If it were a new build, it may be different, based on budget (DDR4 is still a bit more expensive that DDR3, and Z170 is a good deal more than Z97) and possibly availability (I see the Skylake's are in stock now, but they were hard to find early on)
And because a 1.0Ghz overclock is no performance gain...
Gaming, sure, your bottlenecked by GPU at some early point (hint: your not there yet with an i3), but CPU bottlenecks (video encodes, compression, encryption, etc) are nearly a 1:1 performance per clock increase.
Anand's review of Devil's Canyon posts both stock and overclocked benchmarks for the Haswell CPUs. For people who would like to look at something objectively, rather than just spew random unsubstantiated and ignorant nonsense.
Yup. That's a decent cooler too. You will need some heatsink compount (intel comes with a thermal pad pre-applied to the stock HSF if I recall).
CM coolers (standard) come with tube of thermal compound.
Yeah but he bought it and installed it how long ago in the original system --- and most people will (usually incorrectly) use the entire tube in one installation.
*edit*
Yeah - Quiz has good links, just depends on if you want to overclock or not. Even if your aren't planning on it right now, if you think you ever might want to, even just a little bit, spend the extra money now to get the overclocking setup.
Devil's Canyon aren't the best overclocking CPU in history, but they are pretty good, most getting up around the high 4's, a few hitting 5.0 on air. - up to 20-30% extra speed over stock for cheap depending on how hard you want to push it and how lucky you get on the die.
What does it matter when he installed it? If he has box and accessories, and no, using whole tube is NOT the norm.
No, they are not hitting 5 on air. Not even "high 4's". Intel has abbysmal thermal dissipation and run very hot, 80 degrees on 5 GHz on water cooling. It reaches 80 on air @ 4,5-4,6 GHz lol
Well, I know I couldn't find my socks from last week - let alone random heatsink hardware from several years ago. Just a suggestion based on my own experience to make sure you have some heat sink compound because the stock HSF won't have any usable.
If you still have 5-year old stock compound on hand, sure, have a ball. Heck, use toothpaste for all that it really matters.
Regarding overclocking - remember Devil's Canyon improved on the original Haswell a bit, specifically in the lid and TIM for overclocking. Here's what the Anand review I linked above had to say about it.
There was a lot of talk regarding the magic ‘5.0 GHz’ number and whether it would be easily achievable with these new processors. At Intel’s overclocking event at Computex this year, the highest frequency achieved with an all-in-one closed-loop-liquid-cooler was 5.5 GHz, although this was only stable enough for a CPU-Z screenshot and the air passing over the radiator was cooled with liquid nitrogen, so not a realistic scenario. Other reviews on these processors have had a hard time hitting 5.0 GHz stable, with most falling short by a couple of hundred MHz. In order to even discuss this, we first have to look at the silicon itself. All arrows point to an unchanged silicon die, but an updated package, which would suggest that the overclocking performance of these new processors might match the old, but with more thermal headroom. Although one could also suggest that Intel has optimized the process in the fab to enable a different distribution of bin yields, especially when considering the new 4.0 GHz bin is considerably higher than the others. This would arguably put some positive note on the i7, given that there were some rather poor overclocking i7-4770Ks in the wild and the i7-4790K seems to raise that minimum barrier by default. Without having a couple of hundred CPUs to test, we cannot produce a histogram of expected overclocking results. However I can add in our results here, with a clearer explanation later in the review. Our i7-4790K is actually one of the lower performing CPUs from what I have heard from other reviewers. Using a Corsair H80i (the 120mm double thickness CLC), our CPU hit 4.6 GHz at 1.300 volts, with 86ºC peak temperature under OCCT load, and 4.7 GHz at 1.450 volts with 98ºC peak temperature under OCCT load. 1.450 volts for 4.7 GHz is rather a lot, and under a focused AVX load the system did actually reduce the frequency to 4.5 GHz for split-seconds to remain within thermal tolerances. That jump from 4.6 GHz to 4.7 GHz of 0.150 volts is quite a leap, although we did see this with the normal Haswell CPUs as well. The i5-4670K sample we received by contrast was a relatively nice clocker, but it still had a bit of a voltage leap in the same sort of range. 4.7 GHz was achieved at a nice low 1.300 volts, with 79ºC peak temperature, however 4.8 GHz was a bit of a struggle. The system would boot very easily above 1.300 volts, but even at 1.450 volts, the system was not stable for our testing. To add a few more data points into the mix: Our G3258 (Overclockable Pentium) also does 4.7 GHz, at 1.375V stable. A contact at Corsair has two i7-4790Ks, both of which do 4.7 GHz at 1.30-1.35 volts stable. Two of our contacts at ASUS have got 4.8 GHz on their i7-4790Ks at 1.38 volts, but 4.9 is a no-go. It would seem 4.7 GHz is the magical number, at least for an open test-bed in the summer for the north hemisphere. For the users that rely on one-button overclocking, or automatic overclocking (selecting High-OC), motherboard manufacturers will have to ensure that their look-up tables encoded into the BIOS are updated appropriately.
Well, I know I couldn't find my socks from last week - let alone random heatsink hardware from several years ago. Just a suggestion based on my own experience to make sure you have some heat sink compound because the stock HSF won't have any usable.
If you still have 5-year old stock compound on hand, sure, have a ball. Heck, use toothpaste for all that it really matters.
Regarding overclocking - remember Devil's Canyon improved on the original Haswell a bit, specifically in the lid and TIM for overclocking. Here's what the Anand review I linked above had to say about it.
Good job there.
So even in article linked yourself, they need a liquid cooling to achieve just 4.7GHz, yet it does not prevent you in slightest to make claims about 5 or high 4 overclocks on air...
I guess we know who "spew random unsubstantiated and ignorant nonsense" here and that my previous statement to stay away from local "experts" is well founded...
Well, I know I couldn't find my socks from last week - let alone random heatsink hardware from several years ago. Just a suggestion based on my own experience to make sure you have some heat sink compound because the stock HSF won't have any usable.
If you still have 5-year old stock compound on hand, sure, have a ball. Heck, use toothpaste for all that it really matters.
Regarding overclocking - remember Devil's Canyon improved on the original Haswell a bit, specifically in the lid and TIM for overclocking. Here's what the Anand review I linked above had to say about it.
There was a lot of talk regarding the magic ‘5.0 GHz’ number and whether it would be easily achievable with these new processors. At Intel’s overclocking event at Computex this year, the highest frequency achieved with an all-in-one closed-loop-liquid-cooler was 5.5 GHz, although this was only stable enough for a CPU-Z screenshot and the air passing over the radiator was cooled with liquid nitrogen, so not a realistic scenario. Other reviews on these processors have had a hard time hitting 5.0 GHz stable, with most falling short by a couple of hundred MHz. In order to even discuss this, we first have to look at the silicon itself. All arrows point to an unchanged silicon die, but an updated package, which would suggest that the overclocking performance of these new processors might match the old, but with more thermal headroom. Although one could also suggest that Intel has optimized the process in the fab to enable a different distribution of bin yields, especially when considering the new 4.0 GHz bin is considerably higher than the others. This would arguably put some positive note on the i7, given that there were some rather poor overclocking i7-4770Ks in the wild and the i7-4790K seems to raise that minimum barrier by default. Without having a couple of hundred CPUs to test, we cannot produce a histogram of expected overclocking results. However I can add in our results here, with a clearer explanation later in the review. Our i7-4790K is actually one of the lower performing CPUs from what I have heard from other reviewers. Using a Corsair H80i (the 120mm double thickness CLC), our CPU hit 4.6 GHz at 1.300 volts, with 86ºC peak temperature under OCCT load, and 4.7 GHz at 1.450 volts with 98ºC peak temperature under OCCT load. 1.450 volts for 4.7 GHz is rather a lot, and under a focused AVX load the system did actually reduce the frequency to 4.5 GHz for split-seconds to remain within thermal tolerances. That jump from 4.6 GHz to 4.7 GHz of 0.150 volts is quite a leap, although we did see this with the normal Haswell CPUs as well. The i5-4670K sample we received by contrast was a relatively nice clocker, but it still had a bit of a voltage leap in the same sort of range. 4.7 GHz was achieved at a nice low 1.300 volts, with 79ºC peak temperature, however 4.8 GHz was a bit of a struggle. The system would boot very easily above 1.300 volts, but even at 1.450 volts, the system was not stable for our testing. To add a few more data points into the mix: Our G3258 (Overclockable Pentium) also does 4.7 GHz, at 1.375V stable. A contact at Corsair has two i7-4790Ks, both of which do 4.7 GHz at 1.30-1.35 volts stable. Two of our contacts at ASUS have got 4.8 GHz on their i7-4790Ks at 1.38 volts, but 4.9 is a no-go. It would seem 4.7 GHz is the magical number, at least for an open test-bed in the summer for the north hemisphere. For the users that rely on one-button overclocking, or automatic overclocking (selecting High-OC), motherboard manufacturers will have to ensure that their look-up tables encoded into the BIOS are updated appropriately.
And? I just mentioned CM coolers come with tube of thermal compound, and no, age doesnt matter all that much.
So, where in there they mention "hitting upper 4s on air" or even 5 rofl
"Using a Corsair H80i (the 120mm double thickness CLC), our CPU hit 4.6
GHz at 1.300 volts, with 86ºC peak temperature under OCCT load, and 4.7
GHz at 1.450 volts with 98ºC peak temperature under OCCT load."
"The i5-4670K sample we received by contrast was a relatively nice
clocker, but it still had a bit of a voltage leap in the same sort of
range. 4.7 GHz was achieved at a nice low 1.300 volts, with 79ºC peak
temperature, however 4.8 GHz was a bit of a struggle. The system would
boot very easily above 1.300 volts, but even at 1.450 volts, the system
was not stable for our testing."
I really wsh you actually read what you post. These CPUs are DEFINITELY not unknowns any more. -ks are basically already OCed versions and they dont OC very well overall AND produce a LOT of heat. Running at 80 on water cooling, now you propose its norm for air lol
You original claim, just for reference:
"Devil's Canyon aren't the best overclocking CPU in history, but they are
pretty good, most getting up around the high 4's, a few hitting 5.0 on
air."
Well, I know I couldn't find my socks from last week - let alone random heatsink hardware from several years ago. Just a suggestion based on my own experience to make sure you have some heat sink compound because the stock HSF won't have any usable.
If you still have 5-year old stock compound on hand, sure, have a ball. Heck, use toothpaste for all that it really matters.
Regarding overclocking - remember Devil's Canyon improved on the original Haswell a bit, specifically in the lid and TIM for overclocking. Here's what the Anand review I linked above had to say about it.
There was a lot of talk regarding the magic ‘5.0 GHz’ number and whether it would be easily achievable with these new processors. At Intel’s overclocking event at Computex this year, the highest frequency achieved with an all-in-one closed-loop-liquid-cooler was 5.5 GHz, although this was only stable enough for a CPU-Z screenshot and the air passing over the radiator was cooled with liquid nitrogen, so not a realistic scenario. Other reviews on these processors have had a hard time hitting 5.0 GHz stable, with most falling short by a couple of hundred MHz. In order to even discuss this, we first have to look at the silicon itself. All arrows point to an unchanged silicon die, but an updated package, which would suggest that the overclocking performance of these new processors might match the old, but with more thermal headroom. Although one could also suggest that Intel has optimized the process in the fab to enable a different distribution of bin yields, especially when considering the new 4.0 GHz bin is considerably higher than the others. This would arguably put some positive note on the i7, given that there were some rather poor overclocking i7-4770Ks in the wild and the i7-4790K seems to raise that minimum barrier by default. Without having a couple of hundred CPUs to test, we cannot produce a histogram of expected overclocking results. However I can add in our results here, with a clearer explanation later in the review. Our i7-4790K is actually one of the lower performing CPUs from what I have heard from other reviewers. Using a Corsair H80i (the 120mm double thickness CLC), our CPU hit 4.6 GHz at 1.300 volts, with 86ºC peak temperature under OCCT load, and 4.7 GHz at 1.450 volts with 98ºC peak temperature under OCCT load. 1.450 volts for 4.7 GHz is rather a lot, and under a focused AVX load the system did actually reduce the frequency to 4.5 GHz for split-seconds to remain within thermal tolerances. That jump from 4.6 GHz to 4.7 GHz of 0.150 volts is quite a leap, although we did see this with the normal Haswell CPUs as well. The i5-4670K sample we received by contrast was a relatively nice clocker, but it still had a bit of a voltage leap in the same sort of range. 4.7 GHz was achieved at a nice low 1.300 volts, with 79ºC peak temperature, however 4.8 GHz was a bit of a struggle. The system would boot very easily above 1.300 volts, but even at 1.450 volts, the system was not stable for our testing. To add a few more data points into the mix: Our G3258 (Overclockable Pentium) also does 4.7 GHz, at 1.375V stable. A contact at Corsair has two i7-4790Ks, both of which do 4.7 GHz at 1.30-1.35 volts stable. Two of our contacts at ASUS have got 4.8 GHz on their i7-4790Ks at 1.38 volts, but 4.9 is a no-go. It would seem 4.7 GHz is the magical number, at least for an open test-bed in the summer for the north hemisphere. For the users that rely on one-button overclocking, or automatic overclocking (selecting High-OC), motherboard manufacturers will have to ensure that their look-up tables encoded into the BIOS are updated appropriately.
And? I just mentioned CM coolers come with tube of thermal compound, and no, age doesnt matter all that much.
So, where in there they mention "hitting upper 4s on air" or even 5 rofl
"Using a Corsair H80i (the 120mm double thickness CLC), our CPU hit 4.6
GHz at 1.300 volts, with 86ºC peak temperature under OCCT load, and 4.7
GHz at 1.450 volts with 98ºC peak temperature under OCCT load."
"The i5-4670K sample we received by contrast was a relatively nice
clocker, but it still had a bit of a voltage leap in the same sort of
range. 4.7 GHz was achieved at a nice low 1.300 volts, with 79ºC peak
temperature, however 4.8 GHz was a bit of a struggle. The system would
boot very easily above 1.300 volts, but even at 1.450 volts, the system
was not stable for our testing."
I really wsh you actually read what you post. These CPUs are DEFINITELY not unknowns any more. -ks are basically already OCed versions and they dont OC very well overall AND produce a LOT of heat. Running at 80 on water cooling, now you propose its norm for air lol
You original claim, just for reference:
"Devil's Canyon aren't the best overclocking CPU in history, but they are
pretty good, most getting up around the high 4's, a few hitting 5.0 on
air."
After reading it, it seems there was a fair amount of liquid nitrogen in that air
As to the rest, it seems getting anything above 4.7 was problematic, and at such high temperatures that i doubt most would even consider it, i can only imagine that the operational lifespan of such an overclocked system was seriously reduced due to heat stress. Personal preference, but when hardware costs that much, then overclocking is something of a mugs game, imo at least, i don't regard buying replacement hardware on a biannual basis as being at all acceptable, nor affordable.
Liquid Notrogen was used in the 5.5G Intel example sample. Anand used a H80, which doesn't really do better than a good air cooler (and how many of you say as much every time someone proposes using one of these AIOs). Read into that what you will.
I will maintain that 4.7 is "high 4's", and is a far cry from "abysmal" or "next to none performance gain", an dis pretty much what most people can expect to get from a randomly binned chip.
I don't see where I mis-stated anything in all of that. As has been stated - Devil's Canyon is a pretty well known animal by now, and I think I'm fairly accurately stating the facts.
There was a lot of disappointment about Devil's Canyon, because Intel had "Enthusiastically" claimed that they fully expected most to bin out to 5.0 on air, and that didn't come to be true. But that doesn't mean that none of them did, or that Devil's Canyon was a hot mess that can't overclock at all.
Liquid Notrogen was used in the 5.5G Intel example sample. Anand used a H80, which doesn't really do better than a good air cooler (and how many of you say as much every time someone proposes using one of these AIOs). Read into that what you will.
I will maintain that 4.7 is "high 4's", and is a far cry from "abysmal" or "next to none performance gain", an dis pretty much what most people can expect to get from a randomly binned chip.
I don't see where I mis-stated anything in all of that. As has been stated - Devil's Canyon is a pretty well known animal by now, and I think I'm fairly accurately stating the facts.
There was a lot of disappointment about Devil's Canyon, because Intel had "Enthusiastically" claimed that they fully expected most to bin out to 5.0 on air, and that didn't come to be true. But that doesn't mean that none of them did, or that Devil's Canyon was a hot mess that can't overclock at all.
And?
THIS is your claim:
"Devil's Canyon aren't the best overclocking CPU in history, but they are
pretty good, most getting up around the high 4's, a few hitting 5.0 on
air."
If by "most" you mean "few" than its perfectly all right.
But then, most is not few. And cretainly not on 212 EVO. And god knows which case with how good airflow.
As i said, 4,4 - 4,5. Of course, you can count on lottery, but then i would propose to play REAL lottery as it pays better than getting "high 4s on air" lol
And i dont really know why you linked guru3d article, as thats also water cooling lol
Im not sure, do you understand difference between air and water cooling any more rofl
I am still rockin an i7- 2600 and to be honest, paired with my R9-380 I can still play anything maxed with such an old CPU. Sometimes I think we have too much CPU for our needs. I also video edit and produce music with it. Seems fine to me. Though I do know upgrading would see good improvement, I do not feel like upgrading every piece of hardware in my box to do it.
Youre fine, as long as either AMD or Intel do something revolutionary with CPUs, theres really no need for anything better. Both Intel and AMD realized that long time ago, thats why AMD pretty much had 4-5 yeras gap and Intel realeases just fluff with marginal upgrades.
But at least software is catching up finally, maybe therell be some movement in CPU field, but as you say, todays CPUs are not nearly fully used, so whats really the point (except some specific cases). Even GPUs taking over some CPU jobs....and doing them much better.
Comments
If it were a new build, it may be different, based on budget (DDR4 is still a bit more expensive that DDR3, and Z170 is a good deal more than Z97) and possibly availability (I see the Skylake's are in stock now, but they were hard to find early on)
Gaming, sure, your bottlenecked by GPU at some early point (hint: your not there yet with an i3), but CPU bottlenecks (video encodes, compression, encryption, etc) are nearly a 1:1 performance per clock increase.
Anand's review of Devil's Canyon posts both stock and overclocked benchmarks for the Haswell CPUs. For people who would like to look at something objectively, rather than just spew random unsubstantiated and ignorant nonsense.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k
No, they are not hitting 5 on air. Not even "high 4's". Intel has abbysmal thermal dissipation and run very hot, 80 degrees on 5 GHz on water cooling. It reaches 80 on air @ 4,5-4,6 GHz lol
If you still have 5-year old stock compound on hand, sure, have a ball. Heck, use toothpaste for all that it really matters.
Regarding overclocking - remember Devil's Canyon improved on the original Haswell a bit, specifically in the lid and TIM for overclocking. Here's what the Anand review I linked above had to say about it.
So even in article linked yourself, they need a liquid cooling to achieve just 4.7GHz, yet it does not prevent you in slightest to make claims about 5 or high 4 overclocks on air...
I guess we know who "spew random unsubstantiated and ignorant nonsense" here and that my previous statement to stay away from local "experts" is well founded...
So, where in there they mention "hitting upper 4s on air" or even 5 rofl
"Using a Corsair H80i (the 120mm double thickness CLC), our CPU hit 4.6 GHz at 1.300 volts, with 86ºC peak temperature under OCCT load, and 4.7 GHz at 1.450 volts with 98ºC peak temperature under OCCT load."
"The i5-4670K sample we received by contrast was a relatively nice clocker, but it still had a bit of a voltage leap in the same sort of range. 4.7 GHz was achieved at a nice low 1.300 volts, with 79ºC peak temperature, however 4.8 GHz was a bit of a struggle. The system would boot very easily above 1.300 volts, but even at 1.450 volts, the system was not stable for our testing."
I really wsh you actually read what you post. These CPUs are DEFINITELY not unknowns any more. -ks are basically already OCed versions and they dont OC very well overall AND produce a LOT of heat. Running at 80 on water cooling, now you propose its norm for air lol
You original claim, just for reference:
"Devil's Canyon aren't the best overclocking CPU in history, but they are pretty good, most getting up around the high 4's, a few hitting 5.0 on air."
As to the rest, it seems getting anything above 4.7 was problematic, and at such high temperatures that i doubt most would even consider it, i can only imagine that the operational lifespan of such an overclocked system was seriously reduced due to heat stress.
Personal preference, but when hardware costs that much, then overclocking is something of a mugs game, imo at least, i don't regard buying replacement hardware on a biannual basis as being at all acceptable, nor affordable.
I will maintain that 4.7 is "high 4's", and is a far cry from "abysmal" or "next to none performance gain", an dis pretty much what most people can expect to get from a randomly binned chip.
And there's this: http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/core-i7-4790k-processor-5-ghz-review-a-silicon-lottery,1.html
So 5.0's exist out there.
And then there's also this: http://www.overclock.net/t/1490324/the-intel-devils-canyon-owners-club
Lots of people posting their CPU, along with max OC, specifying which cooler they are using, ranging up to and including 5.0 clocks on air.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1490324/the-intel-devils-canyon-owners-club
I don't see where I mis-stated anything in all of that. As has been stated - Devil's Canyon is a pretty well known animal by now, and I think I'm fairly accurately stating the facts.
There was a lot of disappointment about Devil's Canyon, because Intel had "Enthusiastically" claimed that they fully expected most to bin out to 5.0 on air, and that didn't come to be true. But that doesn't mean that none of them did, or that Devil's Canyon was a hot mess that can't overclock at all.
Bummer....
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
THIS is your claim:
"Devil's Canyon aren't the best overclocking CPU in history, but they are pretty good, most getting up around the high 4's, a few hitting 5.0 on air."
If by "most" you mean "few" than its perfectly all right.
But then, most is not few. And cretainly not on 212 EVO. And god knows which case with how good airflow.
As i said, 4,4 - 4,5. Of course, you can count on lottery, but then i would propose to play REAL lottery as it pays better than getting "high 4s on air" lol
And i dont really know why you linked guru3d article, as thats also water cooling lol
Im not sure, do you understand difference between air and water cooling any more rofl
But at least software is catching up finally, maybe therell be some movement in CPU field, but as you say, todays CPUs are not nearly fully used, so whats really the point (except some specific cases). Even GPUs taking over some CPU jobs....and doing them much better.