Tom's Hardware got their hands on a 7700K a couple of days ago and say the power consumption and thermals were disappointing.

 

82 degrees at 4.78 GHz, and that wasn't a torture test, just games! They may have had a sub standard chip of course, the silicone lottery and all that, but not encouraging for the optimistic among you who were hoping for 5GHz or greater, at reasonable temp.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-kaby-lake-core-i7-7700k-overclocking-performance-review,4836-2.html

Bad news for those of us dreaming of 100 fps in X-Plane and P3D... Seems we've reached a plateu in CPU speed. I've had my i7 2700K @ 4,8 GHz, but since it is getting old I'm back to a more conservative OC.

Well I guess it is just a tune up of the existing architecture. We will have to wait for the next die shrink for something more significant.

 

Clock for clock it's roughly the same as Skylake. All you're getting performance wise is higher Turbo to 4.5. Essentially Intel have just overclocked it a bit for us.

 

The new motherbords might change things.

 

 

I've had my i7 2700K @ 4,8 GHz, but since it is getting old I'm back to a more conservative OC.

 

I did the same with my 5-year-old 2500k.  Had it at 4.8 and backed it off to 4.6 .

Hate to say I told you so, but...

I'd like to see another publisher corroborate the information with their own tests, but it starts to open the door a bit more for me to move from my Sandy Bridge towards the 6700K instead of the 7700K... If it all holds true, perhaps the price vs. performance factor seems to be making a case for the former rather than the latter.

I've been holding of on an upgrade as well. I might go with a 6700k but think I'll hold off for some more benchmarks.

Bad news for those of us dreaming of 100 fps in X-Plane and P3D... Seems we've reached a plateu in CPU speed. I've had my i7 2700K @ 4,8 GHz, but since it is getting old I'm back to a more conservative OC.

 

 

I did the same with my 5-year-old 2500k.  Had it at 4.8 and backed it off to 4.6 .

 

Was there a reason for this? I still have my 2700K @4.8GHz, i tested 4.9 and 5.0GHz last week and it still needs same Vcore like 4 years ago, so no degradation. The only reason i keep it at 4.8 instead of 5.0 is that i can't see the need for this - my FSX is smooth and at 30fps(locked)almost all the time. When i get fps drop, it's my GPU that cannot handle the clouds - if i go to windowed mode and resize fsx window(make it small), fps are going up, so i belive GPU upgrade is needed here  :smile:

Look on the bright side. When the 7700K is released, the 6700K will drop in price. You will be able to get virtually the same performance for less money :smile:

Yes, hold off for more reviews lads. Tom's Hardware may well have had a dodgy chip.

 

Die/IHS interface could have been under par, or the silicone lottery may not have done it any favours.

New comparison between the 6700k and the 7700k here: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-core-i7-7700k-vs-core-i7-6700k-benchmarks-on-z270-platform.html. This claims to be the first to use the Z270 MB with the 7700k CPU. The only performance difference between the two CPUs seems to be down to the higher basic speed of the 7700k. At the same clock speed they are almost identical. Disappointing for anyone holding out for the 7700k.

Very bad news for flight simmers... CPU will still be holding us back, and next year we're in 64 bit land on all platforms which will require even more juice from the CPU! 

TDP is higher too. Not much hope for thermals.

 

Aprt from stuff like Optane, seems like a bit of a waste of time.

 

Unless it's awesome once dellided of course

CPU speed only goes so far. Still need a fast GPU to render all those polygons, textures, and particles.

Well. 

 

Seems like my 6700K at 4.7 will serve me (hopefully) a couple of generations.