Kaby Lake - 5.0 GHz at 1.35 Volts reported.

[martin-w 3,234]

A guy on the Asus ROG forum reckons he has a retail sample of the 7700K running at 5.0 GHz at 1.35 Volts. Easy overclock no issues. It might be a one off super chip that's top of the silicone lottery but interesting all the same.

 

I should add, this was with a Z170 board.

 

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?89921-Kaby-Lake-5-0GHZ-and-above-Yes-it-does

 

 

[martin-w 3,234]

He hasn't said anything about thermals yet and that's said to be the issue with Kaby Lake.

 

There are reports of a 30 degree drop in temp with delliding, but then some Skylake chips achieved that.

 

http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-7700k-delid-performance-tests/

 

I'm still of the opinion that Kaby Lake is just a pre-overclocked Skylake with minor tweaks.

[lownslo 592]

I'm still of the opinion that Kaby Lake is just a pre-overclocked Skylake with minor tweaks.

 

+1 Perhaps Kaby Lake will bring the best benefits to laptop users, but gamers...?  We'll know soon enough but I'm not planning on trashing my 4790K running at 4.8.  Works just fine!

 

Greg

[gboz 157]

He hasn't said anything about thermals yet and that's said to be the issue with Kaby Lake.

 

In first post he says:

 

"Haven't delidded it yet like all my Skylake CPU's are and the temps it hit running RealBench @ 5.0 with a Corsair h115i I may not, mid 70"s on open bench table."

 

So bit of a contradiction in in these two reviews.

 

gb.

[Guest]

Does Kaby Lake offer anything that makes a lower OC not a big problem? I have a 4970K @4.5. If I get a Kaby Lake CPU and can't get it faster than @4.2 or so, won't it still be faster due to er... new tech?

 

I am thinking about a new system in Q1 of this year, hence my question.

 

(Come to think of it, maybe this new CPU will reach 4.2 already in turbo mode...?)

[lownslo 592]

Does Kaby Lake offer anything that makes a lower OC not a big problem? I have a 4970K @4.5.

 

The boost speed of the 7700K is 4.5.  What did it take to get your 4790K to 4.5?  Does it run alright at that speed?

 

Greg

[FlyIce 354]

I'm watching on the Kaby Lake, it's about time to replace my very overclockable 2500k which runs at 4.92GHz right now.

 

But if  the new Kaby Lake can't easily do > 4.9GHz I won't bother to upgrade. 

[westman 257]

He is a friend, now what he do , the NDA, probaly wy he is a little cryptic.

[Guest]

The boost speed of the 7700K is 4.5.  What did it take to get your 4790K to 4.5?  Does it run alright at that speed?

 

Greg

 

 

Can't remember what it took: it's been running at 4.5 without any problems for over 2.5 years now... I'd have to check the BIOS to see the settings (which I can't do right now).

 

If the boost speed is 4.5 there is no real need to OC, is there...? When does that boost/turbo kick in? Whenever it is needed or only under certain circumstances? Why OC a CPU that has a boost like that?

 

 

But if  the new Kaby Lake can't easily do > 4.9GHz I won't bother to upgrade. 

 

 

Unless the Kaby Lake comes with some extra or new options... which is why I posted my earlier question. It isn't ALL about the GHz, or is it?

[martin-w 3,234]

In first post he says:

 

"Haven't delidded it yet like all my Skylake CPU's are and the temps it hit running RealBench @ 5.0 with a Corsair h115i I may not, mid 70"s on open bench table."

 

So bit of a contradiction in in these two reviews.

 

gb.

 

 

Oh right, no idea how I missed that.

 

That's a great temp, astonishing at 5 GHz. Given the H115i is about 4 degrees or so cooler than my cooler, his 7700K isn't much warmer than my 6700K at a mere 4.6 GHz.

 

I'm wondering if all of these contradictory reviews are as a result of inconsistency in the Die/IHS interface. Just speculating, but these first chips may have varying quality TIM/adhesive application. I recall something similar occurred when Skylake was first released.

[vortex681 806]

There were plenty of reports of Skylake CPUs running at 5GHz or better before the production chips hit the market. Until reviews of commercially available Kaby Lake CPUs and motherboards are published, there's little point in speculating about comparative performance.

[martin-w 3,234]

Does Kaby Lake offer anything that makes a lower OC not a big problem? I have a 4970K @4.5. If I get a Kaby Lake CPU and can't get it faster than @4.2 or so, won't it still be faster due to er... new tech?

 

I am thinking about a new system in Q1 of this year, hence my question.

 

(Come to think of it, maybe this new CPU will reach 4.2 already in turbo mode...?)

 

 

Reports suggest IPC is about the same for Kaby Lake and the older Skylake platform. In which case, your CPU is about 5% down compared to Skylake in single core performance. About 7% down in multi-core performance. 

 

So expect Kaby Lake to only be a few percent better in terms of IPC. There are other advantages though, like Optane support, on-board USB 3.1 etc. Plus the advantages Skylake brought to the table, like U.2, M.2, NFC etc.

If the boost speed is 4.5 there is no real need to OC, is there...? When does that boost/turbo kick in? Whenever it is needed or only under certain circumstances? Why OC a CPU that has a boost like that?

 

 

 

Kicks in when required.

 

Many would agree with you regarding the need to OC. 4.5 to lets say 4.8 is only about 7%, so expect the same in terms of frame rate.  It's a free performance gain though, so if your system can handle it, why not go for it. Overclocking is relatively safe these days.

 

The other point is of course that many overclock not because they need to, but for the sense of achievement, for the fun of it.

 

Then of course there are the less well informed who are fooled into thinking a few hundred megahertz will be utterly awesome in terms of performance... which of course it wont be.

There were plenty of reports of Skylake CPUs running at 5GHz or better before the production chips hit the market. Until reviews of commercially available Kaby Lake CPUs and motherboards are published, there's little point in speculating about comparative performance.

 

 

Yes, very true. I remember all of the claims re Skylake too. NDA is lifted Jan 5th I believe, so shortly after that we'll have a "somewhat" better idea.

 

Even then it won't be the full picture though, 6 or 7 reviews doesn't tell us how the majority of the chips preform. The real picture will emerge in 6 months time when not only are all the reviews done and dusted, but a multitude of owners recount their experiences with the new platform.

 

The Z270 chip-set is another variable to consider of course. 

He is a friend, now what he do , the NDA, probaly wy he is a little cryptic.

 

 

I'm surprised he said as much as he did, given the NDA isn't lifted for a few more days yet.

 

I'll be eagerly awaiting your comments too Hasse, re the 7700K, once the NDA is lifted.  :smile:

[Guest]

 

 

Reports suggest IPC is about the same for Kaby Lake and the older Skylake platform. In which case, your CPU is about 5% down compared to Skylake in single core performance. About 7% down in multi-core performance. 
 
So expect Kaby Lake to only be a few percent better in terms of IPC. There are other advantages though, like Optane support, on-board USB 3.1 etc. Plus the advantages Skylake brought to the table, like U.2, M.2, NFC etc.

 

Hm, small difference... but well, if I buy a new PC I have to buy a complete one, including a CPU (the old PC will be used elsewhere) so then the question is if the Kaby Lake is worth the extra money... I intend to use M.2 though and I like things to be up to date so I probably will get the latest CPU.
 

 

 

Kicks in when required.
 
Many would agree with you regarding the need to OC. 4.5 to lets say 4.8 is only about 7%, so expect the same in terms of frame rate.  It's a free performance gain though, so if your system can handle it, why not go for it. Overclocking is relatively safe these days.
 
The other point is of course that many overclock not because they need to, but for the sense of achievement, for the fun of it.
 
Then of course there are the less well informed who are fooled into thinking a few hundred megahertz will be utterly awesome in terms of performance... which of course it wont be.

Ok, good to know. So it kicks in all the time, I suppose, when using flightsim.  :wink: If I don't OC I could simply use the default cooler... would save some extra money (which I can spend on a addon plane or something). I certainly do not OC for the fun of it. I OC'd my 4790K for better performance but didn't realize at the time the boost speed is 4.4 so that 4.5 of mine is hardly a OC...  :wink: In fact, it probably is a waste of energy. I don't think I would OC a Kaby Lake when it has a boost of 4.5 already. I'd still get the K version though because it has a higher speed by default (if I am correct). Not OC'ing makes life easier anyway.

[martin-w 3,234]

Hm, small difference... but well, if I buy a new PC I have to buy a complete one, including a CPU (the old PC will be used elsewhere) so then the question is if the Kaby Lake is worth the extra money... I intend to use M.2 though and I like things to be up to date so I probably will get the latest CPU.

 

 

Yep, no point for you just on performance. But yes, not the only reason to upgrade to the new platform. As you say, M.2 is something you fancy. You'd be set up for all the other stuff too, like higher density, higher frequency RAM, and of course Optane if that interests you.

 

I'd still get the K version though because it has a higher speed by default (if I am correct). Not OC'ing makes life easier anyway.

 

 

 

No, the K version simply allows you to overclock, the frequency is the same. I would get the K though, who knows how you will feel in the future. Especially when the CPU is getting on a bit and you may wish to boost it closer to any future CPU offering. Always a good idea to keep your options open. Overclocking is so easy these days and safe, worth having the facility to do so.

[westman 257]

Here is a video from Roman , intel lifted NDA little for him