Friday, May 3rd 2013

Intel Core i7-4770K Overclocked to 7 GHz

Launch of Intel's Core i7-4770K "Haswell" processor may be a month away, but the chip has been in circulation for some time now. An overclocker going by the handle "rtiueuiurei" managed to get an engineering sample of the chip past the 7 GHz mark, 7012.65 MHz to be precise. A base clock of 91.07 MHz, multiplier of 77.0x, and a staggering 2.56V core voltage, unless CPU-Z read it wrong. A single 2 GB memory module was used; no other details were revealed. Core i7-4770K and a fleet of compatible socket LGA1150 motherboards launch around the first week of June.

Source: OCaholic
Add your own comment

54 Comments on Intel Core i7-4770K Overclocked to 7 GHz

#2
TheHunter
Yeah that 2.56V is fake, cpu-z bug.

One user from OC kingpin cooling who posted this info at guru3d forums said so.. I take his word for granted, becasuse he's no noob ^^

And if you look at that quad 6.2Ghz @ only 1.21v:rockout:



Anyway I can't wait to get my hands on 4770K, looks like 5.4ghz won't be a problem, probably 6.2 ghz for sure, woot! :]
Posted on Reply
#3
m1dg3t
Am i stupid, or this was single channel only? LoL
Posted on Reply
#4
EarthDog
by: m1dg3t
Am i stupid, or this was single channel only? LoL
Not stupid... but it isnt relavent either. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#5
m1dg3t
Sure it is, easier on system... Dual channel or GTFO! LoL
Posted on Reply
#6
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: m1dg3t
Sure it is, easier on system... Dual channel or GTFO! LoL
Pfft. More dimms and moar power! Quad-channel or get out. :p
Posted on Reply
#7
RejZoR
I'm on triple channel so i'm cooler. Ménage à trois.
Posted on Reply
#8
EarthDog
by: m1dg3t
Sure it is, easier on system... Dual channel or GTFO! LoL
Right, but that (clearly) isnt a 24/7 thing... so, who cares how many DIMMs it ran. Just like who cares how many cores it was running to get there (as people moan "zOMG thats only on two cores....").

Things are a bit different with Haswell, it seems, compared to SB and IB overclocking.
Posted on Reply
#9
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
I think I should also point out that last I heard Haswell's max multi was 63, not 77 on k-edition CPUs. :banghead:
I wish I caught that sooner even though I already knew the vcore was bogus, now I know the entire thing is bogus.
Posted on Reply
#10
hat
Maximum Overclocker
"With unlocked "-K" chips, you get the freedom to step up base clock multiplier for the CPU cores all the way up to 80.0x for 100 MHz, up to 64.0x for 125 MHz, and up to 48.0x for 166 MHz; which if used right, could result in some awesome CPU clock speeds in the neighborhood of 8.00 GHz."
Posted on Reply
#11
EpicShweetness
Did anyone take note that this was done with just hyperthreading turned off (and a single DIMM, but still)? Most of these extreme overclocks only allow 1 or 2 cores to reach speeds in excess of 6-6.5GHZ, mostly due to stability. But this little gem did it with all 4 physical cores! :cool:
Maybe that's why CPU-z reads 2.62v, hmmmm.
Posted on Reply
#12
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: hat
"With unlocked "-K" chips, you get the freedom to step up base clock multiplier for the CPU cores all the way up to 80.0x for 100 MHz, up to 64.0x for 125 MHz, and up to 48.0x for 166 MHz; which if used right, could result in some awesome CPU clock speeds in the neighborhood of 8.00 GHz."
So I gut into the multiplier deal a bit more and I don't see anything that confirms those multiplier numbers. Those are from the rumor mill according to TomsHardware.com and hasn't been confirmed. I'll save the speculation until we get some real facts.

by: EpicShweetness
Maybe that's why CPU-z reads 2.62v, hmmmm.
Or maybe it means that it is fake... :slap:
Posted on Reply
#13
Eric_Cartman
by: drdeathx
Either a cherry picked sample or just a plane lie. i side with the lie..... Noway can any board handle that voltage and I am sure there is no board that will even come remotely close in the bios settings
Of course it is a cherry picked sample, that is pretty given.

And have you ever seen some of the extreme shit these extreme overclockers do to their motherboards?

They add phases, bridge phases from other motherboard into one, etc.

Have you never seen that?

This was a suicide run, obviously, and they'll do crazy shit just to get a CPUz screenshot before the system dies.
Posted on Reply
#14
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: Eric_Cartman
They add phases, bridge phases from other motherboard into one, etc.

Have you never seen that?
Yeah, that's how they double current, not voltage. :slap:

The point is that you would need to at least replace all of the caps with ones that support twice the voltage (which could easily translate to caps that are twice in size.) Now that you've swapped out the caps you would need to hack the BIOS because the caps will burst if you even attempt to run VRMs at this voltage. Also if the capacitance of any of the different phases changes, you need more than a custom bios, you need to update it to handle the hardware changes you've made.

Also the addon board you speak of I've only seen for Kepler-based GPUs since voltage control is locked. I've yet to see this for the motherboard and CPU power phases, but once again there is a different reason for that.

by: Eric_Cartman
This was a suicide run, obviously, and they'll do crazy shit just to get a CPUz screenshot before the system dies.
It would have died the second it booted with a voltage like that. LN2 doesn't let you overcome physical limitations like the breakdown voltage of the caps. You'd pop the caps (haha!) before the VRMs could even charge. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#15
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Interesting as I said in the AMD thread not a single nay-sayer about an Intel chip clocking high in a completely useless LN2 infused scenario.
Posted on Reply
#16
RejZoR
Maybe there wasn't but my opinion is, in a nutshell the same. If they cripple the CPU just to get a huigh clock it' worthless. So disabling L2/L3 caches, HT and cores falls into that category.
Posted on Reply
#17
jihadjoe
CPU-Z says 4 cores, just with that it's already a lot more impressive than that FX record OC that turned off 7 of the 8 cores.
Posted on Reply
#18
Jorge
It looks like Intel is trying to sway public opine because Haswell only delivers 5%-10% improvement over Ivy Bridge, which was barely better in performance than Sandy Bridge.
Posted on Reply
#19
hat
Maximum Overclocker
But if it can be overclocked to 6GHz so easily, with an even higher IPC than Ivy Bridge, it could cause quite a stir in the enthusiast world. Think of all the people who will be rushing to get one of these, even people already sitting on the top end. There's a lot of people like me who are sitting on much older yet still very capable hardware who may want to upgrade as well.
Posted on Reply
#20
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: Jorge
It looks like Intel is trying to sway public opine because Haswell only delivers 5%-10% improvement over Ivy Bridge, which was barely better in performance than Sandy Bridge.
Yeah, pair that with overclocks in the 5Ghz-5.5Ghz range and you have a substantial increase in performance. I suspect Haswell will overclock better than IVB does.
Posted on Reply
#21
HumanSmoke
by: Aquinus
I think I should also point out that last I heard Haswell's max multi was 63, not 77 on k-edition CPUs. :banghead:
I wish I caught that sooner even though I already knew the vcore was bogus, now I know the entire thing is bogus.
Well done. Excellent research.
From TechPowerUp three weeks ago:
With unlocked "-K" chips, you get the freedom to step up base clock multiplier for the CPU cores all the way up to 80.0x for 100 MHz, up to 64.0x for 125 MHz, and up to 48.0x for 166 MHz; which if used right, could result in some awesome CPU clock speeds in the neighborhood of 8.00 GHz.
Posted on Reply
#22
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: HumanSmoke
Well done. Excellent research.
From TechPowerUp three weeks ago:
I said last time I heard and said nothing about doing research. I stand corrected but there are nicer ways to come about saying it. Don't be a smart ass.
Posted on Reply
#23
HumanSmoke
by: Aquinus
I said last time I heard and said nothing about doing research. I stand corrected but there are nicer ways to come about saying it. Don't be a smart ass.
So true. Does this example work better? Say change...
by: Aquinus
I think I should also point out that last I heard Haswell's max multi was 63, not 77 on k-edition CPUs. :banghead:
I wish I caught that sooner even though I already knew the vcore was bogus, now I know the entire thing is bogus.
to...
by: Aquinus
I think I should also point out that last I heard Haswell's max multi was 63, not 77 on k-edition CPUs. Is this correct ?
I wish I caught that sooner even though I already knew the vcore was bogus, now I'd question the validity of the result if I'm correct regarding the 63x multi.
i.e. turning the comment into a question rather than accusing rtiueuiurei of falsifying their benchmarking results based on your incomplete knowledge base.

I don't know, but if you're throwing out words like "bogus" and "now I know", wouldn't you at least spend 30 seconds making sure you were standing on solid ground ?
Posted on Reply
#24
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: HumanSmoke
So true. Does this example work better? Say change...

to...


i.e. turning the comment into a question rather than accusing rtiueuiurei of falsifying their benchmarking results based on your incomplete knowledge base.

I don't know, but if you're throwing out words like "bogus" and "now I know", wouldn't you at least spend 30 seconds making sure you were standing on solid ground ?
I already said that I got it wrong and you don't have to go about saying how else I could have said it. All you're doing is fishing for me to lose my cool and it's about the most immature thing someone can do on these forums can do. How about you stop trying to piss me off already. If you can't act like a civil human being you can take you bantering and self-righteous attitude to GN where it will be welcomed.
Posted on Reply
#25
HammerON
The Watchful Moderator
Alright you two. Points made by both and so it is time to move on.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment