Haswell reviews are out. As 'bad' overclocker as IvyBridge

[SAAB340 28]

That's haswell reviews out.

On regular cooling it seems to manage around 4.5GHz. So similar to IvyBridge.

 

Anandtech managed 4.7GHz on their engineering sample of i7 4770K.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/3

 

Sweclockers mannaged only 4.4GHz on their retail sample i7 4770K and 4.6GHz on their engineering sample of i5 4670K

http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/17016-intel-core-i7-4770k-och-i5-4670k-haswell/26#pagehead

[Ben Cap 89]

Quite disappointing...

 

"After talking with several other testers, it seems without doubt that the specimens that end up in stores overclock worse than the engineering samples circulating right now."

 

"This time, we had to tune the voltage further to the processor would respond and at 1.31 volts did it actually become a little sweaty even for our watercooling solution."

[ant_1984 20]

Hmmmm....Not what we wanted to hear but let's see what the user feedback etc is.

 

I for one will be keen to see what Westman finds when he receives his. I know his cooling is somewhat extreme but I always find his results interesting.

[meshman 109]

Read through quickly the review at Guru3d and noticed the comment that Haswell is built in the same manner as Ivy, with respects to the underlid cooling material.

[SAAB340 28]

From TomsHardware

http://m.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-haswell-review,3521-10.html

 

"Our first-hand information involves a high double-digit number of processors, including samples and final shipping boxed CPUs. Sort testing was limited to 1.2 V to keep heat manageable. Ring/cache ratios are pegged at 3.9 GHz, with the memory controller operating at 1,333 MT/s. Of the chips available for sorting, only one is stable at 4.6 GHz under full load. A few are capable of operating at 4.5 GHz. More run stably at 4.4 GHz. Most are solid at 4.3 GHz and down. As you stretch above a 1,600 MT/s memory data rate or a ring ratio to match your highest single-core Turbo Boost ratio (which helps maximize performance), your top stable core frequency tends to drop."

 

So it seems like the integrated voltage regulators make the chip run a lot hotter, and thus restricting maximum overclocking. Those who upgraded to 2500K/2600K two years ago seems to get a long life out of their system... That's the last big jump in performance we had. This seems to be another very small increment when we factor in overclocking. It might be smaller than Sandy to Ivy as the faster RAM with Ivy made up for the lower overclock. (unless you have a proper water cooling loop or a phasechanger)

[SpiritFlyer 987]

I for one will be keen to see what Westman finds when he receives his. I know his cooling is somewhat extreme but I always find his results interesting.

Agreed, If he is anything at all he is meticulous in wringing out every Mhz of performance and has integrity in reporting it. I should add, that's a common trait here.

 

 

the review at Guru3d and noticed the comment that Haswell is built in the same manner as Ivy, with respects to the underlid cooling material.

This still puzzles me. I know, the what, at least with IB, but the why escapes me. If Intel has an engineering reason, I can't fathom it. If it is a marketing reason, I can't figure that out either.

[Arklight1 140]

Hardocp reported similar. Needless to say, Haswell is a "skip" for me.

 

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[SpiritFlyer 987]

http://m.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-haswell-review,3521-19.html

 

Nope, keeping my hairy legs.

 

Amazingly a 4.7-5.0 overclock on a 2600K would probably win practically any of the benchmarks run. Sure, if the others were overclocked then they'd win too. However, that is not the point.

 

At 4.8 to 4.9 Ghz my 2700K is cool, stable, running naturally and not yet working up a sweat. The 3770K or the 4700K would need to max out (4.4 to 4.5) with real heat issues to keep pace.

 

For years now, dollar for dollar, performance for performance, time for time, Sandy has proven that it has legs, and fast ones to boot.

 

Intel really did it right with Sandy Bridge 2500K, 2600K and 2700K CPUs to such an extent, that it is difficult for them to pull away. I sure hope that there is something up Intel's Haswell sleeve besides an elbow!

 

Kind regards,

[jjjallen 37]

Bummer - seems like the 5ghz CPU is becoming major limitation.  I've lost my faith in technology LOL.

 

Cheers

jja

[mwilk 1,104]

This is probably my longest run without an upgrade. I have an I7 2600K with a GTX480. I'm feeling good about the CPU. I've been tempted to upgrade my video card but I've been told that I wouldn't see a huge performance boost going to say a 680. I guess I'll keep my wallet in my pocket for a while longer.

[JimmiG 244]

Kind of makes me wish I had just gotten a SB all those years ago. However Haswell doesn't look too bad. The IPC impvrovements over IB and SB are enough to compensate for the lower clock speeds, but not much more. It's definitely time to retire my AMD system, and going with Haswell seems like the best choice at this time.

 

I think people are just spoiled with the massive overclocks that were going on for a while. If you look at all CPUs throughout history, a ~25% overclock is very, very good. Most CPUs I've owned would only overclock ~10% (in particular, my 900 MHz Athlon would only do 1 GHz stable, and my 2.2 GHz Athlon64 maxed out at 2.3 GHz..). My current Phenom II is the best overclocker I've ever owned, and it's only a ~16% overclock.

 

 

Bummer - seems like the 5ghz CPU is becoming major limitation.  I've lost my faith in technology LOL.

 

Cheers

jja

 

FSX is the limitation. No other simulation or game is as completely and utterly dependent on CPU clock rates as the old FSX graphics engine. Other games do just fine on 3 GHz CPUs as long as you have a decent video card. GPUs have evolved tremendously since 2006. CPUs, not so much after Core 2.

[Misha Cajic 0]

One of my friends has actually managed to overclock his Ivy Bridge to 5.6 Ghz stably with a corsair H80i water cooler running maxed out. He's running at 4ghz now since he doesn't play FSX and does not need the speed, however it goes to show that you don't need a liquid nitrogen cooler to OC to high speeds with the Ivy. You just need to manage the voltage well and it should be all good. He was getting temps of 80-90 degrees Celsius on full load, which is admittedly high for any CPU, but not bad at 5.6.

I run my Ivy at 4.4 ghz and I am very happy with the performance I get in FSX. I don't see why people feel the need to go any higher, and in turn give their chip a shorter life. If I were to go higher I really wouldn't go any higher than 4.8ghz, since any performance changes past that are marginal

In this day and age anyone who gets a new computer for FSX should be getting a 3rd party water cooler (Corsair is a great brand). If you are serious about overclocking then air cooling isn't the way to go.

[Kattz 132]

My 2700K is resting solidly at 5.28GHz.  Had a lot of issues with crashes without BSOD or faults.  Found a slow-running bearings-blown-out cooling fan on my HD6870 card in my CrossFire setup and was just smokin' hot.  Running on a single card until my XFX warranty replacement returns.

 

2600K/2700K cannot be beat by anything out there unless perhaps you could run TWO of them on a server board...  My opinion.

[Jim Young 2,356]

All the reviews I read so far say the same thing.....  not worth the upgrade for Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge owners.  That's disappointing but now I know.  I will wait for the next major upgrade out of Intel. 

 

Best regards,

Jim

[SpiritFlyer 987]

not worth the upgrade for Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge owners. That's disappointing but now I know.

-as opposed to the speculation of super chip status with 7-8Ghz and massive increase in performance per Ghz. What a difference between what was hoped for vs what apparently will be delivered. Still it's better than no improvement whatsoever...or is it?