I can easily wait until Broadwell.

    • Voldenuit
    • 5 years ago

    Equally disappointed in both the 4790K and water-cooled FX 9590.

    Help me Pentium Anniversary Edition, you’re our only hope*.

    *EDIT: Caveat – that’s if you don’t need a Z87 or Z97 mobo to overclock a $70 CPU. Because if you did, that would be retarded.

      • robliz2Q
      • 5 years ago

      Seen a report, where the non-DC Pentium oc’s pretty well, suggesting it may oust the Athlon 750K as the budget gaming recommendation, despite lower core count. Some cheaper non Z97 boards have announced suport, though that route may require avoiding (or rolling back) updates from Intel if they decide to plug the “hole”.

    • Meadows
    • 5 years ago

    This is the part where I say I own an FX-8350 and I’m satisfied with what it provides.

    I managed to overclock it by 7.5% while still decreasing voltage by a notch, so it’s actually noticeably faster than stock within roughly the same TDP. Even if this is the last AMD processor I’ll ever own, it was well worth it as an upgrade, or so it would seem.

    However, the shocking fact is that over the past 12 months even *I* have considered an intel CPU for the future, although thus far I resisted for lack of software demand.

      • robliz2Q
      • 5 years ago

      Yeah, for most ppl “good enough” really is, my sister went and bought an HP box with Intel i3 and it’s horribly slow compared even to my venerable AMD X2 SDD box she COULD have had, due to the slow HDD and failing to remove all the included c’pware. It’s even slower than an A10 Richland laptop I bought at end of last year!

        • Meadows
        • 5 years ago

        Your point being?

          • Airmantharp
          • 5 years ago

          He wasn’t smart enough to:

          a) properly advise his sibling to buy something not useless
          b) fix the situation himself

          🙂

          • robliz2Q
          • 5 years ago

          The very obvious point is, just about any CPU on the market today is fast enough for common non-gaming uses.

          Secondly, it’s not just about the CPU, people end up with poorly performing systems by neglecting storage.

            • Airmantharp
            • 5 years ago

            The other very obvious point is- THAT’S ALL VERY OBVIOUS.

            😀

      • ronch
      • 5 years ago

      I would say the exact same words you just said, except for the overclocking part. A few days ago I bought a computer with a Pentium G3220 for the office, and it’s refreshing to see so many motherboard options. I couldn’t say the same thing when my first 990FX mobo gave up the ghost just one month after the warranty expired. Well, here’s hoping AMD’s next x86 core is gonna rock (not hit rock bottom!).

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 5 years ago

    This entire cycle makes me think of a pervasive issue facing PC. The stagnation of tech development. I mean seriously we blow more money now on peripherals than ever before cause the box doesn’t need it. Intel is not pushing boundries and the entire PC ecosystem is fat and lazy. I mean look at SSD’s we think they are such a good deal but we need them to be $100 for a terabyte be to change the way most consumers experience them. We need SSD’s to grow to push the developement of better RAMs and the resolution of better CPU pipelines. I mean PC has slowed down so much that GPU’s are being released deliberately slower because they have out paced the core platform so dramatically. Volumes are dropping so price is going sky flipping high for those few consumers still replacing on an annual or bi annual basis.

    All the symptoms of a stagnant platform are there. And yet its clear that there is room to expand upon existing technologies and to price them for the mass market. I hesitate to think part of the issue is software simply isn’t demanding anymore of hardware outside games and engineer applications. What is the way forward?

      • ronch
      • 5 years ago

      CPUs aren’t the reason why GPU advancements are also slowing down. It has to do with the fact that it’s becoming more and more difficult to find ways to speed up CPUs as well as the difficulty and cost associated with shrinking transistors further. The latter affects both CPU and GPU advancement in different ways.

      • robliz2Q
      • 5 years ago

      You sound like you need to cheer up with something inspiringly different – How about the Mill CPU architecture? [url<]http://millcomputing.com/docs/[/url<]

      • cynan
      • 5 years ago

      Which GPUs are substantially outpacing Intel’s faster CPU offerings?

    • thesmileman
    • 5 years ago

    I have absolutely zero headroom on my 4790k. Using h100i even at the stock 4.4 it hits 80C. With the stock cooler it goes ridiculously high and becomes unstable.

      • ronch
      • 5 years ago

      Which CPU is it?

        • thesmileman
        • 5 years ago

        updated. Thanks! 🙂

      • Airmantharp
      • 5 years ago

      You have a bum CPU (somehow) 🙁

      • derFunkenstein
      • 5 years ago

      To me that sounds like a manufacturing defect. You can’t have had it very long – exchange?

        • Deanjo
        • 5 years ago

        If it is stable at the specified stock speeds then it is not defective. There are no guarantees on overclocking. May I quote their warranty:

        [quote<]WARNING: Altering clock frequency and/or voltage may: (i) reduce system stability and useful life of the system and processor; (ii) cause the processor and other system components to fail; (iii) cause reductions in system performance; (iv) cause additional heat or other dam- age; and (v) affect system data integrity. [b<]Intel has not tested, and does not warranty, [/b<]the operation of the processor beyond its specifica- tions. Intel assumes no responsibility that the processor, including if used with altered clock frequencies and/or voltages, will be fit for any particular purpose.[/quote<] Trying to exchange a processor that does not overclock is dishonest and morally wrong. His processor works fine at the factory specs and he got exactly what he paid for.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 5 years ago

          I’m more concerned with 80C using a closed loop liquid cooler. If it has no headroom that’s the luck of the draw. Those temps make me concerned about long term life of the CPU, specs be damned.

            • Airmantharp
            • 5 years ago

            Yeah, my 2500k gets nowhere near that at 4.5GHz, and that’s with an H80i set to it’s lowest setting. Bum chip, RMA for something that works properly AT STOCK.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 5 years ago

            My 3570K at 4.5 is also running cooler than that and that’s with a cheap Hyper 212 EVO.

            • Airmantharp
            • 5 years ago

            I’d be fine with one of those too- but I like my system quiet, and it’s set up for SLI as well, so the heat needs to get out (essentially intake fans, of which there are many, do the pushing, while the H80i does the ‘pulling’).

            • Deanjo
            • 5 years ago

            I’d be willing to bet the pump is defective, not the chip. Those h60/80/100 setups are prone to failure. Put even a stock intel hsf and I guarantee the temps return to normal temps.

            • Airmantharp
            • 5 years ago

            He tried the stock cooler, at which point the chip ‘failed’. That’s a bum CPU.

            • Krogoth
            • 5 years ago

            I suspect that person has the plastic cover on their headspreader and/or they aren’t seating their HSF properly.

            There’s no way that a Haswell unit at stock would go 80C at load unless there’s a mounting issue or fan doesn’t work on the HSF.

            • Airmantharp
            • 5 years ago

            I suspect that that might be the case (or some other user error), but I didn’t want to throw out accusations :).

          • f0d
          • 5 years ago

          it seems its unstable at stock speeds with the stock cooler which is defective
          “With the stock cooler it goes ridiculously high and becomes unstable.”

          so yes he does have grounds for a return

      • oldDummy
      • 5 years ago

      Try single core OC first.
      Found 3970 can’t take all cores being maxed out.
      Might be the same thing here.

      • Krogoth
      • 5 years ago

      That doesn’t sound right. Are you sure that the heatsink or waterblock are making good contact with the headspreader? Make sure that didn’t accidentally left the protective plastic cover on the heatspreader.

      • Firestarter
      • 5 years ago

      If it’s unstable with the stock cooler, it’s defective isn’t it? Unless you mean running it at 4.4ghz with all 4 cores, which is technically overclocking already.

    • ColeLT1
    • 5 years ago

    I dropped in my 4790k on Wednesday, stable at stock speeds 4.4ghz turbo (across all cores because of the asus “multicore enhancement”). Max core temp was 61c (3x120mm water loop).

    The bad news: On stock voltage (1.15v) it was stable at 4.4ghz, but BSOD @ 4.6, failed OCCT after 6 minutes at 4.5ghz. They have this chip dialed in, with no headroom at stock voltage for sure.

    The good news: My 4770k (4.6ghz @ 1.3v) would not do anywhere near 4.4ghz at 1.15v so maybe I can get a little more out of this chip. I’m expecting 4.7-4.9ghz in the 1.3##V range.

    I have been documenting all my temps and results, I plan on maxing it out this weekend, then decapping, and repeating the process.

      • Jsteel
      • 5 years ago

      Hey,

      Has anyone thought that having the VT-D added has caused the chip to be unstable during overclocking? I know it was a problem in the past with certain chips. Is there anyway to disable it and try the overclock again on the i7-4790?

        • ColeLT1
        • 5 years ago

        I’ll disable VT-x and VT-d.
        Edit: They were already disabled.

      • ColeLT1
      • 5 years ago

      No clue what changed, but I was not able to get it stable at 4.5+ghz, nothing over stock would pass OCCT, would fail in the 6 minute range every time. The I loaded defaults on BIOS (which I did when I updated BIOS last) and suddenly stable, I’ll post on the forums once I have all my data in a week or so.

      4.4 @ 1.15 (stock)
      4.6 @ 1.225v stable
      4.7 @ 1.225v stable 68/68/69/60

      Edit:
      4.8 @ 1.225v BSOD
      4.8 @ 1.300v 1hr stable OCCT 79/79/79/69c
      4.9 @ 1.300v reboot after a few minutes of OCCT
      4.9 @ 1.320v reboot after a few minutes of OCCT
      4.9 @ 1.350v reboot after a few minutes of OCCT
      Going to 1.4v on the next round, if I can’t get it to stop rebooting, going to start tweaking other voltages, should be in the high 80c range by this point, if I can get it stable I will decap, if not, I am fine with 4.8ghz sub 80c temps, and will do some fine tuning.

        • ColeLT1
        • 5 years ago

        [url<]http://i.imgur.com/xwNvIQQ.png[/url<] 4.9ghz 1.370v 1.3768v = 30min stable 90/91/89/79 (mostly in the 80s on average). Getting toasty, 1.4v will take the temps over my comfort zone. Chip is coming out after I let this run for a little while longer and (hopefully) will delid tomorrow at my work's shop, then I can play with it over the weekend. I would be happy with this current setting for 24/7 usage, but I would really like to hit 5.0ghz just because I never have.

          • ColeLT1
          • 5 years ago

          Cap is off:
          [url<]http://i.imgur.com/LPO7lC1.jpg[/url<] [url<]http://i.imgur.com/TxIqgI6.jpg[/url<]

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 5 years ago

    I’d be all for a OC if it made a diff but honestly I’m not experiencing any CPU bottle necking on my system at the moment. 4770K. Replacing all HDD with SSD’s and upgrading my GPU will make a larger difference in most my usage scenarios.

    • maxxcool
    • 5 years ago

    Well thanks for lying to me Intel, nice to see you picking up AMD’s mantle… While it is nicer to see some better temps methinks your marketing team is hitting the green machines koolaid. Sandybridge can so this without breaking a sweat. /golf clap/ yah!? 😛 … If I had a 2500k I’d be pleased as punch and not have bought the last 3 generations/iterations of cpu.

    Completely expected … but still disappointed…

      • Airmantharp
      • 5 years ago

      Did they lie? Did they tell you exactly how fast every sample would overclock?

        • maxxcool
        • 5 years ago

        They made pretty damn sure everyone saw the 5.6 air cooled demo now didn’t they..

          • Airmantharp
          • 5 years ago

          So what you’re saying is that you allowed yourself to be duped by marketing? When will you learn?

            • maxxcool
            • 5 years ago

            Duped, ha! As noted In my post I expected this chip to be a mediocre clocker and specifically said it was Intels marketers drinking the AMD Koolaid.

            • Airmantharp
            • 5 years ago

            I can say that I was hoping for better results too- it might have been enough to get me to upgrade from my 2500k running at 4.5GHz. But it’s just not enough of a jump, maybe 20% depending on workload. I’m thinking I’ll have to pinch for something with more cores instead.

            • maxxcool
            • 5 years ago

            I had “hope” … but it was in limited quantities .. 🙁

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 5 years ago

      Actually, a minor correction, but they said they wanted to look into Mantle and AMD said, “No. Maybe later.”

      So Intel shrugged and stayed the course with DirectX and OpenGL.

      Doesn’t look like they’re even remotely interested in Mantle now. AMD does love sticking their foot in their mouth.

        • Airmantharp
        • 5 years ago

        If they weren’t their own worst enemy, they’d be running the place.

          • HisDivineOrder
          • 5 years ago

          Often, it takes you running the place to be your own worst enemy, but not in this case. 😉

    • Bensam123
    • 5 years ago

    What level of load line calibration did you use?

    Also will we see OCing for pentium parts and their equivalent AMD product? That’s something I’d really be interested in.

      • Bensam123
      • 5 years ago

      I’m not trying to be hard to please here, I’ve asked about LLC every time TR has done OCing and posted results because it’s not noted. LLC is very important to how well you can OC your processor and conversely effects it’s lifespan as well as motherboard lifespan (or so people believe).

      • cynan
      • 5 years ago

      My basic understanding of LLC is that it effectively limits how much vcore will drop (droop) under load. If not overclocking, having enough vcore is not as vital, so leaving LLC at a lower setting doesn’t matter so much. When overclocking, you generally want it leave it near the highest to increase stability. Now, because, in application, maxing out LLC can actually increase vcore under load, if already pushing vcore to reach an OC, you’d likely be safest setting it one or 2 notches from the top and monitoring vcore in a stress test to see just how LLC effects voltage under load and adjusting from there.

      If your motherboard’s VRMs are failing because you’re setting LLC too high, I would consider this a poor design. Hopefully most higher end motherboards wouldn’t have this problem.

      Suffice to say that as long as TR isn’t setting LLC toward the bottom (and are not trying any crazy high vcore, then for quick OC testing) LLC shouldn’t really matter all that much. Since they seemed to have left LLC on auto-pilot, I wouldn’t think this would have been the case.

        • Bensam123
        • 5 years ago

        LLC is only supposed to work during vdroop, not during normal load. If you set it too high it sometimes over compensates during vdroop (causing a spike). Are you explaining this to me or Damage, because I already understand how LLC works… I was asking what levels TR uses.

        They didn’t note what settings they used for LLC at all and it’s never turned on by default. I’m not sure why you just assume they used LLC and that it was ‘adequate’ no matter what level it’s on. Either way, it most definitely influences how high of a OC you can get. If you’re trying to push into the 4.4+ ghz range on either Intel or AMD right now you need it for stability or you would need crazy high voltage to get the same OC. Turning on LLC means you can use less voltage as the processor wont stall on a vdroop.

          • cynan
          • 5 years ago

          On my MB, LLC is adjustable (I think there are 5-levels based on ratio of how far voltage will be allowed to drop relative to load), not just on or off.

          Are you certain that LLC would be off if using automatic OC setting? It would make sense to me that automatic overclocking options would adjust LLC higher the more demanding the OC requested. Again, on my MB, there is an automatic option to OC where all you do is specify the clock speed you want to reach and the board adjusts everything else (memory timings/voltage, memory controller voltage, vcore, LLC etc).

    • Jigar
    • 5 years ago

    I felt really sad when i5 4690K was available just 10 days after i purchased i5 4670K, but looking at the results, i haven’t missed much.

      • travbrad
      • 5 years ago

      Yep, if you overclock there is virtually no difference between them. The 4690K is basically just a factory-overclocked CPU.

      Unless you are running a lot of VMs I wouldn’t feel any regret over your purchase. 🙂

    • evilpaul
    • 5 years ago

    Scott’s such a n00b. I still have an Abit BP6 with dual Celerons on my shelf. Windows 2000 was great. Except if you had a Creative Labs soundcard or installed Nero Burning ROM which bricked it.

      • f0d
      • 5 years ago

      i had one of them and they were so awesome – i had celery 366’s at 550mhz on mine too

      my overclocking adventures started when i replaced the clock crystal on my 286 10mhz with a 12mhz crystal, from then on i overclocked everything – 386’s 486’s pentiums pentium pro’s ANYTHING i even have overclocked my phone and my router lol

        • robliz2Q
        • 5 years ago

        I enjoyed the 50% oc with the BP6, but it just wasn’t rock solid in dual CPU mode. Did the mod to add a fan for the BP6 to, but it was always subject to a lock up once a day. Those using NT4 at the tiime wouldn’t notice, as the OS drivers were terrible, so reboots were much more frequent. With Linux, you expected an uptime between reboots of months, not days, basically just for kernel upgrades.

    • not@home
    • 5 years ago

    In regard to the introduction, I started overclocking with Pentium Pros back in the day. In the last 6 or 7 years I haven’t even bothered overclocking anything. The CPUs out there today are plenty fast enough and they just generate a lot more heat and consume a lot more electricity when overclocked, all without making that much of a noticeable difference. If you want to give your system a boost, buy an SSD.

      • wrevilo
      • 5 years ago

      Well I dunno. My i5 2500K has a stock turbo clock of 3.4Ghz (I think), but is overclocked to 4.5Ghz.

      Thanks to today’s power saving features, the extra performance and power consumption is only realised when needed. It is a win-win in my opinion. The extra CPU clock speed certainly helps with CPU limited games such as ARMA 3.

        • Airmantharp
        • 5 years ago

        3.3GHz, I have one too :).

        And it does make a huge difference in CPU limited games- my 2500k has served well in BF:BC2, BF3, and BF4, all rife with massive environmental changes and explosions and destruction and other crap.

    • Amgal
    • 5 years ago

    If I were inclined to be paranoid, I would think that they just reused the TIM that we had on sandy bridge and said “ERHMAGERDS NEXT GENERATION POLYMER TIM!!!1”

    But I’m not.

      • Stickmansam
      • 5 years ago

      Sandy Bridge has solder though…

        • Amgal
        • 5 years ago

        Ah, the distinction must have skipped my mind.

    • crabjokeman
    • 5 years ago

    In the modern corporate lexicon, OC’ers are ultra-competitive, rich people with exotic cooling gear that are trying to win contests. Enthusiasts are folks who want more than basic BIOS options and actually pay attention to things like ethernet/audio chips. Gamers are enthusiasts that want a bunch of GPU slots,

    Traditional OC’ers were value-oriented gamers and/or enthusiasts that would rather spend their dough on other things (be it other system components or non-computer stuff).
    Intel has gone out of its way to exclude the traditional OC’ers for the sake of more profit, and it can do that without tough competition. AMD caters to those folks, but only with products that draw way too many Watts compared to Intel counterparts.

    This brave new world sucks for the traditional OC’ers…

      • robliz2Q
      • 5 years ago

      Which is the point of the over-clockable pentium, non-Devil’s Canyon SKU

      Now we know there’s only a subtle improvement due to new TIM (an investigation I read had found less thermal throttling at same clock rate compared to previous Haswell, making i7 K DC a little faster) won’t be noticeable in normal use.

      I wouldnt’ say it sucks though.. I mean compared to CeleronA, even a lowly AMD Bobcat CPU is a monster, trad OCers can just go with some cheap stock offering and not bother with O/C. Most games just need a decent GPU

        • crabjokeman
        • 5 years ago

        Yeah, I guess that Pentium anniversary chip is pretty nice if you’re doing gaming and light multitasking.

          • oldDummy
          • 5 years ago

          [quote<].... Pentium anniversary chip is pretty nice if you're doing gaming and light multitasking.[/quote<] Exactly true. When it comes to doing everyday things it will appear limited. Maybe not by much but enough to drive old time OC'ers crazy. Very easy getting used to more cores......less cores: not so much.

      • ptsant
      • 5 years ago

      [quote<] Traditional OC'ers were value-oriented gamers and/or enthusiasts that would rather spend their dough on other things (be it other system components or non-computer stuff). [/quote<] That's so true! I used to overclock starting with my pentium-level AMD K5 because I could not afford to upgrade. That meant trying various absurd jumper combinations until it worked. Anyway, now my PC is more than good enough and, if it weren't, I would just buy a new one. The money to free-time ratio varies a lot in life...

    • chuckula
    • 5 years ago

    [quote<]And both Devil's Canyon parts come with TSX and VT-d enabled, making the choice to go with an unlocked K-series penalty-free. [/quote<] OK, that [i<]was[/i<] unexpected. I upgrade Devils Canyon from Meh to "interestly but not earth shattering" based on that update.

      • robliz2Q
      • 5 years ago

      Yeah, and whilst it’s nice to be able to play with TSX, the tests under Linux of TSX based locking primitives, didn’t show any worthwhile performance gain. Linus pointed out how quiet Intel have been on the TSX side to since launch, suggesting their own benchmarks have also been a disappointment.

        • bthylafh
        • 5 years ago

        Possibly TSX is like Itanium in that it needs heavy compiler optimizations to be truly useful.

          • robliz2Q
          • 5 years ago

          Nah, small functions in hand tuned assembler!

          It’s just turned out, the hardware implementation offering lock elision (which is nodoubt micro-coded) isn’t really faster than doing it in software. Few weeks back I read old papers on VAX, in late 80’s/early 90’s RISC offered real advantages over CISC due to level of integration possible at that time, there the hardware instructions required effectively a load of software held in a small very fast read only type memory and as CPU L1 cache arrived, the justification for that type of architecture just vanished.

          TSX allows a programming memory model, it’s a convenience but to the software developer, a TSX & non-TSX solution ends up looking very simlar, as the implementation details are hidden by functions.

        • chuckula
        • 5 years ago

        On a quad-core chip TSX will probably have little to no value.

        On a 16 core chip, TSX might become interesting.

        On 72 core (Xeon-Phi) type chip, TSX could become a very useful feature.

        Like many of the tweaks we’ve been seeing in the past few years, TSX doesn’t automatically make most programs run faster for free. Instead, it is designed to help with particular workloads that many people on TR don’t see on a regular basis. That’s why I didn’t really feel any loss when I got my non-TSX enabled 4770K.

          • robliz2Q
          • 5 years ago

          Probably not, the Linux kernel guys are already scaling to much larger systems than those you mention. The hardware lock elision just wasn’t helping much even, when testing locks, nevermind a real world HPC or server application.

          Furthermore because basically when you’re coding for speed, you avoid lock contention and cacheline bouncing (where a memory location is accessed by 1 cpu, then another, then to another and so on) particularly on writes.

          The way to do that, is organise your bulk data so when it’s processed it’s per-cpu and per-thread; you avoid as much as possible things that require cache-coherence as it’s gets more and more expensive, the more threads are running.

          That’s why in Linux (and probably in Windows NT kernel to), there’s quite a few items that are per-CPU, each CPU is free to say add to a counter without any contention, when (rarely) the system wide value is required, it simply sums up all the per-CPU data when it’s needed on demand.

          Anyone interested on effect of memory and caching on modern CPU for software can read – [url<]http://lwn.net/Articles/250967/[/url<]

    • Billstevens
    • 5 years ago

    On the bright side this lets my purchase of an i5-4670k remain guilt free since I have only had it about 6 months. Would have sucked to get trumped by Devils Canyon so soon… Now I get to wait till Broadwell to be dated.

      • Stickmansam
      • 5 years ago

      I wonder how well the i5 4690K OCs

        • robliz2Q
        • 5 years ago

        Hopefully review sites will tell us soon after production chips are available. Unless one’s unlucky with a poor sample, it really should go at least as fast as the i7470K. Hopefully Intel are putting the more marginaly oc-able chips into bins for non K SKUs, offering lower clock rates

    • elmopuddy
    • 5 years ago

    I have one sitting on a Purolator truck somewhere between NYC and Montréal.
    I plan on torturing the poor thing, Corsair H100i will be my accomplice. Klingon operas may or may not be written. Guinness will be drunk, women and small children shall avert their eyes 🙂

    • brucek2
    • 5 years ago

    Your conclusion nailed it for me. Thanks to the high stock speeds, this may actually be the Intel chip least in need of overclocking and perhaps also with the least available upside to gain from it, especially on the all-too-typical single-threaded workloads which are already at 4.4 anyway.

    I ordered one to replace my i7-920, and based on this and similar reviews I’m expecting it will spend most of its life at stock. 95%+ of the performance for half the power (electricity is expensive on my island!) and less heat and noise is the winning option most of the time. I could see setting up an OC profile for the rare occasion when I have a sustained multi-threaded workload, but even that doesn’t feel like an urgent priority. I do like not being locked out of TSX and especially VT-d.

    btw Scott you should invest in a kill-a-watt if you don’t trust your power measurements. They are inexpensive and fun for all sorts of household items, some of which can be really surprisingly inefficient. I discovered one old audio amplifier that basically never shut off its main amps if it was plugged in, even if the speaker outputs were disabled.

      • robliz2Q
      • 5 years ago

      If it’s a rare occasion when you have an mt-workload, why buy an i7?

        • heinsj24
        • 5 years ago

        7 > 5…

        I’m an enthusiast, why should I settle for an i5 like all other mainstream users. Hyper-threading is fairly cheap to add to a processor, so why did Intel take it away from the i5s?

          • bthylafh
          • 5 years ago

          Product segmentation, duh. Intel’s famous/notorious for it since forever.

        • brucek2
        • 5 years ago

        I’m cheap about plenty of things. Maybe most things. But in this case we’re talking about the desktop I earn my living from (self employed developer), and then spend plenty of recreational time on too. It is a (partially) tax deductible purchase in which the value of my time to select, install, and test the CPU will far exceed the net price difference between this and the i5, or even $0. On my present trajectory it appears I’m buying a CPU once every 5.5 years.

        So on the one hand we have a cost difference that averaged over time appears sufficiently close to $0/year so as to hardly matter. And on the other we have the chance that it will occasionally even if infrequently make a difference to me. At a bare minimum I know I will never have to wonder if I’d be twiddling my thumbs less if I had just bought the better chip.

        I’ll agree Intel probably understands this calculus this all too well, but even if they are purely exploiting people like me, I still can’t bring myself to feel that bad about it. And if in a way my “over-payment” is in effect helping to subsidize someone else just starting out to be able to purchase a lower end chip with 80+% of the performance at a third of the cost, good for them too. There was a time long ago when that option would have been important to me too.

          • robliz2Q
          • 5 years ago

          It’s similar thinking to my own, though Intel’s huge margin on the CPUs due to the dominant position is unsettling. Intel can afford to invest so much more than any other CPU manufacturer, AMD have had to through the towell in and compete as a low cost/low margin business.

    • Krogoth
    • 5 years ago

    As I have always suspected, the 22nm process does not like being pushed hard. It leaks like a SOB. The TIM issues with Ivy Bridge and earlier Haswell units just made it worse.

    De-lidders ran into the same problems and had to resort to LN2 cooling before Haswell units go well beyond 5Ghz barrier. 5Ghz is around the limit of what water-cooling solutions can handle.

      • DragonDaddyBear
      • 5 years ago

      So, Krogoth is not impressed?

        • ImSpartacus
        • 5 years ago

        Idk about Krogoth, but I’m not impressed that TR didn’t also try a simple closed loop cooler.

        CLCs are cheap enough for someone already investing in a $300+ CPU for overclocking.

          • DragonDaddyBear
          • 5 years ago

          Maybe as a next step. With all the hype, I thin the OC should have faired much better than it did. I felt this was not a scientific endeavor but a curious mind filled with memories and excitement, seeing if the claims were true. The fact it did not achieve the OC that the has well part did with the poorer TIM is pretty depressing. One can only hope that these early samples are not the same quality we will find in retail as Intel suggest.

          • maxxcool
          • 5 years ago

          given the hype of 5.6ghz!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!!! on multiple web sites and it being parroted by the intel marketing team… this review *IS PERFECT*.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 5 years ago

            five point sixty jiggahertz?????!!!!

        • crabjokeman
        • 5 years ago

        When was he last impressed? Conroe? Clawhammer?

          • Ninjitsu
          • 5 years ago

          Warhammer.

          • Krogoth
          • 5 years ago

          Intel 8008…. 😛

    • DragonDaddyBear
    • 5 years ago

    Where is Krogoth when I need him?

    • f0d
    • 5 years ago

    great review
    although most of the people that read TR are not the “target market” as most of the people around here (from what i have seen) dont want to go to extremes (watercooling or better) and are more interested in smaller quiet computers

    that said this CPU was a massive let down for me – i really was hoping it would go 5ghz all day like my 3930k does, i was hoping to have some fun with it but after all the reviews i have seen even retail samples dont clock too well

    oh well heres hoping haswell-e does better

    edit: fixed a minor error

      • Krogoth
      • 5 years ago

      Doubt it, it is quite clear that 22nm process doesn’t like it. It was designed for reducing power consumption and low-voltages. I wouldn’t hold my breath for upcoming 14nm Broadwells though. Laws of physics are starting to rear their ugly heads.

        • Heidi
        • 5 years ago

        Well…now, hmm…what a success…just turn time little bit back…FX 8350…what a disaster…but look at this now, do we call this sucker a success?! Just wondering…

    • Ninjitsu
    • 5 years ago

    TSX is included? Interesting. Wasn’t mentioned at computex, i think i even asked…

    • fhohj
    • 5 years ago

    [quote<]Sure, what we were doing wasn't technically illegal, but you'd think it might have been, given how some folks reacted.[/quote<] It wasn't illegal at all. I haven't even read the article yet, but why would that be illegal? Why would it be so in doubt that you would even italicize the word? How about I sell you a watch that's perfectly capable of keeping time completely, but only keeps time between 9 - 5 unless you pay me another $50 for the K variant for watch enthusiasts? How about I sell you a car that cannot drive highway speeds. It's actually perfectly capable of driving highway speeds, but it has them disabled, how about that? That car will get you around the town perfectly fine, but the minute you want to do some real driving, and get the interstate, to go to a bbq maybe, you're screwed? Unless, of course, you pay me another 10 large or more for the K variant. How about I sell you a house? And it's good. And then you decide to remodel a bedroom for a kid. Whoops. Hold on there, Scott. You didn't pay me for the K variant. Tampering with the house to change to operate under non-standard procedures would be illegal. You needed to pay me another hundred grand if you wanted to privilege to do renovations and change things from the way they were stock. no, Scott, it's not illegal. it's not even a bit fuzzy. [quote<]CPU makers talked about the voiding of warranties and, worse, warned ominously of the dangers of electromigration ending your chip's life early.[/quote<] Ageira Technologies says to never use jump holes. Ever.

      • Damage
      • 5 years ago

      Not only have you not read the article, but your grasp on that sentence seems tenuous. No offense, but maybe read?

        • snook
        • 5 years ago

        had to down vote you scott.
        reason: meanie

          • Airmantharp
          • 5 years ago

          Had to downvote you just because.

            • maxxcool
            • 5 years ago

            I had to up-vote you because twinkies

            • Meadows
            • 5 years ago

            I didn’t vote on any of you because we so excited.

        • fhohj
        • 5 years ago

        I understood where you were coming from with that sentence. however, that concept is still ludicrous.

          • LoneWolf15
          • 5 years ago

          Your concept is still too literal.

        • ImSpartacus
        • 5 years ago

        You’re either being trolled or being rude.

        There’s no upside to responding to these kinds of comments. Set an example for the rest of us.

      • bthylafh
      • 5 years ago

      You’re misapprehending the difference between the dictionary meaning of “illegal” and its slang usage. Are you not a native speaker?

      • PadawanTrainer
      • 5 years ago

      I have re-read that sentence at least 10 times now. I still don’t see what you’re getting so worked up about…

    • Chrispy_
    • 5 years ago

    I’m calling bull**** on the TIM anyway. Serious overclockers will de-lid, and with LN2 I’m not sure the TIM matters too much at -50C

    More useful is the inclusion of virtualised IO. I actually ‘downgraded’ to a non-K because I needed that, and at the time (in fact, even now) it seemed like the most retarded product segmentation. It felt like paying for an airline seat upgrade to then discover that one really useful feature, like in-flight movies, wasn’t available on your upgraded seat….

      • KaarlisK
      • 5 years ago

      [quote<]it seemed like the most retarded product segmentation[/quote<] It is not retarded. You need vt-d, you're a pro – you're a pro, you don't overclock, you pay for more chips or Xeons or Socket 2011.

        • UnfriendlyFire
        • 5 years ago

        Is the VT-D feature broken on all K-editions?

        Or is Intel just disabling it for product segmentation?

        A few years ago Intel trial ran “CPU upgrade cards”. Install the code, and suddenly your CPU had hyperthreading or higher clock rate.

        Made sense since Intel could reduce the amount of CPU models and allowed people to “upgrade” without having to replace the CPU…

        But apparently people were annoyed that some of their processor’s features were “disabled”, and there was a risk of hackers gaming to system to allow cheaper or free upgrades.

          • jihadjoe
          • 5 years ago

          IIRC VT-D was broken on all consumer K-editions until they [url=http://ark.intel.com/products/80807/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_40-GHz<]fixed it in the 4790k[/url<] X79 has had VT-D on everything starting with the revised [url=http://ark.intel.com/products/63697<]3930k[/url<]: [quote<]But apparently people were annoyed that some of their processor's features were "disabled", and there was a risk of hackers gaming to system to allow cheaper or free upgrades.[/quote<] Those "hackers" would've been the overclockers of bygone days... If we could just figure out how intel does those unlocks.

        • robliz2Q
        • 5 years ago

        Product segmetation on CPU features like that is retarded, because of network effects.

        When you develop software, it’s time consuming, which means you target widely available features, and most likely only develop niche optimisations if someone like Intel or Nvidia pay you to do it.

        By not making various features like hyper-threading, TSX, encryption, quicksync available for certain CPU/GPU/Chipset combos, they have complicated support and thus deterred the development of software tuned to take advantage of the features.

        At the moment this stuff mostly just doesn’t matter much as software’s been targetted at an LCD. A world with i1 (1 core, 2 thread), i2 (2 core, 4 thread), i3 (3/6), i4 (4/8) and fewer clock speed based SKUs (one or 2 per segment notebook/laptop/desktop/workstation), would be simpler for software developers and create a larger software target, whilst offering Intel an obvious way to take advantage of their process leads

        • Chrispy_
        • 5 years ago

        Thanks, it’s been a long time since someone told me I was a pro. It’s feels like I’m just screwing around with this stuff and learning by trial and error.

        But suggesting that a VT-d user doesn’t want more performance is just daft. Those are the sort of people who can NEVER have enough performance.

          • cynan
          • 5 years ago

          I don’t think anyone would argue that this is first and foremost a money grab by Intel. Thing is, the xX7 platform is more like business class, rather than first. If you really need both to run multiple virtual instances, bite the bullet and go X79.

      • Sabresiberian
      • 5 years ago

      Using the word “retarded” as a pejorative is inconsiderate, at best. That word is still used in psychological, medical, and educational fields to label people that should not be stepped on in order for you to attempt to reinforce your point. There are many acceptable words you can substitute – dumb, stupid, silly, moronic, idiotic, to name a few – which aren’t part of our professional systems, which are far less likely to cause someone who has been labeled retarded by their school and/or doctor to feel bad about himself.

      It doesn’t matter that you had no intent to put such people down. Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone with an official diagnosis, hearing or reading the word used in a “bad” way (to mean bad things). There is no shame in being retarded, and those that are should not be lead, even unintentionally, to believe there is.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 5 years ago

    If an Intel rep is saying “wait for production CPUs” why are they sending out Engineering Samples and building a giant yawn and a “meh” of a response? Why didn’t THEY wait for production CPUs?

      • Meadows
      • 5 years ago

      I imagine two reasons.

      First, nobody likes a late review much, and this is especially true for the owner of the product being reviewed.

      Second, I guess they kind of have pre-production processors laying about anyway. They don’t just snap their fingers for finished processors to start flowing from the factory.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 5 years ago

        I can’t really call a writeup on an ES a review, and if Intel things production ones will do better then they shouldn’t have sent ESes out.

          • Chrispy_
          • 5 years ago

          Be that as it may, I’m pretty sure most reviews on most sites are either ES samples or poor-yield first batch. Not just CPUs but GPUs, SSDs, peripherals too.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 5 years ago

            But they had to know that when nobody could do better with Devil’s Canyon that it’d look like a waste. I just don’t get why Intel didn’t do what was best for them. They do all the other times. Careless and sloppy this go round.

            • robliz2Q
            • 5 years ago

            Things that have had me hold off buying into i5/i7 sandybridge and up, are the marketing annoyances the pettiness of disabling Vt-d, TSX etc, the FUD caused by TIM, and the bitching about limitted overclock.

            OK, so by doing Devil’s Canyon, Intel have produced a chips that’s a bit faster and less thermally throttled than the previous Haswell offerings at the same clock. I have more agreeable simpler choices, go for i5 K Devil’s Canyon and oc to a likely 4.4Ghz or so, the i7 K with a guaranteed 4.0-4.4 Ghz, but not lose anything as I can still use/write software with Vt-d or the TSX memory, or wait another 6months and see if socketed Broadwell with Iris Pro EDRAM.

            By refreshing the Haswell line, they’ve given a reason to by into the new chipset, upgrade CPU now, rather than hang on and on, deferring spend due to my anger with Intel marketing decisions

            • derFunkenstein
            • 5 years ago

            [quote<] as I can still use/write software with Vt-d or the TSX memory[/quote<] ...which is enterprise virtualization software and...that's it. That's literally all you lose to lacking VT-d and TSX. And most consumer motherboards don't even implement VT-d properly - I had to turn it off in the EFI for my wife's new Haswell system (i5-4430) so she could run a couple old-ass games in Virtual Box with Windows XP. Not that she actually goes through that trouble, but it's part of our deal - she has to be able ot play Typing of the Dead and it didn't play well with Windows 8. 8.1 might actually be better.

        • MadManOriginal
        • 5 years ago

        [quote<]They don't just snap their fingers for finished processors to start flowing from the factory.[/quote<] No, they don't, but CPUs are produced well before the release date to make it through distribution channels. Intel definitely had retail products to send directly to websites a week or two before launch.

          • Billstevens
          • 5 years ago

          Agreed, in fact most companies are notorious for taking their best yield samples and sending those out getting better results than with a production chip.

          If their ES aren’t up to snuff nothing in the first batch of processors is going to change that. They would never intentionally pick poorer yield chips.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 5 years ago

            That’s something I hadn’t considered. Maybe the first batch of retail chips are duds too. Yikes.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This