56 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Well, as long as the default boost is 4.6GHz and it is delivered with this crappy default cooling solution, I do not think that there is any need for delidding the 8700K, irrespective from the temperature. This is anyway mainly a psychological thingy, it is completely irrelevant if your CPU runs at 60°C under full load or at 80°C, as long as you have a good air flow in your case. Of course, if you then overclock and reach 90°C or above, the story gets different...

Lower temperatures are very important for your CPU health, anything over 70c is outside of my confort zone as it means the cooling solution is not being efficient.

Heat is known to accelerate the depreciation of CPU life, so if your CPU is running at 80C you will start experiencing son or later instability on your system as the internal cores of the CPU will just be unable to cope eventually, also one particular problem with Intel new chips is that not all cores will keep the same temperature, so you think your CPU is running at 80 Celsius but some individual cores could be running hotter! 87C ++. this is due to faulty silicon sealant applications performed by Intel.

It is advisable to also monitor core temperatures instead of just the CPU pack main temperature which is a different temperature sensor inside the CPU ship.

This guide talks about CPU degradation: http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php/723980-Truth-about-CPU-degradation

This is also a good guide about OC: https://forums.evga.com/EVGA-Z170-Overclocking-Guide-m2395509.aspx 

All the best,

Simbol

Well, this myth about CPU degradation solely due to heat (thanks for the 5 year old forum post, extremly scientific source...) is something that keeps popping up from time to time, although even your link basically makes the relevant correlation of lifetime with voltage, not heat. Means: as long as you do not increase the CPU voltage (therefore: not the increased voltage leading to increased temperatures but "only" bad cooling), you might not see any effect at all. Furthermore, even if it might be still true in some cases, what does it mean? You might reduce the lifetime from 20 years down to 10 years, then what? I never ever heard of anything related to CPU degradation due to high temperatures, now think about the millions of computers being in service for more than 10 years in hot and humid countries only using the stock cooling and therefore most probably running 24/7 at temperatures above 70°C.

My opinion is that previous processors were built better (the lid was welded) so temps were not a problem.

Since Skylake Intel don't weld anymore, so temps get out of control quite easily this of course don't affect normal users using just excel, browsing Internet , etc.

But gamers, overclokers and computer enthusiast users are seeing their CPU temps quite high, and I think we are the type of users that could see our CPUs damaged over time.

Lots of people see benefits from OC their CPUs for flights simulators, so I wanted them to be aware of temps.

Also remember the warranty period is 3years not 20, you know how technology is these days nothing last longer than the warranty period 😉.

All the best 

Simbol 

 

Also lower temps mean less noise for cooling etc. So delidding is the way to go when one has an Intel CPU these days and wants to overclock.

This is ludicrous. By now I should be able to OC a new CPU to 5gz with the press of a button and not have to worry about temps. I'm still stuck in the Sandy Bridge world and I can't get out.

6 hours ago, swiesma said:

The i9 is pretty good in overclocking ;)

Plus it's much larger CPU cache size (than 8700k's) may have played the main role in 85% FPS increase that Rob reported here recently in the neighbouring thread. And most probably due to the cache size in the first place.

7 minutes ago, Dirk98 said:

Plus it's much larger CPU cache size (than 8700k's) may have played the main role in 85% FPS increase that Rob reported here recently in the neighbouring thread. And most probably due to the cache size in the first place.

or maybe people just need to take that number with a truckload of salt. A larger cache will not give you an 85% boost.

3 minutes ago, Sethos1988 said:

or maybe people just need to take that number with a truckload of salt. 

+1. That claim of a 85% increase in fps was ridiculous. There is absolutely no way to explain that, therefore I would highly recommend considering it to be another one of those "hey, my fps have trippled" stories...

7 minutes ago, Sethos1988 said:

or maybe people just need to take that number with a truckload of salt. 

Unlike many, Rob always gives proof for his findings and conclusions. And also unlike many, he has a reputation for that. Based on my experience I have no reason to doubt them, unlike your assumptions, Sethos ))

 

Dirk

19 minutes ago, Dirk98 said:

Unlike many, Rob always gives proof for his findings and reports. And also unlike many, he has a reputation for that. Based on my experience I have no reason doubt them, unlike your assumptions, Sethos ))

 

Dirk

Yes, we're all very impressed with your hero worshipping of Rob and never questioning anything he does or any of his results. However, we're some who are hardware literate enough to question dubious results and know enough about hardware to understand why the results are questionable. The flight sim community have had hundreds, if not thousands of these magical episodes over its many years of people seeing huge, unexplained boost because they did a marginal upgrade, deleted their holiday photo album or turned the simulator volume down to 85% instead of 87. 

And it sounds like you aren't even sure of your own argument, you are blindly trying to find a reason, a theory that would explain such a magic boost in performance and you've now concluded it must be the cache. You find it highly probable the CPU cache is responsible for a 85% boost? It would have been funny if it wasn't for the fact that you genuinely believe it.

Luckily a lot of people here have enough common sense to question these 'fantastic' results it seems.

happen to have a asus apex x299 and a binned delidded I9 7920 5ghz all cores not tested in P3D yet, 

incoming apex Z370 , 

19 minutes ago, westman said:

happen to have a asus apex x299 and a binned delidded I9 7920 5ghz all cores not tested in P3D yet, 

incoming apex Z370 , 

Hasse , then you are the man to test and report back...

7 hours ago, AnkH said:

Well, as long as the default boost is 4.6GHz and it is delivered with this crappy default cooling solution, I do not think that there is any need for delidding the 8700K, irrespective from the temperature. This is anyway mainly a psychological thingy...

Anybody who overclocks any Intel chip made after Sandy Bridge should delid.  No matter what the cooling solution, no matter what the target CPU speed is, no matter what the computer will be used for.  Given the limited TIM option Intel uses since SB, delidding is just common sense.  And it's the right way to do the job (of drawing heat away from the CPU).

Greg

LOL @carlito777 and @Sethos1988. Why are ou guys bringing this hate into this thread? I cannot understand such behaviour. -.-

Rob made measurements and outlined his parameters and results. What are you guys so furious about?!

 

This could be such a nice forum. But no. Some always need to take it to the personal level. Nice job.

2 hours ago, Sethos1988 said:

Luckily a lot of people here have enough common sense to question these 'fantastic' results it seems.

Question all you want, Sethos.

I'll wait for I8-8700K and I9-7900K comparisons and will get a binned and delidded CPU (it's cheaper this way than to buy a new delidding tool every time like I did). 4.8Ghz should not be a problem and quite achievable for the both of them, delidded. But what sticks out between i9-7900x and i8-8700k is the CPU cache difference 19Mb vs. 11Mb.

Add to the above this post:  

and make your own inference. 

I'll definitely wait for comparisons first, and will build my next system during winter holidays.

 

Dirk