That is not what the OP is trying to show Ridelynn. He's trying to trash intel for not making better chips. When in fact about 90% of pc users can use intel chips that were made back in 2005 and never even notice the difference. He's trying to say they haven't improved and well for some people like gamers that is true. In fact gamers are better off with i5 processors that don't use hyperthreading.
That wasn't their goal on this chip it was something else entirely and it is a huge improvement for what their goal was.
That's not entirely true either. The CPU doesn't exist in a vacuum and the architecture of the chipset also carries important features that make upgrading worthwhile for more than 10% of a typical PC user.
I mean i did exaggerate a little. You would be hard pressed to find a pc user who is capable of using 70% of their current cpu's output. They still selling celeron processors and even those strange no name processors in laptops and desktops. Because the average pc users will never need more then that. Our topic goes way beyond what an average user expects from a cpu for sure.
Intel definitely has the better home market chips... Though true they haven't changed much clock speed wise threading capabilities have gotten pretty good and their single threading applications are still superior (games). AMD arguably has just as good of home market chips, focusing more on core count and threading (unlike intel's direction of less power consumption in main lines) and raw clock speed solutions. Arguably better in the numbers but applications typically aren't focused to using the power available -- and operating systems in rare cases.
The gaming and graphics market are hard to sell these new chips to. On both sides, in this case games just aren't being programmed to completely utilize everything, and still have to maintain cross platform (AMD, NVidia, every other of the dozens of microprocessor brands and standards on a motherboard) the largest of limitations.
If I personally were building workstations -- general computing -- I would stock a house with AMD machines. Cheap, does the job great and fast. Intel would have no advantage to me, just a number. A graphics studio of any sort I would fork the money to intel, probably an older line of chips as what I'm utilizing doesn't use the multi-core/multi-thread advantages. But benefit from the single thread power.
That is not what the OP is trying to show Ridelynn. He's trying to trash intel for not making better chips. When in fact about 90% of pc users can use intel chips that were made back in 2005 and never even notice the difference. He's trying to say they haven't improved and well for some people like gamers that is true. In fact gamers are better off with i5 processors that don't use hyperthreading.
That wasn't their goal on this chip it was something else entirely and it is a huge improvement for what their goal was.
It's definitely not favoritism, as the author is the same one that's been blackballed by AMD
The only case to be made for an i7 in gaming is when it has a clock speed advantage. Which is usually pretty small and almost never worth the premium price in my opinion, and if you are even a mediocre overclocker, is totally negated.
So we have this guy got 5z out of it very easily. He is using the z270 mobo though.
This guy got a solid 5z out of his z270 mobo as well.
They do need water cooling to run at those speeds.
So let's summarize this discussion.
You: Kaby Lake is a lot faster than Sandy Bridge.
Me: If you overclock both, Kaby Lake is still faster, but it's a lot closer.
You: If you overclock both, you should overclock Kaby Lake to still be 800 MHz faster than Sandy Bridge.
Me: Sandy Bridge tends to be able to overclock a lot further than Kaby Lake.
You: Some people can overclock Kaby Lake to about the same clock speed that they got with Sandy Bridge.
And that last line is apparently supposed to prove that an overclocked Kaby Lake will tend to have a clock speed about 1 GHz faster than an overclocked Sandy Bridge, as would be needed to maintain the performance difference that you argued is there.
Actually I was trying to show malabooga that the 7700k wasn't designed the way he was trying to make it look. It was designed to run normally at a higher clock speed. It is also the one in the kaby lake series which they designed specifically to overclock.
Then you decided to tell us that they cannot overclock the 7700k to 5.3z without using liquid nitrogen.
So I decided to show you 3 different examples of it being overclocked to 7z using liquid nitrogen.
Then you decided to discredit the claim by saying they only had 1 core running which turned out to be false.
Then I decided it is way too early to get solid numbers from the 7700k when they barely have come out with motherboards which can handle all this overclocking. And half the chips being used for malabooga's claims are tech demo's that people are getting from second hand users.
Whether or not a CPU is overclockable is only a question of whether the designer takes specific steps to disable overclocking or not. Intel wants overclockers to pay extra, and especially hates it when people buy a cheaper chip and overclock it to be as fast as a more expensive one. So Intel disables overclocking in most of their chips, and charges extra for the ones that allow it.
Core i7 and Core i5 quad cores, both overclockable and not, are the same physical die and nominally identical chips taken from the same wafers. It's not the case that one is designed for overclocking and the other isn't. They aren't separate designs.
So we have this guy got 5z out of it very easily. He is using the z270 mobo though.
This guy got a solid 5z out of his z270 mobo as well.
They do need water cooling to run at those speeds.
So let's summarize this discussion.
You: Kaby Lake is a lot faster than Sandy Bridge.
Me: If you overclock both, Kaby Lake is still faster, but it's a lot closer.
You: If you overclock both, you should overclock Kaby Lake to still be 800 MHz faster than Sandy Bridge.
Me: Sandy Bridge tends to be able to overclock a lot further than Kaby Lake.
You: Some people can overclock Kaby Lake to about the same clock speed that they got with Sandy Bridge.
And that last line is apparently supposed to prove that an overclocked Kaby Lake will tend to have a clock speed about 1 GHz faster than an overclocked Sandy Bridge, as would be needed to maintain the performance difference that you argued is there.
Actually I was trying to show malabooga that the 7700k wasn't designed the way he was trying to make it look. It was designed to run normally at a higher clock speed. It is also the one in the kaby lake series which they designed specifically to overclock.
Then you decided to tell us that they cannot overclock the 7700k to 5.3z without using liquid nitrogen.
So I decided to show you 3 different examples of it being overclocked to 7z using liquid nitrogen.
Then you decided to discredit the claim by saying they only had 1 core running which turned out to be false.
Then I decided it is way too early to get solid numbers from the 7700k when they barely have come out with motherboards which can handle all this overclocking. And half the chips being used for malabooga's claims are tech demo's that people are getting from second hand users.
Whether or not a CPU is overclockable is only a question of whether the designer takes specific steps to disable overclocking or not. Intel wants overclockers to pay extra, and especially hates it when people buy a cheaper chip and overclock it to be as fast as a more expensive one. So Intel disables overclocking in most of their chips, and charges extra for the ones that allow it.
Core i7 and Core i5 quad cores, both overclockable and not, are the same physical die and nominally identical chips taken from the same wafers. It's not the case that one is designed for overclocking and the other isn't. They aren't separate designs.
The 7700k was given design structures in order for the clock speed to be higher. Lemme google the exact term. They are calling it 14 NM Plus where they widened the gate pitch and made the fins taller. So it would have higher frequency and more potential for overclocking. That is just what they did with this one chip not the entire family.
So we have this guy got 5z out of it very easily. He is using the z270 mobo though.
This guy got a solid 5z out of his z270 mobo as well.
They do need water cooling to run at those speeds.
So let's summarize this discussion.
You: Kaby Lake is a lot faster than Sandy Bridge.
Me: If you overclock both, Kaby Lake is still faster, but it's a lot closer.
You: If you overclock both, you should overclock Kaby Lake to still be 800 MHz faster than Sandy Bridge.
Me: Sandy Bridge tends to be able to overclock a lot further than Kaby Lake.
You: Some people can overclock Kaby Lake to about the same clock speed that they got with Sandy Bridge.
And that last line is apparently supposed to prove that an overclocked Kaby Lake will tend to have a clock speed about 1 GHz faster than an overclocked Sandy Bridge, as would be needed to maintain the performance difference that you argued is there.
Actually I was trying to show malabooga that the 7700k wasn't designed the way he was trying to make it look. It was designed to run normally at a higher clock speed. It is also the one in the kaby lake series which they designed specifically to overclock.
Then you decided to tell us that they cannot overclock the 7700k to 5.3z without using liquid nitrogen.
So I decided to show you 3 different examples of it being overclocked to 7z using liquid nitrogen.
Then you decided to discredit the claim by saying they only had 1 core running which turned out to be false.
Then I decided it is way too early to get solid numbers from the 7700k when they barely have come out with motherboards which can handle all this overclocking. And half the chips being used for malabooga's claims are tech demo's that people are getting from second hand users.
Whether or not a CPU is overclockable is only a question of whether the designer takes specific steps to disable overclocking or not. Intel wants overclockers to pay extra, and especially hates it when people buy a cheaper chip and overclock it to be as fast as a more expensive one. So Intel disables overclocking in most of their chips, and charges extra for the ones that allow it.
Core i7 and Core i5 quad cores, both overclockable and not, are the same physical die and nominally identical chips taken from the same wafers. It's not the case that one is designed for overclocking and the other isn't. They aren't separate designs.
The 7700k was given design structures in order for the clock speed to be higher. Lemme google the exact term. They are calling it 14 NM Plus where they widened the gate pitch and made the fins taller. So it would have higher frequency and more potential for overclocking. That is just what they did with this one chip not the entire family.
Process node improvements will apply to all of Kaby Lake, whether overclockable or not.
So we have this guy got 5z out of it very easily. He is using the z270 mobo though.
This guy got a solid 5z out of his z270 mobo as well.
They do need water cooling to run at those speeds.
So let's summarize this discussion.
You: Kaby Lake is a lot faster than Sandy Bridge.
Me: If you overclock both, Kaby Lake is still faster, but it's a lot closer.
You: If you overclock both, you should overclock Kaby Lake to still be 800 MHz faster than Sandy Bridge.
Me: Sandy Bridge tends to be able to overclock a lot further than Kaby Lake.
You: Some people can overclock Kaby Lake to about the same clock speed that they got with Sandy Bridge.
And that last line is apparently supposed to prove that an overclocked Kaby Lake will tend to have a clock speed about 1 GHz faster than an overclocked Sandy Bridge, as would be needed to maintain the performance difference that you argued is there.
Actually I was trying to show malabooga that the 7700k wasn't designed the way he was trying to make it look. It was designed to run normally at a higher clock speed. It is also the one in the kaby lake series which they designed specifically to overclock.
Then you decided to tell us that they cannot overclock the 7700k to 5.3z without using liquid nitrogen.
So I decided to show you 3 different examples of it being overclocked to 7z using liquid nitrogen.
Then you decided to discredit the claim by saying they only had 1 core running which turned out to be false.
Then I decided it is way too early to get solid numbers from the 7700k when they barely have come out with motherboards which can handle all this overclocking. And half the chips being used for malabooga's claims are tech demo's that people are getting from second hand users.
Whether or not a CPU is overclockable is only a question of whether the designer takes specific steps to disable overclocking or not. Intel wants overclockers to pay extra, and especially hates it when people buy a cheaper chip and overclock it to be as fast as a more expensive one. So Intel disables overclocking in most of their chips, and charges extra for the ones that allow it.
Core i7 and Core i5 quad cores, both overclockable and not, are the same physical die and nominally identical chips taken from the same wafers. It's not the case that one is designed for overclocking and the other isn't. They aren't separate designs.
The 7700k was given design structures in order for the clock speed to be higher. Lemme google the exact term. They are calling it 14 NM Plus where they widened the gate pitch and made the fins taller. So it would have higher frequency and more potential for overclocking. That is just what they did with this one chip not the entire family.
Process node improvements will apply to all of Kaby Lake, whether overclockable or not.
Well apparently not, prepared to get schooled Quizzical.
True story. I think they never got over the fact that people could overclock the FSB to 133MHz on the Pentium 3 Celeron with the 440BX chipset to out perform their more expensive Pentium 3 models. Oh, the memories ...
I'm hard core into flight sims. I run a two rig network, the main is for the sim and the secondary controls the real time weather and ATC plus a myriad of other less important apps.
I've just built a new main rig replacing my 4770K @ 4.6 with 16gigs G. skill Trident DDR3-2400 ram to a 7700k with 64gigs G. Skill Trident Z DDR4-3466 ram.
I clocked the 7700k to 4.94ghz with the press of a button. With HT deactivated (main sim makes no use of it) I easily clocked the 7700k to 5.15ghz with the highest temp using Real Bench = 78c using a Corsair 100i v2 for cooling. I got the chip running that fast with HT but I didn't like the temperatures.
For regular gaming the difference between the two CPU's wouldn't make a difference to me, the 4770k @ 4.6 runs games awesomely (more than enough). The difference in the flight sim is noticeable big time, I've gained about 30%-40% in performance. My cpu was my bottleneck, now my 1080 gpu is.
Very happy with the chip for my application.
And yur proof is - where?
Considering your other posts this is just another one of your BS posts lol
So apparently you have gone from 33 fps all the way to over 60 FPS (as apparently now GPU is limiting factor and only thign that prevents you from going over) with ~15-20% faster (in BEST case scenario) CPU
I'm hard core into flight sims. I run a two rig network, the main is for the sim and the secondary controls the real time weather and ATC plus a myriad of other less important apps.
I've just built a new main rig replacing my 4770K @ 4.6 with 16gigs G. skill Trident DDR3-2400 ram to a 7700k with 64gigs G. Skill Trident Z DDR4-3466 ram.
I clocked the 7700k to 4.94ghz with the press of a button. With HT deactivated (main sim makes no use of it) I easily clocked the 7700k to 5.15ghz with the highest temp using Real Bench = 78c using a Corsair 100i v2 for cooling. I got the chip running that fast with HT but I didn't like the temperatures.
For regular gaming the difference between the two CPU's wouldn't make a difference to me, the 4770k @ 4.6 runs games awesomely (more than enough). The difference in the flight sim is noticeable big time, I've gained about 30%-40% in performance. My cpu was my bottleneck, now my 1080 gpu is.
Very happy with the chip for my application.
We need more posts like this.
Sure all we need is more baseless lies and more deceit from these characters LOL
I'm hard core into flight sims. I run a two rig network, the main is for the sim and the secondary controls the real time weather and ATC plus a myriad of other less important apps.
I've just built a new main rig replacing my 4770K @ 4.6 with 16gigs G. skill Trident DDR3-2400 ram to a 7700k with 64gigs G. Skill Trident Z DDR4-3466 ram.
I clocked the 7700k to 4.94ghz with the press of a button. With HT deactivated (main sim makes no use of it) I easily clocked the 7700k to 5.15ghz with the highest temp using Real Bench = 78c using a Corsair 100i v2 for cooling. I got the chip running that fast with HT but I didn't like the temperatures.
For regular gaming the difference between the two CPU's wouldn't make a difference to me, the 4770k @ 4.6 runs games awesomely (more than enough). The difference in the flight sim is noticeable big time, I've gained about 30%-40% in performance. My cpu was my bottleneck, now my 1080 gpu is.
Very happy with the chip for my application.
And yur proof is - where?
Considering your other posts this is just another one of your BS posts lol
So apparently you have gone from 33 fps all the way to over 60 FPS (as apparently now GPU is limiting factor and only thign that prevents you from going over) with ~15-20% faster (in BEST case scenario) CPU
So we have this guy got 5z out of it very easily. He is using the z270 mobo though.
This guy got a solid 5z out of his z270 mobo as well.
They do need water cooling to run at those speeds.
So let's summarize this discussion.
You: Kaby Lake is a lot faster than Sandy Bridge.
Me: If you overclock both, Kaby Lake is still faster, but it's a lot closer.
You: If you overclock both, you should overclock Kaby Lake to still be 800 MHz faster than Sandy Bridge.
Me: Sandy Bridge tends to be able to overclock a lot further than Kaby Lake.
You: Some people can overclock Kaby Lake to about the same clock speed that they got with Sandy Bridge.
And that last line is apparently supposed to prove that an overclocked Kaby Lake will tend to have a clock speed about 1 GHz faster than an overclocked Sandy Bridge, as would be needed to maintain the performance difference that you argued is there.
Actually I was trying to show malabooga that the 7700k wasn't designed the way he was trying to make it look. It was designed to run normally at a higher clock speed. It is also the one in the kaby lake series which they designed specifically to overclock.
Then you decided to tell us that they cannot overclock the 7700k to 5.3z without using liquid nitrogen.
So I decided to show you 3 different examples of it being overclocked to 7z using liquid nitrogen.
Then you decided to discredit the claim by saying they only had 1 core running which turned out to be false.
Then I decided it is way too early to get solid numbers from the 7700k when they barely have come out with motherboards which can handle all this overclocking. And half the chips being used for malabooga's claims are tech demo's that people are getting from second hand users.
Whether or not a CPU is overclockable is only a question of whether the designer takes specific steps to disable overclocking or not. Intel wants overclockers to pay extra, and especially hates it when people buy a cheaper chip and overclock it to be as fast as a more expensive one. So Intel disables overclocking in most of their chips, and charges extra for the ones that allow it.
Core i7 and Core i5 quad cores, both overclockable and not, are the same physical die and nominally identical chips taken from the same wafers. It's not the case that one is designed for overclocking and the other isn't. They aren't separate designs.
The 7700k was given design structures in order for the clock speed to be higher. Lemme google the exact term. They are calling it 14 NM Plus where they widened the gate pitch and made the fins taller. So it would have higher frequency and more potential for overclocking. That is just what they did with this one chip not the entire family.
Process node improvements will apply to all of Kaby Lake, whether overclockable or not.
Well apparently not, prepared to get schooled Quizzical.
I was wrong they did this for all Kaby Lake chips so they could run at higher clock speeds. It was the consumers who hoped it would help with overclocking.
I'm hard core into flight sims. I run a two rig network, the main is for the sim and the secondary controls the real time weather and ATC plus a myriad of other less important apps.
I've just built a new main rig replacing my 4770K @ 4.6 with 16gigs G. skill Trident DDR3-2400 ram to a 7700k with 64gigs G. Skill Trident Z DDR4-3466 ram.
I clocked the 7700k to 4.94ghz with the press of a button. With HT deactivated (main sim makes no use of it) I easily clocked the 7700k to 5.15ghz with the highest temp using Real Bench = 78c using a Corsair 100i v2 for cooling. I got the chip running that fast with HT but I didn't like the temperatures.
For regular gaming the difference between the two CPU's wouldn't make a difference to me, the 4770k @ 4.6 runs games awesomely (more than enough). The difference in the flight sim is noticeable big time, I've gained about 30%-40% in performance. My cpu was my bottleneck, now my 1080 gpu is.
Very happy with the chip for my application.
And yur proof is - where?
Considering your other posts this is just another one of your BS posts lol
So apparently you have gone from 33 fps all the way to over 60 FPS (as apparently now GPU is limiting factor and only thign that prevents you from going over) with ~15-20% faster (in BEST case scenario) CPU
its LEGIT man ROFL
Good morning to you too sweetie
That doesnt prove ANYTHING what you claim rofl
1. run prime all 3 tests, each test at least 15 minuts
I'm hard core into flight sims. I run a two rig network, the main is for the sim and the secondary controls the real time weather and ATC plus a myriad of other less important apps.
I've just built a new main rig replacing my 4770K @ 4.6 with 16gigs G. skill Trident DDR3-2400 ram to a 7700k with 64gigs G. Skill Trident Z DDR4-3466 ram.
I clocked the 7700k to 4.94ghz with the press of a button. With HT deactivated (main sim makes no use of it) I easily clocked the 7700k to 5.15ghz with the highest temp using Real Bench = 78c using a Corsair 100i v2 for cooling. I got the chip running that fast with HT but I didn't like the temperatures.
For regular gaming the difference between the two CPU's wouldn't make a difference to me, the 4770k @ 4.6 runs games awesomely (more than enough). The difference in the flight sim is noticeable big time, I've gained about 30%-40% in performance. My cpu was my bottleneck, now my 1080 gpu is.
Very happy with the chip for my application.
And yur proof is - where?
Considering your other posts this is just another one of your BS posts lol
So apparently you have gone from 33 fps all the way to over 60 FPS (as apparently now GPU is limiting factor and only thign that prevents you from going over) with ~15-20% faster (in BEST case scenario) CPU
its LEGIT man ROFL
Good morning to you too sweetie
That doesnt prove ANYTHING what you claim rofl
1. run prime all 3 tests, each test at least 15 minuts
2. no proof whatsoever about performance gains
I'm sure he was bored and decided to make up a lie to prove what exactly? The i7 is faster then what he was using? We got proof all over the internet making that same claim. How about this for example.
Everywhere you look its anywhere between 15-25% increase in performance. He's drawing a little higher then that probably because of his situation. And that is a haswell btw
Sure, its marginally faster, noone denies there are small differences. You actually have whole internet making claim that differences from Haswell form Kaby Lake are minimal (because its same exact thing with Haswell vs. Skaylake). In fact, internet is saying that if you have Sandy Bridge -k its nto worth upgrading either from performance standpoint (just what OP said, but im sure you havent even looked at that)
Passmark LOL. You dont even have a clue what you link, do you
Everywhere you look is obviously comparing stock chips and (as youve shown on many occasion) you have absolutely no clue what youre talking about
and yeah, Kaby Lake being direct Skylake rebrand, they have completely identical IPC too lol
The guy even goes on bragging he disabled Hyper Threading on his CPU. Yeah, the privilege of HT costs "only" 100$ lol (i5 7600k 249$ i7 7700k 349$ and the only difference is - HyperThreading). Funny huh
and damage control comes from this Intel guy (i wonder how he wasnt fired after that, but..Intel lol)
24 tech site results
avg of 24 tech sites is 4,91 GHz.
Seems that more retail chips are tested the less chance (more luck) you need to actually reach 5 GHz....with water cooling. With air cooling you can completely froget about it, maybe you manage 4,7 and 4,8 if youre the luckiest person and won the lottery lol quite different than "5 GHz on air easy" that we were fed by corrupted media
Also note that theyre using top boards that cost 250$, and even that doesnt help lol
buttom line is: "Kaby Lake" is straigth Skalyke rebrand with ~200 MHz higher clocks lol
Optane/QuantX might end up being a nifty technology for situations where DRAM is either too expensive or the volatility of it makes it a non-starter, while NAND is too slow. I don't see any consumer uses in that range, though.
1. The ONLY difference between Skylake/Kaby Lake platform is "optane support" which we now learn can be easily incorporated into Skylake platform
2. Optane was advertised as "1000x faster, more durable ... ... ..."....to come down to barely any faster and durable than NAND, and completely useless for consumers, seems that even Intel doesnt know what exactly to do with it, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too expencive for any sensible capacity, waaaaaaaaaay slower than RAM, this "cache" is plain....stupid lol
Crap TIM used in the first place, but that's no surprise. Even with a large reduction in temperature from the delidding and using much better TIM, it didn't do anything to allow for additional headroom on the overclock.
But as Francois reminds us, that's only one sample...
Comments
Some more numbers for perusal. Also, Kaby will not support Win 7.
The gaming and graphics market are hard to sell these new chips to. On both sides, in this case games just aren't being programmed to completely utilize everything, and still have to maintain cross platform (AMD, NVidia, every other of the dozens of microprocessor brands and standards on a motherboard) the largest of limitations.
If I personally were building workstations -- general computing -- I would stock a house with AMD machines. Cheap, does the job great and fast. Intel would have no advantage to me, just a number.
A graphics studio of any sort I would fork the money to intel, probably an older line of chips as what I'm utilizing doesn't use the multi-core/multi-thread advantages. But benefit from the single thread power.
Technology is a solution first, toy later.
Core i7 and Core i5 quad cores, both overclockable and not, are the same physical die and nominally identical chips taken from the same wafers. It's not the case that one is designed for overclocking and the other isn't. They aren't separate designs.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/174/3
Considering your other posts this is just another one of your BS posts lol
So apparently you have gone from 33 fps all the way to over 60 FPS (as apparently now GPU is limiting factor and only thign that prevents you from going over) with ~15-20% faster (in BEST case scenario) CPU
its LEGIT man ROFL
Good morning to you too sweetie
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
1. run prime all 3 tests, each test at least 15 minuts
2. no proof whatsoever about performance gains
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1919&cmp[]=2874
Everywhere you look its anywhere between 15-25% increase in performance. He's drawing a little higher then that probably because of his situation. And that is a haswell btw
Passmark LOL. You dont even have a clue what you link, do you
Everywhere you look is obviously comparing stock chips and (as youve shown on many occasion) you have absolutely no clue what youre talking about
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/9
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/10
and yeah, Kaby Lake being direct Skylake rebrand, they have completely identical IPC too lol
The guy even goes on bragging he disabled Hyper Threading on his CPU. Yeah, the privilege of HT costs "only" 100$ lol (i5 7600k 249$ i7 7700k 349$ and the only difference is - HyperThreading). Funny huh
http://www.hardocp.com/news/2017/01/19/intel_core_i77700k_cpu_5ghz_overclock_chances#.WIEX2mqQqUk
and damage control comes from this Intel guy (i wonder how he wasnt fired after that, but..Intel lol)
24 tech site results
avg of 24 tech sites is 4,91 GHz.
Seems that more retail chips are tested the less chance (more luck) you need to actually reach 5 GHz....with water cooling. With air cooling you can completely froget about it, maybe you manage 4,7 and 4,8 if youre the luckiest person and won the lottery lol quite different than "5 GHz on air easy" that we were fed by corrupted media
Also note that theyre using top boards that cost 250$, and even that doesnt help lol
buttom line is: "Kaby Lake" is straigth Skalyke rebrand with ~200 MHz higher clocks lol
Also, another scam from Intel aka "optane" lol
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-optane-3d-xpoint-motherboard,33398.html
16/32 GB "cache" lol. SSHD anyone ha ha
2. Optane was advertised as "1000x faster, more durable ... ... ..."....to come down to barely any faster and durable than NAND, and completely useless for consumers, seems that even Intel doesnt know what exactly to do with it, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too expencive for any sensible capacity, waaaaaaaaaay slower than RAM, this "cache" is plain....stupid lol
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/01/19/intel_kaby_lake_i77700k_cpu_delid_relid_results
Crap TIM used in the first place, but that's no surprise. Even with a large reduction in temperature from the delidding and using much better TIM, it didn't do anything to allow for additional headroom on the overclock.
But as Francois reminds us, that's only one sample...