![]() On the other hand, I realize there will always be that crowd that thinks benching is stupid, and arbitrary speeds for 24/7 overclocks are amazing feats. The fact that we see 7ghz on nothing more than dry ice also opens benching possibilities to a substantial number of more people, who cannot afford liquid nitrogen not that 1155 chips scale that much better than DICE at lower temps. If you're pushing a processor high enough, and there's just a bit too much instability, it will wind up being rejected.īeing part of the more extreme benching community, it is fun to see the max speeds people can get out of these chips. But since 3770K succeeds 2700K only, a higher overclock is not going to compensate for what isn't hardwired to the board or CPU.Ĭould also be a stability/checksum error. So 3770k > 3820? If you don't need the benefits of LGA2011, then yes. Ivy's biggest improvement over Sandy is integrated graphics, which most of us won't use less we RMA our graphics cards. What we haven't seen yet are gaming tests at multipler resolutions- I don't expect that much since Intel's x86 is better than AMD and that doesn't need to change short term. We've already seen a preview, the logic behaind clock-for-clock doesn't change if both were set to the same overclock the performance difference would be the same at any equal frequency. Also, I would like to see what if any power savings the 3770K will offer at the same frequency as its predecessor. I would like to see the 2600K or 2700K tested against the 3770K at the same frequency to see what the actual performance difference is between both processors. I'd be more interested in how much faster this CPU is per core/per Mhz is that it's predecessor, that would be most of all importance, Yes it OC's well, so did Pentium 4/E HT Prescott, but that does not say anything of it's actual performanceĪgreed. This compared to a 63x Ivy with a fussy system clock of 100Mhz and nothing more, 100 x 63 = 6.3GHz. Hypothetically, if one were to stick a 32nm LGA1155 part in an Ivy Bridge 7-series board, granted the chip is stuck with a 57x max multiplier, but system clock generator allow even higher frequencies not possible on a 6-series board? 112 x 57 = 6.4GHz, much higher than anything out now in 1155 socket. ![]() Honestly, we've had Westmere dual-cores & 6-core reach 7GHz back in 2010, but that was at a time when Intel allowed free reign overclocking, before these limitations that few complain about. But, the system clock generator isn't in the CPU (it is in the chipset which is how Intel prevents overclocking on some boards like H61 and H67 even if you stick a K processor there), so I wouldn't attribute that success of raising the system clock to the 22nm lithography. If the average overclocker is able to adjust the system clock up to 112MHz without much fuss, then that is an achievement worth talking about at any CPU multiplier. I agree, except my argument differs from most others whereas some people see a higher frequency, I only ask if this is truly due to the 22nm lithography or relaxed limitations? In otherwords, as we really seeing how capable the CPU is or just Intel allowing more? The whole point of this is to show how capable the chip is, regardless of the cooling and regardless of how it will compare to your scenarios. context to make a judgement, and it won't happen for a few weeks at least. ![]() I'm saying we don't have a reference for this record run, i.e. Not saying the high frequency isn't awesome. Naturally since faster requires more voltage to be stable, there is no way of knowing if a 32nm part at 7GHz needed more than 1.88v or not because Intel catrated 32nm LGA1155. I don't know if the board or CPU was an ES to achieve 58x, but there it is. So I doubt the limit of Sandy Bridge is due to lithography, therefore we shouldn't praise Ivy's overclockability by its 22nm process tech either.Īccording to hwbot, the highest frequency of a 32nm LGA1155 part is a 2600K doing 6GHz on cryogenic cooling, but that was due to a 58x 104 MHz limitation requiring 1.728v. Here's the trouble I have with this: 32nm LGA1155 K's were artificially castrated by the 57x multi, if they were allowed an unlimited multiplier, how high could they have gotten? Ivy Bridge LGA1155 K models bring a higher max multi of 63x, is this record circumstancial of that? We've had 32nm Clarkdales reach higher speeds before.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |