Intel's Core i7-4770K Overclocked to 7.0 GHz

[ekho]

We waited for years to saw new AMD's Bulldozer architecture those days and it was about to releasing new FX-8150 that they did overclock it about 8 GHz...
I know Intel is far away from AMD's situation these days, but this article just reminds me of those days.

 

[allanitomwesh]

Magnificent Photoshop

 

[gsxrme]

I think most are only interested in the max overclock of watercooling. The market that cares about dry ice or any other extreme cooling is way below.
This Intel 4770k will either sink when it comes to overclocking or rise. I was very disappointed in the 3770k due to its overclock wasn't crap over the 2600k/2700k. I sure as hell hope we can break the 5/5.1Ghz wall with this CPU.
Intel hasn't provided a CPU that can pass 5Ghz in a while! Is the new 5ghz wall with the i7s the same as the old 4Ghz wall with the Core2quad? Is it time to only look at a real upgrade path beyond all i7s?

 

[10tacle]

'Besides 7k doesn't really seem to be news...the world record is closer to 9K."
Exactly where did Tom's make the claim that 7GHz was record-holding there, Einstein? This was about what the 4770K could do (unverified of course). Go back to bed.

 

[InvalidError]

7Ghz is still 7Ghz, regardless of stability.

Most record overclocks are achieved by disabling most of the chip, severely crippling its performance and usability.

Not much point in overclocking to 7GHz when all the stuff you had to disable to get there make it perform worse than a lower-end part running stock at 3GHz.

I would be more impressed if overclocking records had to loop 3DMark edition-of-the-year Demo-mode or something else moderately CPU-intensive for an hour with a reasonably recent high-end GPU at normal resolution (say 1080p) to give the CPU at least somewhat of a workout to prove that the overclock is actually usable.

 

[allanitomwesh]

Nitrogen doesn't count as a layman's overclock anyway.

 

[juan83]

It's fake you can tell that if you see at FMA. its outside the container window of CPU-Z

 

[kermdawg]

I dunno sounds like some photoshopping to me. 2.56v?? Thats twice what processors run these days...

 

[Guest]

Disappointing that it still comes stock at 3.5 and not 4ghz or more out of the box. Also where are the native 6 and 8 core Haswell Cpus?

 

[JackFrost860]

So riddle me this: If you have the privilege of possessing an Intel 4770K engineering sample, why would you want to risk destroying it with extreme voltages?

 

[cats_Paw]

Wake me up when i need to upgrade my Q6600... No offence, but i dont feel like spending money at all if a (7 year old?) CPU can handle 95% of my needs even on stock speed.
Untill we see a real advance in software that will actually require an upgrade, id rather save my money.

 

[cats_Paw]

Wake me up when i need to upgrade my Q6600... No offence, but i dont feel like spending money at all if a (7 year old?) CPU can handle 95% of my needs even on stock speed.
Untill we see a real advance in software that will actually require an upgrade, id rather save my money.

 

[Matsushima]

Wake me up when i need to upgrade my Q6600... No offence, but i dont feel like spending money at all if a (7 year old?) CPU can handle 95% of my needs even on stock speed.
Untill we see a real advance in software that will actually require an upgrade, id rather save my money.

That is true. In the prehistoric days of Windows 95 through to Windows XP, people were constantly upgrading their hardware.66MHz and 16MB(FPM/EDO SIMM?) memnory with i486 DX2 to 600MHz and 256MB (SDRAM/RDRAM) memory with Pentium III, a difference of only about seven years, like seven years since the revolutionary Core architecture launched, which is still going strong to this day.

 

[Matsushima]

I wish to make some amendments to my statement about 2.56 volts and Pentium IIs earlier. 2.56 volts is actually closer to, I believe, Pentium Pros? Their voltage was about 2.7 volts~2.9 volts?

 

[bradsctt]

2.56 volts is actually closer to, I believe, Pentium Pros? Their voltage was about 2.7 volts~2.9 volts?

someone correct me if im wrong, but i think the Pentium Pros were actually around 3.1~3.3 volts?

 

[Mottamort]

If the source is admittedly in question and cannot be verified, why is it posted under NEWS..surely it should be verified and proven truthful before posting it in a NEWS section of a hardware site?

 

[barto]

Bahaha. Using a 8400 GS. The good 'ol days.

 

[kermdawg]

Ya I believe the old pentiums were around 3v. My question is, where do I get a motherboard/PSU capable of churning 2.5 volts into my CPU

 

[gpearson]

Looks like the photo was ran through Photoshop CS5. So it could be a fake, however he could have used it simply to blur the text.
http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.bestofmicro.com%2FK%2FL%2F383061%2Foriginal%2FCore-i7-4770K.jpg

 

[Matsushima]

Ya I believe the old pentiums were around 3v. My question is, where do I get a motherboard/PSU capable of churning 2.5 volts into my CPU

Sorry. The Pentium MMX I was talking about. They had less than 3v
http://ark.intel.com/products/49967/Intel-Pentium-Processor-with-MMX-Technology-233-MHz-66-MHz-FSB

 

[sunnyfpy]

Silly to overclock to such speed.Only shorten the lifespan of the chip.Never design for such speed anyway,might explode,haha!

 

[gmeades]

A computers performance does NOT go up faster by simply increasing the number of cores it has. A six core 2.4 Ghz machine is still a 2.4 Ghz machine and will not run standard apps faster than say a 3.8 Ghz single core machine. The 3.8 Ghz machine will be noticeably faster and will win out in performance tests again and again.
Only apps which are specifically written to be multi-threading for use with multi-core machines can take advantage of multi-core machines. It an app is not designed specifically to run on a multi-core machine, there will be no performance improvement running the app on a machine with a lower rated processor speed regardless of how many cores it has.
This has been written about extensively in the past, and I have proven this in person time and again. I have never had a single customer ever want to switch to a multi core machine with a lower processor speed than they already had once they had a chance to try one. The machine with the lower processor speed has always underperformed the machine with the higher processor speed, even in startup time and simple tasks such as opening apps and retrieving data via IE.
Multi-core machines are NOT designed to automatically parse out tasks to the various processors as you may have been imagining them to do. That's not how they work. An app has to be specifically written for multi-processor machines or there is no advantage to having such a machine. In fact, having a lower processor speed will only result in slower processing time, regardless of how many processors a machine has, as the additional processors simply aren't utilized by the OS or the apps themselves.
I've got two 3.6 ghz machines myself, one running XP, the other running windows 7, and my machines will kick any multi-core machines ass with a lower clock speed any day of the week, as I've done time and time again for many people in the past.

 

[vmem]

A computers performance does NOT go up faster by simply increasing the number of cores it has. A six core 2.4 Ghz machine is still a 2.4 Ghz machine and will not run standard apps faster than say a 3.8 Ghz single core machine. The 3.8 Ghz machine will be noticeably faster and will win out in performance tests again and again.
Only apps which are specifically written to be multi-threading for use with multi-core machines can take advantage of multi-core machines. It an app is not designed specifically to run on a multi-core machine, there will be no performance improvement running the app on a machine with a lower rated processor speed regardless of how many cores it has.
This has been written about extensively in the past, and I have proven this in person time and again. I have never had a single customer ever want to switch to a multi core machine with a lower processor speed than they already had once they had a chance to try one. The machine with the lower processor speed has always underperformed the machine with the higher processor speed, even in startup time and simple tasks such as opening apps and retrieving data via IE.
Multi-core machines are NOT designed to automatically parse out tasks to the various processors as you may have been imagining them to do. That's not how they work. An app has to be specifically written for multi-processor machines or there is no advantage to having such a machine. In fact, having a lower processor speed will only result in slower processing time, regardless of how many processors a machine has, as the additional processors simply aren't utilized by the OS or the apps themselves.
I've got two 3.6 ghz machines myself, one running XP, the other running windows 7, and my machines will kick any multi-core machines ass with a lower clock speed any day of the week, as I've done time and time again for many people in the past.

you do realize that multicore support will only get better as time goes on right? even at the OS level. this is one of the things that windows 8 actually does pretty well and I"m hoping that they improve on further in newer iterations.

Sure, you're right about single core clock speed for now, but when multi-core processors have already proven their worth in the professional setting and in some well written applications. I will never, EVER, go back to a dual or single core processor for things like 3D content creation. that the hexacores and octacore chips just do it so much better

 

[poopybutt]

Clicked this Recommended Article then Scrolled down to the bottom while yawning and posted
http://www.techpowerup.com/174368/amd-fx-8350-overclocked-to-8-176-ghz-with-8-cores-enabled.html?cp=3
GO AMD!

 

[James Heintz]

the last time I checked a i7 has got at least 8 threads possibly 12 depending on the chip not 4 like the image shows.